Recommendation to: 1) Approve a Nine-Month, $713,000 Services Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority Concerning Program Administrator Services for the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Agreement; and 2) Appropriate $493,000 in General Fund Monies to Fully Fund the Agreement. (City Manager 2110)
Okay. So I had pulled this item. I have concerns about the way this is being implemented. And specifically, for instance, I attended one of the workshops for the tenants and it was during the day. And initially a concern of mine had been that there most of the workshops for tenants were in the day and not in the evening. And then I know workshops were added in the evening to which I think is to accommodate the tenants. The workshop I went to, which was a tenant workshop, had four people present, one from person from Echo, another person from the business industry, and then two tenants that were concerned about being evicted. And something that came out during the presentation was that there was no ability to meet with anyone in person that you could expect. You could leave, you could telephone and expect a return call within three days, which the tenants that were there said that that was what had happened to them. It had taken three days to get a return call, but I am concerned that I would like to. I think we should consider having the ability for a person to get in line somewhere and talk with a person or make an appointment to meet with a person. Yes. So are you objecting to spending the money to fund the work that has to be done? Because I think those comments are good comments for the execution of what has to be done. But I think our charges to allocate the money. So, yes, I am objecting if we are not including in-person contact. Yes, I will be objecting. So I think that that's critical for this. I think that tenants have serious concerns. And actually, if you go to the housing authority right now for an issue regarding affordable housing, there is a line that you weigh in and then you can get assistance. But that and also, if you go downstairs to the Planning Department, both departments which use this program, for instance, the Planning Department will be connected with the CHP there. There's a way to get in line and see a person. So I am concerned that we're not offering that at this point. Yes, sir. If I understand you to be making a motion. I just want to make a point first before making the motion, because I do think that's probably a valid critique, because tenants and housing providers, for that matter, should be able to talk to a person. But that won't happen if we don't allocate the money. So I, I would like to get the, the city manager's response, but I would also like to make the motion that we allocate the money as per item five I. And I'll second that. I do have a discussion point to make to after the city manager. And I'd just like to say that we will share those that critique with the housing authority and suggest ways that they can be more customer service oriented. And just to clarify one point from Debbie Porter, the city's community development director. And the housing authority is already set up to do phone phone appointments. So they are doing phone appointments. And they have agreed to reevaluate in 60 to 90 days once they have a sense of the volume of activity, the ability to set up in-person meetings at that time so that it's not that people can't meet, they're being done by the phone. And that's really to assess and understand the volume of activity under the new ordinance. Could you clarify, is a phone appointment mean that you still are talking on the phone, not in person. So you're still not allowed to make an appointment to meet with someone in person? It is set up to take phone appointments that's over the phone. And they have agreed in the next 60 to 90 days to evaluate capacity to do in-person meetings as well. All right, member Ashcraft. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the one comment I had from the staff report was from page three that says that. Starting on page two staff report. While RAC meetings at the Rent Review Advisory Committee meetings were previously held in the council chambers. They were not televised. The decision to relocate the meetings to the IPI community room that's in the. Independent's. Independence Plaza over adjacent to where the housing authorities offices are, was made to facilitate the mediation process and provide an informal setting that was more accessible to the mediating parties, particularly the tenants. There's some suggestion that given the increased awareness, it might be appropriate to relocate the RAC meetings back to the chambers and televise the meetings. I believe I was one of the motivating forces on getting the RAC meetings moved from this chambers to a more a setting that was more conducive to the mediation process because quite frankly, it was pretty awful when it was here and not the least bit user friendly. A mediation process for those who have participated should really have all the parties sitting around a table at eye level with each other, nobody looking down on one and not, you know, making landlord and tenant shuttled back and forth. And so I we also were going to consider some amendments to our Sunshine Ordinance this evening. And I know from reading that staff report that there are times when it's simply not possible or advisable to have a meeting someplace where we can have live streaming television. I don't think that's a necessity in this particular case, as long as we had an audio recording and accessibility to that. So again, I agree with the vice mayor that none of these changes and none of our ability to be more responsive to our especially our tenants in these cases. But landlords two is possible unless we vote for the funding. Thank you. And I personally prefer that the meetings be held here. The audio went there and I think it's important. Actually, I'd like us to consider televising it. The audio, if you playback the audio, it's very hard to tell who's speaking. It's really not a recording. And and I think it's actually critical for the success of REC that the meetings be held here where they are. I think this venue is is important. So I disagree with moving it well. In any way when we're not discussing that. So that was correct. Correct. So I appreciate that. So, all right. Do we have a motion. And we have a seconds that. Can be seconded? Can I ask one clarifying question? You said you were moving, appropriating the funds. Are you also approving the services agreement? Yes, that's correct. Yes. Yes. Thank you. On the second issue. Yes. All right. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Thank you. Motion carries 4 to 1. When when it was all right. And then a5k. And I pulled this one. Okay. I know you want to do the final passage of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with two tenure renewal options and an option to purchase with LME 2.3 developers for Building eight located at 2350 Saratoga Street, Alameda Point. This item requires four. Affirmative. All right. And this one staff has a presentation. I don't know if you wanted to go over it. We also have one speaker. Well, why are we having a staff presentation? There is a presentation on here. I don't know if Seth wanted to present. Any of it. Excuse me. Then that mechanic from the Community Development Department based. We use department staff would like. To wait to see what the questions are before we do the presentation. We may be able to respond to the questions without the presentation.