Speaker 3: policies are. So in looking at the affordable housing section, I would like us to consider adding. A legislative plan for addressing income disparity as a way to help provide some relief for the high cost of housing in Alameda. And we already have a council direction that was unanimous on raising the minimum wage, which aligns with my request. And my request is specific in that we initiate with our lobbyists and with with the League of California Cities with a bag as as a regional. And that is support for a tax deduction for rent paid for people under a certain income level. I think that would be one piece of providing affordability that will help people stay in their in their homes. The second is under public safety. And tonight we're talking about an RFP for the approved by ordinance cannabis uses in the city of Alameda. And one of the things that struck me throughout all of the discussions was that. And there is. Oh. By any anyone's read a misplacement of an obvious on schedule one. Along with substances like LSD. But there's also a glaring lack of scientific study to demonstrate its use. And from a public safety standpoint, I'd like us as a city to have on our legislative plan through League of California cities through a bag. Directly to our representative requests to the NIH to conduct studies to characterize the substance and its potential uses and side effects.
Speaker 0: Mayor. Yes. Member Ashcraft. I now comment on a couple of these things. So as Alameda is representative to the League of California Cities and I also sit on a statewide policy committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development for the League of California Cities. The the what has been proposed and I think the largest the bill has actually been signed. I'm looking at Councilmember Odie because he might help me a bit. The renters credit amount has doubled. I think that was Senator Frazier's bill and I do think it's been doubled.
Speaker 1: I think Senator Glazer, sorry, through the chair, introduced a new bill to do that.
Speaker 0: Glazer Frazier.
Speaker 1: Glazer.
Speaker 0: Okay. So yeah, okay. That, that is definitely pending. And the, the tricky part about an income tax deduction for people making under a certain income level is that with the standardized deduction, you don't often well, there's a there's a point below which you probably wouldn't itemized deductions. But I think your point is something that certainly can be looked into, you know, something to address the income disparity. And I am happy to to the extent that some of these are directed toward the League of California Cities. If the council wants to direct me to raise these, we actually have an executive board meeting on Thursday night this week. But I think. Just to clarify, the ask us to modify this legislative document to add specific language here in addition to.
Speaker 3: The disparity under. And there's.
Speaker 0: Also housing, affordable.
Speaker 3: Housing. And I gave my example and I. I'm hoping. And because we have lobbyists who know this. Who know this, the roadblocks, the pluses and minuses that we get something back. And I've been told it's tricky and it's not going to work, but we guarantee that it's not going to work if we don't demand it. And the same with the studies at NIH for resolving the questions, because we hear all sorts of things in these. Every time we talk about cannabis, we hear all sorts of anecdotes. But you have to ask, is that we we have those incorporated into our legislative plan and we do something about it.
Speaker 0: So but so in regards to the income disparity, I have brought a referral for the minimum wage. The Council supported going back to staff, but it hasn't come back to us to actually review. So that's pending. So I would.
Speaker 3: Think this would go further. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 9: And just for council's information, the minimum wage is coming back. It's scheduled for April 17 for council. So consider the.
Speaker 3: Object is consistent. My request is consistent with it is certainly so.
Speaker 0: But did you have specific language that you want to put under affordable housing for income disparity.
Speaker 3: That we develop? And I would hope it comes back to us quickly that we developed. Including but not limited to getting tax deductions. For rent paid below a certain income level.
Speaker 9: And support legislation to that end as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then. So. So I'd like to look at just that 1/1. The Council. Did you have any specific language you'd like to have added in regards to that one? Or where are you on that? It can be looked into. That's fine. So we looked into and then would staff come back with modifications to this?
Speaker 9: We can put it on consent in a red line.
Speaker 0: Okay. So and then in regards to the can of it, any other comments on member already?
Speaker 1: You have a few comments. I just as a global thing, I agree with everything. My my colleague just just requested asking. I do think, you know on the cannabis that it's on a public safety and homeland security slide I mean is a little disconcerting because I mean, to me, this is a health and at least an economic development issue, not a law enforcement issue. So I see that community peer medicine on there, which I mean to me is also a health issue. So maybe the slide could say health.
Speaker 0: Yes, sir.
Speaker 3: And then we can make a new heading if you want.
Speaker 1: That's fine here. And then I was a little concerned about the, you know, the legal city's priority about sentencing laws, because I think the voters are pretty much spoken on that. So, I mean, I'm not quite sure I would be willing as a city council to dove into that issue area.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, is that one of the things on.
Speaker 1: The last bullet.
Speaker 0: It's on that you're asking that that one be stricken?
Speaker 1: Well, I just wonder what we what we're thinking we can do on their. And then. I think on the environmental slide, you and we talk about our plastic bag and straw bans. But, you know, I think this city has been kind of a leading edge, even with our compostable takeout restaurant takeout containers. So maybe we can encourage others to be supportive of that type of legislation. And lastly, and this is more of a question, I mean, what happens is some of these conflict. So, I mean, reducing the funding for those who face affordable housing barriers, you know, sometimes may conflict with a bill that. Some people interpret as reducing local control. So I just wonder what, you know, what happens when we have that type of conflict.
Speaker 9: If there's a conflict that we feel doesn't fall neatly into this legislative policy, we bring it to council. And we also occasionally will bring something like we have a plan to bring regional Measure three to Council for a full council discussion. And even though it's also included on here, so either for awareness in the community about a policy that we're supporting and to get public input on it and also when there's a conflict or not.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: A Vice mayor.
Speaker 6: So a couple of things. I, I generally agree with Councilmember Matt Ross's comments, SB 1182, which is the Glazier bill that I believe has been referred to. It barely increases the deduction. So I think it raises it to like $120 or something like that.
Speaker 0: So it's it doubles it. But it was so low.
Speaker 6: To be so low to begin with that I don't know that it really chips away the way that we would want it to, but it's a small step. One thing that I would like to add, I also agree with Councilmember Otis comment about perhaps changing that, heading on the public safety portion of it. One thing that is that I would like to see added is something about I know there are a number of bills and legislation that has been proposed around lead testing and lead poisoning testing. We do we are a member of the county lead abatement JPA and I sit on that committee. There's been a number of different proposals for testing, for lead poisoning. And if we could add something about supporting legislation that will fund that, that would be great.
Speaker 9: Under environment, correct? Yeah.
Speaker 0: So in memory of my request, it is that we do run through the presentation since we've pulled this from the consent calendar and the public must be wondering what exactly were specifically talking to us if we could have whoever is presenting from staff went through this quickly. I don't think that's necessary, counsel, but I'd like us to be able to continue to give our input at this point. It is, and we have, I think, other items that you all want us to get to. So I'd like us to consider adding encouraging the state to come up with a solution for the banking involving cannabis . I think we need to look at that statewide also to consider advocating to remove cannabis from as a schedule one and also to protect state right through legalization and decriminalization of cannabis. And then in regards to.
Speaker 3: Your mayor on the removal from the Schedule one, I'd like to have that. Qualified with the appropriate data that goes with justifying it.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then I know you had mentioned research. I think our government should be conducting more research in regards to the health benefits of cannabis. And also in regards to reducing opioid use that we could look at that specifically as looking at reducing opioid use and the health benefits of cannabis. And then and I don't so to me, that does falls under health in regards to the income disparity, the minimum wage effort, increase in the minimum wage. I'm not sure if it's so. It's to me, it's more than the affordable housing. And I don't know if we want to specifically add it to and some other area, I'm not sure. But that's something that we may want to consider. And then finally, I'm as a as a US mayor, I am part of a garden, an effort to remove illegal guns. From the streets, I'll say, and I don't know if we could look at putting some sort of language in regards to advocating to. Reduce illegal guns and language like that, as far as I don't know. There wasn't any discussion in here about gun control, anything like that. But I have already signed something and I'm thinking we could include something like that and we can look at it in regards to what it would be so interested in something on that.
Speaker 9: I have a clarification. So you're asking that we work to reduce illegal guns. Does that go as far as working to with legislation to prohibit assault rifles or something along those lines.
Speaker 0: And to remember that? I mean, I think it's hard not to be thinking about what happened in Florida last week, but that wasn't an illegal gun. The point was that it was legally purchased. And so I think. I think it's a bigger question. And, you know, guns falling into the wrong hands is something that I think needs to be needs to be addressed. So this is both our our national lobbying effort in D.C. as well as at the state level. And, you know, I think California is more progressive than most states. Okay. That's also something. So I was just looking at the language that the mayor signed so I can get back with you on that language and we can modify it if we want. But I'd like to suggest language that the mayors have been asked to sign, that that goes to also focusing efforts to require universal background checks on firearm purchases. But there's a few things in this. I'd be happy to submit the language and then it can come back to council and we can all look at it. Yeah, I think that's appropriate that we said. Thank you. Okay. So any other comments on this item?
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So that'll come back to us. And that was 5G. Now 5G, that was the one that never matters and is recused. So you're good with that.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Mayor. Yes?
Speaker 1: Do we need to vote or.
Speaker 0: Sounded like we don't. Yeah, she had.
Speaker 2: My.
Speaker 1: Recommended d d for David.
Speaker 2: O d coming back.
Speaker 0: Is coming back for the vote. Oh, yeah. Come back.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, then we're on a6a.
Speaker 2: Consideration of whether to put before the voters on the June 5th, 2018 ballot, and 95 million general obligation on measure which would be assessed at $23 per 100,000. A value on all properties in the city of Alameda. Adoption of a resolution determining that the public interest and necessity demand the making of infrastructure improvements in their financing through the issuance of general obligation bonds. And this resolution requires four votes. Adoption of resolution amending the General Fund Operating Budget for fiscal year 20 1718. But the cost of submitting the measure to the voters. This resolution requires three votes. An introduction of ordinance calling a special election and ordering the submission of a proposition incurring bonded debt for the purpose of financing clean water, street infrastructure and disaster emergency preparedness improvements throughout the geographic boundaries. Three to the qualified voters of the City of Alameda. Municipal election to be held on June 5th, 2018.
Speaker 0: The ordinance requires four votes. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: And this requires.
Speaker 0: The ordinance requires for the resolutions. Both of them require.
Speaker 2: Three the budget. The one in the middle of the budget one requires three. And the resolution in determining the public interest, the necessity is four.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 9: And before our public works director starts the presentation, I just wanted to say a few things about why we're bringing this to council. And this council. And actually, previous councils have shown what I think is significant leadership on a number of plans and policies. The first one is the policy this Council adopted for proactively addressing unfunded liability to make a structurally balanced budget. Also, the transportation choices plan that lists a lot of really cutting edge transportation projects. We are also working under the Public Works Directors, leadership and community members, the Climate Action Plan that also has a number of key projects in it. We are also working on an emergency preparedness plan that the council helped fund. Those are all plans. They all have a great vision and they all have great leadership on them. But what we are bringing to council now is a way to make those plans, not just a plan that you put on the shelf, but something we can actually fund. And this started right after the January 3rd Council meeting when we had the water quality issue. And right after that, we started looking at what can we do to improve and invest in our own community. So in a way to implement those plans and also invest in our community. We went out to the as directed by the council. We went out, asked a number of different groups, a ton of different groups. And we'll talk specifically about, you know, over 3000 people that we have spoken to. We've also gotten information from surveys. We've asked our residents what they want to actually invest in. We came up with a list. It's only a drop in the bucket. It's only 95 million instead of 295, almost $300 million in need. But part of what we're doing is we are saying we can't do it all right now and we're not going to start doing our infrastructure grants, getting working with ACT to do our transportation efforts, getting going after grants, doing development impact fees. All those other sources are going to help and make that investment in investing in our community a. What we tried to do is we put a number of projects in this plan that are also included in the Transportation Choices plan, etc.. But every project that has to come to council, it has to have community input. If the community decides that this is something that they want to go forward with in June. And also what we're asking tonight is not whether you support this or not. We're asking you to work together to see what projects would be eligible. And on that list and then put that list in front of the voters and have the voters decide whether they actually want to invest in their own community in these projects that you define tonight. A no vote on this or not for yeses on two of the elements that Laura talked about earlier means that that's the direction council will take and we will look at other efforts to focus on in the future from a staff perspective. So right now, the last year, I'd say we've been focusing on infrastructure improvements. We've been doing the plans. We have a good siptu project that this council adopted in the event that we don't fund these projects. We will then come back to council and ask for what your vision is going forward after this. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Liam.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm sorry. Before you continue, can you clarify, you said that you're and maybe I. We need the attorneys input. We're being asked if we want to vote yes on this, then to come up with a list of projects that would be eligible and then put it to the voters. So we would. So what tonight, what.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 9: Ordinance says in section two is a general list of projects we put in there based on information we got from the community. We're asking tonight for the council to look at Section two, which is also outlined in the staff report. And Liam's going to go through the list as well. And then the council can look at that list and either confirm it or revise it or say no to it. So those are the three options. And the other thing I'd like to do is to ask the council, we have a number of different consultants who are working on this and a presentation that they put together. And so if we could have the staff and the consultants go through the presentation, start to finish. And then open up to questions anywhere along the line. But we tried to cover all the answers to the questions throughout. So if a slide comes up and makes you think of a question to ask, it hopefully will be in a later slide. And so if we go through the whole thing, most of your questions will be answered.
Speaker 0: Okay, and then it's my end. So if I have this I thought this was supposed to be a first reading and then it's going to come back to us at the next council meeting for a second reading in order to meet the deadline for the June ballot. Right. So in regards to the changes tonight, with that still, depending upon what changes are made, would that still be a first reading or is it really a first reading?
Speaker 9: It would be a first reading. Tonight's the night to make those changes.
Speaker 0: Because I thought we had to present to the public and advance the count to have it be a first reading that we could only make minor non substantial. Yeah, right. So if we come back and we say instead of this broad list, we want three things, a four things, whatever it is, we think that that would count as.
Speaker 9: As use suggested. It depends on the exact changes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it may or may not count the first reading. Right. Thank you. And the other question, Mr. Garland.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I am Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. And let's just cover a little bit of history about how we got here over the summer. The city conducted its biennial community survey and there was good news coming out of the survey. Two thirds of respondents approve of the job city government is doing approve approval ratings for the mayor and the city council went up and generally by a two to 2 to 1 margin feel the city is going in the right direction. All good news. At the same time, Aluminums identified some concerns, particularly around our aging infrastructure and making sure that. Making sure that we clean the water before it gets to our bay, repair potholes and relieve traffic congestion. And so we at the staff level started looking outside of our city to look at what other cities had done to address some of these aging infrastructure concerns. And. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Orinda had all made progress with an infrastructure bond. Not only that, but those cities, particularly Oakland and Berkeley, as late as that November 2016, had had successful votes in the range of 80% on their infrastructure bonds and similar amount of infrastructure needs compared to the scale of those cities. So we engage the community through a variety of modes and methods. We wanted to get as much input on top of the two scientific phone surveys that were either were or were being conducted. We wanted to reach directly out to our meetings, get as much input as we could. And there we yielded. 500 completed engagement surveys. If that's me, just tell me.
Speaker 2: So you can get closer to the.
Speaker 10: Post. Okay. Apologies. Uh, and we had more than two dozen presentations at boards, commissions, various community groups to gain their input as well. As you see at the table at the bottom of this of this slide, what for? The audience behind me looks like light blue on the left. That represents that that category was in the top three responses for a respondent. So none of the words prioritized highly to the right on that table. See what's purple or dark blue? I'm a little bit colorblind. Those are on the bottom three. So you can see there's some consensus coming out of these these surveys that traffic, potholes, sidewalks, streets and storm drain, storm drains. What I think of the kind of nuts and bolts of public works, his work is they these are priorities for our meetings.
Speaker 0: Before you go back and if you can read what the top three were because people might not be able to read the little writing at the bottom three were.
Speaker 10: Top three traffic, potholes, sidewalks and streets. Bottom three historic buildings, affordable housing and trees. Here is another slide showing the average ranking of those same priorities. And again, you see the top four are traffic, potholes, sidewalks, streets and storm drains.
Recommendation to Approve the 2018 Legislative Agenda for the City of Alameda. (City Manager 2110)