1991-08-27 Special CC Minutes253
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ALAMEDA
August 27, 1991
The meeting convened at 5:00 p.m. with President Withrow presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Lucas.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas,
Roth and President Withrow - 5.
Absent: None
91-611 Report from City Manager recommending Council authorize the
collection of existing Utility Users Tax on Cable Television
pursuant to Ordinance 2502, N.S. (Held over from June 25, 1991 and
August 15, 1991, Special Council Meetings)
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated a five per cent tax is already imposed
on consumers of Cable; proposed tax would create an impact on
seniors; Council Meetings are telecast which people could not see
if unable to afford to continue Cable service; and requested
Council not implement the ordinance.
Jack Shailan, Alameda, stated he is on a fixed income, the State has
already taken [through recent sales tax increase] his pay increase
[Social Security], for which he worked 45 years, he is going
backwards [in income] and that should be stopped now.
John Gutleben, Alameda, stated, instead of raising taxes, the City
should cut down on expenses.
Councilmember Lucas stated the problem is the budget deficit and
Council is requesting sacrifices from everyone, e.g., Golf Course,
Bureau of Electricity, and believes she will vote for the tax.
Councilmember Roth stated ten years ago the City had 501 employees,
now authorizes 456, and currently has around 400; the State has
mandated many new programs; if increases are made, he would like
them to be temporary, collect them for the next two years and then
perhaps eliminate them; and believes rates would be lower if
competition existed.
Councilman Arnerich distributed information to the Council and
press, and reviewed same, e.g., Cable Company's elimination of
senior discount, increase of late fee, new charge for Cable guide,
doubling of basic fees; the proposed tax is 85 cents per month on
the basic rate.
Councilmember Lucas moved the recommendation.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if the tax can be removed in two years,
and the City Attorney replied affirmatively.
The City Attorney stated Council can direct staff to bring the
matter back in two years, or provide for expiration at a certain
date.
Following brief discussion on procedure, the City Attorney suggested
if Council wants a finite date at this point that would require
readoption, that the City Attorney be allowed to do the detail work
August 27, 1991
; 4
to have that stated in the official laws of the City, or the second
option is to direct staff to bring something back, for consideratior
of repeal in two years.
Councilmembers Roth and Lucas each stated they like the second
option.
Council discussed when the matter should be brought back and
concluded two years would be a good time.
Councilmember Lucas stated the motion is to levy the fees and review
them after two years [August 17, 1993].
Councilmember Camicia questioned how committed the Council is to the
fact that the City is in a budget crisis: 1) on one hand, Council
wants to raise rates to avoid laying people off; and, 2) on the
other hand, Council wants to take the billboard people to Court and
spend a fortune. Councilmember Camicia added that he believes it
makes sense to raise money to avoid laying people off, but does not
feel very good about it at this time.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
President Withrow stated he would like to clarify his vote; he
voted in favor mainly because he knows the Council does not like to
raise taxes and his main reluctance is that a 5% tax on Cable TV is
not the answer to the City's financial problems; reviewed concerns,
e.g., income levels in the City; stated Council must provide a
structural way to increase funds; and reviewed cost of services and
need for funds to provide services.
91-612 Resolution No. . Resolution establishing fees for
various City services and permits. (Held over from June 25, 1991,
and August 15, 1991, Special Council Meetings) Not Adopted.
Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda, stated some fees should be increased, but
pointed out the sign permit was raised from $25 to $125 and minor
design review from $25 to $300, and the affect that certain fees
would have on the community, and requested the two items be
excepted.
Councilman Arnerich discussed certain fees in detail.
Councilmember Roth suggested each fee be looked at by Council.
President Withrow commented the Finance Director has attempted to
pursue a 60% recovery on costs.
Councilmember Roth discussed Use Permits with the Planning Director,
who noted that cities often require Use Permits to take a closer
look at uses before allowing them.
Councilmember Roth discussed fees for Variances with the Planning
Director.
Councilman Arnerich requested justification for amount of design
review fees, with the Planning Director, who explained the cost
involved.
August 27, 1991
2
The City Manager reviewed the background of the study involved in
determining the proposed fees.
Councilmember Lucas expressed concern about Planning Department,
Central Permit Office, and Historical Advisory Board fees as the
City wants to encourage investment in older housing stock and
commercial buildings.
President Withrow discussed with the City Manager, the possibility
of loss of revenue due to raising prices [fees].
John Barni, Sr., Alameda, stated he is against the increases and the
fees; stated citizens are not getting enough for their tax money
and want more economy in government.
Mr. Gilefin, a general contractor, stated the increases will not
provide much revenue but will provide hardship for many people who
might want to change their houses; thinks an hourly rate for design
review would be fair.
Councilmember Camicia stated cost recovery is not being made, but he
is not willing to raise fees across the board in a recession, but
believes the size of government should be reduced; and moved
Council reject all [the proposed fees.] Councilmember Lucas seconded
the motion.
Councilman Arnerich stated the last speakers made perfect sense;
perhaps should look at overall system; has no fault with rejecting
this now; but should look at this seriously and bring it back, and
he is ready for the vote.
To President Withrow's question on raising funds to cover costs, the
City Manager stated the City can raise local taxes excluding
property taxes and fees; and can modify fees.
President Withrow stated there is only one fee, driving under the
influence [DUI], that he agrees with, because the costs are to
maintain values of the balance of the City which is the beneficiary,
so he has problems with it.
To Councilman Arnerich's question, the City Manager responded that
the ordinance in place now calls for fees to increase annually by
the amount of the Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the year; so if
Council does not approve this tonight, the 4.6% will occur; also in
the recommendation is the request from the Planning Director that
the fees be centralized in one document called the Master Fee
Resolution to come back and be before the Council as one document.
Councilmembers Camicia and Lucas agreed to modify the motion [to
centralize Planning fees in one Master Fee Resolution.]
Councilmember Roth stated he would like Council to look at the fees
at a later time.
President Withrow recommended Councilmembers identify those items
they would like to have reviewed, give them to the City Manager and
items could be incorporated into a document for review by the
Council.
August 27, 1991
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
91-613 There being no further business to come before the Council,
President Withrow adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. to a Closed
Session to consider Personnel Matters, pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957 of the Brown Act.
Respectfully submitted,
16t
Diane B. Felsch, CMC
City Clerk
The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
August 27, 1991