Loading...
1997-03-18 MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997, 7:00 P.M. The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Appezzato presiding. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr, Lucas, Vice Mayor DeWitt and President Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: (97-138) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Number of Cases: One (97-139) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency Negotiator: Personnel Director and Austris Rungis Employee Organization(s): Alameda City Employee Association - ACEA International Association of Firefighters, Local #689 - IAFF. Announcement of Action Taken 'n Closed Session: Following the Closed Session, President Appezzato reconvened the Special Meeting; he announced regarding Anticipated Litigation that the City Council gave instructions to the City Attorney and litigation would not be commenced. President Appezzato announced regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, that the City Council received a briefing and gave instructions to the City's Negotiator. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, President Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DANE B. FELSCH, C C City Clerk The Agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 18, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997, 7:29 P.M. President Appezzato convened the Special Council Meeting at 7:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr, Lucas, Vice Mayor DeWitt and President Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. (97-140) City Charter. Role of the City Council and City Manager. City Council correspondence to include correspondence between Council and City Manager, and others as appropriate. Policy Decisions, as appropriate. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated there is no background material regarding the Special Meeting, which, to him, is not openness in government; that with the Mayor's back cutting of the City's official position regarding the [Webster and Posey] Tubes, he has perhaps guaranteed that Caltrans will not fund them; when the big earthquake comes and citizens may be killed or injured, he will not only blame Caltrans if the work has not been approved, he will also look to the Mayor as responsible for it; since the Mayor is not willing to provide information in advance of these meetings, it also raises questions as to whether, in the performance of his duty as Mayor, he is taking correspondence where he is acting beyond what he is allowed to do, as he did on the discussions with Assemblyman Don Perata about the Tubes; and so he is filing a formal demand with the City Clerk, under the State's Public Records Act, to examine all correspondence to, and from, the Mayor during the period August 19, 1996 through March 18, 1997. Mayor Appezzato stated his intent is to have a quick review of the City Charter: the role of the City Manager and the role of the City Council, as they relate to the Charter; that there had been correspondence, all of the City Council was privy to, not originated by him; he became privileged to communication(s); three of the communications were originated by one Councilmember, one by another Councilmember, and one by the Interim City Manager; communications are public; concerns were raised about the roles of the City Manager and City Council; he had hoped the Special Meeting would not be necessary; when he read the correspondence, he asked for a personal and confidential meeting with the Councilmember, however, a meeting did not occur; at that time, there were only two pieces of correspondence, of which one could be perceived as inappropriate; a third piece of correspondence talked about controlled information; it concerned him enough that he wanted to agendize the matter to request the new City Manager and Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 11, 1997 the City Attorney to meet with Council and provide guidance, and [discuss] how they perceive the City Charter and the role of the City Council; the matter concerned him enough to have a public hearing [call a Special Meeting]; the City Manager and City Attorney should report back to the City Council in the future with a report; the matter should be explained to the citizens; all documents, whether from him or Councilmember(s), are public information; it was not his intent to go any further; and he would like someone to make a motion that Council request the new City Manager to review the Charter and report back after reviewing it with the City Attorney. The Mayor further stated that he is prepared to go further, with not only that documentation, but other [documentation]; however, he does not believe it would serve any useful purpose, and his files are open to anyone on the Council. Councilmember Lucas stated it is a good issue to raise; that she is aware of one Councilmember, who served one term, when the issue became a matter of a County Grand Jury investigation; the City Attorney, together with the City Manager, should come up with a recommendation; it should be a simple document on how the Charter provisions are perceived by them and practical aspects of City management. Mayor Appezzato stated he concurred with Councilmember Lucas, and that the documents would be available to anyone who wants to review them. Councilmember Lucas so moved [that the City Manager and City Attorney report back with a recommendation, a simple document, on how the Charter provisions are perceived by them and practical aspects of City management]. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated there is a wide range of ways of interpreting the situation; that for him, having written one of the memos, which he will freely distribute to the public, [the matter] is dealing with the flow of information; others might consider it a constitutional crisis, insofar as what the role of the City Manager is, and whether City Council is at risk of usurping that role; and from his perspective, it is a practical matter, and something that can be easily resolved. Mayor Appezzato stated that he is prepared to defend his position, including why he called the Special Meeting; and he looks forward to an open discussion on the matter when it comes back to the City Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 18, 1997 ADJOURNMENT President Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6WI .x222/ Dine B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk This Meeting was given public notice in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 18, 1997 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY MARCH 18, 1997- - - - 7:30 P.M. President Appezzato convened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. in honor and memory of Earl Peacock, and stated that Mr. Peacock was a good friend, critic and admirer of City government. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Lucas. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr, Lucas, Vice Mayor DeWitt, and President Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. (97-141) Mayor Appezzato welcomed James Flint, the City's new City Manager, and he thanked Assistant City Manager Rob Wonder for his excellent job as Interim City Manager for the past eight months. (97-142) Mayor Appezzato announced that he serves on the Seaport Planning Committee; stated he, Kay Miller, Executive Director of ARRA; Roberta Brooks, Congressman Dellums' Office; and Mark Friedman of Supervisor Wilma Chan's Office presented their case to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for lifting the Seaport Designation from the 220 acres of the Naval Air Station; he reported they received a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, and 1 abstention, over the stiff objections of the BCDC staff, for the recommendation that the 220-acre Seaport Designation be removed; he will need the help of Council, the Base Redevelopment Advisory Group, City Boards and Commissions, et al., to go before BCDC and have it uphold the Seaport Planning Committee's recommendation; and thanked the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland for their support on the matter. (97-143) Mayor Appezzato stated he serves on the Steering Committee for Measure B Reauthorization; that the Committee was briefed on a survey regarding the continuation of the half-cent Sales Tax; that 73% of Alameda residents believe the City is going in the right direction; and he thanked the Council, Staff, Boards and Commissions, Volunteers and Citizens for their support. CONSENT CALENDAR President Appezzato announced that certain agenda items were withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. (Items so enacted or adopted are indicated with an asterisk.) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*97-144) Minutes of the Special and Regular Council Meeting of March 4, 1997. Approved. (*97-145) Report from Interim City Manager recommending authorization for Councilmember Lucas to attend the League of California Cities Community Services Conference in San Diego on April 10 and 11, 1997. Accepted. (*97-146) Report from Finance Director recommending adoption of the financial policies for fund balance reserve levels and debt policy, short- and long-term. Accepted. (97-147) Report from Community Development Director recommending approval of 1996-97 Commercial Revitalization Budget revision. At the request of Mayor Appezzato, the Assistant City Manager summarized the report. Mayor Appezzato stated that the City won the LAMBRA designation: a State Enterprise Zone to help businesses; there are significant achievements in Alameda in Commercial Revitalization; and almost one million square feet of the Naval Air Station is under license or lease. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of the report and recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-148) Report from the Community Development Director recommending approval of the Commercial Building Advertisement Assistance Program. Mayor Appezzato stated that he pulled the item from the Consent Calendar so that staff could summarize the report. The Economic Development Manager stated that the proposal reflects the City's decision to become more directly involved in the process of revitalizing the City's downtown commercial areas; the City made a decision to develop new tools and programs, including the hiring of a commercial recruiter; and the City decided to fund the development of some new marketing materials also. Councilmember Lucas stated that the City had a consultant come up with a very impressive report which states that an auto row section makes sense for a portion of Park Street; the consultant's report should be revisited and advertising of buildings in the auto row area included in suitable Dealers' publications; the same should Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 apply for the next item (Target Business Categories), which does not refer to auto dealers or auto supply stores as desirable businesses; the list should be amended accordingly; and the auto row report incorporated in both items. The Economic Development Manager stated that Councilmember Lucas's points are good and would be addressed. Councilmember Lucas stated that the next item [report on Target Business Categories] refers to entertainment, including movie theaters; Council has been supportive of the marketing study and providing funds for the commercial recruiter; and the availability of the [Alameda] Theater should be advertised in suitable publications. The Economic Development Manager stated the owner of the Theater and the City have entered into a cost-sharing Agreement to undertake a Feasibility Study, and the Economic Development Commission and its Ad Hoc Theater Advisory Sub-committee have been reviewing the report and will be reporting to Council shortly. Council, by consensus, moved approval of Councilmember Lucas's comments. (97-149) Report from Community Development Director recommending approval of the Target Business Categories as (1) Eligibility Condition of the Broker Incentive Program, and (2) A focus for the Commercial Recruiter. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, stated that the Internet should be used for advertising real property, including Naval Base properties. Councilmember Kerr stated she is concerned about Item 4 of the Commercial Broker Incentive Program [Attachment A to the Report] which states "Lessee's business relocates, at the time the transaction occurs, from outside the city limits to Alameda, or from a Neighborhood Business District (C-1 Zoning) or Residential District (C-1 Zoning) to a Community Commercial District (C-2 Zoning)"; that the City's Historic Station Business Districts and other business districts are important parts of the neighborhoods surrounding them; she is concerned that brokers will have an incentive to pull businesses out of districts like those into the C-2 zones; and the City should not use public money to move businesses around within the City, because the small Business Districts are very important as well. The Economic Development Manager stated the intent is to recognize businesses that perhaps start out as serving the neighborhood/immediate commercial area, and grow to the point where clientele is much greater than surrounding neighborhood(s); they Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 are, in fact, a dynamic of business growth that brokers should be involved in; to some extent it may have the unintended affect of compensating a broker for simply a move that is within the City; once such businesses determine a need to look for location(s) which provide more space and pedestrian orientation, it is the broker who becomes involved in finding them the right place. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is concerned about public monies being spent on broker incentives. Councilmember Daysog stated he does not believe there are any fundamental disagreements on the issue; all the comments by the Economic Development Manager should be incorporated into a memo to provide an understanding as to the intent of Item 4; then the City can move along and help out businesses which are growing to [locate to] a new area; and all the while, making sure that the understanding of No. 4 is clear, and businesses are not just being shifted; that there are conditions under which some businesses should be shifted. Councilmember Kerr stated that a memo by the Economic Development Manager would answer her concern; that the Economic Development Manager should bring the matter back to the City Council; and that the item [Qualification No. 4] be continued. The Mayor stated that Council can move forward with everything else with the exception of Qualification No. 4, which could be addressed later. Councilmember Kerr concurred. Councilmember Lucas suggested that the City Council strike from Qualification No. 4 ". . .or from a neighborhood business district or residential district,. . •" Councilmember Kerr agreed with Councilmember Lucas's suggestion. Councilmember Lucas stated that automobile-related businesses for the Auto Row Area should be included on Sheet 1 of Exhibit 2 [1997 Target Business Categories]. Mayor Appezzato responded that there are no objections from the Council, and Councilmember Lucas's suggestion will be included in the motion. Councilmember Lucas moved that Council accept the staff recommendation with the two [aforementioned] changes. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato stated that he pulled the item Mirutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 I. from the Consent Calendar to inform the citizens, and announced that the Target Categories and Program Areas were available in the Community Development Department. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-150) Report from Public Works Director recommending authorization to apply for 40% Transportation Fund Clean Air (TFCA) Funds. Mayor Appezzato stated that he cannot support Item 2 [Pedicab Demonstration Project]; as a member of the Congestion Management Agency, he voted against it, and the consensus of the rest of the Agency was there were better uses for the money. Councilmember Daysog stated that he, too, finds difficulty supporting the Pedicab concept; he has never heard general interest in the program; there is interest in a shuttle program; he attended a meeting held by the West Alameda Business Association [WABA] at which the discussion was on a shuttle program; a representative was in attendance from the Park Street Business Association's [PSBA] Economic Revitalization Sub-Committee who also indicated interest; he would like the money for the Pedicab Program reallocated for use by WABA and PSBA for a shuttle program study; people want a program similar to those in Emeryville and Berkeley, an electric, low-noise shuttle. Councilmember Lucas stated that she liked Councilmember Daysog's idea, and requested the Public Works Director to comment on the matter. The Public Works Director stated that the City applied for funds for a shuttle project from two different programs; City was awarded funds from one program, but not enough [funding] to establish a shuttle; so in effect, the recommendation is basically stating that the City would pull back from that, salvage what it has, and put funding into electric vehicles for the fleet. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the money could be used to help out WABA and PSBA strategize a &iluttle program. The Public Works Director responded that money could probably be found for a study on shuttles in both areas. Councilmember Kerr stated that she supports Councilmember Daysog's recommendation; she is not thrilled with the Pedicab Project or Bicycle Program; there are liability concerns, e.g accidents with City bikes; the submittal deadline for the Grant Applications is March 28th, and reports like this should be brought to Council when there is another Council Meeting before a deadline, in the event Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 matter needs to be readdressed. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding free Bicycle Program in other communities, the Public Works Director stated there are several programs which appear to be working quite well. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation, and that the Pedicab Demonstration Project be replaced by redirecting funds toward inviting West Alameda Business Association and Park Street Business Association to fund study on shuttle programs. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-151) Report from the Finance Director recommending authorization to place delinquent business license fees on property tax bills. Councilmember Kerr stated the reason that she pulled the item from the Consent Calendar was because the City Council received two letters from people whose delinquent bills would have been put on their property tax bills; in one case, the first bill received included the penalty; the second case, an out-of-town couple was unaware of the rental property business fee in Alameda; she suggests that the City send letters to the aforementioned parties with a demand that they pay their business license taxes due for the current year without penalty; and if payment is not received within 20 days of the date of letter, the City proceed with putting it on the property tax rolls. In response to Vice Mayor DeWitt's inquiry regarding appeal procedure, the City Attorney stated the matter before Council is the appeal hearing, and Council could make a decision this evening on whether or not to include the aforementioned cases at this hearing. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry whether the written communications from the two property owners constitute an Appeal, the City Attorney stated that the letters could be considered sufficient. Vice Mayor DeWitt noted that he also received a letter from an individual who has a vacant business and who does not feel they should pay the business tax on vacant property; and he would like to allow any individual who has a problem to have an opportunity to bring it to Council before it is voted upon. President Appezzato stated he wants everyone to be treated fairly. The Finance Director stated that Finance forwarded the letters to Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 the City Council; since the staff report was written, the City has received about 30%; people have paid when told they owed 3 years back, plus penalties; and most individuals have complied with the demand for payment. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding notices, the Finance Director stated there is a provision in the business license code; that notices are courtesy notices; no billing is required; typically, when a response is not received the first year, a Community Services Officer is sent to the property and a bill is sent to the appropriate owner. Councilmember Lucas stated it is not fair to assess a penalty if notice is not received. The Finance Director stated that staff cannot waive penalties; City Council waives penalties. Councilmember Lucas stated that Council should waive penalties until first notices are received by new owners. The Finance Director responded that there may be administrative problems because staff is not involved with properties during the selling process. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that Council should receive an explanation of the process. The Finance Director stated that there is no exemption for vacant commercial properties; the Business License Code requires Commercial Rental Property to be assessed $20 per one thousand square feet, whether rented or not. The Mayor stated that the matter should be brought back to Council and each written communication addressed; no one should receive special treatment; exceptions should apply to everyone. The Finance Director inquired whether an exception is granted when owners are first notified. Mayor Appezzato stated that an exception must be fair and apply to all; ignorance is no defense of the law. The Finance Director reported that the City had already collected $17,000 [in delinquent business license fees) during the past week. Councilmember Kerr stated that there should be a business license fee process, a mandatory notification requirement, for when a business is sold in Alameda. The Finance Director stated that the City has until June to clean Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 up the list; it is surrendered on July 1. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved that the matter be continued. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * * (97-152) Mayor Appezzato stated, in regards to the Special Council Meeting preceding Regular Council Meeting called to address the City Charter, that the five letters under discussion should be provided as back-up material when the matter is brought back to the City Council. * * * (97-153) Report from Finance Director recommending authorization for the City Manager to negotiate and execute the contract with Pentamation Enterprises, Inc. to provide Citywide Financial Management and Human Resource Computer System. Neil P. Sweeney, Alameda, stated he researched the matter and had no comment at this time. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-154) Report from Public Works Director recommending authorization for the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Amendment to the Carrier Agreement [Blue & Gold] for Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service. William McCall, Sr., former Alameda Mayor, stated he believes the City is in the ferry business, although the City Attorney states it is not; that the agenda item before Council is to work out an agreement with an operator, in order to contract with [operator] and circumvent the City Charter; the City cannot be in any other business without a vote of the people; he went before the Grand Jury on the City Charter last July, and he may have to go back. Tom Jordan, Executive Director of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle, stated the Council was silent on the possibility of using Measure B funds for the east end ferry at the last Council Meeting; the Council could have considered options: operating dollars and the fueling station as a coordinated program to be used by the east end ferry too, thus reducing operating costs by the corresponding 20 cents per gallon of fuel; a higher road would have been to discuss Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 19, 1997 funding a larger ferry program: Pinole to San Leandro; he is concerned that when the City goes to the State to present programs and fails to show coordination, the State will begin to wonder what the City is really doing; and he encourages the City to revisit its position with respect to Measure B and consider a funding proposal that would take care of ferries throughout the East Bay, and direct staff to delay submission of any report on the Congestion Relief Funds until consultant's report on the east end ferry is received. The Mayor noted that one of the Measure B Funds [proposals] is to purchase a new larger and swifter ferry boat; and that the ferry boat taken out of service would be placed at Harbor Bay. Mr. Thomas responded that he is aware of the program, however, there is some question whether the Bay Breeze ferry could operate out of the East End. Mayor Appezzato stated that a consultant was hired to look at all the variables and determine which areas are conducive to funding; and Assemblyman Perata and State Senator Barbara Lee are involved in helping the City look for State funds for both ferry systems. Councilmember Daysog stated that the money being sought will not be available until 2002, and those funds will not solve the Harbor Bay Ferry's current problems. Mr. Jordan stated that is all the more reason to look at planning and a ferry system that may be larger; e.g., a ferry transit district. Mayor Appezzato stated that two issues need to be looked at: 1) gated parking lot and 2) Cross Airport Roadway. Mr. Jordan stated that a letter had been written to the City Council requesting the gates to be opened immediately, and the matter is before the Planning Board at the moment. Mayor Appezzato stated that the Cross Airport Roadway, which is part of the initial Measure B programs, will provide access and ridership to make the ferry viable, and may be a major issue in justifying additional dollars to run the ferry service. Mr. Jordan stated that one of the problems is that there have not been any marketing funds for the ferry service. Councilmember Lucas stated a Bay Area-wide ferry district should be looked at, although Measure B funds are limited to Alameda County. Mr. Jordan stated a good place to start is on the east end using Measure B as a basis for funding an Alameda County transit ferry district; and then, steps taken to link it with Vallejo and across Minuts of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 the bay to Marin County. Councilmember Lucas requested a staff report, off agenda, on where Bay Area-wide ferry service stands, and stated Council can revisit the issue at another time. Mayor Appezzato stated that he is almost certain both ferries are candidates for the Reauthorization of Measure B. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative, and stated that staff intends to follow the development of the project plans and make Alameda's points clear. Mayor Appezzato stated that bridges, ferry boats, and local dollars for local roadways are all part of the Measure B Reauthorization; and between now and November 1998, there will be discussion on which projects will be submitted for voter approval. Councilmember Daysog stated that the City must be aggressive, and now is the time for North County to get its equitable share of funding. Councilmember Kerr stated she is concerned that the purchase of a $2 million ferry was placed on the Consent Calendar and labeled an Amendment to an existing Agreement; in the interest of notifying the public, future labeling should be clearer; members of the proposed extension of Measure B committee did not list ferry services as an interest at all; there is a reference to ferry rate increases related to a proposal to acquire $50,000 from the Port of Oakland and $50,000 from City of Alameda, and an application for another $100,000, for a total of $200,000 for Blue & Gold; it is noted, however, that if the $200,000 is not raised, there would be a fare increase; arbitrarily increasing fares reduces ridership; she is interested in ferry services at both ends; she is very concerned that the west end ferry service be in fiscal health; the west end service serves the main island; if there is a bad earthquake which cuts down other forms of service, she wants to make sure there are ferries available to serve in an emergency; she hopes the City is considering getting a refurbished 350-passenger vessel; she hopes there is assurance that the people doing the refurbishing are better than the ones acquired for the work for Harbor Bay; she hopes the City checks out the mechanical ability so the City does not run into the same trouble; at a July, 1993 meeting, it was noted that the Harbor Bay Maritime subsidy would in August, 1997, whether there were any problems or not; and she questioned whether $483,000 was part of the proposal. The Mayor stated that the ferry boat is operated by the private developer; there is no City subsidy; the private developer, in a Settlement Agreement with the City, agreed to run a ferry for three years at their cost; the developer then agreed to a two-and one- Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 half-year extension, if the City would buy a boat--which failed. The developer agreed to run the service through September 30, 1997, and totally fund the service; the City agreed, at an earlier date, to fund $10,000 to rent a ferry boat, because the fast ferry failed; the developer's agreement to run a ferry service ends on September 30th; that service will go out of business unless the City finds additional monies; the City is looking to the State and hired a consultant to research available funding to keep the ferry service. If funding is not found, the ferry service will stop and the other ferry boat at the West End will not go to the east end. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the funding of $483,000 per year is in the proposal before the City Council. The Public Works Director responded that the answer is no; the proposal is strictly for the west end ferry; it has nothing to do with the east end ferry; and as indicated, the staff has been directed and is proceeding to try to find operational funds; the problem is that operational funds are not available in hardly any of the programs; he has signed at least twelve letters recently that have gone to all the agencies which might have some type of funding; a consultant has been hired to help; and, in the meantime, the City has a contract with the west end ferry; it is time to negotiate; and staff believes the program brought to Council will continue that very good service. Councilmember Kerr stated that the reason she is concerned about the report is that it states the Bay Breeze would move to the east end. The Public Works Director responded that the report states the Bay Breeze would be available if they had the funds to operate it or City finds funding. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry on how much the Bay Breeze ferry draws, the Public Works Director stated it does not draw a great deal; it is a catamaran; and staff is familiar with the requirements [for Harbor Bay]. The Mayor requested staff to provide a report on whether the Bay Breeze can sail in and out of Harbor Bay; he stated, for clarification, that the City is not running the east end ferry service; there is no subsidy; the developer uses that word because the developer is subsidizing or funding the ferry; there are no City funds involved, except the $10,000 to rent a boat. Ronald Kahn, resident of Harbor Bay, stated a lot of people are interested in brainstorming and trying to figure out what to do in September; he suggests when the consultant report is received, he be provided a copy to share with fellow ferry riders; in the meantime, they will be enlisting the aid of a lot of folks, Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 including the new developer and real estate people; he has also asked Senator Quentin Kopp for his viewpoint; and they will be back to Council with a protocol for review. Mayor Appezzato stated that Mr. Kahn is free to contact Mr. Stockwell, the Consultant. Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda, stated that she questions why the agreement is being modified now, when funding is not secured; she is worried the City could end up having two publicly-funded boats not in use, and the liability thereof from the State; she is in favor of the east end ferry service being continued, but it should be done carefully. The Mayor stated the reason for buying another boat is that the ridership on the west end is exceeding all expectations; the City is buying a boat to continue that service; the boat would be purchased regardless of what happens on the east end; and the City is buying a bigger and faster boat to continue ferry service in Alameda. Councilmember Daysog stated section 2 of page 2 of the staff report states ". . the City and the Port have made a joint application for State flexible congestion funds in the amount of $2 million, which, if approved, will be used to purchase the re- powered Dolphin. • •"; that he read the Agreement and did not see anything regarding operating costs, and questioned whether operating costs would be shared equally. The Public Works Director responded that maintenance and operating costs are all part of the contract, and he summarized the basic proposal. He also stated there would not be any change in rates unless the City does not get the Grant, in which case staff will report back to Council. In response to Vice Mayor DeWitt's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated that the Dolphin boat would be refurbished; if the grant is awarded, the City would eventually own the Dolphin; the City would still own the Bay Breeze; if the east end service can be arranged for, the Bay Breeze would go onto that service; otherwise, the City would work with MTC and probably turn the Bay Breeze over to one of the other ferry services in the region; it is anticipated that the Grant, plus the money that the City and MTC have put in, will take care of the cost of $2.5 million to refurbish the Dolphin; the City's contribution is $50,000. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved that Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute amendment to Agreement, as indicated in report. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 voice vote - 5. * * * 121 President Appezzato called a recess at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened the liteeting at 9:55 p.m. * * * (*97-155) Resolution No.12858, "Approving Final Map, Bond and Subdivider's Agreement for Tract 6877 (California Heritage Bay). [Kaufman & Broad] Adopted. (*97-156) Ratified Bills in the amount of $2,017,281.79. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (97-157) Report from President, Social Service Human Relations Board, recommending endorsement of April 9, 1997 Community Forum on Welfare Reform. Lois Workman, Vice President, Social Service Human Relations Board, stated that the Board has been studying the issues of the Welfare Reform; the Board has become concerned about how it will effect the City; Alameda has 3,500 families, 12% of its families, that receive some form of welfare; and there will be a Forum on April 9th on how Welfare Reform will impact the community. Councilmember Lucas stated that the nationwide average for receiving assistance is 8%; she is sure that families and households can be trained and educated to discourage dependency on government assistance; and she is glad that the Board will be providing that service. Harry Hartman, Chair, Advisory Board of the Alameda Service Center of the Alameda Red Cross, Member of the BRAG Human Impact Sub- Committee, stated that the federal welfare law passed and went into effect last August; many families have already been impacted; a new set of cuts went into effect in March; on August 1, 1997, a number of legal and illegal immigrants will be pushed off the welfare rolls; Alameda will be one of the first communities to show leadership in this regard; they do not know what the impacts will be for the City; these numbers may rise; there is a big assumption that providers in this area and throughout the State will simply be able to pick up the slack; the Governor's Budget is trying to raise the limits even higher than the federal welfare cuts, and put California at a severe disadvantage; and the forum is very timely. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved that the Council endorse the Community Forum. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 122 Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-158) Report from Chief of Police regarding recent home invasion robberies and crime prevention. (Councilmember Daysog) The Chief of Police summarized his report; he stated that the home invasions have occurred over the past five or six years; in the City of Oakland there is currently a rash of these crimes; the City of Alameda has had four since November 17, 1996; all of the victims have been-Asian; all the suspects are young, Asian males; at this time, there is nothing definitive in regard to the crimes being gang-related; the Police Department is working with other departments, including the Oakland Police Department Gang Unit, to identify the suspects; there is some physical evidence in the February 17th case; an information bulletin has been put out; and citizens are encouraged to contact the Police Department if they see something that looks suspicious. Councilmember Daysog stated that a lot of the victims are ill at ease because of cultural differences; City Hall and the Police Department are institutions that citizens can turn to when times are challenging; the Police Department established the Resource Committee, and its goal is to be the eyes and ears on what is happening in the community; the Committee should discuss this matter and formulate approaches that will get the word out to immigrant families; one way is perhaps to hold a forum or to work with State legislators to fund a bilingual brochure; Alameda is a very diverse community. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated that years ago there was a rash of burglaries in the South Shore beach area; it was common for the neighborhood to get together and form a Neighborhood Watch Program; the Police Department gave pointers to the groups; and he inquired what the Police Department was doing today in that respect. The Chief of Police stated that the Home Alert Neighborhood Watch Program is alive and well; it is something that could work very well in this regard; a volunteer in the Department is working on rejuvenating the Block Captain Program; it is a long arduous process to get volunteers; currently there are about 140 Block Captains in the City. Mayor Appezzato stated that the Social Service Human Relations Board could hold a forum on the topic also. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he has attended Home Alert Block Meetings and Police Department educational classes, and believes the Department's staff can pinpoint the Asian community and help them. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 Councilmember Daysog moved acceptance of the report. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that State Legislators should look carefully at the matter in terms of how it is dealt with via legislation. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-159) Report from Interim City Manager recommending Approval to submit a Proposal authorizing the Navy to fund Caretaker Police, Fire and Public Works Services at Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda; Authorizing Hiring of Employees for such Services, contingent upon full execution of Agreement; Authorizing Amending Existing Salary Resolution once Agreement is executed to add New Job Classifications; Authorizing City Manager to execute Cooperative Agreement; and Appropriating, once executed, City and Grant Funds for the purpose of implementing the Cooperative Agreement. The Assistant City Manager summarized the report; he stated that the Agreement is a prerequisite for the City to participate in the operation, maintenance and protection at the NAS, pending final disposition of the property; the Cooperative Agreement spells out the terms and conditions under which the City is to operate, maintain, and protect at the Base; subsequent to the Report dated March 13th, a Report was provided to the Council with a different recommendation; the recommendation is that the City Manager be authorized to sign and submit the Proposal only after three issues are resolved with the Navy; members of the Department of Defense and Navy staff are aware of the problems and issues we still have; the first has to do with Section 302C of the Agreement that states once the property is leased or conveyed, the Navy will then eliminate the provision of dollars for the caretaker services because the caretaker services will no longer exist, they will be passed on to the tenants; the City is concerned about the language, its boilerplate language; there are outstanding questions to be resolved before the City Manager approves the document; second, we are being asked to agree to proprietorial jurisdiction on April 30, 1999, and we want to make certain that funding will both be appropriated and earmarked for Alameda through September 30, 1999; and the final issue has to do with the Agreement as it stands now; it was delivered this morning; the Agreement does not call for what occurs in the event that PG&E, Telephone Company and East Bay Municipal Utility District do not agree to provide utility services; we had asked for some language which would say that the Navy would provide assistance and either provide the service through their own sub-contractor or would assist the City in finding a sub-contractor. Minutes cf the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 I A In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated that staff is requesting Council's approval contingent upon those issues being resolved. William McCall, Sr., Alameda, stated that at Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment meetings it has been said that Alameda will never have the deed to the property, ARRA will have it; if so, then the Sheriff, Congressman Ron Dellums, and those in ARRA should be involved; the Alameda taxpayers should not fund the services themselves; and the City Manager should consider having the City's public safety officers patrol and secure the NAS. The Mayor requested staff to discuss the issue of control of the land, and stated that the Tidelands property, 70% of the property, will be placed in Trust to the City. The City Attorney stated that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is a regional body; it is composed of the City Council, and four additional bodies; it was planned originally to involve the regional entities in the planning phase and reuse of the Base; that has been done; there is a Reuse Plan; the second part of the ARRA is to address redevelopment; the ARRA contains specific provisions for its own termination; a majority vote of the Authority can at anytime terminate the ARRA; the title of the property, until that time, does go under federal law to the ARRA; however, ARRA can be terminated and also the property can be transferred from the ARRA to the City; and the majority, five of the nine members, are members of the City Council; any such action would require at least three of those Councilmembers' votes; and currently the jurisdiction is in the federal government; the land is and will be within the limits of the City, when the Base is closed and the property is transferred; the City, regardless of whether the ARRA is in existence or not, has total control over the use through the City regulatory agency such as the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission; there are two separate controls: 1) title: who actually has the ownership interest, and that can be transferred to the City, and 2) no matter who maintains title, ARRA or anyone else in the City, the ultimate land use is subject to the Planning Board and City Council. The Mayor stated that the record of decision will hopefully occur next year; it is the Defense Department--the Navy's--decision on disposition of the land per our Base Reuse Plan; it may well be the point where the ARRA will be dissolved; and all actions revolving around the Base will revert to the City without having an ARRA; it may also be the time when the Base Reuse Advisory Group will be streamlined and perhaps report straight to Council like any other committee; and those discussions will be held between now and the time of the record of decision. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that Alameda is a model City when it comes Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 to making things work, getting agreements and moving ahead with the reuse process; and the Agreement before Council is probably one of the first and the best in the nation. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of the basic Agreement submitted to Council, and approval for the City Manager to negotiate the three remaining issues [noted under the Assistant City Manager's comments]. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Mayor stated that there is almost a million square feet under lease or license; there are a number of very successful activities going on; the conclusion of the Cooperative Agreement and the Retrocession of Jurisdiction will occur in the very near future; the Base will close on April 25th; there are a lot of challenges and there have been a lot of successes; and together as a community we can make the Base a treasure and a resource. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (97-160) Report from Chief of Police transmitting proposed expenditures of funds received from Federal Law Enforcement Block Grant, 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 104-134). The Chief of Police summarized the report; he stated that the Grant was given to the City; the Department went through items that were sorely needed and cut out of the previous budgets; and a solid list of items and programs was created. Allan Shore, Alameda, Chief of Police Advisory Group Member, stated that any savings [from Grant budget] should go back to a community advisory body for consideration of safety issues; he compliments the City in the airing of the home invasion issue and allowing more input; and on the issue of the ferries, businesses benefit from participation in commuter projects, and he would like to know if there is any consideration of new high-tech businesses contributing to the ferry services. In response to Vice Mayor DeWitt's inquiry, Mr. Shore stated that any grant monies left over should be addressed by community advisory bodies allowing for community organizing efforts. The Assistant City Manager noted that in approving the staff report, Council will be authorizing the use of asset seizure money for the 10% match. By Council consensus, the report was accepted. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 12G (97-161) Report from Public Works Director recommending authorization to execute an Agreement with San Leandro Recycling, Inc. for Recycling and Green Waste Collection, Processing, and Marketing Services in Alameda, and authorization for the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Agreement with Waste Management to extend the term of the current Recycling Contract. Gerard Wen, San Leandro Recycling Committee, stated that the needs of residents of Alameda were well represented; the program is a customized one; residents will be given numerous choices, including size of containers, and provisions have been made for overflow materials; residents with large households will easily be able to arrange for additional capacity; the person who lives alone will not be asked to take delivery of containers that are too large for their needs; the Contract provides an excellent program, including maximum convenience, and an increase in materials to be collected and recycled. Kenneth Hoeschen, Alameda, stated it appears an assumption has been made that every homeowner needs recycling; there are people living in apartments that do not have a backyard or a garden; he dould like to know of any exceptions; he can do a lot of recycling at the dumps for the cost of the bins; and a main concern is the cost being placed on the property tax bill. Marty Frates, Teamsters Local 70, representative of employees of San Leandro Disposal and Recycling; stated that the Local Union represents the employees of Waste Management who currently pick-up the recycling in Alameda; at the City Council Meeting when the Council approved and awarded [to negotiate a five-year contract with SLR to provide recycling and green waste collection] the Recycling Contract, Teamsters Local 70 took no position; at that time, the Local advised Council of the status of the Contract negotiations with San Leandro Disposal and Recycling; when the Contract was awarded, the Local had no real objections because the two main issues that concerned them were addressed at that meeting: 1) the prevailing wage for the employees, and 2) the right of the Waste Management employees, currently doing their job, to be allowed to follow their work; Local 70 has not had an opportunity yet to review the proposed Contract; Local 70 has been advised that the right for the employees to foll,w their jobs has now been deleted; and if that is accurate and true, Local 70 requests Council to hold off on approval of contract until those commitments are made; Local 70 has had a contract with SLR, and labor relations are at an all time low, and unless there is a major change in the attitude of the Company, there will be a strike; Local 70 requests that the execution of this agreement be put on hold until the commitments to the workers are met; the sole purpose is to protect the people who are doing the jobs. Larry Dias, Business Representative of Teamsters Local 70, Oakland, Minute of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 pe, stated that City staff has looked at the workers' interest in disdain; the only recognition by the City has been the Citizens Committee; they have looked very diligently and objectively at the matter; the staff has placed road blocks; Local 70 was never notified of the Hearings; Local 70 is here tonight because they heard rumors from the workers; the City Council has the right to award this Contract, however, Local 70 was under the impression that the workers were protected; this Employer [SLR] has engaged in very clever legal tactics; they purport to you that they will give you your own company name: Alameda Recycling; that is a deception; SLR has engaged in creating separate entities for the purpose of engaging in worker dumping; Local 70 would like the opportunity to set forth in writing the history and the facts in their attempt to engage in worker dumping; and Council's decision should be an informative one based upon all the facts. Angus MacDonald, Alameda, stated residents should reduce the amount sent to the garbage dump; the City should not be charging for recycling and waste collection; the City should be charging for waste collection and providing recycling service; and the less waste created, the less should be paid for the service. Teri Chalmers, San Leandro Recycling, General Manager, stated that no formal proposal has been made to the Company regarding these issues [Labor issues], the main issue with the Union seems to revolve around the Company's willingness to hire the drivers that are currently servicing the City of Alameda; there are three issues to be addressed: 1) the Contract: there is nothing in the Contract that currently requires SLR to do that; 2) SLR's vision was to promote some of their existing recycling drivers and then interview and hire additional drivers; SLR is not opposed to hiring drivers from Waste Management if they have the opportunity to interview them, and make a decision as to whether or not they meet SLR's qualifications; SLR is opposed to being forced to hire drivers that SLR has never met; under the terms of the Contract, the Company is required to pay liquidated damages for service failures; since the drivers are one of the key elements in delivering quality service, SLR does believe it is reasonable to ask the Company to pay these charges, if control over employee selection is eliminated; and lastly, 3) the concept of displaced workers: the drivers SLR is being requested to hire do not fit the model of a displaced worker, and the workers currently servicing the City are likely to be out of a casual pool of employees; the Waste Management casual pool is a group of employees who do not have permanent routes; in Oakland, it is their understanding there are over one hundred such pool employees; they are on a temporary- fill-in basis to do jobs like these in Alameda; and when there are different drivers on the route on a daily or weekly basis, these drivers should not be considered displaced workers. Morton Wellhaven, Alameda, Executive of a Corporation in San Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 128 Leandro, stated that SLD is paid for picking up items in San Leandro which other corporations would pay for; and he hopes that Alameda does not get into a Contract where Alameda corporations are handicapped and must pay a disposal company for a product that other recyclers would pay for. Ruth Abbe, Chair, Citizens Recycling Committee, introduced other Committee Members: John Piziali, Remo Sabatini, Robert Wood, and Sebastian Baldassarre, and staff members; stated she would address the issues raised this evening; that commercial recycling is not a mandatory program for Alameda, it would be optional on the part of small businesses; SLR is offering a small business pilot program that small businesses can elect; if small businesses have some other option for recycling, that is available; while recycling fee will go to $3.10 per month, which is double the current fee, the volume of materials being added to the program will double; there are several yard waste exemptions outlined in the staff report; the issues that the San Leandro workers have with SLR are San Leandro problems and not under the jurisdiction of this City Council; Council should not hold up this Contract because of a City of San Leandro problem; there is about six months of start up before the program is on line October 6th; and there is plenty of time for the Unions to negotiate by the time service commences. Chair Abbe further stated that rate payers are not allowed to subsidize other rate payers, so the provision included for low-income families has been excluded from the Contract; if Council desires to use other funds to subsidize low income service, it could be provided for approximately $10,000; she encourages staff to further research that issue and come up with alternative forms of funding, such as the garbage franchise fee. In answer to Kenneth Hoeschen, public speaker, who questioned why fee would be placed on the property tax bills, Chair Abbe stated the reason was to save costs; that recycling costs cannot be included on the garbage bill; it was determined that it would be an additional 25 cents per month for a duplicate billing system, and Council could elect to put the costs on the property bill and save billing costs for San Leandro; that Alameda would save on the monthly rate; and it would be a prudent way of reducing fees. Mr. Hoeschen questioned whether placing the fee on the property tax bill would require a two-thirds majority vote. The City Attorney stated that it is a fee; Proposition 218 is very complicated; there is a difference in the law between fees and taxes; she would like to provide Mr. Hoeschen with a four page document that carefully explains the process; Alameda is one of the first cities to go through the Proposition 218 process; staff and the Committee were conservative in determining that Proposition 218 needs to be complied with, and is going forward with the process; this is a new law subject to interpretation; and the City Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 is taking a conservative approach and following the required process; this [recycling fee] is not a tax; if it is put on the property tax bill that does not mean it is a tax; the City is complying with a very conservative approach to every single Proposition 218 requirement for the majority protest rule. Mayor Appezzato noted that Proposition 218, in fact, strengthens Proposition 13. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Ruth Abbe stated that the City is not a party to the labor agreement between the Union and SLR, only a party to the Franchise Agreement; the Committee did include in the Franchise Agreement a requirement to pay the $16.45 prevailing wage for recycling drivers, plus benefits; it is in the Contract and is required; there is an underlying dispute between the Union and San Leandro about their prevailing wage for their recycling drivers, which is lower than $16.45; with regard to the workers in Alameda, there are four recycling routes, there are four recycling drivers, and they are not the same drivers every week; they come from the casual pool; there have been a lot of service complaints associated with the existing service provider; possibly some of these have to do with the high turnover among the recycling drivers; in the case of Alameda, we do not have any hometown recycling drivers; the Committee did ask that the Company consider the existing workers who work for Oakland Scavenger or work for the Alameda program; the Company has agreed to interview those drivers; if they meet the Company's criteria, they will offer them employment. Dominic Chiovare, Teamsters Local 70, stated that Local 70 has not talked directly with any Committee member; a lot of the information is false. Larry Dias stated that there has been false representation to Council tonight; Chair Abbe has never spoken to the workers or the Union; the representation that these are not displaced workers is incorrect; that SLR is going to give you a company name, is a clever, legal maneuver to dump the workers; and if Council approves the Contract, it is sanctioning that Company to defeat the prevailing wage and dump workers. William McCall, Sr., Alameda, stated that every exemption in the Contract should be spelled out; every person who has homeownership in Alameda should get a copy of the Contract before approval; and if fee is placed on his tax bill, someone will go to Court with him; it is the same thing as a parcel tax and a library tax. Mike Lynn, SLR, Labor Relations Consultant, stated that Larry Dias, previous speaker, just informed him tonight that he was sending him a letter tomorrow to be designating himself as the Union negotiator and begin negotiations in San Leandro; the law regulating Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 collective bargaining is a National Labor Relations Act and they have no authority to bargain a Contract before they have one with Alameda; the Union has sent them a proposal on Monday which they have not had an opportunity to respond to, other than to offer to set meetings; they have agreed to the prevailing wage; insofar as the issues that have been raised by the Union tonight, those are legitimate bargaining issues; that they have not spoken to the workers because they do not have any right to talk to them; they have not talked to the Union about the Agreement because we do not have an agreement with the City as yet; they have never heard of worker dumping; the other issues raised are bargaining issues; and they do not have evidence that anyone has been displaced yet. In response to Vice Mayor DeWitt's inquiry, Chair Abbe stated that the fee is $3.10 per month per household for recycling; there is an additional $3.65 per month for yard waste for single family households; for Multi-family, it would be $1.75 per unit. The cost will go down in the second year to about $6.64 per household. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding providing a good faith provision regarding the labor issue, the City Attorney stated that the term good faith has a great deal of case law interpretation; there are specific requirements in terms of meeting and conferring; if you are talking about good faith negotiations, it would not actually require the hiring of four or six displaced workers, but that they would actually sit down and discuss said matter; it is legal to propose some type of process like that from the Council perspective, however, since it was not part of RFP, express consent from SLR would be necessary. Councilmember Daysog stated he is concerned that Alameda not prejudice any negotiations or bargaining between the Unions and SLR; he is concerned if Council goes ahead with the Contract as it is, Council in effect would be doing that, to the detriment of the Labor Union Local 70; at the same time, he does not think anyone deserves to have a quota; as a middle ground, if Council, would put as a rider, in accepting the Contract, require good faith bargaining between Local 70 and SLR; and that the SLR representative, in the audience, nodded affirmatively to enter into good faith bargaining. Mr. Lynn, SLR representative, stated that the law requires good faith as a condition of bargaining. Councilmember Daysog stated then Council will merely repeat that part of the law. The City Attorney stated that Council may choose to make good faith bargaining an express condition of the Contract, and SLR could provide a letter stating compliance with the National Labor Act. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 131 In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding illegal discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, or whatever, Mr. Lynn responded that age has never come up in his representation of SLR, and the Company is an affirmative action employer; there will be no discrimination because of age. Councilmember Kerr stated that very few people know in advance if their property is going to be vacant for six months or more; she believes the Contract provision needs to be cleaned up; she is also concerned about putting the fee on the property tax bill; she cannot see endangering someone's title to their property because they did not pay a garbage bill; and she wonders if Assessor numbers will be on the ballot and whether there will be a secret ballot. In response to Councilmember Kerr, Chair Abbe stated it was merely a practical matter of including it on the property tax bill; the idea was that the City would not know what to bill unless you told us what to bill; we would bill you for the unit, unless you told us it was going to be vacant; she does not believe that the Committee, or perhaps the City Attorney's Office, would necessarily have a problem with a refund situation; and it is a matter of the bi- annual property tax cycle. Councilmember Kerr stated that people should be able to sign an affidavit, retroactively, if their property has been vacant for six months. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding assessor numbers on ballots and a secret ballot, the City Attorney stated that she will advise Council; there is a provision in the law which could require a duplicate process. Marty Frates, Local 70, stated that a condition of the agreement could be people have a right to follow their work. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that Alameda should not be involved in the labor negotiations; there should not be any language in the Contract regarding the negotiation process; whether drivers can follow their work should be an item of negotiations; and the prevailing wage should be a provision of the Contract. Councilmember Lucas moved the recommendation, including comments by Councilmember Kerr regarding 6-month vacancies. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Councilmember Daysog moved an amendment to the motion; that Council go with this Contract as written, but with the following amendment: with the express proviso that the San Leandro Recycling enter into good faith bargaining with the Unions, with the determination of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 132 good faith to be done by the Courts. Mayor Appezzato stated that would not be necessary, since federal law must be followed. Councilmember Daysog's amendment to the motioA failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Kerr seconded Councilmember Lucas's motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and President Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (97-162) Final Passage of Ordinance No 2736, "Approving and Authorizing the Execution of Lease Agreement between the Alameda Unified School District, as Lessor, and the City of Alameda, as Lessee, for the temporary Main Library at Historic Alameda High School Central Building Western Portion, 2200 Central Avenue." Finally Adopted. The Ordinance was adopted by unanimous vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) (97-163) Don Bergen, Alameda, stated that Assemblyman Don Perata voted to adjourn the California Assembly in honor of the deceased rap singer Mr. Big E. Smalls, whose songs promoted violence, profanity, and the mistreatment of women; he is requesting Council to discuss, at the next Council Meeting, contacting Assemblyman Perata condemning him for his actions. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) (97-164) President Appezzato stated he will adjourn the meeting in memory of Earl Peacock. (97-165) President Appezzato stated that Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School is competing for the State Title [Basketball] this week; he would like the City to recognize their accomplishments and issue a proclamation honoring Coach LaPort; there should be an event in the Council Chamber; and if the Coach and Team would like something in addition, e.g. parade, City provide assistance and/or participate. (97-166) Councilmember Lucas stated that she would like the matter of Domestic Partner Benefits for City employees placed on the agenda and a staff report. (97-167) Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like consideration of the electric train down Atlantic Avenue placed on the agenda; at a Planning Board hearing on the Atlantic/Webster Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997 property, it became the right-of-way; the Council should review the matter. ADJOURNMENT (97-167A) President Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 12:07 a.m. in memory of Earl Peacock. Respectfully submitted, D ne B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting March 18, 1997