body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 3, 2008- - -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]
(*08-233) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on May
6, 2008, and Regular City Council Meeting held on May 20, 2008.
Approved.
(*08-234) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,913.93.
(*08-235) Recommendation to set June 17, 2008, as Hearing date for
Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Proposition 4 appropriation limit. Accepted.
( *08-236) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland and
Knight in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative advocacy
services. Accepted.
(*08-237) Report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under
California Government Code Section 20903. Moved to paragraph no.
08-250]
(*08-238) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of
$3,571,810, including contingencies, to D'arcy & Harty
Construction, Inc., for Cyclic Sewer Replacement, Phase 5, No. P.W.
10-06-22. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,2,"(*08-239) Recommendation to allocate $1,210,409 in Proposition 1B
Local Streets and Roads Funds, and award a Second Amendment to the
Contract in the amount of $2,965,000, including contingencies, to
Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the repair and resurfacing of certain
streets, Phase 28, No. P.W. 04-08-12. Accepted.
(*08-240) Recommendation to accept the work of Bay Line Concrete,
Cutting, Coring, and Drilling, Inc. for the Grand Street Bridge and
Ballena Boulevard Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No. P.W. 11-06-24.
Accepted.
(*08-241) Recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction, Inc. for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related
improvements to address street ponding Citywide, No. P. . W. 02-07-04.
Accepted.
(*08-242) Recommendation to accept the work of Power Engineering
Contractors, Inc. for the Grand Street Sewer Pump Station, No.
P.W. 04-07-16. Accepted.
( (*08-243) Resolution No. 14214, ""Approving a Third Amendment to the
Agreement for Additional Funding from the State California Coastal
Conservancy in an Amount up to $57,000 to Implement Spartina
Eradication and Mitigation Measures, and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute All Associated Agreements and Documents. ""
Adopted.
(*08-244) Resolution No. 14215, ""Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held on
November 7, 2000. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-245) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent
business license fees via the property tax bills.
The Finance Director provided an updated list and a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount of uncollected
business license fees is typical, to which the Finance Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reimbursement comes from the
County, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,3,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City needs to do anything
else after the letter is sent, to which the Finance Director
responded in the negative.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed home businesses.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-246) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent
administrative citation fees via the property tax bills.
The Code Compliance Officer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the normal process if an appeal is
not filed.
The Code Compliance Officer responded the process depends on the
complexity of the case; stated sometimes a courtesy call is made or
another citation is issued.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Municipal Code addresses what to
do if an appeal is not filed.
The Code Compliance Officer responded in the negative; stated the
Municipal Code simply states that an appeal can be filed within ten
days.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how often citations can be given and
whether there is a maximum.
The Code Compliance Officer responded most citations are issued
every thirty days; stated citations can be issued every seven to
ten days if there are safety issues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Municipal Code allows
staff to continue enforcement every seven days.
The Code Compliance Officer responded in the affirmative; stated
another option would be to hire a contractor for abatement.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not received a copy of the
ordinance he requested.
The Building Official stated no minimum or maximum timeframe was
set when the ordinance was written; the Administrative Citation fee
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,4,"provides an enforcement tool.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff has worked with the Lafayette
Street property owner to remove the trailers since 2001, to which
the Building Official responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the trailers have been occupied
since 2001.
The Code Compliance Officer responded staff was not aware that
anyone was occupying the trailers until today.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the trailers appeared on the
property, to which the Code Compliance Officer responded 2001.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not recall seeing the
trailers on the property.
The Code Compliance Officer stated twenty-sever calls have been
received for Police service since 2007.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the response has been for code
enforcement.
The Code Compliance Officer responded the son of the deceased owner
has never responded; stated the daughter of the deceased owner is
in charge of the estate; the estate's attorney has responded.
Lance Russum, Attorney for the Estate of Juanita Ogle, stated the
son is not a tenant of the estate but has occupied the property
without permission the son has been evicted but has come back; the
son's appeal rights expired on May 8; the administrator has control
of the property because of the eviction and is trying to determine
the best way to dismantle the containers; combustible materials are
on the property; the Fire Department should inspect the property as
soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the owner passed away
Mr. Russum responded June 2007; stated letters were issued in
August 2007; he does not think the estate has a responsibility to
pay for the citations.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the property has a mortgage, to
which Mr. Russum responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the estate has assets, to which Mr.
Russum responded the estate has no liquid assets now.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,5,"Mayor Johnson stated the house is an asset of the estate.
Mayor Johnson suggested continuing the item and setting deadlines ;
stated the estate has a responsibility not to create blight in the
neighborhood; the goal is to get rid of the blight.
The Code Compliance Officer stated staff has agreed to cease
issuing additional citations until August.
Mayor Johnson suggested tabling the matter for three months until
the trailers are gone, and then address the issue of accumulated
fines.
The Code Compliance Officer stated the lien is a judgment lien and
would be payable at the time sale.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether verification can be made on
whether anyone is living in the trailers.
Mr. Russum responded the son enters the trailers in the evenings ;
stated the Police Department has intervened on a regular basis.
Mayor Johnson stated taxpayer resources are protecting the
property.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the estate is current with property
tax payments, to which Mr. Russum responded the daughter advanced
money for property tax payments.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether it would be less expensive for the
estate if the City did the abatement now versus collecting the
fines.
Mr. Russum responded breaking up the trailers for scrap would be
easier.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with health and
safety issues.
The Code Compliance Officer stated blight has become a health and
safety issue.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the trailers cannot be removed tomorrow;
stated a crane could load the trailers onto a large truck.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Building Official stated code
enforcement would continue, but citations would not be issued
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,6,"through the end of August; suggested that staff continue to work
with the estate and levy fines on the property tax bill to help the
City recover costs incurred.
Mayor Johnson stated that the matter should be brought back at the
first City Council meeting in September Council expects blight and
health and safety issues to be remedied by September.
The Building Official stated that citations stop if property owners
work with the City.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff research the cost of
bringing in a crane and semi-truck to remove the trailers; stated a
decision could be made in August on whether to continue to fine or
attach the abatement cost [to the lien].
Mayor Johnson stated Council should consider removing the trailers
sooner than August because of health and safety issues.
Mr. Russum stated the administrator's resources could be used to
remove the trailers if costs are provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the estate has the responsibility to deal with
the blight and danger, not the City.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of creating a lien on both
properties and not issuing any more citations on the Lafayette
Street property until the matter is brought back at the first City
Council Meeting in September for review.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would expect the daughter to take care
of removing the trailers in the near future.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not comfortable with
assessing the entire $9,750 on the Lafayette Street property;
intervals of the citations are peculiar.
Mayor Johnson stated the case initiated in 2001; the property has
had a lot of neighbor complaints; the Police and Fire Departments
have been called numerous times; inquired whether citations were
issued in compliance with the ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated citations
could have been issued more frequently.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that further
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,7,"7
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,8,"Avenue property and administrative citation process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-247 - ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14216,
""Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2008-09 and
Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement
Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2008-09. "" Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of resolution) : Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) ; Kathy Moehring.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired which funds pay for the maintenance, to
which the Development Services Director responded Landscape and
Lighting District funds.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much is collected.
Ms. Moehring responded approximately $32,000; stated maintenance
costs are approximately $54,000.
Mayor Johnson stated Webster Street property owners are not paying
for the [entire] maintenance; stated the public invested several
million dollars and the investment should be maintained.
Ms. Moehring concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated there was not
enough time to educate property owners.
Mayor Johnson stated that an attempt was made three years ago to
increase the assessment.
Mr. Ratto stated an attempt was made to increase the Business
Improvement Assessment (BIA) boundaries the vote failed.
Ms. Moehring stated the number one priority is to work with
property owners to help them understand the importance of
increasing the Landscape and Lighting District fees.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,9,"Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(08-248) - Recommendatior to allocate $99,218 in Measure B -
Transbay Ferry Funds, and approve a Second Amendment to the
Contract in the amount of $99,218 to Marine Express, Inc. for the
Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project.
The Ferry Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the additional work would
bring the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge up to a satisfactory
standard; further inquired whether staff anticipates any further
corrections to the barge.
The Ferry Services Manager responded no further work is required
stated the final work would include lifting up the west end of the
70-foot gangway approximately six inches.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-249 ) Recommendation to establish a Fiscal Sustainability
Committee.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a ten-year plus horizon should be
considered; the City of Vallejo is comparable to Alameda and
provides a good, real life case study large and small business
expertise is valuable because said businesses have real experience
in managing budgets someone with some actuarial experience could
fill the financial seat; the six-month period is aggressive, is
meant to start after budget approval and anticipates that the State
budget will not be approved in June; the committee would make
recommendations regarding the pros and cons of deferring payment
and long-term obligations to retirees.
Councilmember deHaan stated the committee would provide a golden
opportunity to have highly skilled individuals look at best
business practices; the ten-year budget model can be a good tool;
good direction would be provided to build on policy; the City
Auditor and City Treasurer picked up the challenge; a financially
experienced facilitator could be brought in to bring the committee
up to speed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,10,"Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the size of the committee, to
which Councilmember Matarrese responded eight.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether eight members would be enough.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have any objections
to broadening the committee as long as the focus is kept on the
goal.
Mayor Johnson stated the committee is a way to get the public
involved in the City's financial issues. questioned whether every
member should be required to be a resident. ; stated Alameda business
owners, who are not residents, could be valuable; the committee
should decide on whether a facilitator is needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the intention would be to have a
facilitator gather data.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Chair would drive the meeting,
not the facilitator.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is thinking of a secretary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is fine with having an
Alameda business owner serve on the committee; the number of
members should be set now.
Councilmember Gilmore recommended that the committee not exceed
ten.
Councilmember deHaan recommended that the committee not exceed
eleven.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the committee would not be a
consensus committee.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese recommended that the
committee consist of eleven members.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the labor member would not be
someone associated with the City.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that his intention is to include a
labor union representative who does not represent City employees
because of contract issues and a vested interest.
Vice Mayor Tam stated having a public safety union representative
participate would be good because public safety unions make up 60%
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,11,"of the General Fund budget i the Climate Protection Task Force
meetings were open to the public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the committee meetings would be
public and noticed.
Mayor Johnson stated educating the public is one of the purposes of
the
committee; concerted efforts should be made to let the public
know about the committee.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the sub-committee and staff;
suggested having someone from the real estate community serve on
the committee or be used as a consultant.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore.
Councilmember deHaan stated that heavy financial expertise is
needed; tax experts could provide briefings.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the real estate representative
would not have to be on the committee, but could be a consultant.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a real estate representative could
be used from a financial standpoint.
Mayor Johnson stated looking longer than ten years is important.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the committee would look at a long
horizon, which would not be less than ten years.
Mayor Johnson suggested membership be placed on the next Council
agenda.
The Development Services Director stated that she is not sure
whether the matter could be brought to Council that fast.
Mayor Johnson stated recommendations could be brought to Council at
the first meeting in July and voted on at the same meeting.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Council would hand select the
members.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed involvement in the community.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated the proposed committee is a
good idea; times are tough right now; distinguishing between formal
and informal members is important ; encouraged Council to keep the
committee small and nimble so that things can be accomplished.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,12,"Mayor Johnson stated the committee would need to be high profile
and should be used to educate the public about budgeting and
economic realities.
Kevin Kearney, City Auditor, stated some ideas are already in
place; reinventing the wheel is not necessary ; information needs to
be updated; the main goal is to educate the public.
Councilmember deHaan stated past, good faith decisions are starting
to bite the City today; future needs should be reviewed; having
everyone [committee members) show up for every meeting would be
difficult.
Mayor Johnson stated the committee would not have quorum
requirements.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the members should understand that
there are expectations to meet twice a month, more or less, and
deliver a product within the six-month timeframe.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the City Treasurer and City Auditor
for taking charge and being excited; stated that she agrees
educating the public is an important function; citizens do not
understand fund source restrictions.
The City Treasurer stated committee members should be tasked with
addressing revenues and expenditures; members would gather
information independently; members should have no vested interest
in issues being discussed; issues need to be reviewed impartially.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of moving forward with the
Fiscal Sustainability Committee along the lines set out in the
staff report; limiting the membership to eleven; and removing the
requirement that members be Alameda residents.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a non-resident 25% cap should be
included in the motion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would rather leave the cap up
to the committee; the committee should have the flexibility to get
the job done.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated nominated experts would be
performing a community service, which would be greatly appreciated.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,13,"(08-250 ) Report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under
California Government Code Section 20903. Withdrawn.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(Public Comment)
(08-251 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would perform a disaster
preparedness demonstration in the City of Oakland on June 25, 2008,
between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular City Council Meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 3, 2008- - -6:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(08-229) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators
:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
All Public Safety Bargaining Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of negotiations; no
action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 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
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 3, 2008- - -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
/
Authority
Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson -
5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that recommendation to authorize the
Executive Director to enter into Contracts [paragraph no. 08-33
CIC] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number. ]
(*08-230 CC/08-32 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and CIC Meeting, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meeting held on May 20, 2008.
Approved.
(08-33 - CIC) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
enter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association, and
the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Chair Johnson stated that the Greater Alameda Business Association
(GABA) Contract is a small amount; Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) members pay
fees; understanding how GABA works is important.
The Development Services Director stated GABA does general
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
1
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,16,"advertising and hosts different activities; a part-time person
keeps the membership informed, maintains a database, and handles
activities.
Chair Johnson inquired whether GABA has membership dues.
The Development Services Director responded that GABA does not have
a Business Improvement Area (BIA) ; stated that she does not know
about dues; members sponsor different projects.
Chair Johnson stated it is important to know how much GABA
contributes to expenses.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City's investment in the
Associations yields a return to the City in sales and business tax;
the staff report notes that there is no impact on the General Fund
and the Contract amounts are budgeted from tax increment funds;
inquired whether funds come from the CIC budget, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired what is the impact on the CIC
budget further inquired whether GABA businesses qualify since they
are not in the redevelopment area.
The Development Services Director responded GABA qualifies; stated
funds are part of the 10% of the CIC budget that pays for general
activities, staff, and basic overhead costs; there are very few
miscellaneous activities that are being funded this year.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the matter should be
discussed tonight since the budget has not been adopted.
The Development Services Director responded staff is requesting
authorization to do the Contracts; stated the Contracts would not
be executed until the budget is adopted.
Commissioner Tam concurred with Commissioner Matarrese; stated the
budget sessions have been very painful; a 3% increase is not very
much, but some employee contracts are not going to be increased
next year; the proposed PSBA budget amount is $111, 446; PSBA is
proposing to levy assessments totaling $88,000; inquired whether
PSBA's entire budget would be the combination of $111, , 446 and
$88,000.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
the budget includes fundraising also.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
2
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,17,"Mr. Ratto stated PSBA would raise approximately $135,000 in special
events this year.
Commissioner Tam stated PSBA's BIA annual assessment is $88,000 and
the proposed City grant of $111, 446, which is 20% over the annual
assessment. stated WABA's proposed grant is $101,146 and the BIA is
approximately $32,000, which is almost 300% above; requested an
explanation of the difference between the two ratios.
The Development Services Director stated support is meant to take
place of economic development activities; the business districts
are disproportionate in size; staff is trying to build capacity and
help the Associations keep enough staff and help with other
contractual activities.
Chair Johnson stated serious conversations need to take place with
the business districts; WABA failed to increase assessments; the
public contributed millions of dollars; the business districts need
to help themselves and be part of the solution.
The Development Services Director stated a classic challenge is
trying to bridge the gap between property owners and business
owners.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Alameda Landing Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) requires that businesses be Association
members GABA is a worthy cause and needs to put a budget together
to justify the $12,000 [ in grant funds]
The Development Services Director stated information provided by
GABA shows the funds support the part-time staff activity.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to defer the staff
recommendation until the CIC budget is adopted.
Chair Johnson inquired whether deferring the item would have an
impact on PSBA and WABA.
The Development Services Director responded typically installment
payments are made in July.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of continuing the item until
adoption of the budget.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to have more defined
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
3
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,18,"information about GABA come back.
Chair Johnson stated that she would like to know how much the
members contribute to support the Association.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that GABA is a worthy Association;
inquired whether Contracts could be executed in time to meet the
requirements if the budget is adopted by the end of the month.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated Contracts have been prepared; stated authority needs to be
given to execute the Contracts.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(08-231 CC) Resolution No. 14213, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Second Amendment of the Disposition and Development
Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree
Acquisition Corporation. "" Adopted and
(08-34 CIC) Resolution No. 08-156, ""Authorizing the Executive
Director to Enter Into a Second Amendment to the Disposition and
Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with
Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. Adopted.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a Power Point
presentation.
Aidan Barry, Catellus Development Group, stated Catellus has
entered into an agreement with the Navy and the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) which allows for the removal of covenants
and restrictions that precluded the opportunity to do the mixed -
use development; Catellus worked with the City to redesign the
waterfront; the Stargell Avenue acquisition involves multiple
parties currently, negotiations are taking place with Target.
discussions are continuing with Clif Bar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired where the hospital
demolition is referenced in the report.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Page 12
of the Second Amendment, Section D.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
4
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,19,"Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when Catellus would
acquire the UP right-of-way; further inquired where Catellus is in
terms of deciding whether or not to proceed.
Mr. Barry responded Catellus negotiated a term sheet with UP;
stated Catellus is in negotiations on a draft purchase and sale
agreement he hopes to conclude negotiations this month; a formal
due diligence effort needs to be done and should be concluded
within sixty days; Catellus is running a parallel path of
negotiations with the retailers.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam acknowledged the help of former Mayor
Bill Withrow and General Counsel of the Peralta Community College
District provided in negotiating the four-way agreement; stated
that significant expenditures were made, such as the removal of the
Faithful; funds were expended to fix some major water leaks; the
City helped redesign the waterfront when it was determined that it
was not financially feasible to seismically retrofit the area
because of pier decay; stated State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) funds must be requested by February 2009 in order to
go before the California Transportation Commission (CTC) ; inquired
what is the level of competition and availability for said funding.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
assurances have been given that STIP allocations would not be
impacted by the State budget.
The City Engineer stated a lot of the projects are large
prioritization is based upon how many people are impacted by the
project, how much safety will be enhanced, and where the projects
are in the planning process.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether the money is in
jeopardy money will be in serious jeopardy if the City does not
move forward with the project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated larger
projects will start to come on line as the Fiscal Year progresses
opportunities are maximized by getting in before the other
projects.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the City would
get the money if an application is submitted, to which the Base
Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; the City could be in jeopardy if it waits until
February 2009.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
5
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,20,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned with
the timeframe; inquired whether the Clif Bar parcel is pushed into
Phase 2 now.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all of
the office property would be in Phase 31 stated an early office
parcel could be the first or second parcel developed.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is any
likelihood of keeping the original deadlines, especially retail.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Palmtree
Acquisition Corporation (PAC) requested that certain timeframes be
extended for the performance milestones due to early expenditure of
funds.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how close the retail
project would be to the original timeframes.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded PAC'S
immediate timeframe is a year and a half from now; stated PAC would
need to commence with an alternative Phase 1; PAC has another five
and a half years to commence on the retail.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would happen if the
Stargell Avenue Extension Project is not constructed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded PAC
would not have any time extensions; stated everything would go back
to the original DDA timeframe.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the most important
aspect is obtaining the right-of-way i the stars have lined up and
will not line up again; funds would be allocated to the project and
would go towards covering upfront reimbursements for acquiring the
right-of-way if the developer pulls out or the City terminates the
Agreement.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the
resolutions.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the
caveat that the project has a rigid timeframe.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore requested more detail on the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
6
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,21,"Operating Memorandum.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the
existing DDA has a section that provides for an ability to do
Operating Memorandum if there are technical details that the
parties want to work out; the Operating Memorandum will look at
property management issues and will deal with a scenario that may
present itself in the future; the Operating Memorandum would deal
with issues such as fewer lease revenues coming in than property
management expenses and how to handle said situation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Operating
Memorandum would come back, to which the Base Reuse and Community
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated Section D on Page 12 notes that
the developer would reimburse the CIC for the cost incurred if the
City issues a demolition permit within sixty days inquired how
soon the hospital demolition can start.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
demolition would have to be authorized through the budget processi
stated the demolition work could commence fairly quickly if funds
are authorized; Catellus has already prepared the demolition plans.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the cost estimate for
demolishing the hospital, to which the Base Reuse and Community
Development Manager responded several million dollars.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Stargell Avenue Extension Project
has gone on for years she appreciates the cooperation of the
Peralta Board; inquired whether the Board approved the project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Board would take action on June 10.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-232 CC) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Directing the
Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents,
Authorizing the Preparation and Distribution of a Preliminary
Official Statement in Connection with the Offering and Sale of
Certificates of Participation Relating Thereto, and Authorizing and
Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. Continued; and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
7
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,22,"(08-02 - APFA) Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and
Directing Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing
Documents and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with
Respect Thereto. Continued.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the cost of refinancing.
The Finance Director responded the cost of the additional debt
service over the new life of the issue is $594,658.75.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the cost of issuance, to
which the Finance Director responded $150,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the total cost would be
$150,000 plus $594,000.
The Finance Director responded the $150,000 is included in the
$594,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese inquired whether $150,000
would be spent to save $203,000, extend the debt a couple years,
and pay approximately $600,000 in interest.
The Finance Director responded $600,000 would be spent over fifteen
years in order to get the first year savings of approximately
$600,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he has a hard
time borrowing money and encumbering two extra years on someone in
the future.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the proposed refinancing would cost the
City money.
The Finance Director stated cash would be saved now and would be
paid over the next fifteen years.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether refinancing would cost
$594,000.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated
approximately $600,000 would be saved in interest.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would not call it a savings
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
8
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,23,"because the amount is deferred.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that she totaled a
$5.1 million debt; $6 million would be issued; inquired whether
there is some minimum limit.
The Finance Director responded $6 million is the approximate
amount; stated $5,490,000 would be issued; interest rates change
the numbers are based on estimated interest rates; the interest
rates are favorable now.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the matter is a cash
flow issue; approximately $600,000 would not be spent in the first
year; $600,000 would be spent over fifteen years.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the loans
were refinanced already.
The Finance Director responded only the Police Building was
refinanced in 1996.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired why the Police
Building was refinanced.
The Finance Director responded because interest rates dropped
significantly.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated the City gets into
trouble by deferring and refinancing.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the Police Building was
constructed, to which the Finance Director responded 1990.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the original planned bond
issue.
The Finance Director responded the $2.8 million bond was issued in
1990 with interest rates of 5.8% to 7.25%.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the bond would have been paid if
not refinanced, to which the Finance Director responded she would
guess 2010.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he is not in
favor; savings are not being made on the interest rates and future
Councils will be burdened; debt will be deferred if not paid now.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
9
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,24,"The Finance Director stated budget increases would be needed
otherwise.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Library Fund is paid out
of the General Fund.
The Finance Director responded approximately 50-55% of Library
expenditures are supported by the General Fund, stated the Police
Building Bond would have been paid off in 2015, if not refinanced.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the first year
savings is approximately $600,000; inquired how much cash would not
be spent the second year, to which the Finance Director responded
$367,000.
louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired how many more years
the repayment would be pushed out, to which the Finance Director
responded two years.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what are the fees.
The Finance Director responded $150,000 for issuance; stated the
underwriter's discount is $41,175.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $41,175 is in addition to
the $150,000, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated fees would be rolled back
into debt service.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money would be borrowed to restructure
borrowed money.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the
interest on the 1996 Police Building, to which the Finance Director
responded 4% to 6%.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the
interest on the Golf Course, to which the Finance Director
responded 3.9% to 5.75%.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what the new
interest rate would be, to which the Finance Director responded the
all in true interest costs is approximately 5%.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
10
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,25,"Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the interest
rate is fixed.
The Finance Director responded the interest rate varies over time i
stated everything is taken into account with an all in true
interest cost.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money would need to be found elsewhere
if refinancing is not done; she does not view refinancing as a way
to balance the budget.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated refinancing would be a
one-time fix and a deferral.
The Finance Director stated the proposed refinancing was
a
potential solution for not having sufficient budget capacity to
meet all needs.
louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether timing
would be impacted if Council and the Commission decide to made a
decision to go forward at the end of June.
The Finance Director responded missing the August 1 call date for
the Police Building might cost more money, but could be done.
louncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese inquired how much is owed
on the police bonds.
The Finance Director responded $1.5 million; stated Library and
Golf is 3.5%; 63% is for Library and 34% is for Golf.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated $1 million needs to be spent on
renovating the driving range the City is still paying off the
construction debt.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated staff should look
at paying early because there is no tax deduction for paying
interest.
The Finance Director stated the scenario could be reviewed; the net
present value of the future debt service versus using the fund
balance to pay it off can be reviewed.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether major
refinancing was done in 2002-2003.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
11
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,26,"The Finance Director responded in 2002 refinancing was done for
reconstruction of City Halli stated tax increment bonds were done
for the CIC in 2003.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether refinancing
was done for interest rates only.
The Finance Director responded City Hall reconstruction bonds were
refinanced in 2002 and were originally issued in 2000.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the impact
over the out years.
The Finance Director responded the debt service was the same level
every year; the prime motivation for the current proposal is not to
get interest rate savings, but deferral.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to look long-term; the
report only looks at short-term.
The Finance Director stated staff reviewed the matter from a
perspective that the proposal is not good for the long-term, but is
what needs to be done in order to have budget capacity for the next
two years.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction has been given to always look
at long-term.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated it does not make sense to
spend down the fund balance if the same interest is earned on the
fund balance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated it does not make sense to use the fund
balance because the City has so many other things to pay for with
the fund balance, such as deferred health care retirement costs;
the City needs to be living within its means and not defer
payments.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the amount of money
being deferred over the first two years is slightly under a million
dollars; the extra money that would be spent over the life of the
loan is $600,000. payments would be extended for two more years;
she would like to hear from the City Auditor and City Treasurer.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the payments are for the last
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
12
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,27,"two-year extension.
The Finance Director responded the payments for total debt services
for all three funds is about $573,000 each year.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the deferred payments
not being made over the first two years are slightly under a
million dollars.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the added interest and cost of
restructuring is an additional $594,000.
The City Treasurer stated bills should be paid when due.
The City Auditor stated money needs to be spent to refinance; he
does not see the benefit in pushing obligations into the future;
tough decisions need to be made now.
louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated deferred payments
over the first two years are approximately $1 million; $594,000 is
the delta between what would need to be spent if nothing is done
and what would need to be spent for refinancing; inquired whether
the savings would be the difference between $1 million and
$594,000.
The Finance Director responded there is no savings because the $1
million is part of the calculation of the $594,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the non-payment years cannot be counted
as savings inquired whether payments would be higher in the third
year because of the restructuring.
The Finance Director responded the payments go up to $567,00 in
year three; in year three payments would be $610,000 as compared to
$567,000; payments start to decline in 2017 because the 1996 Police
Building debt would be paid in 2015 the existing debt service
would decline to $369,000; the new debt service would stay in the
$570,000 range.
The City Treasurer stated the situation is whether to borrow money
over the next two years to balance the budget and pay it back over
the next twenty years.
louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore moved approval of tabling
the item pending budget discussions.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
13
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,28,"Vice Mayor/Chair/Authority Member Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated that she
appreciates the fact that there will be a challenge to define what
it means to live within means.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: uncilmembers/Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember/Authority
Member Matarrese.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that criteria needs
to be set for when money is borrowed to balance the budget.
Mayor/Chair/ Johnson requested that a policy regarding borrowing
money be brought back.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Alameda Public Financing
Authority
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
14
Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf