Loading...
2009-12-01 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 1, 2009- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (09 -479) Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09 -480] and the Ordinance Approving and Authorizing a 66 -Year Lease [paragraph no. 09 -4851 were pulled from the agenda; after the Consent Calendar, the agenda items were addressed in the following order: Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph no. 09 -4871; Recommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project List [paragraph no. 09 -4881; Public Hearing [paragraph no. 09 -4891; and Police Department Deployment Plan [paragraph no. 09 -4901. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Setting the 2010 Regular City Council Meeting Dates [paragraph no. 09 -483] and Final Passage [paragraph no. 09 -486] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (09 -480) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on November 17, 2009. Not heard. ( *09 -481) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,756,425.08. ( *09 -482) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Apply for a Permit from the Dredged Material Management Office for Dredging of the Southshore Lagoons, Approve a Contract with CLE Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 December 1, 2009 Engineering, Inc., and Authorize CLE to Represent the City of Alameda on All Matters Pertaining to Dredging Permit Applications. Accepted. (09 -483) Resolution No. 14403, "Setting the 2010 Regular City Council Meeting Dates." Adopted. Vice Mayor deHaan noted that 7:00 p.m. would be the start time for the 2010 Regular City Council Meetings. Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *09 -484) Resolution No. 14404, Specified Unnecessary Records of Adopted. "Authorizing the Destruction of the Human Resources Department." (09 -485) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing a 66- Year Lease with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, for a Ferry Maintenance and Operations Facility at Alameda Point. Not heard. (09 -486) Ordinance No. 3012, "Amending the Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units and Potential Waivers to Developers that Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their Residential Development Project and Providing Incentives and Concessions for Residential Development Projects in Commercial or Mixed Use Zones." Finally passed. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Speakers: Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association. Vice Mayor deHaan requested clarification of direction given regarding caps. The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board would establish caps for incentives and concessions; stated the caps would be brought back to Council for consideration; Council has requested staff to provide drawings in order to show how the caps would be applied. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 December 1, 2009 Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether amendments would come back to Council, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the residential portion would come back to Council after review by the Planning Board, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Tam moved final passage of ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09 -487) Resolution Nos. 14405, "Appointing Ethel Warren as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; (09 -487 A) Resolution No. 14406, "Appointing Clifton J. Smith as a Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted; and (09 -487 B) Resolution No. 14407, "Appointing Samantha J. Chin as a member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of appointment to Ms. Warren and Mr. Smith. (09 -488) Recommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project List to Include a $2 Million Grant to the Boys & Girls Club for the Completion of Construction of Its Youth Development Center in Accordance with the Terms and Conditions Outlined Herein. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Dave Collins, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Assistant General Manager, stated Bond Counsel's opinion would not be provided until early next year; the District has concerns regarding private business use or a non - profit holding title; guidelines should be complete in time to review applications received by March 31, 2010; the project's eligibility is doubtful; urged all parties not to make binding financial commitments on presumptions or assumptions. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 December 1, 2009 Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Bond Counsel's opinion would be received prior to cities submitting projects. Mr. Collins responded applications would be reviewed early next year; stated the Executive Committee may recommend changes to grant guidelines; that he cannot provide a definite date [for Bond Counsel's opinion]; projects should be brought forward; funding would not be at risk if the proposed project is not eligible. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Mr. Collins has serious doubts that the proposed project would be eligible. Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative; stated the Boys & Girls Club would be constructing the facility and holding some level of title and ownership; the issue has caused some concern regarding private business utilization; tax exempt bonds limit the use of funds for a private business use; Measure WW envisions a number of different uses; one is a named use that involves the Oakland Zoo non - profit; Counsel has concerns that the tax exempt status of the bonds could be jeopardized by allowing a non - profit to construct and hold title to a facility. Councilmember Tam stated Measure WW has specific stipulations for the East Bay Zoological Society which has a non - profit 501(c)(3) status and runs the Oakland Zoo; non - profit entities have specific funding allocations; the Zoological Society plans on using funds to expand the existing animal clinic; inquired whether a certain amount of funding allocated for private, non - profit use would be part of the criteria to determine whether or not the bonds could still preserve tax exempt status; further inquired whether the allotment to the East Bay Zoological Society has consumed a significant portion of the [non - profit] allotment and whether cities should submit applications on behalf of non - profits, such as San Leandro has done for a swimming center, because of competition for the allotment. Mr. Collins responded the Oakland Zoo is named in the Measure; the East Bay Zoological Society is the operator of the facility; the title to the facility is in governmental hands; the private business use limitation is a percentage of overall bonds sold and endures for the life of the bonds; counsel wants to avoid a situation where an allotment would be used up and would no longer be available. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the East Bay Zoological Society occupies the building on land granted by the Knowland Trust to the City of Oakland. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 1, 2009 Mr. Collins responded that he would need to contact the Oakland Zoo regarding ownership, which he understands is held by a governmental entity; information would be available regarding underlying title, ownership of the asset, reversionary criteria, and other factors once an application is received; speculation would be premature; the Board may preclude funds being used by non - profits for construction of facilities, but not operation. Councilmember Tam inquired whether any information would be available before the application is submitted, to which Mr. Collins responded in the negative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the loan mechanism has been reviewed. Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative; stated that he has serious concerns that the proposed project would be eligible. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Boys & Girls Club has been informed that the project might not be eligible, to which Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Oakland Zoo and Zoological Society are in the same position as the Boys & Girls Club; applications should be submitted sooner rather than later if there is a pool of money that could go to a non - profit 501(c)(3) corporation. Mr. Collins stated the Oakland Zoo received funding from Measure AA; the Oakland Zoo was named as a recipient in Measure WW; the Oakland Zoo has a different standing than other entities; the bond indenture precludes the distribution of funds directly from the District to non - profits; non - profits should not apply to the District because applications would not be accepted. Councilmember Gilmore stated a few meetings ago, EBRPD representatives advised Council that the project could be eligible; the City is not at risk one way or another; the City's allotment will still be available. Mr. Collins stated that he concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; EBRPD needs to provide very clear guidelines regarding the eligibility of projects. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether EBRPD couldn't provide any guarantee that the guidelines would be available before the submission point, to which Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 December 1, 2009 Mayor Johnson stated EBRPD representatives advised Council that the project appeared to be eligible [at a previous Council meeting] ; stated the Boys & Girls Club relied on said information; inquired when the Boys & Girls Club would be advised of eligibility. Mr. Collins responded EBRPD couldn't pre - commit to the eligibility of the project until an application is submitted and reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be a lesson for the future; guidelines should come out earlier so that everyone is informed of the rules ahead of time. Mr. Collins stated EBRPD would ensure that the issue is addressed as soon as possible. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether EBRPD has a yes /no decision tree. Mr. Collins responded guidelines are adopted by the Board of Directors and include hard and fast issues as well as areas of land tenure; a specific checklist is not available; guidelines clarify a lot of situations. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the key point is whether the project would be considered a private use that is defined as a non - governmental entity holding title, to which Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated the situation is very unfortunate; more pubic - private partnerships will evolve as dollars become scarcer; entities are trying to leverage every dollar to provide more services. Mr. Collins stated in 1988, most park and recreation facilities were owned and operated by local entities; now cities are unable to fund facilities and are using more partnerships. Councilmember Tam stated other cities are considering partnerships for capital facilities; Council is being asked to examine the merits of placing the Boys & Girls Club recreation facility on the City's priority list; staff would submit the application on behalf of the Boys & Girls Club once the project is on the priority list; inquired how soon EBRPD would let the City know whether the application is eligible and accepted, to which Mr. Collins responded within sixty days after March 31, 2010. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how the Oakland Zoo was written into Measure WW, to which Mr. Collins responded the Oakland Zoo is named Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 December 1, 2009 as a specific entity. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Oakland Zoo has standing based on the fact that it was named in the ballot measure. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is curious about the Oakland Zoo having standing to expand a veterinary clinic simply because it is named in the bond. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would not have voted for a veterinary clinic expansion. Mr. Collins stated that he is not sure whether an application was submitted; the Oakland Zoo was named in the Measure. Mayor Johnson stated EBRPD may end up with more requests for specific allocations such as the Oakland Zoo. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the funding stream is in place now. Mr. Collins responded the funding stream is modeled as a $15 million issue every two years; stated [the amount of funding] a city requests is not limited; eligible projects submitted by March should be funded. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether another bonding is anticipated within another year, to which Mr. Collins responded most likely two years. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether concerns would be addressed in the next bond issue, to which Mr. Collins responded the standard was set by the Measure voted on; allocations cannot be modified. Proponents: Rich Sherrat, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Burnham Matthews, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Nancy O'Mally, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Former Mayor Bill Withrow, Peralta Colleges; Nick Cabral, Alameda; Sally Rudloff, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Dr. Jeptha Boone, Alameda; Gig Codiga, Boys & Girls Club; Barry Parker, Alameda; Don Sherrat, Alameda; Scott Kerns, Alameda; John Hamilton; Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League and Babe Ruth; Tom Sullivan, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Bob Brown; Steve Pressy, Alameda; Alysse Castro, Island High School; Dave McCarver, Alameda; Patricia Marillo, Alternatives in Action; Karen Bay, Alameda (submitted document); Art Lenhardt, Alameda; and Robert McGinnis. Opponents: Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Joseph Woodard, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Rebecca Redfield, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 December 1, 2009 Estuary Park Action Committee (submitted petition); and Rosemary McNally, Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan stated no one is questioning the value of the Boys & Girls Club; everyone understands the financial problems within the City; the concern is with what the District has done in giving hope that the project could happen; that he has concerns with the City being a loan broker; questioned how the Boys & Girls Club could transition knowing that $2 million might not be available; stated the City might be in a better position to be supportive with different funding at a later point; the issue is not about the worthiness of the Boys & Girls Club, but is about available funding. Mayor Johnson stated the project should be given a chance and should be sent on to EBRPD for consideration; Council has not received an opinion from Bond Counsel; the Boys & Girls Club serves all residents. Councilmember Gilmore stated the way the process has unfolded is extremely unfortunate; a lot of turmoil has been created within the community; Boys & Girls Club programs are not just about the children but about benefits parents receive; the project is worthwhile; staff believes that the Boys & Girls Club has the ability to replay the loan; placing the project on the list is no risk to the City; money will still be available to the City if the Boys & Girls Club does not qualify; $1 million of the $2 million would come back to the City; $500,000 of the second million is money that the City would have spent for Woodstock Park; the City would be spending $500,000 for an $8 million project that would benefit all of Alameda. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of submitting the project to EBRPD for ultimate determination. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the level of public participation; she is persuaded that the project should be placed on the list of priority projects to allow EBRPD to make a decision; the project would create union jobs, leverage $500,000 planned for the West End to get an $8 million facility, address past inequities in how the City proportionately distributed park bond funds, allow for adaptive reuse of schools on public lands, and enhance programs and services that the community needs to serve the City's youth; budget cuts have resulted from State takings; School Resource Officers have been reduced at the high schools; the Boys & Girls Club has a direct correlation in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 December 1, 2009 ability to reduce juvenile crime rates; the project would continue the good precedent of partnering with non - profit organizations. Councilmember Matarrese stated has programmed over $363,000 needs to move in the direction public - private partnerships; discretionary than Measure 0 r mandates; that he will vote no discretionary. the project is very worthy; the City to the Boys & Girls Club; Council of utilizing discretionary funds for Measure WW money is no more :coney; both measures are voter driven because voter mandated funds are not Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns with the loan [being approved by EBRPD]; the City should identify the projects that be completed using returned loan money up front. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should have successful applications regardless of what happens with the Boys & Girls Club application; the City does not have the luxury of waiting six years to spend the money; favorable construction costs have a small window. The Interim City Manager stated the initial list needs to be revisited in terms of maintenance versus capital projects. Councilmember Matarrese stated the process needs to be quick because of the current, favorable construction costs. Councilmember Tam stated the entity has to front the money and then get reimbursed through the funding; the appeal of the Boys & Girls Club is that funding would be available to start payments now; the City does not have capital funds to pay up front. The Interim City Manager stated the matter is a cash flow issue. Councilmember Matarrese noted substantial money was saved on the Wilver "Willie" Stargell project. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers deHaan and Matarrese - 2. (09 -489) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinances: Amending Ordinance No. 1277 N.S. to Rezone Approximately 48 Acres Located at 1501 and 1523 Buena Vista Avenue (Encinal Terminals and Del Monte Building), APNs 072 - 038200200, 072 - 038200400, 072- 038200300, 072 - 038201000, 072 - 038200500, 072 - 038200900, 072- 038300100, 072 - 038300200 and 072 - 038300300, from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to M -X Mixed Use Zoning Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 December 1, 2009 Designation, and Amending Municipal Code Section 30 -4.20 of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30- 4.20(j) to the M -X Mixed Use Planned Development District Zoning Regulations to Allow for Application for Interim Use Permits Under Certain Conditions. Introduced. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff has started to work with the property owner on the Master Plan, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether lagoons would be part of the plan. The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated said plan was very costly; the property owner's representative is in full support of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor deHaan stated many proposals have been submitted; questioned what would be the long -term use; stated the plan is to reutilize the building. The Planning Services Manager responded any use would need to come to the Planning Board and Council for approval and would need to be a long -term, permanent use, not just for one year; stated the idea is to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinances. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Tam inquired how she should answer Oakland Chinatown merchant concerns regarding the possibility of an Asian marketplace. The Planning Services Manager responded the property owner is not pursuing the matter at this point. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to encourage competitive businesses. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Matarrese; today she toured the Harbor Bay Business Park Semifreddi's location, which was previously in Emeryville. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 1, 2009 Vice Mayor deHaan stated the property has run the gamete from having a large, upscale market to a Ranch 99 style supermarket; the City has limited opportunities for supermarkets. The Interim City Manager stated the action tonight solves a very immediate, short -term problem; that she has met with the property owner; the City's approach on redevelopment is to take large critical mass sites and work with property owners to create the right vision not dissimilar to the Civic Center Master Plan; the City's job is to facilitate redevelopment and work toward creating a Master Plan; the property owner is willing to help pay for the study; the City is able to go out with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the vision under redevelopment law; the property owner has participation rights; the Community Improvement Commission will have input into the site's vision. Vice Mayor deHaan noted the visioning process intertwines with the Northern Waterfront, Alameda Landing, and Alameda Point. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (09 -490) Police Department Deployment Plan The Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Matarrese requested that ranges be provided in addition to average response times. The Police Chief stated ranges would be provided; continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of how the Police Department responds to calls; stated the Fire Department responds the same way to every call, which put people at risk. The Police Chief stated officers respond Code 3 to life - threatening emergencies; otherwise, traffic laws are obeyed. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many officers respond to Priority 1 calls versus Priority 2 and 3 calls. The Police Chief responded the number of officers on scene depends upon the nature of the call; stated calls are triaged by the Call Center as well as supervisors; two units are initially assigned to a robbery in progress; other units may respond to look for escape routes. Councilmember Tam questioned whether officers on patrol within the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 December 1, 2009 vicinity are dispatched; inquired whether response time is determined from the time that dispatch receives the call to the time that the first officer or the full compliment of officers arrives on the scene. The Police Chief responded response times are determined from the first dispatch call received until the first officer arrives at the scene; stated calls are assigned to officers in specific sectors; an officer closer to a call will answer the call. Councilmember Tam stated fire fighters need time to put on gear; inquired whether patrol cars and officers are fully equipped. The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated a specialized officer would be assigned to a call where additional, specialized equipment is needed, such as a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) call. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether an officer would be cleared of a Priority 3 call to respond to a Priority 1 call. The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated determining whether or not to clear an officer is a supervisory decision. Mayor Johnson stated police officers do not need the turnout time that fire fighters need. Vice Mayor deHaan stated police officers multi -task. The Police Chief stated police officers multi -task very well; police officers are trained to handle any type of call; continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a beat officer is responsible for abandoned vehicles. The Police Chief responded beat officers and parking technicians are responsible. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why Priority 4 response times are better than Priority 3 response times. The Police Chief responded many Priority 4 calls involve abandoned vehicles that can be immediately handled by parking technicians. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Police Chief stated Priority 1 calls totaled 282 in 2008 and 179 up to August 2009. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 December 1, 2009 Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what percentage Priority 1 calls are of overall calls, to which the Police Chief responded that he would provide said information; continued the presentation. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Police Chief stated Sector 1 covers the area between the former Base and Eighth Street; Sector 2 covers Eighth Street to Willow Avenue; Sector 3 covers Willow East; Sector 4 covers the Bay Farm Island area; Sector 5 covers the former Base. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether each sector has the same amount of force, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative; continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson stated response times are amazing. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the Special Duty Unit tracking parolees and sex offenders; the effort sends the message that parolees and sex offenders need to behave in Alameda; tracking should be City policy; Council needs to be informed if tracking efforts are jeopardized. Councilmember Tam inquired whether School Resource Officers are involved in resolving issues regarding strangers on campuses. The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated patrol officers are also involved; efforts are coordinated with a captain. Councilmember Tam inquired whether a captain decides whether to send a school resource officer. The Police Chief responded calls are initially handled through the communication center and then coordinated through a school resource officer and patrol officers. Councilmember Tam stated Councilmembers from other cities are envious of the Alameda Police Department; commended police officers and deployment methods for the wonderful reputation. Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has fewer officers this year. The Police Chief stated difficult deployment decisions have been made; changes have not been made within the patrol force. Mayor Johnson stated excellent response times show good management; resources are deployed in a very effective and efficient manner. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 December 1, 2009 The Police Chief stated staff is stepping up and doing the job. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (09 -491) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Housing Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Ian M. Couwenberg for appointment to the Housing Commission. (09 -492) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California Cities Leadership workshop; the League has forged a coalition with the California Alliance for Jobs and the California Transit Association to secure authorization from the Attorney General to place two measures on the November 2010 ballot to start to collect one million signatures; the tentative title of the measure is Local Taxpayer Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010; the proposed initiative would close the loopholes to prevent the State from borrowing public transit money, Proposition lA money, and redevelopment funds; the California Forward Group is a government reform organization that is putting two measures on the ballot in November; one measure would lower the voting threshold to a simple majority; the other measure would institute a new countywide sales tax; Repair California is also putting initiatives on the November ballot that would implement a voter called Constitutional Convention; the League leadership has encouraged cities to hold off on taking a position on the other initiatives until the issue can be vetted through policy committees and legislative analysts. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated the League is involved with the Local Taxpayer Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2020; the League's first and top priority is to focus on protecting local revenues and getting a million signatures. Mayor Johnson stated the California Forward group is not talking about restructuring the tax system. Councilmember Tam stated the State legislature and Governor signed Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 December 1, 2009 a water bond in the amount of $11.4 billion that would be placed on the November 2010 ballot; the League's fiscal analysts have fundamental problems with the bond because a $21 billion budget deficit is projected for next year; adding more debt that would require a $700,000 payment per year would not be responsible because funding would be taken away from State mandated programs, especially at the local level; securitization was discussed; Alameda is one of 408 cities that participated in efforts to try and borrow back money that the State borrowed; the League and California State Association of Counties sponsored the Joint Powers Authority to help facilitate securitization; the plan is to get half of the money on January 15, 2010 and the remaining half on May 3, 2010. Mayor Johnson stated the State is borrowing money from people's paychecks by increasing tax withholding to 10`. Councilmember Gilmore stated the budget was passed using a number of accounting tricks. The Interim City Manager stated next year's deficit will be $20 billion. Councilmember Gilmore stated the State would look to local government to close the budget gap. Mayor Johnson stated the City has reduced the work force significantly; the State has only implemented furloughs. Councilmember Matarrese stated a balanced budget would take five to fifteen years; a furlough is a promise that things will get better and does not fix anything. The Interim City Manager stated no one has factored in the State cost for PERS, which is in the billions of dollars. Councilmember Tam stated the ballot measure is a top priority for the League; the issue has polled positively at over 70`; lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority has not done as well. (09 -493) Councilmember Tam stated that she and staff met some Lakewood, Washington City employees at the Emergency Management training in Emmitsburg last July; requested that the Police Department express Council's condolences and outrage with the recent assassination of four Lakewood Police Officers. The Police Chief stated a letter is prepared to go out tomorrow. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 5 December 1, 2009 Mayor Johnson stated the suspect was commuted from a life sentence; people need to respond to the State's plan for early release of parolees. The Police Chief stated the California Chiefs Association is working closely with the Governors office to come up with alternative plans that can meet the State's needs as well as protect public safety. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the League of California Cities has taken a position on the matter, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council can individually send condolences to the City of Lakewood. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular meeting at 11:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 December 1, 2009