2010-06-01 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 1. 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Gilmore led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson — 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10 -254) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing on the Joint Meeting
[paragraph no. 10 -39 CIC] would be held on June 15, 2010.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
rem
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Gilmore made a correction to page 3 of the minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the correction
to the minutes.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
( *10 -255) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 18,
2010. Approved.
( *10 -256) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,946,517.68.
( *10 -257) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, Phase 3, No. P.W. 02 -10-
08. Accepted.
( *10 -258) Recommendation to Allocate $161,000 from the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry
Long -Term Reserve Account for the Bay Breeze Propulsion System Maintenance and
Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute all Necessary Documents. Accepted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
June 1, 2010
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10 -259) Resolution No. 14446, "Appointing Kelly Harp as a Member of the Commission
on Disability Issues." Adopted; and
(10 -259A) Resolution No. 14447, "Appointing Jeanette Mei as a Member of the Youth
Advisory Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate of
appointment to Ms. Harp.
(10 -260) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14448, "Confirming the Business
Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 and Levying an Annual
Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for
Fiscal Year 2010 - 2011." Adopted.
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
(10 -261) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation
Fees Via the Property Tax Bills for Subject Properties.
The Chief Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Speaker: Marco Servente.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote — 5.
(10 -262) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees
Via the Property Tax Bills.
The Deputy City Manager — Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the $6,127.23 past due for a particular business is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
June 1, 2010
for one year, to which the Supervising Accountant responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
(10 -263) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2 -71 (Election Campaign Contributions) to Article VI (Elections) of Chapter II
(Administration) to Create Enforceable Limits on Election Contributions to Facilitate
Local Campaign Finance Reform and Promote Broader and More Open Citizen
Participation in the Electoral Process. Introduced.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2 -71.2 (a) is similar to State law provisions.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the amount required for detailed
disclosure is lower; State law would be in effect, if Council does not adopt the provision.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the disclosure amount
could be changed from $50.00 to $100.00; that she would double check to ensure the
ordinance would not duplicate State law before the second reading.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2 -71.2 (a) could be eliminated if the disclosure
amount is left at $100, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Section 2 -71.4 is a repeat of Section 2 -71.2 (a).
The City Attorney responded the section is a little different; stated the section describes
the aggregate amount.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be as simple as possible; inquired whether
Section 2 -71.5 is the same as State law.
The City Clerk responded sub - section 3 requires an additional filing beyond the first and
second pre - election statements; stated the additional statement would need to be filed
by 2:00 p.m. on the Friday preceding the election.
Mayor Johnson stated the Housing Authority should be added to Section 2 -71.7.
The City Attorney stated Section 2 -71.7 would apply to any contract for any purpose
with the City; "for any purpose including, but not limited, to contracts" could be added.
Mayor Johnson inquired where is the oral reporting requirement, to which the City
Attorney responded Section 2 -71.6.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
June 1, 2010
Mayor Johnson stated complying with said section could be impossible.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether capping expenditures was considered, to
which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated State law discourages
capping expenditures; case law prohibits capping expenditures.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City Attorney is saying that case law
prohibits capping expenditures.
The City Attorney responded none of the modeled cities put any cap on campaign
expenditures; a voluntary cap could be established; stated there is no cap on an
individual's ability to contribute to their own campaign.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the League of Women Voters cited State and federal law
prohibiting expenditure caps.
The City Attorney stated voluntary expenditure caps could be imposed.
Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification on what "election period" means.
The City Attorney responded the election period starts January 1St after the last General
election and ends December 31St after the election; stated the election period would
have started January 1, 2009 and would go through December 31, 2010 if the last
General election was November 2008; special elections have different rules.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the intent is to be retroactive, to which the
City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the ordinance would become effective
January 2, 2011.
The City Attorney responded the ordinance could become effective 30 days after the
second reading or could become effective upon the second reading because the
ordinance would be pertaining to elections; stated any contributions already received
would not be a violation because the ordinance would not be effective until June 15th or
July 15th
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is having a hard time understanding the
election period; people find themselves in debt after an election; inquired whether a
person would only have until the end of December to cover debt for a November
election, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot of people end up having to fund raise after the fact.
Mayor Johnson stated sneaky people pay debt off with contributions received [after the
election] because they would not have wanted to show the contribution before the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
June 1, 2010
election.
Councilmember Gilmore stated disclosure statements would still need to be filed.
Mayor Johnson stated the person would already have been elected.
Councilmember Gilmore stated paying off debts would be a hardship if the election is in
November and contributions can only be received until December.
Mayor Johnson stated the purpose is to let voters know who is financing campaigns
before the election.
The City Attorney stated that Fremont has a provision for a debt retirement committee
for the sole purpose of receiving contributions to pay off debt.
Councilmember Tam stated other campaign finance ordinances seem to go through an
exhaustive, open process; inquired how much time other cities took in an open,
community process before adoption and whether ordinance were adopted for existing or
future Councilmembers, to which the City Attorney responded that she does not know.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the issue was discussed with the League of Women Voters
two years ago; a public meeting was held; about 50% of cities have some type of
campaign finance reform in place; the issue has been discussed for quite a while.
Councilmember Tam stated that the process should be done right; the ordinance needs
to go through an open, public process; knowing what the community wants is important
so that the ordinance does not become a solution in search of a problem; campaign
finance reform was discussed within the confines of the Sunshine Task Force and
should be referred to the Sunshine Task Force for a more comprehensive review;
community members are very well versed on good government issues; Alameda has a
number of good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters, that can
help organize the public forum; that she also has a problem understanding the election
period timing; the timing creates some inherent conflicts because some
Councilmembers have well established campaigns and have made commitments to
vendors and contractors; the ordinance would place campaigns at a disadvantage;
creating an ordinance with two months before the filing period is unfair; the ordinance
should be vetted and implemented next year at the earliest; jamming the ordinance
forward would have an inherent conflict of interest for existing Councilmembers; the
discussion should be broadened; the ordinance should be referred to the Sunshine
Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed ordinance would be for the benefit of the public;
Alameda is behind the ball on the issue; something should have been done a number of
years ago; the issue is not rocket science; referring the matter to the Sunshine Task
Force is not necessary; the public is surprised that an ordinance is not in place already;
that she does not think people expect a long, drawn out process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
June 1, 2010
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not receiving public outcry about the issue
being a problem that needs to be solved; in the past, a candidate spent a lot of her own
money on an election, which made people take notice; that she does not think there is a
burning desire to have the ordinance done yesterday; the public has not had an
adequate opportunity to comment; Council does not know what the public perceives as
the problem.
Speaker: Kate Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed ordinance only has four or five basic elements
and is not part of the Sunshine Task Force purview per say; the intent is to try to bring
the cap down to a working level.
The City Attorney stated while there is a disclosure requirement, State law does not
have any restriction on local government campaign contribution amounts.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is bringing itself in line with State government and
other cities; that he feels comfortable moving forward on the matter.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the proposed
ordinance could become effective the second reading or July 15th; language could be
changed if directed.
Mayor Johnson stated City Council meetings are part of the public process; that she
does not think there is a reason to not move forward; ordinances can be changed; the
Sunshine Task Force can suggest changes.
Councilmember Gilmore stated campaign reform has been discussed on two occasions;
tonight is the first time specific language has been discussed; the public has not had the
opportunity to comment on specific language and should have the opportunity to do so;
the ordinance can be changed but the problem is doing so in the middle of campaign
season and people would be asked to change prior commitments.
Mayor Johnson stated people can come to the Council meeting to speak on the matter;
there is no reason to delay.
Councilmember Tam moved that the proposed ordinance be sent to the Sunshine Task
Force for review.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the ordinance should be done right
rather than quickly; having the proposed ordinance in place in a couple of months would
be okay that she has a problem with not having the public weighing in on the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
June 1, 2010
Councilmember Matarrese stated there would be a second reading; direction was given
to the City Attorney to craft ordinances in parallel with the Sunshine Task Force; the
Sunshine Task Force should review the proposed ordinance within the two -week; that
he does not see anything wrong with the $99 State limit; the $250 limit is a good starting
place.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think the Sunshine Task Force is scheduled to
meet in the next two weeks; suggested leaving out oral disclosure; stated that she does
not know how research could be done; suggested going with the $99 State law
disclosure limitation; stated Alameda campaigns are small and do not have paid,
professional treasurers or managers; that she is okay with $500 or $250 contribution
limits.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed ordinance could be more encompassing;
Political Action Committees (PACs), which are not addressed in other cities; $250 is a
good threshold.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired who decided the threshold.
The City Attorney responded $250 and $500 are the most common thresholds; stated
Union City has the highest threshold, which is $600.
Councilmember Tam restated that her motion is to defer the issue to the Sunshine Task
Force and to create a more open, robust public process.
On the call for the question, the motion FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2. Noes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and
Mayor Johnson — 3.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated tweaking has been discussed; Section 2 -71.2 could be left
out; $50 could be changed to $99; anything over $100 would need to be disclosed;
Section 2 -71.6 could be struck.
Mayor Johnson stated the Housing Authority should be added along with clarification.
The City Attorney inquired whether there is an interest in providing a debt retirement
committee provision; stated Fremont and Union City have said provision.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like the issue to be flushed out.
Mayor Johnson stated that a debt retirement committee provision could be complicated;
information should be provided; the ordinance could be adopted as a separate
ordinance.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a candidate
would have until December 31St [following the November election] to receive
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
June 1, 2010
contributions for the election period unless a debt retirement committee provision is
added.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would be interested into looking at a solution to the
issue.
The City Attorney inquired what effective date Council desires.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he would prefer the date of final adoption.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council is satisfied with the election period
definition.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands the election period would start
January 1St following the last General election; every election would have a two year
period, which is vastly different from now; campaigns are getting longer; inquired
whether there is a way to extend the period for debt retirement and prevent large, single
donations that could skew an election after the fact and whether the post election period
currently runs from January 1 at and the next reporting period would be June.
The City Clerk responded a filing would be due the end of January and would cover the
end of the last period through the end of December.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she
would guess the reason for setting a limit in an election period would be to prohibit
ongoing war chest building; stated Oakland has a four -year cycle.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether a person would have one month to retire a debt
for a $250 contribution per individual and /or corporation.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated "person" means any legal entity.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Section 2 -71.5 (b) (3) is different from State law and
requires a campaign statement be filed the Friday before the election.
The City Attorney stated the alternative would be to go with State law.
The City Clerk stated State law would still require filing, if there are expenditures over
$1,000 during the late period.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether there is a majority preference for the $250 limit,
to which Mayor Johnson responded that she is comfortable with said limit.
The City Attorney summarized the proposed amendments to the ordinance: to correct
and possibly eliminate Section 2 -71.2 (a) and Section 2 -71.4 and stay with State
disclosure requirements; Section 2 -71.4 would be consistent with the $100 limit; Section
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
June 1, 2010
2 -71.5 (b) (3) would stay; Section 2 -71.6 would be struck; Section 2 -71.7 would have
the Housing Authority added and language would be clarified to make it abundantly
clear that it means any contract; the effective date would be the date of final passage.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that the proposed ordinance be
posted on the website and the Sunshine Task Force be invited to comment; stated that
he would welcome input; adjustments can be made at the second reading.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson — 3. Noes: Councilmembers
Gilmore and Tam — 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(10 -264) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, invited everyone to attend ARRL Field Day on
June 26t"
(10 -265) Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, discussed the America's Cup.
Councilmember Tam left the dias at 8:17 p.m. and returned at 8:20 p.m.
(10 -266) Jane Sullwold, Alameda Junior Golf, submitted a letter, urged that approval of
a Lease be placed on a Council agenda as soon as possible.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10 -267) Councilmember Gilmore stated Council passed a policy urging residents and
the City to shop Alameda first; the City has not been good at offering opportunities to
residents and businesses; some web designers are upset that they have not been given
the opportunity to compete for contracts.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated in the past, monthly financial reports showed the amount
spent locally; requested that the report be provided regularly.
Councilmember Matarrese stated competitive bidding has been discussed in the past
and should be added to the list.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
June 1, 2010
Mayor Johnson stated Council could be provided with a briefing on the contract
process.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:26 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 10
June 1, 2010