body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-058) - Proclamation declaring January 30, 2006 through April 4,
2006 as A Season for Nonviolence.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and requested staff to forward
the proclamation to the New Parent Support Group and Alameda
Collaborative for Children, Youth & Families.
(06-059) Presentation by the Port of Oakland on the draft 20-year
Master Plan for the Oakland Airport.
Steve Grossman, Director of Aviation, provided a brief report on
the Master Plan study, and Doug Mansel, Project Manager, provided a
Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Grossman and Mr. Mansel for the
presentation; recognized Dave Needle with the Airport Operations
Committee; expressed thanks to the Port Executive Director and the
Board of Commissioners for working with the community stated she
was impressed with the projected cargo traffic reductions.
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Port of
Oakland for including the community in the process.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Port of Oakland and members of
the community who participated in the work sessions; stated he
appreciates throttling back the noisiest operations; he is
concerned with the accident prone general aviation which ends up
over Bay Farm Island and the east end of the Island; he hopes that
Alameda's and San Leandro's weight exceeds the other nine Bay Area
counties regarding the full 2025 projection; he does not want to
sacrifice Alameda's safety or comfort for others convenience.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,2,"Councilmember Daysog stated that the City should be proud of the
knowledgeable residents involved with the Airport Operating
Committee; the progress has been positive.
Mayor Johnson stated that resident knowledge has been extensive.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when regional dialogue would commence
regarding the other runways.
Mr. Grossman responded preliminary discussions have been initiated
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Regional
Airport Planning Committee; the work should start within the year
and continue to be a multi-year process.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's voice is important throughout
the process.
(06-060) Library project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether branch library hours would cover the
Main Library hours during the closure.
The Acting Library Director stated covering the hours was not
feasible because extra staff was needed for the tagging process;
the public would be advised on the closure through a major press
release along with a notice from the schools; staff could review
the matter again.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether collections would be tagged on the
weekends.
The Acting Library Director responded collections would be tagged
six days a week at the Main Library; the branch library collections
would be tagged on the existing closed days [Friday and Sunday].
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the branch library collections would
be tagged in two days.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated the
branch library tagging will not start at this time the two-week
process would concentrate on the Main Library.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether high school students or
temporary staffing could help with the tagging process.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,3,"process is quiet involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated a plan seems to be in place for the
transition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the desire to keep
one of the branch libraries open full time; the branch libraries
are small and would not accommodate the number of people who use
the interim Main Library; she is not sure of the additional benefit
in opening a branch library for seven days.
The Acting Library Director stated that extended hours are being
planned for the branch libraries during the closure in October.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what are the closure days, to
which the Acting Library Director responded March 6 through March
19.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the closure could be in
the summer.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated
summer closure would not provide enough time for tagging and would
impact the summer reading programs.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much time is needed for the tagging.
The Acting Library Director responded that two-thirds to three-
quarters would be completed during the closure.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the process would be completed, to
which the Acting Library Director responded hopefully October.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the school schedule would be
affected.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated Donna
Fletcher, Alameda Unified School District, advised her that the
proposed closure dates are the best time to perform the tagging
the School District is helping to get the word out through a
newsletter.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review the possibility of keeping
one of the branch libraries open during the two-week closure of the
Main Library if there is a huge outcry over closure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether future rains would affect the
progress of the project, other than brickwork.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,4,"schedule and within budget.
***
Councilmember deHaan excused himself from the City Council Meeting
at 9:49 p.m. due to a pinched nerve.
***
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 06-061] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1.
]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( *06-062) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on January 17, 2006, and Special Joint City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February
1, 2006. Approved.
(06-063) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,501,850.82.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Finance Director for the new check
register format.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of ratifying the bills in
the amount of $5,501,850.82.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]
(*06-064) Resolution No. 13924, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,5,"Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
(*06-065) Resolution No. 13925, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-066)
Ordinance No. 2946, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II
(Administration) Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and
Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. "" Finally
passed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Film Commission would help to
manage the impacts on the neighborhoods and increase business
opportunities.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]
(06-067) Resolution No. 13926, ""Supporting Equal Opportunity
Access to Community Sports Facilities and Community Sponsored
Recreation Programs. Adopted.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief report on
Assembly Bill 2404.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Alameda programs are in
full compliance, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that adoption of the Resolution
would ensure that requirements are met for both City-owned and non-
City owned programs and facilities; he is please with the efforts
made in advance of the Resolution.
Mayor Johnson requested that the actual policy to be adopted by the
Recreation and Park Commission on February 9 be brought back to the
Council for review; stated that the Resolution is vague; the policy
needs to be consistent with the Resolution and State law; thanked
staff for being responsive; stated she is impressed with the plans
to move forward with renovation and improvements of three fields.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,6,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the resolution provides non- -
discriminatory access to fields and times; certain groups have been
given the least favorite fields and times in the past the
Resolution would ensure a balance in times and field locations.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates former Councilmember
Barbara Kerr originally bringing the matter to the Council's
attention.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Communications from Council)
(06-068) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Lorre Zuppan for appointment to the
Economic Development Commission.
(06-069) Discussion regarding a resolution calling upon steps to
withdraw our Reservists, Coast Guard Units and members of the
California National Guard troops from Iraq.
Joseph Woodard, Alameda, quoted 2005 Nobel Prize Playwright Harold
Pinter urged a return of the troops.
Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda Peace Network, stated that Alameda needs the
California National Guard back.
Susan Galleymore, Alameda, stated the War has caused a lot of
horror and destruction; urged bringing the National Guard home.
Mark Irons, Alameda, urged the Council to place the resolution on
the next agenda for discussion.
Sallyanne Monti, Alameda, stated the death rate of the National
Guard is 35% higher than other units of service; urged return of
the National Guard.
Dorothy Kakimoto, Alameda, stated that the War is robbing social
services ; urged the return of the National Guard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,7,"Kathryn Neale Manalo, Alameda Chapter, Network of Spiritual
Progressives, urged the return of the National Guard.
Pat Flores, Alameda, urged the Council to speak out by passing the
resolution.
Noel W. Folsom, Alameda, commended Councilmember Matarrese for
bringing the matter to public attention; urged the Council to adopt
the resolution.
Carl Helpern, Alameda, stated that he was in support of the
resolution; the California National Guard was not intended to be an
army operational force and should be brought home.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda is the appropriate
place to address the issue and vindicates the controversial vote
that occurred four years; there is a difference between a no-cost
conveyance and hundreds of millions of dollars of clean up that
cannot be done; the City needs to beg for money from the Corps of
Engineers to repair the seawalli Alameda's Marine unit was
deployed; the National Guard and Coast Guard deployment directly
impact Alameda; requested the Council to place the resolution on
the next City Council agenda.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the resolution language could
be discussed if the Council votes to place the matter on the next
agenda, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to hear comments
on the wording of the resolution.
Mayor Johnson stated the Councilmembers could make comments at this
time; public comment would be heard when the resolution is brought
back; stated that a Senate Hearing addressed concerns with the
State levels of the National Guard; the percentage of National
Guard troops in Iraq was approximately 40% and is currently down to
approximately 30%; the National Guard has a two-year time limit for
activation; she supports the resolution with regard to the National
Guard; she does not believe that California is prepared to deal
with a natural disaster; stated she is a little less comfortable
with locally dealing with the troop levels, although spending money
in Iraq has an impact on local governments ; stated that two
resolutions could be proposed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Alameda is a middle-of-the-road - -
type City; Alameda's comments carries weight on issues of global
significance words should chosen carefully and wisely; the public
can be engaged to receive more input on the terms of US policy in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,8,"Iraq; kindling should not be thrown on the fire that is already in
Washington, D.C. and Sacramento; there is an opportunity to
responsibility discuss the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the eloquence
of tonight's speakers; urged that the matter be placed on an agenda
for action; stated she can see the arguments for bringing the
California National Guard home; she is comfortable in supporting
the decision; she is less comfortable about inserting herself in
the national debate regarding levels of troops, even though
personally she is not in favor of having troops in Iraq; she would
look forward to having a discussion on the matter and receiving
more information from experts before rendering an opinion; two
resolutions may be appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated several resolutions could be
considered.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved to place the matter on the next City
Council agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated that there was some discussion on Assembly
Member Hancock's resolution regarding the authority of the Governor
and Federal Legislation; she would like to have more information on
how the issue relates to the National Guard.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is some urgency regarding
the matter he would like to have Alameda's voice heard in getting
Assembly Member Hancock's resolution passed; the deficit impacting
Alameda is a certainty just like an earthquake on the Hayward
fault; the deficit impact has already visited Alameda on the Base.
The City Manager requested clarification on the concept of two
resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate a
combination; he would prefer a simple, direct approach.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to pursue a more
simple resolution which has no reference to situations in
Washington, D.C. or Sacramento, but which addresses a statement of
belief from Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that any Councilmember could bring ideas for
discussion; other draft resolutions could be part of the Council
packet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,9,"Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of placing the matter on the next
agenda.
Counci Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: 4 by consensus/Absent: Councilmember
deHaan - 1.
(06-070) Councilmember Matarrese stated a number of signs
throughout the City may violate the sign ordinance; requested staff
to investigate the matter.
The City Manager inquired whether the signs were temporary.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that some of the signs are more
permanent than temporary.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-071) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the meeting at 10:43 p.m. in a moment of silence for Former Mayor
Chuck Corica and Coretta Scott King.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-054) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-055) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Alameda City Employees
Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association, the Council
obtained briefing and gave instructions to labor negotiators;
regarding the City Attorney, the Council discussed the City
Attorney's employment Contract.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Amending
Resolution No. 98-78 [paragraph no. 06-002CIC] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of
the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissione: Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted
are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.
]
( *06-056CC/06-001CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on December 20, 2005.
Approved.
(06-002CIC) Resolution No. 06-139, ""Amending Resolution No. 98-78
Regarding Commission Bylaws Article II, Section 12 Regarding the
Powers and Authority of the General Counsel. Adopted; and
(06-002A CIC) Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring
Procedures for Special Legal Counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the changes made to the Bylaws were fine
the policy and resolution have inconsistencies; the policy states
that General Counsel is authorized spend up to $35,000 per matter;
the resolution states that matters estimated to cost more than
$35,000 must be brought to the CIC.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the policy question was that a
matter should still come to the CIC if the matter costs $25,000 as
opposed to $35,000.
Chair Johnson responded in the negative; stated the policy states
that the General Counsel is authorized to spend up to $35,000 on
any matter and then come to the CIC, whether the matter costs
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,12,"$200,000 or $35,000; the resolution is correct in stating that the
matter should be brought to the CIC at the earliest convenience if
the estimated costs exceeds $35,0000.
The General Counsel stated the policy was adopted by the Council on
September 6; noted Page 2, Item #3 states ""Comply with the
Community Improvement Commission Policy regarding Procedures for
Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the policy and resolution state two
different things ARRA may have the same inconsistency the intent
was that matters be brought to the CIC if estimated outside counsel
legal fees are more than $35,000.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission would approve the
resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore and Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner
deHaan.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the ground rule should be that the
matter comes to the appropriate governing body if the estimate is
over $35,000 but General Counsel can spend up to $35,000 per matter
to initiate the process.
Chair Johnson stated that bullet point 1 [General Counsel is
authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriate project budget without prior CIC approval] should be
omitted; the correction should be made to the ARRA policy also.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution and approval
of the policy with modification to omit bullet point 1 [General
Counsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriated project budget without prior CIC approval].
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-057CC/06-003CIC) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial
Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments, including General
Fund reserve policy and infrastructure review.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
The Public Works Director gave a brief update on the December 6,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,13,"2005 allocation and the infrastructure plans.
Mayor Johnson requested that a street resurfacing schedule be
provided.
Councilmember deHaan requested that a sidewalk resurfacing schedule
be provided.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the field renovation included
sprinkler systems in addition to drainage, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that certain trees, such as eucalyptus trees,
grow rapidly and pruning of the trees is costly; suggested
reviewing the possibility of replacing trees that are too expensive
to maintain.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether project timelines would be
brought back to the Council, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that residents have to pay an $85
permit fee to repair a sidewalk square; inquired whether the fee
could be lowered to encourage homeowners to take care of the
replacement.
The Public Works Director responded both property owner and City
responsibilities are identified when sidewalk inspections are
performed; homeowners are given the option of using the City's
contractor; in which case, the City would cover the encroachment
permit.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what was the outcome of the rubberized
sidewalk experiment, and whether the City was contemplating having
rubberized sidewalks.
The Public Works Director responded that the feedback has been
positive; currently, the City is not doing any rubberized
sidewalks the Council would receive a proposal for installing
rubberized sidewalks; a $90,000 grant would be applied to
sidewalks; the intent is to piggyback on the City of Oakland's
Contract for rubberized sidewalks.
Councilmember Daysog stated a level of complexity exists in terms
of the timing of available dollars; oversight is needed; there are
two types of budgeting issues: 1) the two-year budgeting process
and midyear adjustments, and 2) dedicating dollars when the reserve
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,14,"is above the 20% level.
The Public Works Director stated that the City Manager and Finance
Director have assurances that the $2 million is available and is
enough to keep the remaining General Reserve funds at 20%.
The City Manager stated that the recalculation of the General Fund
Reserve is reviewed every year at mid-year to ensure that the
reserve is based on the actuals.
The Fire Chief provided a brief presentation on the $400,000 for
fire station planning and acquisition.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether new sites are being
considered which would adjoin existing residential areas.
The Fire Chief responded all West End fire stations should be
reviewed to determine the best way to proceed over the long term.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed study would be
directed to the West End fire stations, to which the Fire Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether procurement was being
considered for West End fire stations.
The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the priority is
Fire Station 3.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $400,000 was for the
study and acquisition, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
The City Treasurer stated reducing the reserve levels is a serious
matter; he is concerned with how the money will be used; a good use
would be investing the money in City assets; reserves should be
spent on projects that result in a lollar-for-dollar benefit; the
Fire Department issues should be addressed during the normal
budgeting process the proposal reduced the reserves from 25% to
20%; stated that he understood that reducing the reserves to 20%
was temporary.
The City Auditor stated that money from the reserves should go
toward identifiable projects; he takes exception to using reserve
funds for a study; questioned why a planning decision needs to be
outsourced; stated staff should make decisions; paying for a study
is not a prudent way to spend down the reserves.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,15,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council is not changing the
reserve limit policy but is requesting to pull money out of the
reserves today because the infrastructure is accruing debt faster
than the reserves are accruing benefit; every dollar should be tied
to an infrastructure repair; spending money on Fire Station 3 also
qualifies because the station is a crumbling asset; money spent on
a study is not appropriate; suggested looking for funding in the
ARRA planning budget.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding not
changing the reserve limit policy; stated money is being allocated
to pay for needed projects.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has known about fire
station issues; there is no immediate urgency except for Fire
Station 3; the next budget process can review appropriating money
for the study; there are deeper problems if $20,000 cannot be found
in the normal budget processi the reserve reduction should be
considered a one-time occurrence; the goal will be to continue to
build reserves back up to 25%.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the reserves were built up by not
investing in the infrastructure over the years; now is the time to
invest back into the sidewalks and streets; inquired what the
affect will be on the undesignated reserves.
The Finance Director responded that there are no undesignated
reserves the policy sets a 25% target for economic uncertainties;
some portions of the reserves have been loaned to other funds and
the cash is not available; $6 million out of $18 million has been
loaned out; the remaining funds would allow sufficient time to make
decisions on how to proceed.
The City Treasurer stated that $380,000 remains in the pool for
planning and acquisition costs after the $20,000 for the study
questioned why $380,000 should be taken out of reserves today to
put the money into an interest-bearing account for future
acquisition.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the funds should be held in abeyance
[designated reserve] for Fire Station 3; money would not be
allocated [designated] from the reserves for a study, only for
acquisition and/or repair.
Councilmember deHaan stated impact funding was set aside; inquired
whether the impact funding was earmarked for studies and how the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,16,"balance of the fiscal year looked.
The Finance Director responded that the year should end with
revenues exceeding expenditures based on what is being done today.
Councilmember deHaan stated there will always be adjustments.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that some of the money allocated in
December would be invested in field repair; a turf management plan
was discussed earlier in the year; the turf management plan should
be accelerated to ensure repairs are not lost after a year of play
or a season of rain; the plan should be accelerated to protect the
investment.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated that the turf
management plan has been initiated; solid plans should be in place
within the next month.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the process could be
accelerated to have plan in place before investments are made, to
which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether most of the $1.6 million would go to
contractors.
The Public Works Director responded some money would cover costs
for design, inspection and contract administration; staff levels
cannot cover the physical work; sidewalk inspections are intensive.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much of the $1.6 million would toward
design and contract management.
The Public Works Director responded that design is generally 10% of
the construction cost; contract administration and inspections can
be 3-5%.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the design, construction
management and inspections would be handled by contractors, to
which the Public Works Director responded the tasks would be
handled by existing staff.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the costs need to be covered
if existing staff is used.
The Public Works Director responded the Public Works Engineering
division functions like an engineering firm; 80% of the engineering
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,17,"budget comes from revenues.
Mayor Johnson stated department budgets should not be supplemented
by drawing down on reserves; the $1.6 million should be spent on
hard construction projects; 16% of the $1.6 million would go to the
Public Works Department and is an extraordinary expenditure to
invest in the City.
The City Manager stated that the process could be reviewed; other
projects would need to be contracted out staff can review the cost
of design and contract management in terms of allocation to obtain
economy of scale.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether additional money would be
needed to backfill the other projects.
Councilmember deHaan stated that staff should determine the best
resources for the projects; there is an economy of scale to be
derived which might not be a full 10% for design; however, the job
has to be inspected.
Mayor Johnson stated that part of Council direction could be to
have the City Manager review costs with the Public Works
Department; she hopes that the costs could be below 16%; the City
should not pay flat fees and end up supplementing the Public Works
budget.
The City Manager stated some City staff would be dedicated to the
projects; more definitive costs will be provided.
Mayor Johnson requested that the budget for the $1.6 million
appropriation come back to Council for review.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funds from
the [General Fund] reserve [$1.6 million for infrastructure
projects and $400,000 to designated reserve for Fire Station3
acquisition] and accepting the staff report as written with the
following conditions 1) that the City Manager work with the Public
Works Department and Fire Department to break down associated costs
to execute the outlined tasks [ infrastructure and Fire Station 3
projects] including reviewing economy of scale, 2) review ways to
protect the renovations and improvements, such as the turf
management plan, and 3) that the policy is to maintain a 25%
General Fund target level [but allow for a temporary reduction to
20%].
Mayor Johnson requested the motion be clarified for the $400,000
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,18,"item.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the motion is that the $400,000
would be for acquisition [of Fire Station 3] only, and the study
would be addressed during the budget process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $400,000 would be taken out of
the reserves.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that the $400,000 would still
remain in the reserves but would be designated for Fire Station 3
acquisition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the
City Manager would review existing funding sources for the study.
Mayor Johnson stated a fire station needs study for the Base might
be premature because the property has not been acquired.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Fire Station 3 needs to be
addressed; the problems at Fire Station 3 are comparable to the
worst sidewalk or pothole.
Councilmember deHaan amended the motion to include that Contracts
return to the Council for review.
Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Gilmore agreed to the
amended motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf