The City Council

The council voted, 5-0, to hold off on putting city charter changes on the November
ballot that would eliminate binding arbitration for the city’s firefighters and require
any initiatives, including the firefighters’ upcoming minimum staffing measure, to
have a funding source before they could be put in place.

Tam asked her dais-mates to reconvene a council subcommittee to vet the proposed
changes and to consider them for the November 2011 election instead, the date the
firefighters’ initiative will be decided.

Gilmore said she thought the council shouldn’t rush to put the amendments, some of
which had been in the works for over a year. She said the public should have more
time to talk about the proposed changes before they go on the ballot.

“I don’t think this is something that should be taken lightly. The public should have
the opportunity to ask questions and have input on this,” said Gilmore, who said she
thought city staff should have brought the proposed charter changes to the council
sooner.

Gallant said several of the proposed charter changes – which included adding
another member to the Public Utilities Commission and removing the city manager
as a voting member of that body, allowing the city clerk to reject legal bids and
allowing the city to change its business hours – weren’t new ideas, and Highsmith
said the changes were being proposed for the November ballot because it’s the next
available general election.

Domenick Weaver, president of the Alameda firefighters union, asked the council
not to put a measure on the ballot that would eliminate the union’s right to binding
arbitration, which he said had been used just once in the 30 years it’s been in place.

He said the council can’t put the binding arbitration matter on the ballot, citing a
state Supreme Court case that would require the city to meet and confer on it. But
Highsmith said the city disagrees.

Ann Spanier of the League of Women Voters of Alameda asked the council to wait on
putting the charter amendments on the ballot so the public could have more time to
learn about and comment on the proposed changes, which haven’t had a prior
public hearing.

The City Council also unanimously approved a $71.1 million general fund budget for
2010-2011 early this morning, an increase over the $68.7 million budget it okayed
for 2009. The budget covers public safety, recreation and other services.
“The budget is tight this year. What we think we are bringing in in revenues, we
think we will expend,” Gallant said, adding that the city hasn’t spent more than it has
taken in over the last 18 months. She said 2009 layoffs and other departmental cuts
helped bring the city’s budget in line.

The budget shows an anticipated $12.1 million cash balance at the beginning and
end of the year, and Gallant said she expects the city can build toward a
recommended balance of $13 million, or 20 percent.

Gallant said the city has resolved much of the $7.6 million deficit that had built up in
the city’s internal service funds as city departments failed to repay their worker’s
compensation and other fixed costs. She said the deficit is now $200,000, and she
expects that deficit to disappear by the end of 2011.

But she said the library is running a deficit because of the way bond debt the city
incurred to build its new library is structured, which she said she will work to fix
midyear. The city’s budget figures show a projected negative balance of $866,984
for the library fund at the end of this fiscal year.

The city's overall budget of $297.9 million includes money for the Housing
Authority, Alameda Municipal Project, debt funds, redevelopment, money for capital
projects and additional funds.

Separately, city staff offered information on a $24.3 million capital improvement

program to maintain and fix the city’s sewers, roads, parks and other infrastructure.

**********

CC072710

BJ NO closed sesh – hope DA will expedite matter so can cont biz.

2C biz assns

MG Decision in LLADS?

AMG Understanding staff this pt, vendor has agreed to work w WABA group so can
go fwd w bid. So bid is gg to work for WABA, subject to nego of it. PSBA cont do own
thing. $ in these contrax are sufficient to cover ish due.

4D, then 3A, then 4E, F, G

then 3b, 3c and 4c after 4g

4D VF Outdoor – Okd unanimously by Planning Board OKd unan by CC

3A Letter – Okd unan by CC

4E Real estate asset mgt policy OKd unan by CC

4F Miracle League EB OKd unan

4G 2216 Lincoln OKd 5-0

3B Operational budget highlights:

AMG Spent lot x talking about $, wanted to do reminder allocates resources certain
activities. 10-11 things doing – despite fact rollover budget
Move fwd w goals, objectives of 2009 – downsizing tabs, flattening organization
Focusing on how to establish budgets, goals and objectives. In 2 yr process
performance evaluation employees.
24 mo fiscal sustainability plan – reduce “grossing up” revenues – putting $ in GF,
charge back. Clearly charge to where the fund is, not transfer to GF – confusing. Elim
cash balances. When do staff report in regard to action on the budget, will relate
those details. Nu cap improve discret fund. Don’t want one-time revenues in GF.

Things on exec team’s to do list: (program initiatives) – see list

NOTE RELOCATED ANIMAL SHELTER AND DOG PARK
police bike patrol on park/Webster

3C Cap improve pgm –

2010-12 cap improve pgm 24341000 (14431000/9910000)

Sewer, streets & transpo, parks, bike & ped, etc.

looking to relocate animal shelter and corp yard – prime site for redevelopment –
have money for that

4C BUDGET: 11:02 PM
AMG: few points on Gann and Jarvis – interesting – gann limit here is 83m, proceeds
can get from taxes. ax amt get is 44m. Rapid growth of taxes haven’t held here last
30 yrs – prop taxes didn’t grow way they expected. There’s a long way to go here
before our tax base exceeds the Jarvis-Gann limit. Large portion to other ways to
raise money. Applies to GF and planning/bldg fund.
Over 100 funds. City, CIC, ARRA, HA, AMP. Total approp 208.6m exclusive of
component funds (HA, AMP) – addl 89.3m. Total city budget 297.9m. Almost a 300m
corporate operation.
Summary: 12.1m projected cash bal.
The budget is tight this yr. What we think we are bringing in in revenues, we think
we will expend. But last 12-18 mos, have not spent more than brought in, have
succeeded in putting $ in cash bal.
Workshop – talked about desired cash balance – staff rec approx 20% true cash fund
balance, about 13m. We are very close to achieving that, hope this yr or next hope
will have for emerg/conting – times huge spikes in expenditures cant fund ongoing
operational basis.
Numerous convos recession etc, plan w RIF 2009 contain costs, recover neg cash
balances. Balanced budget w existing revs, expends GF.
Special rev funds group – long way terms far right line. Is one partic one need to
address this yr unknown, discovered it – libray. Usu doesn’t have neg fund balances,
but tight. Discovered, early 08 when city did refi COPs, implemented short call
provision that fin, wasn’t level debt service. No principle on debt. This FY, debt
services on that spikes by 500k. Surprise. Hoped to use $ for fire truck and some
computers. But have committed to taking a look at this debt to see if we can refi.
Hope can pay off wo recurrent neg, but short call don’t tx we can do that. Key ehre is
to be able to figure out how to pay this debt service so it doesn’t run the lib into the
neg. Neg for now, adjustment to solve midyear. If cant solve, GF will have to transfer
more $ into the lib to cover this debt service.

MG Difference in FY 10-11 and 11-12 about 10m, 9 out of special revenue funds.
Explain?

AMG Cant do good projections now. Everyone’s worked really, really hard to get to
this point. This has been a yeoman’s effort to get to these numbers. Revenue .5 to 2
percent. Def tight.

LT Fire at 0, PD up 10 percent. What happened?

AMG 0809, did not fully fund PD positions.

FM OK budget as presented.

AMG Next yr, Lisa’s gg to be doing this presentation.

OKd 5-0

4A Couwenberg OKd 5-0.

4B Sewer report

4H ELECTION
LW 3 resos – ff arbitration, funding source, and another – reject legal ads, add new
member to pub, pub contrax, hrs. Has to be in by August 6. Can write arg tonight –
we can be here til 3, 4 in the morning that way – or select 1-2 to write. Deadline
August 10 for args. Rebuttals August 18.
AMG C reject bids – common in general law cities, sted to CC. PUB ish really been on
her mind partic this past yr, having served on the bd, for charter reqs. Opinion, not
arm’s length transaction for CM. Shdnt be able to vote. Discush what city shd get, hw
much transferred GF is an uncomf job. have to do as CM for all. For Cm to have to
vote on some of those thigns – it wd be my rec not to have that happen. Unique sitch.
Ex officio one thing. Not arm’s length transaction. Also admin cleanup. Not making
attempt change CH hours at this time. Charter should be for larger, broad-brush ish.
Not rates, times, dates and places. Have to change more frequently. Can change by
ordinance. Shd be able to change wo spec elex, charter amdt.
Second – call Loni Hancock measure – mtg, hrg things st ca. If anyone puts fwd init,
that it have funding mech. State att do state level. In listening to the meeting we had
that day, I asked the city atty to research it, see if had authority to do this. I tx this is
a reflection of good fiscal policy, so if people do come fwd w inits, that est criteria to
fund that init. Policies require any mandates, $. Some things Oakland facing right
now. No funding assoc, just mandate spend X amt on parks, X amt on this.
Next one, item of interest this eve. I know that the city has considered this before.
Impt to note that, from mgt perspective, bnding arb is not something one wd
consider putting in a city charter. 30 yrs ago, reason happen. But getting 6-8%
COLAs, pers pickups interm raises. But I tx 30 yrs later, we are in a whole diff world
here eco. Tx need consider if cc do future. Rec place on ballot. Available only to IAFF,
not other barg units. Mgt perspective, policy form, allows 3 rd party cant control have
control over yr destiny financially. Cd be lt liability. All of these things together –
there are all mgt recs and staff recs. I realize the charter cmte didn’t have time to
meet, have cc charter cmte cc int in. But these are thigns that are coming from the gt
team, charter offish, tx city shd consider for elex November. Any partic Qs, can give
background.

LT When she was on council subcom charter amends, 32 amends in 08 elex. Her
recollection was, we did modify the section on specified hours an relegate to ord cc
can adopt a sked –

LW Was for council mtgs

LT No – lib open Sats, Planning at 7, didn’t want to be descriptive.

LW Will cx.

MG Her memory, hrs op had did not meet what was in the charter. Discussion op
hrs, wanted to get it out of the charter.

LW I’ll look for it.

AMG Did that ax go on the ballot?

All – ballot.
LT I went around town talking to people about it, campaign.

BJ All passed. Maybe the charter’s not reflecting that yet.

Jon Spangler: Need more time, based on discussion. Esp bc of hour. 12:25 am

Ann Spanier: Wont repeat some of th things JS sed. But we at the league urge the
council to allow the public time to review and coment on amendments. Use process
had in 08. Over pd sev mos. Consider need for full public input before making
decisions of such imptc.

Domenick Weaver: Was res Ala for over 30 yrs, ff for nearly 20. Opposition to
resolutions remove arbitration in city charter. Provided w opinion our atty, ct
opinion, similar case Seal Beach. Did come into charter 1980. But I 82 another
resolution, poison pill, re arbitration. If arbitrator grants award that puts city into
financial burdern, city can put to voters. There is a check and a balance already
there. Arb marks the end of nego that have broken down, when comms have broken
down.
Did once 1990s, 4 yrs get thru. Cost city, them ton of $. We’re in no hurry to do it.
But takes good faith incentive out o the equation. If there’s no end in sight, there’s a
power struggle.
Negos 6 mos, more like 3 yrs since negos 2008. Contract in fx for 4 mos. Ground
rules on table. To change this up now is like changing the game when you don’t like
th rules. I urge you to respect yr ff, and the community’s right to communicate.
BJ – how upset were about right to comment bridges. Urge to keep.

LT wants more time, don’t have full briefing on Seal Beach case.

TH You can be briefed on that this eve. I can brief you on that, and Joe wiley.

MG Appreciate the city atty’s foresight have labor council here brief us on that, but
doesn’t solve my biggest ish. had exhaustive process last time around, public
workshops – all the amendments, not just the ff. went around and polled all the
different depts. and sed, here’s council’s list, do you have anything you want to add?
Had people show up to our workshiops.

I don’t’ think this is something that shd be taken lightly. The pub shd have the oppo
to ask Qs and have input on this. Amending the charter is not something that needs
to be rushed. on council for a while now, 08 1st time long x amended charter. Not
that we cant, but 2 yrs later wo thot, process 1st time around – I just don’t tx that’s gd
public policy.

AMG Familiar to you, have seen before.

FM Wd like to see PUB one go forward. Not making decision to enact, but put on
ballot and go fwd. Simplest one.
LT Disagree that’s simple.

MG Long history behind why CM ended up being put on the pub I the first place.

TH Next elex Nov.

DD When next window opportunity?

LW 2 yrs next general elex.

LT FF on Nov 2011? Cost?

LW Will cost more, but paying.

AMG Only thing new Loni Hancock one.

DD Why shd fire have, no one else?

LT Can’t strike, like everyone else.

Joe Wiley Seal Beach decision – strike unlawful, can be enjoined. Police, fire, nurses,
ERs.

DD Not most impt this eve, but

TH Seal Beach case precludes city form amending charter, we don’t agree.

JW Says if subject of bargaining – certain conduct, shall be fired. Mand subject of

barg, cant put on ballot wo meet & confer. What never had anser to til 8 weeks ago,
whether interest arg mandatory/permissive subject barg. PERB, 1 st district
decisions, both fd interest arb is permissive, nonmand subj barg, don’t have to meet
and confer 1st prior to putting on ballot. De Quisto case. PERB, Ct of appeal.

Melody Marr It’s bittersweet to be here tonight. I’m here to say goodbye. 8.5 yrs.
Bye, tx and wish you well. 1:08 am

DD You served well. And we’ll miss you.

5A
FM Proposing referral as a launching pt for where we go next for alameda point. We
like to lk at 4 areas path fwd.
1st – leasing policy. One of the assets do have is LIFOC for the base. Creation of jobs
for top priority is direx I’ve heard consensus blt last yr on. Means commersh, light
industrial devt. Hard part. Tx with nu leasing policy, bldgs want to keep, bolster
bizzes there now, attrax new bizzes, way to increase revs, investment now. Also
more impt, bld commersh sector always told no market for in ala. Like that to be key
pt direx.
2 – what folos that – housing obligation always related to job creation. Use RHND as
guide for developing residential in assoc w jobs crtd base. Anchor. Work w congresh
del get $.
3 - eval and propose approp plan where we can consider nonprofit entity – ldc
chartered and mandated by city. but its rly an entity that does entitlement. That’s
what the city does well. We wdnt be developing, entitling. That profit, sted gg pvt
corp, can be avail from NP thru project. Have models can pull from. Need for jobs is
abs critical. Tx also cd get the ear of congresh delegation.
4 – lastly t get local control entitlements. Ex, infra raised pricces – willie stargell.
Increased val land AL. If we can take advantage of where we are now w entitling it,
potential funding MTC, other places. Then we will have raised the value of the land,
better pos Navy. MY proposal, elements given CM as direx. Alt plan can begin to
execute.

Jon Spangler: FM, apprec fact want to move fwd. Sptr MB, SC bid, well aware fact
need go somewhere with this now. But want to sugg that needs be just like
discussed charter amends, need more public process, go back to beginning so entire
community can learn to talk about ala pt again wo blood on the flr, wo the animosity
and anger I’ve seen in this rm many times over the last sev mos. Don’t tx specific
description way do. Need open meetings, workshops so can get together, plans and
needs, where do we go. More open, elss directive, way to heal wounds. Didn’t have
last few mtgs chambers, or feb. Lot fo dissention. Concerned will never get $ form
feds. Don’t have $, skills, expertise, leadership this city to be able to pull this off.

PAT KELIHER: Over the last 3 yrs, my staff and I have lit spent 1000s of hrs working
w Ala producing numerus tech docs, understanding mits develop ala pt. Spent over
17m. Less than a week after the cc vote on the 20th, cc discussing alt process ad plan
devpg propery Q consider – how long were these plans on the drawing bd? At what
pt elemtns plan in hand? How much pd to date? Whle we were paying city staff in
good faith, it appears the city was working kn a secret plan b. Appeared plan since
09, chamber bfast. Starting tonight. In ax, the CM was talking about this sev mos ago.
Is that good faith? Is that how partners work tog? What was really going on inside
CH when we were spending millions of $ to work on this project? At what pt did the
city decide that SCC Ala wasn’t the city’s partner?

FM My mind doesn’t shut off when the sigs were gathered or when the measure was
on the ballot or wher the measure went down. Im looking always at alts, and Im
aleays gathering info on where I tx we shd go. Submitted July 21 proposal where go
next. Tx nu elements, partic my notion taking lk at RHND, gd place to start. Working
wt navy, va, state tidelands trust, always gg do that. I want a specific plan on how we
move fwd given that we’ve closed the ena. Trying to summarize pts that are
germane to where we are yoay Hope get direx from colleagues to move fwd on these
pts.
BJ Some of these things we’re already doing. But her prefernce wd be to have staff
come back w options. Tx council is gg to have to talk about process – I tx we need to
take a broader look at this bf we can take specific direx.

MG Agree w a lot fot he pts that were made here tonight. I tx we need to take a deep
breath. Need to have staff lk at broad set of opts, back to council not for ax but
discush, where pub can come fwd and give their ideas. Ive heard sev diff ideas form
members of the public, don’t include jobs or housing. One things heard loud and
clear in the last yr or so as gg thru process, is that cert members of the pub felt hey
weren’t listened to. Tx we shd be very delib in what we do, pub input, listen to folks,
have staff bring back range of opts. And I wd encourage anybody out there, if they
have sugg partic option that they contact one of us or they contact staff.

LT Concur w MG, mayor’ comments about this. It fels a lot like were reinventing the
wheel right after not sure wheel working. Went thru quiet a few of the pub hrgs,
charettes, workshops, tc, pb, edc. All the elements FM has on his referral, 9500 jobs,
analyzing commersh, light ind – all of that has been discussed, evald in course
getting to masplan. I tx while its impt to redev AP as a prio, goal in budget get lo cost,
no cost conveyance, I don’t tx it’s as impt as having a project that’s spt by the comm.,
and is fin and enviro sustainable.
Fina big deal – as much as I tx the world revolves around me and ala, the fed govt
doesn’t work that way. Impt have funding get project going. Like wanting amenties
in car cant afford. Til ID funding source, premature to start providing direx on
something that we seem to have had a lot of direx last 3 yrs on.

DD Im jst appalled that someone says we’re doing secret plans in the back room. I
don’t tx that’s the case. Tx what Councilmember Mat put on the tale is a very logical
thing. LDCs have been used in quite a few sitch. Mean what need to do? No. ut tx F’s
moving fwd and saying lk at this aspect. Nothing more than that. I don’t tx he’s
saying that’s a cure all. Starting pt. No one shd be shivering in their boots tgs
conjured up diff direx. Tx that’s absurd. what we need to do is move fwd. Agree we
all have different thots on that. Set up baseline, gd talking pt, all elements in there.
TX staff has to put tog lot more thining. Moving fwd fine w me, have to put quite a
few caveats, lot leeway proper context. Understand LT pos, but tx have to look at all
kinds f other options.
Not starting over. Arguing what gg on – closer than people realize, not case. Tx time
give back to staff and set the course what direx they shd go. At least there are some
guidelies.

BJ Don’t want to limit opts staff brings back,

FM Not pt. Want focus on job creation – always houses. Magic bullet.

BJ Tx staff shd come back to us full range opts. Tx ideas fine to consider. But if we
start giving specific direx, don’t know consequence. Opts need to be brot back
compre manner form staff.
MG Range of options, reasonable amt time, include public.
heard opts include public land trust. No idea if feasible or not. Diametrically
opposed what heard tonight.s

DD Land developable.

LT Wants to find funding source, sted project 1st. That’s gg to be our biggest
challenge. I lkd at our finances tonight, and I didn’t see $108.5 million in a slush fund
somewhere.

DD If have oppo develop certain parcels, can have funding source. Capable of doing
that. But have to undestad overall project. Common pieces.

LT Understand. But had masdev APCP who lost financing. Then developer lkg at pot
max buildout over 4k units. And staff was coming back wth neg rates of returns. In
between that spectrum, you think there’s some magic, funable project?

DD Yes, I do. But I don’t tx we’re gg to flesg that out this eve.

BJ Why want staff to come back. When you can, come back. Have to go thru the opts.
I tx it woud be a mistake to start giving specific direx on little component parts of
this. We’ve got to offer overall vision, can only do when know what opts are. Sure
some of tehse are great ides.

FM Glad if something back sept-oct as long as these pts are considered.If there’s
something better that comes up, let’s hear it.

MG Motion –

AMg The motion is the kitchen sink, right?

DD Missing one thing – transpo, traffic

AMG OK, we got it.

5B legal opinions

MG Learned of existence legal opinionr e sc, told cd read in CA ofc, but cdnt take it
home in advance of mtg. Second part, after mtg had to leave it there, no prob w that.
When Q why cdnt take home, charter 8.2 sez CA shall prep opinon when req council
member in writing and give to council member, CA told me council direx about
coming into her ofc, reading, not taking home. My response to her was, I did not
recall council direx. It was practice. Handed legal opinions in closed session to read,
collected before. Those sitch, was not aware in advance if opinion avail. Oft called to
ask. Sometimes told wasn’t, g into closed sesh, handed opinion. mentioned CA sev x
didn’t like get, esp last minute, esp if long, difficult to digest. Didn’t set council policy,
even if did, vio city charter.

TH Well, there was a legal opinion in writing, as requested. Sugegsted hand out at
closed sesh. have to have discret how do job best for city. Made clear provided
closed sesh, if wanted to hand out in advance, cd read in my ofc. Not a violation of
the CAs duties under the charter.

MG I bl it is. 1st of all, this partic opinion talking about lengthy, excess of 10pgms.
Staff repott partic lengthy. Did come to CA ofc an read opinion bf, hr bf mtg sked to
st. Hard to digest. Her procedure assumes only want to read 1x, not refer to staff
mats. I tx it makes it more diff for me to do my job, and for me to do y due diligence
as a council member. Read 5am, 11pm, refer from one to the other, that’s fine.
Adresselephant in room, discush w her, vague comments concerns leaks coming out
of coming out of closed sesh. I have nto been accused of a leak. I have not been
acused of doing anything untoward. Don’t know why cdnt get op read home, ofc. No
prob giving back after closed sesh, decision reached. I have no interest in keeping
confidential materials. But she’s just making it a lot more difficult for me to do my
job. And I tx the charter is clear.

BJ Hard to iscuss at quarter to do. Doesn’t sound like vio charter. Lkg for greater
direx council how handle docs like that.

LT Move to bring it back.

MG Second.

DD Lkg at the past prac, this is how the past prac went. To closed sesh, handed out,
10 or 20 pages.

MG And we’ve acquiesced. But didn’t know ahead of time opinion handed out. Fluke
found out.

DD All handed back. We nevr got a hard copy. Hard to read sometimes.

BJ Folod what has always been practice ala. MG sed talk about it. Consider CA has
interests of city to protect.

4-1, DD opposed.

PUB – Maddie Deaton.

MG Why if doc given to DA ay 26, not given to cc til 6 weeks later?

TH DA asked it be kept confidential pending their investigation. Only at insistence

CA, CM coming to council re suncal that precipitated need to make it public.
MG Why didn’t you tell the council?

TH I jus answered the w. DA asked be confidential, and that the council not be
informed.