Consider Directing Staff to Renegotiate the Terms of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) Lease and Relocate/Modernize the Shelter Facility, including Addressing Funding.  (Mayor Spencer)  [Not heard on July 19, 2016 or September 6 or 20, 2016]
I don't think that's a value we all share. But, you know, it's something, you know, we should be presented with with what that means, you know, financially, what does that mean? And so I think that the words of the referral, I think are a little bit too prescriptive, and I would like to see it a little more open ended. And, you know, I also want to hear about, you know, what options we have for replacement shelter. I mean, should we consider, you know, floating a bond? Should we consider going to the voters and asking for a parcel tax, you know, things like that? If if this is a value of our community and we all stand behind it, you know, let's hear what those options are. And maybe sooner rather than later, you know, we go to the voters and say, this is important to us, this is important to you. Are you willing to pay for it? I mean, I think those are important things. And, you know, the M1 the M1 is also a potential $4.3 million hit next year. So, I mean, I don't know if we have the money right now for this year and the K one, if that doesn't pass, that's another, you know, for some million dollars. So we're talking at $10 million, you know. Vice mayor made it pretty clear we don't have $10 million. Even before. Me, even before even before this. So, you know, now we add another 1.3 to that. I mean, there's going to have to be some serious discussions in this community if if we have that big hole in our budget and, you know, we're going to have to prioritize some stuff. So that's kind of where I stand on the referral. I mean, I really want to hear more information. And sooner rather than later, because there is this alleged March, March impending deadline, you know, but to say, renegotiate the contract or to say we need to build a new facility now without that information, you know, I want that information. Remember days ago? Well, thank you very much. I think the key phrase that was other uttered here was that perhaps the mayors. Referral. Referral is the key phrase is prescriptive. In my opinion, by necessity, it is prescriptive. While I would not say that Rome is burning, the matches certainly being struck and so now is not the time to be fiddling. So by necessity, I do think that we need a prescriptive referral as as what you see here. I mean, just to be clear, the way that I would pursue this referral to deal with the issues regarding relocating and modernizing the shelter facility, maybe those are higher hanging fruits that we're not yet ready to grab at. But that does not mean that today, on October 4th or tomorrow and October 5th, we can't begin to strategize in terms of generating the revenues needed to preserve the animal shelter in the way that is operating now. Even if that strategizing results in reload, looking at how we relocate or modernize, looking at that as a as a medium to higher hanging fruit. So the way that I would pursue this is I would say, you know, I would take the mayor's referral, add some language. So I would say consider directing staff to renegotiate the terms of the Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter Lease commensurate with the business models and values now in place, including reporting on relocating slash. Modernizing the shelter facility, including addressing funding. Final comma with due diligence, review of expenses and revenues and the final phrases to to address the points raised by Mrs. Rickles. So. I think by by necessity, we need to get jump into negotiating because you don't want to wait until February if you know that something is going to close in March. If you could begin to act in October. It's just like, you know, when I was like it in my first go around and council, you know, way back in December 2003, I said, look at I'm looking at the spreadsheet here for the 80 Alameda Municipal. The AT&T Telecom's revenue projections. And I said, you know what? I don't have to wait around in until 26 or 27 to know that something is going to go wrong. And so because the data is speaking to you clearly back then in December 2003. I'm just referring to that as an example of why we don't have to wait. We all know that things didn't go well with aluminum power and telecom. Likewise, we don't have to wait around until February or March to know that we need to act now. Can. I'm going to take that as a friendly amendment, and I would accept that as a friendly amendment to them. That would be my motion. Then I'll circle back. But then would you be sickening that with someone? Then I have a motion and a second. And I want to go to City Manager. Acting city manager is warmer than me. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would just respectfully request the caveat on the friendly amendment about to negotiate to the current standard. And with all due respect, I mean, I think the standard is quite high, and I understand that the community likes that standard. The question is whether or not we can afford that standard. And I'm not saying that we wanted to go. Back to the way it was. That's my point, though. That's where you start with what you want. And then and that's the negotiating point. And as part of your reporting back to council, your contingency planning will be that, you know, we can only do the standard relative to what our budget is. And so, you know, hopefully things go well in November eight, but you got to go into it with a certain value, in my opinion. And then I'm sorry, let me let me let me thank you for shade. It is warmer than that. You want to add anything else? So. Yes, I am not suggesting that we are going to go back to the standard that we had in 2011 when we operated the shelter. But I think we need as staff, I mean, we feel a responsibility to look at, okay, what is that actually? What are those standards? What is that costing us? And if you set that bar that high, I'm just saying that that ties our hands so personally. That was the motion I made the motion that was a friendly amendment. I do want to set the bar high. I think it's critical. That is my position. That is my referral. So I accept the friendly amendment. And I think as. Our community has stepped up. We've heard you. We've seen your work. So this is my. So I just want to get back to you, okay? This was my referral. I accepted the friendly amendments. There's a motion and a second, and then any other discussion at this time. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call the question. All those in favor. I. All those opposed. No, no. No. Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, I'd like to make an alternate motion. I'd like to move that. We direct staff to renegotiate the terms of the lease of the friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, including the city's allocation and support of us. I'd like to include in that motion the requirement to have a third party expert provide the evaluation, as suggested by both FOSS and the city. To review the line items and to identify the target to which we are going to hit. And I'd also like the direction to include an analysis of the relocation and modernization of the animal shelter. And options for alternative. Funding sources including but not limited to the items listed here. Development fee and other user fees. Second. And I and and does that also include the idea of expanding the shelter to bring in more revenue? Yes. Okay. I like that. And could you clarify so in regards to the level of care, what was your language. Is to have the independent consultant help us identify the standard to which we are targeting. Because right now. So can you tell me what that means is at a low level. I'm sorry. I get to speak right now. Appreciate it. Thank you. So we're going to bring in someone from outside to tell us what our target is. Or know. To tell us what the standard is, because. The standard varies from shelter to shelter. Well, then it's not a standard. Those are outputs of standard is what would a target rate for a good shelter is. That's a standard. So we have a measure. Can I finish my statement, please? A standard is a standard. That's a target for people to measure their performance against. Our performance is at 90, 95. I heard then I heard 96 and then there was qualifications. I want to know, is there is there how do we fit with everybody else? And then I want to know and I think Steph wants to know which one of these line items goes to keeping that that level of service where we are, because it's different from the standard and how do we stay above the standard? That's what I'm interested. I'm interested in real measurements so that when so that when we get to the point where we're looking at a $3 million deficit, if that holds true, that we know how to make decisions so that we don't damage. The performance that we've put in place. That's what I want to know. This is a long term. And again, I can't help I can't help but go back to last year's transmittal letter where we had the downward curve, where even if everything passes in the in the fall election and fundraising continues and the city is going to pick up, the city has to pick up the burden from everything that people have said. The city has to pick up the burden. But the pie from which that burden is picked is projected to get smaller and smaller and smaller. That's the projections we were given last year. Am I right in that? That's correct. That's correct. So if we're talking sustainable, sustainable doesn't mean next year, doesn't mean the following year, it means going out. So that's why I'm in. I made the motion the way I did. So in regard to second. So in regards to your motion, could you clarify when they come back with the standard of care? If they come back with I'm going to say and I don't know if you mean in regards to comparing to other cities or how they develop, but their standard of care is. But if it's 75% live to kill rate, is that something then that they'll come back and get feedback from us in regards to are we willing to accept that standard or does our community desire a higher standard? I make. And I wanted to. Well, let. Me my my answer to that. As we get that standard, we get the cost of it and we get the costs of the high at the high end. If it's above or if it hits the target, we're good to go when we get that information back, then we can have that discussion. Right now we have again, when I look at the annual report, I don't see the word stand. I see what the live release rates are, but I don't see the word standard any anywhere. And I don't have a reference to that standard. I don't have the information. So. We'll have that discussion when staff comes back with their report. Remember Africa? Thank you, Mary. I would like to offer a friendly amendment. Actually, I don't want to support anything that would create a kill rate. You know, I would modify what I think was his done an admirable job. I am looking for ways that we can make this budget sustainable, but that's not where I want to want to cut it. I don't want to save money by killing more animals. So I, I would ask I like the I'm giving staff a little more flexibility, directing them to renegotiate the terms of the forest lease the third party expert and how we're going to. Make this budget work. And but I don't I don't want to play around with the budgeting. I don't think that's what is right. Can I give give you some wording to change it? I don't think you were asked yes or no. Well, when you when you said you could just make it. So. So. Vice Mayor just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying when you said identify the target we're going to hit. Is that a financial target rather than can we just leave the. I just. There's some things I do want to keep in place in the live release rate I think is is a good one. When I looked at the budget and I don't pretend to be a financial analyst, but, you know, there may be some areas to trim, but not there. But I want staff to go over that. I don't I think the standard has been achieved, which is impressive, this this live release rate. And I, I really feel that the parties on both sides negotiating in good faith can. Keep that where it is and find other ways to make our beds, make this budget work again. Also, you know, knowing and with all due respect to Councilmember SAC, sure we need contingency planning, but the general fund is going to take a huge hit if the UMA doesn't pass in November. And and I just I can't even go into that because I think it's disingenuous to be throwing out this need for more funding while at the same time trying to cut it away. But anyway, did I help you? And probably not with the. I think I. Actually I want to interrupt you real quick. I'm going to ask our attorney. It's my understanding that we're not allowed to advocate for a position, only educate on a matter that's already been put on the ballot. So I don't think it's appropriate. Oh, I was advocating I was just talking about what the outcome would be. People that it's your opinion. It was actually contrary to what Steph's presentation was. Okay. So I'm done with that position. With that line of reasoning, maybe Councilman Brody will clarify this for us. I'd like to stick to the issue at hand. I don't want to speak for the vice mayor, but I think what he's kind of aiming for is, you know, we've and maybe piggybacking on Councilmember De Sykes comments, you know, we have a certain service level here at the animal shelter and we could have a different service level. We could have a the service level we had before. We could have be the standard for this type of model that we have and these numbers. And then what's the delta? I mean, if we want the numbers that we're achieving today, you know, what is that costing us? Is that costing us $50,000? Is that costing us 70 or whatever it turns out to be? And then that way we can make a decision, say that's our value. So we as a city are willing, you know, to pitch in and pay for that extra cost. But we don't we haven't quantified yet. Is that kind of. Could we do it? Because I don't think you were saying let's lower. No, no mind. And maybe my motion was a poor motion because now we have I have to explain how to explain it. And I think that helps. We have if we're going to meet a standard, that's one thing. If we're going to maintain the level of, I think, as you said, maintain the current level of service, I think you put it very well. What is that going to cost? And if it's going to cost $50,000 more, that's a no brainer. If it's going to cost $1,000,000 more and I'm just throwing these numbers as points of reference, then there has to be a hard decision that's made. But I think we're way in front of that. And I think to to give the motion an additional direction, I would add that our starting point is and should be to maintain the level, maintain and improve the level of service we have now. But we have to. Be ready to to face up to the numbers. And that's. So I. Don't see how that's any different than what I just. Said. So I think that was the motion we had. That was the most voted down. That was the whole my whole. Point about. You aim high and, you know, let's all hope that, you know. November. Inflation is the way that we want. Like then if there's contingency planning, then you contingency plan, but you aim high. So I got I didn't understand. I thought. That. But I actually I thought that we were trying to give staff a little more latitude to not have to address the. Relocating or modernizing the shelter facility? Exactly. I didn't say that. I said including reporting. I didn't say that they were. That was that was. It was also part of the vice mayor's. Motion. So let me just let me just. Try to summarize what I think the situation. Is. The situation is that. One, we aim high with the 95% value. The business model that we all like. In the short term. If this is discussion, this isn't the most in the short term. If things don't go the way that we like in November than as part of as part of the negotiations, staff is prepared to just say, what are our follow up steps? So the follow up steps in that short term might be for the 18 months. This is how we're going to deal with it. But beyond 18 months, then we're going to do another thing. We're going to do a sales tax increase or whatever. The point is, you can do a lot of contingency planning. While still maintaining the values that you have. I don't think this is that complicated, in my opinion. I think it's. So I think with your modifications, it's a motion we already had. Yeah. And then what happens? Well, so I want to repeat it because I know. So let's go ahead and see what you're offering. I wrote as. Fast as I could. And I had. Okay. So it's giving staff direction to negotiate the terms of the lease, including the city allocation, requiring that there be a third party expert provided to provide evaluation and review the. Okay I missed that word items and identify a target and in including an analysis of relocation and options for alternate funding sources, including development fees and other user fees. And I think the missing word is standard. Oh. Review the OC that was. And then the written variant. And then is there a friendly amendment to have the level. The standard that we're talking about is the standard that that we want. And like I said, it's if we have to continue the plan down the road and we continuously plan on the road, they know that. Well as part of the discussion. I believe that we have a performance. We don't have a standard. I haven't seen a standard identified. I just know what our performance is. And I maybe I use the word standard a little bit too precisely, but I'm looking for that. That latitude between what is generally accepted is standard versus what our performance is and what does it cost to maintain our performance if it's above the standard or to bring it up? If it's below the standard, because it works both ways. And I think when you clarify it like that, I think that it is. I think we. Added having a third party as a. Step as. A friend. I could have been a friendly amendment. Well, call the question, please. So you have a notion and I'll say. Well, I think in secondary. I think we definitely want to hammer out the motion because we've had motions in the past which weren't followed up. So for now, we definitely want to hammer out the motions. So I do want. To just read the motion that was seconded by Council member Odie. Him as good. So then I thought that there was a friendly amendment to your mind. I didn't hear what. I think I called the question, isn't that a priority? Actually, I think in order to call the question, then we have to now call for a vote, calling the question that correct. So then there would be a motion to call the question. That's I think that's what you would make. The motion to call the question so we can get people out the same evening. All those in favor I Bush and. Kerry's I opposed. I don't think. I don't think it's clear on the 95% threshold. That's a motion to call the question, which, as I understand it, is a separate question. And then the motion on the merits of the motion, the motion on question three. And I'm going to oppose them. And all those opposed oppose. The call the question Yeah. Yeah, I oppose it because I think we should still talk about hammer out the language of the motion. So that the motion. Has the motion to call the question passed. Now I will call the question. All those and all those in favor. I agree with all. Those in favor. Before that was. Called, the question cuts the discussion. So. Okay. Well, I would have preferred not calling the question. I think I actually think it was clear about the 95%. I think that is this. We're not allowed to have a conversation. So we did the all I'm not having conversation, I'm clarifying. So I do think that's what staff. That's not allowed. All those in favor. I suppose I oppose motion carries 3 to 2. All right. The motion. My understanding of the motion was that it could be a lower level of care. You know, so. Can I ask, do we have the emotion again? They just passed. For the. Matter. Yes, I can. I can ask. Her. Yeah. Can I. I'm asking. Yes. Yes. I have repeat. Yes. Actually, we've moved on from that agenda item, but I'm happy to have her then repeat the question. So it was. Directions is to staff to negotiate the terms of the lease, including the city's allocation and requiring having a third party expert provide evaluation and review the standard and identify a target with an analysis of relocation options and alternate funding sources, including development fees and other user fees. There is operative term as review the standard. There is no standard to review. We know what the standard. So that was the difference in the two emotions. One of them had a higher level of care. So moving on, I'm going to check on some of the other misstatement when I go ahead and recess. Thank you. That was the difference between the two emotions. Well, we all have bigger problems to deal. Then they get. Back to our regular meeting if you all wanted to go out into the hallway or whatever, because we're going to have other items. Thank you very much for coming. You know, it's funny because. She made it. Go ahead. Sorry. Go back on it for me. What is the there? We're going to resume our meeting. So if everyone could either take your seat or go out into the hallway, I'd appreciate it. Thank you very much. So now because it's approaching 1030, it's like 10:28 p.m.. At 1030, we need a motion to consider the remaining items. And the remaining items. Are. At six B, which is the art we have. It's my understanding ten speakers on that item. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you. I don't know if they're all still here, though. Okay. At this point, we have ten speaker slips on six B, 66 D. And on the time that I was 60, it says 45 minutes. Is that accurate? 45 minutes on 66. How will the housing element? No, no. But that was staff's estimate. That's the we can change the 45 minute estimate. Madam Mayor, I think the housing element is extremely important, and I don't want to squeeze it into a five minute slot, a quick presentation. One of the issues we've talked about here on this is is how we approach our housing. I think that one deserves more time. All right. So that was 60. That is streamlining improvements to existing residential property, things like that, to modify the code. And that staff's estimate is 15 minutes on that one. Is that accurate? 15 minutes for that one. And we don't have any speakers tips on that one. Could I ask staff, is there a reason? Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there a reason that couldn't come back to us on the consent as a consent calendar item? It's just the I'm not exhibit six D, it's just the clean up of the order. It's an ordinance. Sorry. All right, so then those are the remaining items and of course, the referrals. So at this point and I have another question, is there are there any of these that need to be heard tonight by staff? Staff. All right. So then do we have them? And we have ten speakers on six P. Question. Yes. And maybe it's a question to staff as well. What if we we've had a lot of communication from the public on the of this public art fence ordinance. Could we start it, take speakers and then continue it to another time? Or does that make it just more complicated? In city clerk, you can just go to. And do it. You can do that if you want to continue into a date certain, but you have to. Pick. A date certain. And then how does the 18th look for a date certain? You've got other things you probably won't get to that night. They'd have to come back because here here's my feeling just really quickly, is we've got people who have been in this audience. From seven and seven. We have a very crowded agenda for the eight here. Very crowded. Very crowded. All right. So our issue is that if we go past 11:00 tonight, then we have to have at an additional meeting, one additional meeting. If those meetings isn't more than one hour, what is the Sunshine Act? It says meeting the word mediator. It does work by a number. Oh, all right. All right. So the issue is trying to be done before 11 so we don't have to add meetings. It's also for the public's benefit because they don't you know, people don't follow us after 11:00 at night. We've heard that a lot that, you know, they'd like us to. I do want to make a motion. I'd like to move that. We hear item six D first and then we go to six C and then make the vote at 11:00 whether to continue or proceed. But at that time, we can't add more items, could we, at 11:00? No, no, that's correct. Yes. So then your motion would be just to do 60 and. 66 D first and then six C and continue 60 if needed. So my preference would have been to hear the art because that's why people are here. I'll second the vice mayor's motion. So there's a motion on his second to hear those items. All those in favor. I. I. I oppose. All right, so I'd like to make a motion here. Six, three, four. It doesn't matter. You've seen. No, I just couldn't figure it out. Right. Like you were. You were. I'm voting already called. The question I want to go back to now. You have a time idea, so nothing happens. I'm sorry. I'm trying to recall a question that I'm going to make another motion. That's what happens at this point. The motion did not pass it. I haven't voted yet. I was. That article was in favor. All those opposed. You could take us right to 11:00 doing that. So I'd appreciate it if you vote when I call the question. Well, let's move on on with at this point, I'd like to make a motion that we hear six B, which is the public art fund item. And if it goes over, it goes over. And then we set new meetings, but we have people here to hear it. So I'm fine going. If it goes past 11th Soviet but I move that we adopt that we proceed with 60. Their second is their second. His second did it. All those in favor. I. All right. So we're going to proceed with a poll where we have three in favor. You need for only four. I'm sorry. You're right. So we had three. So I was just off checking with the city clerk about what the first meeting in November looked like. And I think you said that. You have that potentially phase zero Main Street plan and homeless. Encampment. I wanted to finish up the motion, so I had all those in favor. We had three. All those opposed? No. I'll vote for it. Love it with you. All right. So then we do have four. All right, so then we will proceed with six B at this time. Introduction of ordinance, amending the Indivisible Code by many Chapter 13 Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the City's ability to disburse public art funds and amend the Fiscal Year 20 1617 Public Art Fund budget by 200,000 and Capital Improvement Project Fund budget by 100,000.