2010-09-07 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 7. 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor deHaan led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson — 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10 -399) Mayor Johnson addressed the Proclamation [paragraph no. 10 -403] after the
Hospital presentation [paragraph no. 10 -402].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10 -400) Presentation on the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) Webster
Street Jam Festival.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, gave a brief presentation and invited
everyone to attend the Webster Street Jam Festival.
(10 -401) Presentation by Commission on Disability Issues.
Disability Commission Chair Leslie Krongold gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Commissioners for the great work in the community.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Commission would hold a faire this
year.
Ms. Krongold responded in the negative; stated the undertaking was huge; the
Commission decided to have the accessible exercise program instead; the Commission
might hold a faire next year.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the accessible exercise program would be available in
October, inquire whether the program could be continued on a case -by -case basis.
Ms. Krongold responded the ball would start rolling in October; stated conversations are
being initiated with gyms and exercise centers throughout the City; hopefully, gyms and
exercise centers will modify classes to meet needs and the program will be the
beginning of something more.
(10 -402) Presentation by the Alameda Hospital District.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
September 7, 2010
Jordan Battani, President Hospital Board, gave a brief presentation; and Debra
Stebbins, CEO Alameda Hospital, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda residents can use the primary care clinic.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the affirmative; stated the clinic operates like a private
practice; physicians are employed by the Hospital; Alameda Hospital is allowed to do
this since it is a district hospital; California is one of three states with an exemption for
corporate medical practice.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Hospital's website is linked to the City's website.
The Deputy City Manager — Administrative Services responded that she is 99% sure
that it is, but she would check.
Councilmember Tam stated recently, the Veteran's Administration (VA) gave a
presentation to Council on plans to build a $200 million clinic at Alameda Point; inquired
whether having a VA clinic at Alameda Hospital instead of Alameda Point would be
realistic in light of losing the Kaiser contract.
Ms. Stebbins responded Alameda Hospital continues to enjoy a very good relationship
with the VA; stated that she sees the need to expand the VA clinic operation in Oakland;
expansion at Alameda Hospital would be difficult; the Hospital has the capacity to
provide VA patients with in- patient care, emergency services, and surgery; Alameda
Hospital is working with San Francisco and Palo Alto facilities on how overflow is
managed; Alameda Hospital does not have the room to meet the proposed 90,000
square foot facility at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Tam stated the City's budget is very similar to the Hospital's; inquired
how much has been saved with the [Hospital's] 5% reduction in Executive Management
pay.
Ms. Stebbins responded the 5% reduction was for all non - represented staff, including
management and executive staff; stated savings amounted to approximately $500,000.
Councilmember Tam stated there have been discussions regarding potential
partnerships between the City and Health Care District in terms of ambulance transport;
inquired what the partnerships would look like.
Ms. Stebbins responded one issue might be the ability to direct more non - critical
transports; stated her concern would be taking the City's Fire Department ambulances
out of service, which would result in the ambulances not being available for critical care
transport; an increase in rigs might be needed, which could be counterproductive.
Councilmember Tam inquired what is the total contract amount for ambulance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
September 7, 2010
transports.
Ms. Stebbins responded that she does not know; stated the cost is charged to patients,
not the hospital; the amount would be easy to get.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has suggested having a liaison sub - committee
with the Hospital Board and City Council, similar to those with the School District and
AC Transit; some items that could be discussed with the liaison sub - committee would
be: 1) off -site expansions, which would be an economic development component; 2) the
VA and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority relationship; and 3) emergency
and non - emergency transport services, including the City's franchise rights; the City's
relationship with AC Transit and School Board is valuable.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Stebbins for the presentation; stated that she is
constantly being asked how the Hospital is doing and how its financial picture fits with
the need for seismic retrofitting; inquired how capital expenditures would be funded.
Ms. Stebbins responded the Hospital has discussed various financing options with an
advisor; stated the Hospital has very little debt; not having a long history of positive
margins and reserves complicates the ability to access capital; the Cal Mortgage
program is available for hospital financing; an initial presentation has been made to Cal
Mortgage; a formal application will be submitted in a couple of months; a presentation
will be made to the Loan Committee around December or January; Cal Mortgage tends
to be more lenient in terms of consequences because Alameda Hospital is not the only
hospital in a financially challenged situation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes Council receives updates as the Hospital
moves through the process; the community is interested in the issue.
Ms. Stebbins stated several community meetings would be held; the Hospital enjoys a
very good relationship with its neighbors; the entire process will take less than a year;
that she would be glad to provide regular updates.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether State funding or grants are available for
retrofitting.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated retrofitting is another unfunded
mandate; stated that she has had meetings with Congressman Stark regarding tapping
into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but the money cannot be used for
retrofitting.
Vice deHaan stated the Hospital losing
inquired whether the Hospital settled with
Ms. Stebbins responded the Hospital
Employees International Union (SEIU)
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2010
the Kaiser contract resulted in a 14% cut;
the nurses.
settled a four -year contract with Service
before the Kaiser contract terminated in
3
November; the California Nurses Association (CAN) Contract was negotiated after the
Hospital received the news about Kaiser; the Hospital has settled three union contracts:
Local 6, Local 29, and CAN; all unions agreed to a wage freeze; CAN has a three -year
wage freeze.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated costs for constructing hospital beds have gone up.
Ms. Stebbins stated construction costs have gone up at an expediential rate; seismic
retrofitting is costing the hospital industry a lot of money; hospitals that are not in any
financial difficulty are having financial challenges; the whole picture has changed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Hospital has unfunded pensions.
Ms. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated the Hospital has very complex pension
funds; some pensions are managed by the unions and a couple are at the 80% or 90%
[funded] level; two pension programs have been frozen; one is active and is funded at
the required level; northern California and Bay Area hospitals have been very generous
in other regards, but have not gotten into pension or health care funding for retirees.
Mayor Johnson stated that Ms. Stebbins is welcomed to come back on a regular basis.
(10 -403) Proclamation Declaring September 25 as Coastal Clean Up Day 2010.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.
The Public Works Coordinator stated over 2,000 volunteers have picked up 8,500
pounds of debris.
Mayor Johnson stated the spartina eradication program has had an impact on
reclaiming Bay waters.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated McDonald's is one of the biggest debris generators; a
program should be established to address the problem.
(10 -404) Announcement regarding the Sunshine Task Force Workshop to be held on
September 11, 2010 at 1:00 p.m., at the Alameda Free Library, Stafford Meeting Room.
Gretchen Lipow, Sunshine Task Force Chair, gave a brief presentation and encouraged
everyone to attend the Workshop.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
September 7, 2010
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 -405) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on July 20, 2010, and the
Special City Council Meeting held on July 27, 2010. Approved.
( *10 -406) Ratified bills in the amount of $27,677,201.59.
( *10 -407) Recommendation to Empower the City Attorney to Employ Special Legal
Counsel to Defend SCC Alameda Point, LLC, v. City of Alameda et al. Accepted.
( *10 -408) Recommendation to Allocate $1,088,382 in Urban Runoff Funds and Award a
Contract in the Amount of $1,088,382, Including Contingencies, to GSE Construction for
the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station, No. P.W. 02- 10 -06.
Accepted.
( *10 -409) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,372,209, Including
Contingencies, to WR Ford for the Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 8, No.
P.W. 01- 10 -03. Accepted.
( *10 -410) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $88,500, Including
Contingencies, to Clean Lakes, Inc., for Vegetation Management, Debris Management,
and Water Quality Monitoring for South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 07- 10 -19. Accepted.
( *10 -411) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $337,472, Including
Contingencies, to Weber Tractor Service for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2010 -2011,
Phase 11, No. P. W. 06- 10 -14. Accepted.
( *10 -412) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement within the City of
Alameda, No. P.W. 07- 10 -20. Accepted.
( *10 -413) Resolution No. 14484, "Authorizing the Interim City Manager to File an
Application for $837,000 in Federal Surface Transportation Program and /or Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funding for the City of Alameda Certain Street
Rehabilitation, No P.W. 08 -10 -21 (Otis Drive, Westline Drive to Willow Street),
Appropriate $108,442 in Proposition 42 Funds as the Necessary Local Match, and
Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project." Adopted.
( *10 -414) Resolution No. 14485, "Ratifying the Public Utilities Board's Approval of the
First Amendment to Agreement for Construction, Operation, and Financing of
Combustion Turbine Project Number One and the Quitclaim Deed Form for the
Roseville Combustion Turbine Units, and Authorizing the General Manager of Alameda
Municipal Power to Execute the First Amendment and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
September 7, 2010
the Quitclaim Deed Form." Adopted.
( *10 -415) Resolution No. 14486, "Appointing Mayor Johnson as the City's Delegate for
Voting Purposes at the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting." Adopted.
( *10 -416) Resolution No. 14487, "Stating the City's Positions on the League of
California Cities Annual Business Meeting Resolutions." Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10 -417) Presentation on Planning and Building Fees
The Interim City Manager gave a brief introduction and the Building Official gave a
Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Building Official stated that some of
Alameda's fees are higher than other cities and some are lower.
Mayor Johnson inquired what Alameda fees are 13% higher than other cities, to which
the Building Official responded re -roof permits.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether cities were polled on the number of required
inspections for a project, to which the Building Official responded the number of
inspections for a project is required by Code.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a comparison was done on the number of inspections
from start to end, to which the Building Official responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be researched.
The Building Official stated that he would look into the matter; continued the
presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated getting different information from inspectors increases the need
for more inspections.
The Building Official continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what a person could get for a $10,000 kitchen
remodel.
The Building Official responded the $10,000 valuation is based upon square footage;
stated the valuation is not a cost but a record keeping number and does not measure
out specifically.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the average amount of a kitchen remodel, to which the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
September 7, 2010
Building Official responded approximately $150 per square foot.
Mayor Johnson inquired how Alameda fees compare to other cities.
The Building Official responded other cities do not charge based upon valuation; stated
remodels have a standard fee; continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether all the types of permits reviewed represent less than
30% of permits issued, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of permits represent the remaining 70 %.
The Building Official responded improvements, furnace replacements, electrical service
changes, termite reports, residing, and windows.
Councilmember Matarrese stated window replacements, awnings, porches, and decks
have outrageous permit fees; that he would like to get more information; when he
wanted to put a pergola on the back of his house, the permit fee was three times the
cost of materials.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted the number of termite permits must be high because a permit
is required whenever a property is transferred.
The Building Official stated window permits often require a significant planning fee; staff
is looking at ways to change design review charges.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a change would prevent bootleggers.
The Building Official stated people do not pull permits if fees are too high.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff used to measure responsiveness through the [permit]
process; inquired whether staff currently has a benchmark or measuring device.
The Building Official responded over the last six months, he has been conducting an on-
line survey once a project is complete; stated responses have been overwhelmingly
positive.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see the responses.
The Building Official stated that he would provide the information; all information is
submitted anonymously.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people are clear about what is required for a simple
permit; further inquired whether information is available on the website so contractors
know what is required for simple projects in order to avoid interpretation problems.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
September 7, 2010
The Building Official responded a number of handouts are available to address specific
requirements; stated staff works very hard to ensure that interpretations are accurate
and consistent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people are assured that comments are anonymous;
stated in the past, people have been afraid of retaliation; perhaps comments should go
to a third party; inquired what percentage of people submit comments.
The Building Official responded approximately 20 %; stated the survey goes through a
third party on -line survey company; that he has an open door policy.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether electricity needs to be upgraded to code when a
kitchen countertop is changed.
The Building Official responded three of the six jurisdictions he checked with require an
electrical upgrade, and three do not; stated the City requires an electrical upgrade
because new countertops usually trigger the purchase of new appliances, which could
severely overload an antiquated electrical system; the issue is a life and fire safety
matter; a couple of years ago, a Bay Street house fire was the result of an antiquated
electrical system.
Mayor Johnson stated the Bay Street house was a lot older than a number of homes in
Alameda; that she receives most complaints from Harbor Bay residents; Harbor Bay
homes are not old.
The Building Official stated an electrical upgrade would not be required if a house is
less than twenty years old because the Code has not changed; an electrical upgrade
makes sense for older homes.
The Interim City Manager inquired whether the [electrical upgrade] requirement is an
Electrical Code or Fire Code interpretation, to which the Building Official responded
Electrical Code.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a separate standard should be in place if new
appliances are not be installed; stated the issue is very irritating to people and has been
questionable for years; the issue should be reviewed.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he agrees with Mayor Johnson; the envelop is being
pushed farther than necessary; inquired whether permits have increased, to which the
Building Official responded permits have increased approximately 10% from last year.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether more people are being hired to handle the
increase.
The Interim City Manager responded temporary contract people are being used; stated
nothing has been added in this year's budget [to hire inspectors].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
September 7, 2010
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff is able to provide next day [inspection]
service.
The Building Official responded last year, second day inspections were about 95 %;
stated staff has drifted back to approximately 75% same day inspections; more than a
two -day inspection seldom occurs.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the reserve amount.
The Interim City Manager responded the estimate for the year end is that the reserve
amount would be approximately $400,000; stated the goal is to get a minimum ninety -
day working capital.
Mayor Johnson inquired when staff would come back with [planning and building fee]
changes.
The Interim City Manager responded part two could be brought back in thirty days;
stated a window, awning, and countertop information could also be brought back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the next presentation to include
material in the packet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the window and interim mutton issue has been
resolved.
The Building Official responded staff is much clearer; staff would come back with
information on what can and cannot be done.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether different windows are allowed for different types of
buildings, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.
(10 -418) Urban Greening Planning Grant
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 9:08 p.m. and returned at 9:10 p.m.
Mayor Johnson stated moving forward on the matter is great; hopefully, Alameda will
become a model City.
(10 -419) Citywide Records Retention and Destruction Policy
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
September 7, 2010
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would digitalize as much as possible; stated
the Museum has some City records; the City should put the records into the City's
digitalized records; that she does not mind destroying paper copies once records are
digitalized.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the email policy should be reviewed also; that she is not
sure whether the issue should be reviewed by the Sunshine Task Force or staff;
[electronic] storage is cheap; there is no good reason not to keep digital records and
emails.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a records company should be utilized; records
required by statute should be on microfiche because microfiche lasts 100 years;
someone with technical expertise is needed.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is focusing on inventory; right now, the issue is an
organizational issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese regarding getting
expert help; the Courthouse scans every document filed; most documents are available
almost immediately; Alameda is a little behind in its technical capacity; investments
need to be made.
The Interim City Manager stated the first step is to do something with the phones; the
money saved [from a new telephone system] can be used to reinvest in the computer
system; approximately $100,000 has been put in the budget to upgrade computers; the
City's hardware is archaic.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated digital should be at the front end; inquired whether the City
Clerk's office digitalizes documents, to which City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated things that go into the [digital] archives would not go into
storage boxes.
The City Clerk stated Council has never authorized not keeping paper files; everything
is stored as paper as well; the City Clerk's office uses microfiche also.
Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to digitally preserve records, not
destroy records.
The Interim City Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated that she agrees with Mayor Johnson; stated policy should
drive technology; the policy should be consistent with the State's email retention policy;
that she works extensively with litigation and a record retention policy that pretty much
requires that nothing be destroyed; that she would like to see the Sunshine Task Force
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
September 7, 2010
advise Council on the matter; a thirty -one page proposed ordinance will be presented
this Saturday; that she would like to get policy direction from the community as well.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City should get the documents from the Museum.
Speaker: Jeff Mitchell, Alameda.
(10 -420) Executive Management Compensation: Form and Process
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether each individual Department Head contract would
come to Council.
The Interim City Manager responded the form would not be a contract but would be
more of a traditional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); stated contracts are not
used as much as before.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would be binding
on the City; stated offer letters are not contracts and are not binding on the City; City
Managers have abused some things in offer letters; contracts need to be approved by
Council; that she is glad that the Interim City Manager is bringing the matter to Council
because the proposed form would prevent abuse by City Managers and circumvention
of Council authority; inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would be
binding on the City.
The Interim City Manager responded the [Executive Management] MOU would be just
like other bargaining units' MOUs and would be binding; stated the [Executive
Management] MOU would be similar to other MOUs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would
be brought back to Council for approval, to which the Interim City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have other options come back to
Council as an agenda item so that Council would be able to discuss the pros and cons
of a contract versus an [Executive Management] MOU and provide direction.
The Interim City Manager stated three types have been discussed: an offer letter, a
contract, or a [Executive Management] MOU.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not like the idea of claiming that an offer letter
could be binding on the City.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Interim City Manager and Department Heads would
create a document that would be applicable across the departments; the [Executive
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
September 7, 2010
Management] MOU could also be called a template; the template would be brought
back to Council for review; Council would have the option of approving the template or
using some other vehicle; assuming that Council would approve the template, the
template would become the boiler plate for a City Manager to use when hiring a
Department Head; the template would be the same as other bargaining unit MOUs.
Mayor Johnson inquired how a City Manager would get from the template to deals with
a Department Head to make the template binding on the City.
The Interim City Manager responded the template would be available to a Department
Head; stated a transmittal or offer letter might be transmitted to the candidate and the
template could be attached.
Mayor Johnson stated a previous City Manager gave a Department Head a deal which
she does not think Council would have ever approved; someone could call something a
contract and binding obligation even when it is not.
The Interim City Manager stated the template would be very specific.
Councilmember Tam stated Council has discussed the issue in the past; Mayor
Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese have raised the potential of an amendment to
the City Charter; one suggested hybrid approach was to use the City of Berkeley model
where the City Manager offers a job to a Department Head, which is tentative and
subject to Council approval, and includes all terms of employment so that there is some
Council oversight; said approach is an available option in looking at a Charter
amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think a Charter amendment is required
because Council has to approve a contract; a contract is a binding obligation that the
citizens of Alameda have to fulfill.
The Interim City Manager stated that she thinks in terms of a contract having a start and
end date; an offer letter, which is the least specific, offers the most customization and
opportunity for individual arrangements and negotiations.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the matter placed on an
agenda, have the Interim City Manager provide a written analysis of what is being
proposed, and have the City Attorney's office analyze what a contract would be for an
individual who would become a Department Head, what the City would be obligated to
give the individual, and what would obligate the City.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council is going the right way; elements need to be
standardized; Council needs to have an opportunity to review various options.
Mayor Johnson stated a City Manager's verbal offers are an abuse that needs to be
prevented; having an [Executive Management] MOU may not prevent the abuse from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
September 7, 2010
occurring.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a person is really hired if Council does not
appropriate the money.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Charter only gives Council, not
a City Manager, the authority to set compensation and pension benefits for any
employee; Council approves a salary range and specific benefits that can be offered to
represented employees through an MOU; Council needs, at bare minimum, to have a
standardized document approving a salary range and benefit package for Department
Heads; the standardized document would allow a City Manager to hire only within the
parameters of a compensation plan and benefit package; any past offer letters that have
not been ratified by Council are not binding on the City; that she agrees with Mayor
Johnson on said matter.
Councilmember Tam stated ratifications have been part of the budget process and have
not been very specific when it comes to Department Heads; that she would like the staff
analysis to include some discussion regarding uniformity and retroactivity; Department
Heads have different needs; work hours are different; inquired whether a car allowance
could be taken away uniformly for all Department Heads or whether the issue could be
adjusted within the template, a quasi MOU, or specified to different classifications.
The Interim City Manager responded models are available for all three concepts; the
goal is to make the template specific and less ambiguous.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10 -421) Resolution No. 14488, "Appointing Madeline Deaton as a Member of the
Public Utilities Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
(10 -422) Recommendation to Pursue Activation of the City of Alameda's Participation in
the City of Oakland's Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) #56 in Response to Appropriate
Business Opportunities.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda is not a port or a destination center for distribution
of goods; inquired how Alameda's participation would work.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded Alameda is considered
to be part of the larger port of entry and is part of FTZ #56.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
September 7, 2010
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation on taxes.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development stated a business would repackage
or assemble goods at a location in Alameda and export goods through the port or
Oakland airport; expensive excise taxes would be avoided because goods would not be
imported to the United States.
Mayor Johnson stated some tariffs have gone up to 600% which makes it more
economically feasible to assemble and manufacture items within the United States.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how successful Oakland has been; further inquired
whether Alameda would be in competition with Oakland; stated corridors are a concern.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded Alameda has already
received some preliminary interest; stated Alameda has land in close proximity to a port
and international airport; the activation would be another tool in the economic
development tool kit; participation could be used on an opportunistic basis.
Mayor Johnson stated participation would not just be repackaging but would be job
creation in the United States.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development stated Oakland wants to support
Alameda's participation because business would be brought to the port and airport.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should not assume that Alameda would be dealing with
containers going back and forth through the tube as in the past.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development stated the City would only
participate in the right opportunities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue should be explored; private investment
opportunities would be available for buildings that need help; the investment would spur
jobs.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to review how the operation would work;
questioned why Oakland is not using its FTZ to the maximum; stated using interim
reuse may work extremely well; the vision would not be to warehouse at the port.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development stated impact assessments are
very difficult without site - specific opportunities; staff would come back to Council with
opportunities that make sense and are consistent with goals.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a fee is associated with activating
participation.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded in the negative; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
September 7, 2010
staff and minimal consultant time would be needed to ensure that things are done right;
the application process is straight forward because Oakland has already gone through
the more extensive process.
Councilmember Gilmore stated activation seems reasonable; staff would bring back
site - specific opportunities to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; activation does
not mean that the floodgates need to open.
Councilmember Gilmore stated community input would be needed also.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City of Oakland is in favor of Alameda's
potential activation.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded the City of Oakland has
been very helpful in initial conversations; stated staff did not want to go too far out
without getting Council direction.
Mayor Johnson stated activation would present regional opportunities through jobs and
economic development.
Speakers: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda; and Alex Chen, Alameda.
Following Former Councilmember Daysog's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired
whether the City of Oakland would be in control, if activation would occur.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded the City's activation
would be part of Oakland's FTZ; stated Matson Global Distribution Services operates
the general - purpose FTZ.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda would have control over what goes in
Alameda.
The Interim City Manager responded uses would belong to Alameda; stated Matson
Global Distribution Services would administer the FTZ in compliance with federal law.
The Deputy City Manager — Economic Development stated participation would be on a
site - specific basis.
Councilmember Matarrese requested verification that whatever goes into the Alameda
section of the FTZ would be controlled exclusively by Alameda within constraints of
federal law, to which the Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether participation would not be activated until a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
September 7, 2010
promising opportunity would be brought to Council, to which the Deputy City Manager —
Economic Development responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Council could reject a promising opportunity, to
which the Deputy City Manager — Economic Development responded in the affirmative.
Following Mr. Chen's comments, Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of tariff
issues that have prompted interest in FTZs.
Mr. Chen stated duty on laptop parts is 20 %; duty on an assembled laptop is 255 %.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether union jobs would be generated, to which Mr. Chen
responded that he does not know.
Mayor Johnson stated that she had not heard of any exemptions from [using] unions.
The Interim City Manager stated some cities have elected to establish policies in terms
of working with anyone interested in the FTZs.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with
consideration of the type of jobs that would be created to match existing City policy.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion is to pursue the activation, to which
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council would have the opportunity to review opportunities
on a case -by -case basis.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON - AGENDA
(10 -423) Jon Spangler, Alameda, discussed board and commission vacancies.
(10 -424) Peter Clark, Community Response Foundation, discussed the America's Cup.
The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on the American's Cup process.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested an update.
The Interim City Manager stated the American Cup Association is in the process of
finalizing an agreement with San Francisco; an update would be provided to Council;
San Francisco has made a commitment to work with Alameda.
(10 -425) Jean Sweeney, Alameda, thanked the Interim City Manager for obtaining the
Urban Greening Planning Grant; thanked the Commission on Disability Issues for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
September 7, 2010
College of Alameda intersection improvement; discussed the archive documents on her
website.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to have archived documents.
(10 -426) The following speakers discussed the District Attorney's letter with the decision
that there was insufficient evidence against Councilmember Tam: Jeff Mitchell,
Alameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Barbara Kahn, Alameda; and Bill Smith,
Alameda.
Councilmember Gilmore stated acknowledging and respecting the District Attorney's
decision and legal process is important; the City's role has been to present the results of
its investigation and have the District Attorney make a determination, which has been
done; that she would vigorously oppose spending any more tax dollars on such a
frivolous matter; everyone should settle down, take a deep breath, and reject the urge to
escalate the matter; now is not the time for further litigation or acrimony; going after
Councilmember Tam civilly appears at a minimum to be a complete waste of tax dollars
and the Court's time; learn from what has occurred and get back to doing the business
that the people of the City elected Council to do; to that end, it is really important that
citizen's know that Council's judgments will be made with their best interest at heart;
before considering any new actions on anything further relating to the matter, she will
ask, echoing some of the comments made tonight, that the City Auditor audit the books
and records relating to the matter so that the public has a clear understanding of the
amount of money expended on the matter; right now, Council does not know how much
money has been spent; secondly, she requests that outside counsel, not the firm
involved in the matter, conduct a workshop on the Brown Act for Council, staff, Boards,
Commissions, and any interested members of the public; finally, she requests the
Council to agree that the appropriate venue for dealing with the Interim City Manager
and City Attorney actions are within the context of performance reviews which have
been previously scheduled and are coming up shortly; hopefully everything can be put
behind once performance reviews are done and the Councilmembers can get back to
the work the citizens of Alameda elected them to do; in the interest of taking a deep
breath and pausing, her question to her colleagues is that she does not understand why
there is a Council meeting on Thursday to determine whether or not to file litigation; that
she does not know why there is a rush; if the meeting occurs at all, given the events and
circumstances of the case, she suggests having the meeting in open session; the public
deserves to know why and how tax dollars are being spent; individuals and attorneys
who want to push forward with the case should present the rationale for doing so in the
face of the fact that the District Attorney rendered an opinion that there is no evidence to
pursue the matter.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
September 7, 2010
(10 -427) Councilmember Tam stated for weeks Mayor Johnson, the Interim City
Manager, and the City Attorney have been asking the District Attorney through outside
counsel, Michael Colantuono, to expedite the investigation so that the City can get on
with its business; for the record, based on the letter that the District Attorney has sent
and the Island blog has published on its website, she learned that the City's special
counsel sent five letters of which she has only seen three along with her attorney; her
attorney has sent two; the City Attorney's office, through Mr. Colantuono, submitted a
letter practically every other week documenting issues and concerns they have with her
email and her communications; 285 pages; the District Attorney waited and reviewed
every single one in a very exhaustive way; they have come to the determination that
there is no legal or factual basis to support the allegations that the Brown Act has been
violated or that she has mishandled confidential information; asking the Council to
discuss issues of concern to the public, whether the public raises it, whether a City
business partner raises it, or whether an employee group raises it, is wholly appropriate
and is part of her responsibility as a City Councilmember; it is unfortunate that the City
issued a press release that does not seem to respect the exhaustive review and the
analysis of the District Attorney that has lasted over two months; it is also unfortunate
that they have produced a press release that distorts the District Attorney's findings that
the matter is closed.
(10 -428) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the County is at a
very preliminary stage in discussing the potentially moving forward with Countywide
project labor agreements that would affect all cities; it might behoove the City to take a
look at the issue; that she will bring back a Council Referral for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:38 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 18
September 7, 2010