Speaker 0: All right. So then, um. With that. Miss Potter. You. The floor is yours. Okay. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. I am going to behalf of Lois Butler and her economic development team. I'm going to present this item which came to us by way of a request from council. Two weeks ago, the city council approved a $600,000 small business grant program for those businesses who have been impacted by the COVID pandemic. Council authorized us to launch that program and asked that we come back with an update to report out on progress for the program to date. And then it's an opportunity for staff to take any direction from council. Council did approve this item on April 21st and then on the following Monday we launched the program and to date and the program will be open for ten days. So it closes this upcoming Thursday. Today we have received 198 applications, held a webinar last Wednesday. I think there were approximately 78 participants on the webinar that was held last Wednesday, and we have a second.
Speaker 2: Webinar scheduled.
Speaker 0: Tomorrow and staff has been compiling questions that have been submitted to staff and has posted answers. And I think Lois mentioned that it was maybe 11 pages of Q&A that she was working on today. And then I have a few statistics that I'm going to share with you in terms of who's been applying and where those businesses are located in the city. So the largest category of businesses, business types who have submitted applications are service service related businesses, and we have 58 applications from service businesses. And the data I'm giving you now is reflecting 186 applications instead of 196, because that's when the analysis was done. And then the second largest category are for restaurants with fewer than 25 employees. And we've had 49 applications from restaurants with fewer than 25 employees. We've had 17 applications from retailers. We've had health care. The health care industry has 22 businesses from the health care industry have submitted applications. We have another category with 18. And then I know there's been particular interest in childcare and we've had six applications from childcare companies. So those are the where we've have the largest. And you can see that, you know, over 100 have been from the services and restaurants have fewer than 25 employees. And then another interesting statistic I think is where are the businesses located who have been applying for the program? And by far the largest is from the Park Street Business Improvement area where we've had 74 of the businesses who have applied are located on the Park Street Business Improvement area. And then after that, we've had from the West Alameda Business Improvement Area, we've had 20 applications.
Speaker 2: Oh, wow.
Speaker 0: And then the let's see for the. East of Grand 12, located in or near one of the stations 17, and then west of Grand 19. So those and then we've had ten applications from Alameda point and ten from Alameda landing. So those are kind of a couple of categories of highlights in terms of types of businesses and business locations. So that that is our our check in status report for the Council. And with that, I'm happy to answer any other questions if I'm able to take any direction from council.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Potter. And I believe today on the the business round roundtable, our town hall rather that Miss Potter and not Miss Butler and Miss Durkee and Mr. Fronstin presented think they told us that the let's see is it May the 21st when the announcements will be made. That is correct. And then can you. And by the way, is the is this number we're seeing on the screen? Would that be Miss Butler? No, it's Butler. Thank you. Hello. Hi. Hi. What can you tell us about. This is my brother, who's the head of economic development in the city. So I would like to say a couple of things. We did have our second webinar today and and the first one we had over 100 attendee. And this one we, we, we didn't quite have that many, but we will be accepting applications through the end of the day on the seventh and then on the 21st, we will be announcing who won the the grant. And do you want to explain this further how? Because assuming these are all qualified applications that you receive and there are more applications and funds available than 70 $500 grants available, so how will the decision be made? So what we will be doing is checking the business licenses and the I a business improvement assessment to make sure that people have paid last year amount and if they haven't been they will be entered into the lottery and and then we will go down the line. And once once the lotteries are lined up, we will review the application to to make sure that they have reached that that 20% threshold. And if they reach that 20% threshold of of a loss of income of that amount, then they would qualify for the grant. Thank you. Um, so, counselor, any questions? Questions. Comments. Be sure you put your hand up. I will just make one comment. I noticed in the staff report on page two in the discussion. It's the paragraph that starts in addition to approving the grant program, Council also directed staff to create a special public private partnership, soliciting donations from local residents, private entities and foundations to supplement this small business relief grant program. And that staff will present its recommendations to the Council at our next council meeting on May 19th. I just want to clarify that indeed, supporting assisting small businesses is one of the things I believe the council is asking staff to look into creating this fund to cover, but it's not exclusively to assist small businesses. We also talked about renters and about other correct organizations. Right. Okay. Thanks, Ben. But in this in this this particular staff report pertained to assisting small businesses. All right. Thank you. And I know I saw some hands up. Councilmember Vela, did I say, okay, I give Councilmember o.T.
Speaker 2: And I don't have to go first?
Speaker 0: Well, Councilmember is still muted, so why don't you go ahead. Okay, look at that.
Speaker 2: Any questions? Thanks, Debbie and Lois for this. So I looked at the BIA. There were like 470 members of his bar down to our dollar. Do we know the number in Waba just so we can kind of compare the ratio or. But we don't know that that's fine. 20 to 20 apply. Right. But out of how many.
Speaker 0: So out of how many members.
Speaker 2: Yeah. 74 out of four. 70.
Speaker 0: And then are you also asking how many would be qualifying members like that meet the criteria, not just members. Cause.
Speaker 2: Um, I mean, I don't know if we know that yet. I was just trying to see if the ratio was the same. So.
Speaker 0: No, the ratio is not the same. And I know that Eric will be on later and he may have that information. Let me I found I just found a list. I just need to go to the bottom of the list to let you know.
Speaker 2: I mean, if it's not really available, it's.
Speaker 0: 212 is what I have on the.
Speaker 2: List. Okay. Yeah. So the ratio is a lot a lot lower on the west side. Okay.
Speaker 0: And again, if I could just interject, I know that the Webster BIA includes, for instance, Target, and I think the Safeway and some of the Alameda Landing businesses that probably wouldn't apply. But I just don't know with enough detail to make it. But we did have there are ten applications from Alameda landing. There are a lot of small business, small restaurants at Alameda Landing. I guess that it's probably the restaurant tour. So you could add another ten and be part of the labor. Oh, that's true, because Alameda Landing is part of Bravo. Yeah. Good point. Sorry. Go on, Mr. Trudy.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's a little bit. That helps out a little bit. I know there was some concern about that. And then I guess I would ask our our city manager if we wanted to provide additional funding to this. I mean, what type of options do we have? Do we have direct contribution to a possible loan that we could pay back if we raised money? I mean, what options do we have? Because just assuming and I know this is not going to happen, but everyone that applied was eligible, that's 1.485. And I'm sure we'll get more people with a couple of more days of webinars.
Speaker 0: Mr. Levitt, do you want to answer that?
Speaker 2: So so I.
Speaker 3: To make a test so I can.
Speaker 2: Understand a little bit better when you're saying so.
Speaker 3: What? Can you repeat the question again, just so I can.
Speaker 2: Understand a little bit better a problem, I mean. We all thought this was going to be oversubscribed and it was like way oversubscribed to the tune of 1.485. If everyone who applied is awarded, that won't happen but also be more. What possible ideas would you have to increase the funding to this? Because I think we allocated 600,000 plus another 200 from from Alameda Point. Right. Well, I think one no ahead.
Speaker 0: Miss Butler, did you want to respond? Yes, we allocated and there was a listing for the number. It's 502, but 500, $2,500. And then from Alameda point, it's $97,500.
Speaker 2: Okay. Mm. So. So in answer to the question, I'd say the three approaches for that you could look at would be one is one that you're already looking at on May 19th, and that is how can you get some support through a foundation or some type of of contributions that could then leverage these funds? Actually, the second way is that we could re look at some of our current expenditures that were that are budgeted. And we can reduce those. We can look at areas. I'd have to look at it and then reduce those and reallocate the money for something like this. I don't know what those are right.
Speaker 3: Off the top, but that would be a second. And then a third.
Speaker 2: Would be potentially it would be the reserves you could spend out of the reserves. And those are the three major ways I could see doing a grant program.
Speaker 3: A loan programs, a good one if you do a revolving loan.
Speaker 2: The issue is there is a time set up issue with it. And then you would have to expect that some of these businesses may go go under. And then the final option is that there might be some ways also to expand the current 600,000 or 500,000 that it's already allocated from the city council. And that would be to see put something on in a way that if businesses wanted to take less than the 7500, you might be able to expand it to more businesses. My loan idea was more like we would loan this program money and then just say hypothetically to the idea of matching or profit took off and then we were able to repay that if that took up. I mean, that was kind of the idea around the loan not actually loaning to businesses. I mean, I'd be interested in seeing if we could. Oh, I see. You're you're saying loan it to the not for profit with a possible payback? We could look at that. I understand what you're saying. Better or loan it to this particular fund. And then when the nonprofit if there's a nonprofit that moves forward and we raise money, then that can be paid back. That way, the general fund wouldn't be out the entire amount. It just it just the thought. And we kind of like we kind of look at that strategy now. I understand. Better. Okay. That's okay. And then, I mean, since restaurants. What did you say? 49 of them. I just want to make sure that we're and this is probably just going to be touch terms generally. I mean, all of our residents could apply for these great plates delivered that that state project. So there's going to be people being fed with that. It'd be great if we could find a way that our our city restaurants can benefit because that's no. Well, maybe staff time but there's no. General fund money for grants around that. So. I just like to find a way that we can put more money in this. I know. Times are tough, but I mean, this is critical in my mind.
Speaker 0: Right. I did. Okay. And I actually wanted to ask a question of Miss Butler and Miss Potter. Are we looking at applicants to see what other form of assistance they have applied for? So, you know, are they just relying on the city, the potential of a city grant? Have they gone out for a, you know, SBA Eidl loan? I think it is economic injury, disaster loan or the payment protection program or for sole proprietors or well, sole proprietors. That's a little bit of a sensitive topic because they actually don't qualify under this. And then also, when I was walking with my husband up to Park Street and downtown for dinner to get to get dinner on Friday night. And we were walking down Park Street and we were just looking. It's like some restaurants have stayed open to do takeout and delivery, but others have not. And so would you take that into consideration? I mean, that I would call it maybe a form of self-help, but I hasten to say that I don't really understand how that decision is made. I mean, is it is it because if you just lay your employees off, they can collect unemployment insurance? But I think I don't know. It just seems like some consideration should be given to these businesses that are trying to keep employees on staff and and, you know, trying to, you know, help serve the community even during these these difficult times. But I would just be interested to know how you might factor those those items into the grant program. So this is last butler and we we are asking the applicants to file to apply for loans and grants and other things and to show that information as part of their application. But we are not factoring in whether or not they are open. Restaurants are open now or or or not because there are a lot of considerations for restaurants to open or not open that we didn't get into with the application. We are asking them, however, if they will. We're asking them to certify under penalty of perjury if they're planning to open after this is over. And we are asking them if they if they are not going to be open for six months afterwards. And they project that they will have to close within.
Speaker 2: Six.
Speaker 0: Months as well. And that is a factor. And how would you enforce an agreement under penalty of perjury like that? You could sit and you could put you could put a label on their assets if we wanted to. Um, I, I don't know if you've had an opportunity to run that by the city attorney's office, but no, I haven't. Okay, well, why don't we not let's not go further down that road right now. Okay. Thank you, Miss Butler. And so, um, the, um. Let's see, Mr. Attorney, did you finish your remarks? You did. Okay. And whose hand did I see it? I see someone else's hand up for comments.
Speaker 1: And we do have speakers. Uh, Mayor.
Speaker 0: Oh, and we have speakers. Okay. Um, so I guess I would say any clarifying questions about the report? Then let's hear from our speakers and then we'll come back, Councilmember Vella, and just unmute yourself there. Yeah. I think you do stuff. I, I wanted to I did have a couple of questions. One was, I guess, and part of it was answered previously, but how are we going to or can we way somebody who is already considering closure or bankruptcy or something like that? Are there other factors we could look at in terms of making sure that the money goes towards actually keeping the business afloat? So are we are we asking questions like, how long have you been open or are we looking into things like that? Or how many are we asking questions about how many other businesses they may own in Alameda or if they're they own a number of different franchises or locations? Are those questions that we're looking at. Okay. Okay. This is Lois Fowler. We're not asking the questions of do they own other, other businesses? But we are asking them in a way, if they'd been open more than a year or not, because we can see that with what they submit. The problem is based on their financial, well, six months. So if they're a new business then under our program because we're asking for financials before and after, they might not be eligible. They will be eligible, but we will know that information, is what I'm saying. Okay. But how will we be able to calculate the 20% loss? We're using February. That was part of the program. So it would just be prior the month prior. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other clarifying questions before we hear from the public? Okay. Um, uh, madam close. Let's go to our public comments, please.
Speaker 1: We have one public comment that was submitted by email and one that was submitted via text. And the first one is from Ron Mooney. And he says, I am appreciative of the quick work that staff did to create the business grant program quickly. There are some issues which have been raised on the policy and implementation of the program, especially in light of the desire to fundraise for additional funding and grants while not allowing publicly traded companies is a good step at limiting allowing large businesses. Looking at the makeup of small businesses needs to be through a different lens than the current program. Allowing sole proprietors to apply should be a given. Looking at more than March 2019 versus 2020, revenues needs to be required. A ranking system should be developed so businesses with a severe hit and an end and unlikely to be able to reopen without the funds rank higher than businesses with some loss and enough assets to survive a few more months. Plenty of discussion should be had to gain input and develop a program which could be as simple as possible. But safeguards to ensure the neediest are serve. Complicated and a hard task. Ready to help brainstorm as I know others are as well. And then the text. If there are limited funds for the grant program before allocating those funds, please consider raising the last level from 20% to something higher. So we hit more of the businesses that are most at risk. Most businesses can survive a 20% hit. It is those with the 50 or higher percent that are truly at risk. And that's the final public comment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So will there be some sort of ranking system? Um. Staff. Currently we have a lottery that we plan to use. The lottery system that I described earlier.
Speaker 2: Just this is Lois Butler.
Speaker 0: I know. I recognize your voice so well. I was interested in the in the suggestion. Through the text that you look at. Um, you know, which businesses would be impacted most? Maybe that had the deeper losses. But, um. Anyway, tell us, Ms.. Potter. So we Lois is right when she talks about the fact that we're doing the lottery. But to become eligible for the lottery, you have to have met the minimum criteria that were adopted by the council, and that does include a minimum loss of income, the 20% that you have applied. And I just want to clarify that either if you have employees. So if you have one or more employees and you are a sole proprietor, you are eligible for this funding. So minimum eligibility criteria were established. And I suppose that the Council and then the idea of what we were balancing, as Mr. Mooney pointed out, how to , how to make sure we are reaching those most in need. At the same time, acting with expediency was something that we heard clearly from the council that we wanted to be able to move quickly so that this is our attempt to balance to set minimum eligibility criteria and then do the lottery. And yes, the council did want to give direction to to be more nuanced about the eligibility criteria. You know, more than a 20% loss would get preference. The council could give us direction. But note that the criteria was already approved two weeks ago, and that's the way we've been marketing and running the program so far. And I want to hear from my colleagues about this. And I, I do understand and I I'm mindful of the fact that the criteria was put forth. The Council did so. And as with many things, we know more as time goes by. The reason I think we should give some consideration to maybe adding some nuances is that it might mean the difference between some businesses surviving this shelter in place and closure or reduced business and not. And um, the reason that we, as I understood it, that we required people to have at least one employee is that we were trying to help more people. Um, it's, it's tough. I mean, there's, there's no easy way to say yes to some and no to others. But I, I am concerned about the survival of businesses, and I wonder if there's more we can do. That's one woman's thought. Let's hear from others. Raise your hand, Vice Mayor. Let's hear from you. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So I would be really uncomfortable changing the criteria now after we voted on it two weeks ago. This closes tomorrow. You had a lot of people put time and effort into this based on what they assumed that was was the way in which we were moving forward. I there's no there's never as you as you acknowledged, Mayor Ashcroft, never a perfect way to move forward. And we're moving forward fast. And I'm sure we could build a better mousetrap with more time, but I'm worried that we would actually we're not going to be able to decide. I'm not confident that giving somebody who's lost 50% of their of their business, 70 $500 is going to be the thing that saves their business any more than I'm going to. That that 70 $500 for somebody who lost 20% is going to be the the make or break. And so I would be very nervous about going backwards on that from my standpoint. I really did like two things that Councilmember O.D. kind of I'm going to say mentioned in his questions, ask questions about they sounded like things. You know, I think that where we can find working with the state program on restaurants a way to move forward with that where we can get money that we provide to restaurants that also brings a community benefit I think is a positive thing. I would like to see if there. I appreciated the city manager's listing. My understanding of why we asked this to come back was that if we were oversubscribed, we could then look at are there other money sources that we could add to this so that we could increase the pot? I think that by any definition we are way oversubscribed on this, and I would be at least be interested. I heard the city manager list off three different ideas on how we might increase funding, where the funding might come back in in a couple of weeks. If there was an item that came back that brought another two or $300,000 for us to consider, and we knew what that tradeoff was, I would be very open to having that conversation. Also, the staff report does talk about us leveraging small business and public private partnerships. I know that we talked about the item that is going to be on the referral at the end of the meeting. But we also talked about the idea of going out and acting very quickly to work with our business community, who was looking to set up a go fund me or something like that. And having spoken to some of those businesses, leaders of Waba, etc., I believe. They are ready to ask our community to donate now. And my biggest concern is that if we are waiting to set up a community fund that won't even start getting money put into it until June or July. I think that's very necessary and we should do it and I'm very excited about that, the concept and I won't go too far there, but I also think we need to be acting now. And I think that if we could set up, we have restaurants in town that have gotten ten and $20,000, go fund me injections over the course of a week. And I think if our community were to come together for a Save Alameda Businesses campaign, the idea that we could help through private sources raised to 10 to 20% more than what we have already done and use the list of businesses that are already applied for this year that we've got 80 businesses the city could provide businesses 81 through 90 and fund nine more nine more businesses on the same day. If money is available from a go fund me and they can provide those to Wahba and or or the organizers of the go fund me to distribute that money. And it would be very quick and we'd be able to help people before we're asking them to reopen to give them that seed money that might actually help them to be supportive. And so I would hope that I feel that was a part of our ask two weeks ago, but I would hope that we could if if we needed additional direction tonight to have additional direction to jump on that tomorrow with the folks who are ready to go. There was a concern that was raised about the lack of multiple language outreach for this grant. And I'm just wondering if we're going to be bringing back additional money. I'm wondering if we could also come back with maybe some way to do some just to open up a grant program for for folks in the city's kind of three highest language categories to talk about this again with rent, rent assistance and whatnot and the need to meet people where they're at. I feel in our speed at somewhere that we may have just accidentally not not addressed. But I think that it's something that if we're looking to kind of grow this support and whatever else, that outreach would be very useful. And we might be able to find some businesses that that could use the help as well. And I'd like to I'd like to ask staff too to look at that. Lastly, a very small thing, but I did receive some information that apparently the grant application program doesn't work. If you're submitting via the Microsoft Edge browser, it only works with Chrome and some businesses were having an issue with that and luckily staff were able to tell them. But I'm wondering if we could add that since tomorrow is the deadline and people are going to be very panicked, adding the language on that website that says Please do not use Microsoft Edge would go a long way to lowering anxiety and phone calls to staff, but I want to thank that. Ms.. Butler, Ms.. Potter, the rest of the staff who have worked on this, you know, the lift that has been done and I think the quality of the work that has been done here and the response is really, really tremendous. And thank you. And I just want to find a way to build on that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And Vice Mayor, just for clarification, Mr. Porter and Ms.. Butler, I was under the impression that the deadline was May the seventh and maybe even midnight, May the seventh. Is that correct? Which is actually Thursday.
Speaker 3: And the report says May six.
Speaker 0: Sorry, the executive summary didn't get fixed for the body. Yeah. I was on the town hall today and I heard that a couple.
Speaker 3: Of great.
Speaker 0: Today says and then I'm council vice mayor just explain to me I missed a little bit of how how are you proposing that the city work with a go fund me campaign. Are you saying the city should put money into lobbyists go fund me campaign. What?
Speaker 3: What is it saying that I think that not of us go fund me. I believe there's an Alameda business go fund me campaign that is interested in starting and if the city were to promote it and then has a list of 190 possible businesses and we know only 80 of them are going to get it, we would just go down the list in the next ten or 12 or 15 or whatever our community can fund would then be eligible for the money from the go fund me and they would just get it straight from from the business district as well. So again, it would be very little staff time other than our fantastic public information officer, but the actual work and fundraising would be done from the private sector.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Councilmember Vela has her hand at Councilmember Vela. Hi. So I had I have similar concerns about changing the criteria at this far in. But I think that if we are going to have a second tier or a second round, I'm comfortable changing the criteria there. And I think perhaps prioritizing businesses that have taken a harder hit at that point, I think would be appropriate and perhaps and we do a lottery for that round. It's businesses that have experienced a more significant loss that get that that are just the pool of candidates that we're that we're drawing the lottery from at that point would be would be my preference. I also think that a lot of this is cash flow issues right now for for businesses. And I think that's where the exigency comes from. But I like the idea of looking at if there's a possibility of the city perhaps fronting some money or loaning some money to the program that we potentially could get back. I think that it's in my at least in my view, I think that the city needs to pursue this public private fund with potentially with looking at different grants and nonprofits and donors. But I also know that if, you know, I don't have a problem with a parallel track that would include on the Go Fund Me campaign that the business community has talked about. I think that that would be appropriate. And certainly if there's some way I would want to hear from the city attorney's office and obviously have staff consult with the city attorney's office about the legality of that, if, you know, in terms of who collects the money and how it would be administered if we're the ones promoting it. But I'd be fine promoting it on social media, promoting it on our websites and obviously with the individual councilmembers, I think. But I, I just want to caution against and I, I think part of the reason that I like the idea of a citywide go fund me is that there have been a lot of these individuals go fund me campaigns and I'm it just I just I appreciate that people have been been innovative in terms of how they've they've made it through. But I also want to make sure that we're spreading these contributions around and getting to businesses that might not have the same social media following or presence that some of these other ones did, but are still important to our community and.
Speaker 2: Important.
Speaker 0: Employers. Um, the the I know it was controversial about the. The sole proprietors. But there were also some businesses that had like 26 employees or 30 employees at two different sites who were also not included or who aren't necessarily eligible. And I would also just ask that if we're going to look at some of the nuances for the next round, that we also consider looking at businesses that maybe have a couple locations. But but, you know, 30 employees in Alameda as opposed to 25 but at two different sites because there are some for instance, again, and I think kind of harp this harp on this point that there are some daycare providers and preschool operators that have multiple locations and therefore have a staff that's a little bit bigger. Sorry, it's bedtime with. I popped out to do bathtime and now he's getting ready for bed, but I know he looks like he's winding up to me . Well, there's lots of like with that. This is. It's a pretty bad burst of energy. Sorry. There are some some businesses that, like I said, have a couple locations here in Alameda. We want them to continue to be operational. I would also ask that we perhaps look at some of the businesses that might be necessary in terms of the governors pier, that reopening to make sure that we're keeping those businesses operational. And I really do have concerns. I know that daycare and preschool are very important to that. And if these businesses are struggling, I would like to see us make sure that they're somehow included. And in terms of eligibility and one of the concerns that I heard that they might have 30 employees because they have two locations citywide, so they're therefore not eligible. That's all. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Let's see. We've heard from maybe heard from Councilmember de SAC. Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 2: Oh, great. Well, thank you. Um, you know, make no mistake, the, uh, $600,000 or so that we're investing that the City Council is investing in this, um, COVID 19 Small Business Emergency Relief Fund represents a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars. And at the end of the day, after some entities have been funded through this program, some entities might not survive so that there is a, there is risk involved in this. Um, but it's my opinion though, that it's a risk that is worth taking. Um, we all know the, um, the health related issues that all of us are possibly confronted with. But, um, when it comes to the, our local economy, whether it's Park Street or Webster Street, um, this is a, this is no ordinary times. I think that was a that was the title of a book by, uh, renowned historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. No Ordinary Times. And I think it's in times like this that we need to step up and do those unusual things. I mean, this is literally fourth down and we're way deep and and the football field and we've got, you know, 70 yards to go. Um, and I do think that as a city council, as a fiduciary of taxpayer money, um, we, as a council, I do believe are making a reasonable and prudent decision in moving forward in this, and that's why I supported it last time and I will continue to support it. Um, but let's make our eyes, our decisions with eyes wide open and that there will be some failures. There will be some businesses who we fund, who will, who will not survive. But, um, but I think it's a risk worth taking and we're not all swinging wildly. I think we're moving ahead in a prudent, rational and sober manner. And I appreciate the work that staff has done in getting us here. Um, as for other ideas accessing, create, accessing, joining or creating different programs such as a Go Fund Me that has been mentioned. The only thing I would say to that is just to make sure that the city attorney's office makes sure to protect us from any kind of outstanding legal issues that might arise from that. And I have no doubt, obviously, the city attorney's office would do that. But if we're going to join others as a junior partner or, or or as a leader in other programs, um, you know, we just need to protect ourselves. But when it comes to this program, um, I support it and I think, um, we wish we had more than $600,000 now. Um, but given the amount of responses that we've gotten, I think it's a good indication that, you know, Park Street, Web Street and all other business communities are really struggling, and we're trying to do our level best in this time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Brody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm really glad I decided to wait because there were some really good comments and suggestions from my colleagues and, you know, just to kind of give them a little credit. And the mayor, I mean, this is all new to us. And I appreciate, you know, that we've we've been able to step up and support our staff. And I'm glad we're doing it. I'm not happy we have to do this, but I'm glad we're doing this. And I'd like to see us probably give more money if we can. I like the idea of, you know, the go fund me. You know, we if we are able to fund another 20 grants and then maybe the Go fund me funds another ten, that's what, $75,000? I think our community should be able to raise that. I've discussed with my colleagues, if we promote it and somebody gives more than 5000, we have a bit payment issue. So maybe the city attorney can remind us of those rules. We have to report. I just second all the ideas that that came in. I appreciate Mr. Mooney's suggestions. I agree with my colleagues that maybe it's a little too late to change them for this round. But if we are going to pump more money in this, I'd be open to having a different criteria for the next next round. But, you know, I. I think. Maria, I'm sorry Governor Vela said it best or maybe it was the mayor. I mean, this is a cash flow issue. So the sooner that we can get money to the hands of these businesses, the better. And I do think we should do something for sole proprietors if we can, even if they're just one woman, one woman shops.
Speaker 0: So. Thank you, counselor. Brody, did you? Okay, thanks. And I want to ask the city manager, Eric Levitt, to just touch briefly on this great pledge delivery program that we've heard referenced here. Mr. Levitt.
Speaker 2: So if I could. Oh.
Speaker 0: Hi. Okay. Is that Tony? Oh, I don't know. Oh, mind.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. So if I could, I'll try to address a great place briefly and maybe even go fund me my perspective on it. So on the great the great plate, great plates, I think the area that's.
Speaker 3: Been hit on by several councilmembers.
Speaker 2: Tonight is definitely the primary benefit of benefit of it. And that is it's another way of helping the restaurants and the local restaurants. And I think I understand that. I think Debbie understands that. I think we we supported that, that the the the concerns that we're struggling against. And we're going to look at it further.
Speaker 3: But the things we're going to.
Speaker 2: Struggle against is that we have several programs to do. Then there's the other side and there's the people that are benefiting from it because it's all it's about getting food to those that need food is is the is the end user.
Speaker 0: If I could just interject, because I was on the conference call last week, there's this is for seniors and actually middle income seniors, not the low and the very low income because they're already covered by programs like Cal Fresh and some others. But there's a concern that the governor has that these seniors oftentimes who live alone, who don't have a support network, aren't getting out to get their groceries and proper nutrition, are needing meals. And I think also the the desire to help our restaurants. Sorry, Eric, go on.
Speaker 2: Oh, no, I agree. And so we haven't seen as many, many of those individuals that need food in a different way. There's three or four programs through the community, including a couple through the city that already do that. And so I'm not sure how much this will be utilized. And the biggest concern we have, we're going to evaluate, but the biggest concern we have is our staff resources are really getting stretched thin. And we may go in so many directions that we don't get anything accomplished for some of these programs. And that's that's that's the concern we're trying to address right now. But we can look at that and see what we can do because and see what the requirements as far as their they require a plan and certain things when you apply as a city to do that program, I just want to make sure everyone's aware of that. And then on the go fund me, I think that or some other similar way are good.
Speaker 3: My only concern on the go fund.
Speaker 2: Me is that tends to be not have a lot of regulation around go fund me. I just want to make sure that people that donate to the cause have have a fairly good security that is going to go to the cause, especially if the city is promoting whatever way we do it. There's a couple, there's foundations. You can actually do a municipal trust. You can do a variety of areas where they can definitely account for their money. The Go Fund Me. I just want to make sure that we do it in a way that the city puts it in the way it's intended and that the and the people donating what it goes, where the people donating are intending for the money to go.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And, um, let's see. So, um, I've heard a lot of good direction, Counsel. I see the, um. The Vice mayor has his hand out.
Speaker 3: Well, I just want to say I appreciated that update from from the city manager on the Great Plains program. I understanding that staff has a lot say a lot on their plate, but that would be terrible. But like a lot going in there, things have changed. My memory is that the city of Alameda Meals on Wheels program is the largest Meals on Wheels program in the entire country. This, despite our city size and I have received, if not biweekly, at least weekly email saying that with the with the COVID crisis, there is a huge need for people to help them make sure that they can meet the needs of our community. And so it might there might be a partnership there. I just want to throw out, you know, I'm ready to make a motion if your comments were done. Madam Chair, I didn't want to jump in in front of that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think, if I recall correctly, we're just receiving this update and giving direction. And I think we've given direction unless the the city attorney wants us to proceed in some other fashion. I do see Councilman Vela, your hand up. Let's just hear from the city. Attorney is just receiving staff receiving our direction sufficient. That was a yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Unless the council.
Speaker 3: Wants to make.
Speaker 2: Additional direction to staff. You can, but you are not required to.
Speaker 0: Go additional direction beyond what we've all made in our comments this evening.
Speaker 2: Right. Yes. Yes. And if the council wants to take a vote on any of them, you could. You don't have to.
Speaker 3: I guess I would ask the city manager if he feels that the direction he's heard among the many things includes investigating and reporting back at the next meeting on the steps taken for the great plates coming back in two weeks with some sort of additional funding that we can consider. I would suggest $300,000 and supporting the public private partnership with obviously the city attorney's input and Mr. Levitt's agreement that it's a safe thing to do. I don't need to make a motion, but that would have been my motion.
Speaker 0: I guess I would just as soon leave it to the city manager who is keeping a pretty close eye on our finances to come back with the amount. I'm intrigued by all three possibilities he laid out. Councilmember Velez had her hand up. I just I know that Meals on Wheels this is has increased their care delivery, obviously, and the demand has gone up and so has it. So has the senior meal program, I believe, on the senior center. And that councilmember and Odie and I have been to a couple of the days but that, you know, one of the things that they haven't found the replacement for is the the human to human interaction in contact. And so if we do the program, it would be nice if we could have it being run through or coordinate with one of our existing partnerships and programs, whether it's Meals on Wheels or through math there or something like that. Just because I don't want to see a lot of duplication of agencies and staff, and I think it's the expense that the city manager's point about staffing kind of stretch them over. It's I just want to be mindful of that. Thank you. I can actually add a little insight because I was on a conference call last week for mayors and city managers about the great plates program from the state. And the way it works is actually that the city administers it in so far as it signs up. The participating restaurants and the restaurants have criteria that they have to meet from the Department of Agriculture about nutrition standards of the the meals they provide, and then it is the restaurants that provide the delivery. In fact, that's part of what they're paid for. They're paid it's on a sliding scale, depending on what they're providing, could be up to three meals a day. But they provide the delivery people who must be background checks because they are delivering to our most some of our most vulnerable residents. So the city isn't involved in delivery, but it would be involved in making sure that we can reach out to those seniors who qualify. And again, it's income related, but not our lowest income seniors. So, you know, it does take a bit of footwork, but as far as the meal preparation, the delivery that is that is up to the restaurants. That's that's the way this program is set up. I guess my question was and I know for spectrum, which does the meal program, they make the meals that are distributed out of mastic. There are a lot of people that are contacting these organizations asking for help. And Meals on Wheels or Mastic might not necessarily be able to serve those individuals because of their income or because of different things. And so I'm just wondering if there is a way for us to work with that less that's already perhaps at those organizations rather than doing a whole. And I'm going to call on Ms.. Potter. I know from Meals on Wheels there actually is no income limits or requirements. I believe you're asked to pay on a sliding scale. I'm less familiar with some of the other programs, but as far as a resource, that's a possibility for getting names in this part. I think I saw your hand up. Yep. Thank you. I was just going to say that both Meals on Wheels and the program at Mastic, neither of those are income, income restricted or income tested. So if you're a senior citizen or if for Meals on Wheels, if you're homebound, I mean that to be a senior, you can get meals delivered and that to you it's not income tested. I would just like to point out, too, that there is I believe it's a 6.2% administrative fee that the city has to pay as part of the great place program. So one of the things that I think we should look at is would that money be better off if we augmented or grew that the grant program or if we did the grade plates? And my last suggestion would be, rather than coming back to council with an agenda item in two weeks, if we could provide an update on the Great Place program a different way that I think would be helpful for staff. That sounds fine to me. I just want to note, because I was on the call and actually I have to apologize for city staff that I emailed my notes to because man, I take a strange form of shorthand when I'm typing fast and everybody was talking fast on this call. Even the administrative portion of the program that falls to the city, we were told, is reimbursable through HUD. And so if the city decides that it has the wherewithal to go forward, I was going to reach out to our Congresswoman Barbara Lee's office to just connect this with the right folks at head to make sure that. But, you know, like much of emergency response, you put the money out and then are reimbursed. But but again. They made that point on the call and you could be forgiven for not having found it in my notes.
Speaker 3: Vice Mayor I had one last point. So the city manager and I talked about this, and it was something we talked about two weeks ago, and he mentioned it as something he could do. So I wanted to just get the temperature on it because I'm not sure if it's moving forward or not. But as we give the people there notice that they have been successful, I do think it would be really good for us to give people the option to receive less money. Just say, hey, there are I think we could say there are 190 people who applied. 80 people are getting it. If you take a little less, that will help another business in our community. And I well, I don't think a lot of people are going to do that. I do think that there would be enough that we might help two or three or five more businesses. And I'd just like to, you know, make that an offer that they can give back through this process rather than requiring them to take the full thing. And I don't think it would add that much to the, hey, congratulations letter.
Speaker 0: You don't think that's changing the criteria too much, that that's.
Speaker 3: Not can change the criteria at all?
Speaker 0: Okay. Anything more before we wrap up our direction to staff?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. Desai.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to say earlier we were talking about looking at loans, and I certainly want to second that discussion. I would love to have a staff take a look at that. Looking at the existing instruments that we as a city control and seeing how we can possibly loan that out. For example, many years ago I remember talking about CDBG and then loaning out CDBG as an economic development tool called I think it's called the HUD float. This was back in the mid 1990s and doing a quick Google search. It looks like that is still allowable, but insofar as CDBG is often income tied, perhaps if we are going to take a look at borrowing against next year's CDBG in an effort to then loan it out through the some kind of HUD loan program, we might also get in touch with HUD in terms of seeking waivers. Waivers when it comes to the if there are any income restrictions when it comes to loaning out CDBG funds. So that's something that we might want to take a look at. So you're not going to affect current CDBG program participants, but is it possible to to to loan against the future CDBG and then reload that out anyways ? So that's certainly why I think we should take a look at the various loans that we could potentially create.
Speaker 0: Okay, that's another item for consideration. Mr. O.D..
Speaker 2: Thank you. Just one more thing. I mean, since the vice mayor brought it up, I mean, I like the idea of giving people the opportunity to accept less if they wanted to. I mean, who knows how many would do it, but you never know.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Doesn't hurt to ask, right? That's what I mean. I think we have to change as we know more information we have to make. You know, we would we would be wise to take that into consideration. All right. Great discussion, everyone. Thank you so much. I think we are ready to put you in this special meeting and move on to the other one. Thank you, Ms.. Potter and Ms.. Butler, for all your work.
Speaker 3: Thank you both.
Speaker 0: For adhering back more from you. All right. So with that, we are adjourning this special meeting and we are resuming. Our Council meeting.
Speaker 1: And we were on six a.
Speaker 0: Yes. I just am at the mercy of my iPad. It wants to let me see my agenda. That's okay. I've got a paper agenda. Come on. Okay. So, item six, a madam quick would you introduce said eight, impressed with a.
Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 12 Designated Parking to improve procedures for management of public parking on city streets and in city lots and in recommendation to approve a policy for the use of license plate recognition technology for the purpose of parking enforcement.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I was going to say and Mike Magic Andrew Thomas, uh, planning transportation and building directory if I got that in the correct order changes. And good evening, Mr. Thomas. I think he's here. I see his name.
Recommendation to Receive an Update on the $600,000 COVID-19 Small Business Relief Grant Program to Help Mitigate Barriers to Capital for the Most Vulnerable Alameda Small Businesses and Restaurants; and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Additional Funding or Other Program Modifications.  (Community Development)