body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
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
(07-561) Park Street Business Association Proclamation.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Lars Hansson.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Hansson for planting daffodils.
Mr. Hansson thanked Council for the proclamation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many bulbs were planted.
Mr. Hansson responded 2,000 bulbs were purchased i stated
approximately 1,000 bulbs were planted on Park Street.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07-562],
the recommendation to accept the Annual Review of Public Art
Ordinance [paragraph no. 07-564], the recommendation to accept
Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review [paragraph no.07-566],
and Resolution Amending Resolution No. 12121 [paragraph no.07-569]
were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder 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 . ]
(07-562) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings held on
November 13, 2007 and November 19, 2007. and the Special and
Regular Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,2,"Regular City Council Meetings held on November 20, 2007. Approved.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that clarification be made on Page
5 of the November 20, 2007 Regular City Council minutes; stated the
context was that the Museum Board needs to have a discussion
regarding educational goals versus fund raising goals and strike a
balance between the two.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Minutes with additional
language on Page 5 of the Regular Minutes.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*07-563) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,603,461.02
(07-564) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of Public Art
Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Council received an Off Agenda
Report that described various projects; Council inquired whether
there are funds in the Public Arts Fund; Council did not set a
$50,000 benchmark; Council requested that the matter be brought
back to make a determination on funding sources Council needs to
review details on how art funds would be applied; requested
clarification of the $50,000.
The City Manager stated art fund allocations were reviewed;
approximately $13,000 could be spent on the Public Arts Grant
Program; staff would come back to Council regarding funding sources
after the program is established and the criteria are developed.
money could come out of reserves; Council would need to take action
on the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that funds would need to come out of
reserves or some other funding if Council decided on a total grant
program of $50,000.
The City Manager stated the amount could increase; staff would
continue to provide updates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Council would receive a
report on the Grant Program, to which the City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,3,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07-565) - Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report for Police
and Fire Services. Accepted.
(07-566) - Recommendation to accept Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review.
Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated Affordable
Housing discussions always address money and building; lower income
neighborhood preservation is never discussed; emphasis should be
given to preservation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether former Councilmember Kerr was
talking about existing neighborhoods and issues such as home
additions.
Former Councilmember Kerr responded huge planned projects could be
a possible intrusion in her neighborhood; a Planning Board Member
suggested moving the Wang Project west of Sherman Street another
Planning Board Member suggested running all the streets northward
to the Beltline; traffic protection was discarded.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*07-567) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of the
Citywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee. Accepted.
(*07-568) Recommendation to appropriate $17,676 in Measure B
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Funds as the required local
match for accepting a Bicycle Facility Program Grant from the Bay
Area Quality Management District. Accepted.
(07-569) - Resolution No. 14161, ""Amending Resolution No. 12121
Setting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council
Meetings. "" Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan stated currently any Councilmember can place
any subject matter on the agenda; the proposal would eliminate said
processi that he does not have a problem with Councilmembers
identifying what they want to place on the agenda one of the
actions [outlined in the staff report] is no action; after a matter
gets to Council Referral, the Council can decide that it does not
want to hear the matter and the issue would never get placed on the
Regular Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,4,"the only situation voted upon, which came from the community
itself.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council acts via consensus.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot recall ever going to
the City Manager and requesting a matter be placed on the agenda;
what happens is Councilmembers have brought up items under Council
Communications and the Council as a body has directed the City
Manager to place the matter on the agenda; this [the proposal]
formalizes the process.
Mayor Johnson stated that she sees the matter as formalizing what
has been done.
Councilmember deHaan stated former Councilmember Daysog has done it
[placed matters on the agenda] quite a few times; a few times
former Councilmember Daysog would say that he wanted a matter to be
part of the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated not that she was aware of ; that she served on
the Council with former Councilmember Daysog and she does not
recall that [Councilmember Daysog putting matters on the agenda] .
Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that she recalls
Regular Meeting
4
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,5,"going to the City Manager and requesting that matters be placed on
the agenda the workshop when the matter was discussed did not have
public input; when she was the City's representative to League of
California Cities (LCC) Councilmembers from the few cities with
said provision indicated it worked out to be a gag order; if the
majority of Council prevents a Councilmember from putting something
on the agenda, it would disenfranchise the people who elected that
person; furthermore, people interested in the issue would have to
come to two Council meetings one to discuss placing the matter on
the agenda and one to address the matter on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Tam stated as the LCC representative, she learned from
other cities, such as Palo Alto and Fremont, that the process
helped increase public awareness and transparency about why certain
things get on the agenda and others do not; having the formalized
process helps provide fuller Council discussion of issue and helps
guide and direct priorities.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Councilmembers would have to
complete a referral form if interested in a topic raised by a
member of the public at a Council meeting; questioned what the
proposal does to the Council's on the fly consensual process.
The City Manager responded the process allows staff to provide cost
information and whether the item would change priorities or work
plans.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the process does not have anything
to do with cost and addresses whether or not a matter would be
placed on an agenda; Councilmember Gilmore's point was if a speaker
raises an issue and there is Council consensus, the matter would be
placed on an agenda at a future time; it [the proposal] puts in
writing what is now handled under Council Communications the
Council makes the formalized vote on placing the matter on the
agenda.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she sees two distinct processes
the [referral form would be used if a Councilmember has an idea to
be researched; however, asking a member of the public to go through
the same hoops that Councilmembers go through is not fair; former
Councilmember Kerr's point is well taken; it takes a lot to get
people to come to City Hall or call, whereas, Councilmembers are
here and have contact with staff.
Mayor Johnson stated Council can make it clear that Council is
intending to do so; if a speaker conveys a great idea and the
majority of Council requests follow up, the matter could be brought
back.
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,6,"The City Manager stated that she was addressing when individual
Councilmembers make a request.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many times individual
Councilmembers have brought forward an agenda item in the last
year; that he does not believe Council has done so.
Mayor Johnson stated Council has done so a number of times, by
consensus, under Council Communications
Councilmember deHaan stated it [requesting a matter be placed on an
agenda] has been done within Council Communications. with Council
Referrals, Councilmembers would be prohibited from talking about
matters under Council Communications.
Mayor Johnson stated matters cannot be discussed under Council
Communications.
Councilmember deHaan stated in the past one individual
Councilmember was able to put a matter on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Tam stated there are provisions to do so [place a matter
on the agenda] in the City's Municipal Code, provided that the
matter is provided one week in advance.
Councilmember deHaan stated said provision is no problem; that he
does not think Council wants to stifle it [the provision] by
bringing a matter to a vote initially to see if Council wants to
discuss the issue; it [the proposal] is not fair and not in the
best interest of anyone.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposal affects
Council's ability to call for review any decision of a board or
commission.
The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City of
Fremont's model was designed to place a matter on the agenda that
might require a change in work plans or a change in direction; the
matter would be placed under Council Referral, rather than having
Councilmembers raise the issue under Council Communications the
formal structure would allow Councilmembers to place an item on the
agenda so that staff could respond and provide information; when
staff puts the item on the agenda, Council would have the
information to determine whether it wants to move the item forward
on the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated it is no different if Councilmembers go
Regular Meeting
6
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,7,"to the City Manager and request the matter be placed on the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated the problem with that [individual
Councilmembers directing placing items on the agenda] is that it
gets into the area of one Councilmember directing staff.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Councilmembers are not doing SO.
Mayor Johnson stated agenda items have staff reports; one
Councilmember directing staff to do necessary work, create a staff
report and place the matter on an agenda is in violation of the
Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated said situation has not occurred on the
current Council's watch.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot remember said event
happening that he has never gone to the City Manager and requested
a matter be placed on the agenda; that he brings up the issue under
Council Communications to get the consensus to agree to place the
matter on the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated big box is an example; there was not a
full vote by the Council, however, bringing up and discussing the
issue was still a healthy thing; that he wants to put matters on
the agenda to hear more about the issue, costing staff hours is a
different thing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has not gone to the City Manager and
requested something be placed on the agenda; it sounds like
Councilmembers have not done so; that she views the proposal as
formalizing what is done now; the Council has always been very
generous in complying with requests [to place matters on the
agenda].
Councilmember deHaan stated there have not been problems in the
past; that he does not foresee future problems questioned whether
this [the proposal] is Mayor Johnson's recommendation
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who put the matter on the agenda.
Mayor Johnson responded it was part of the workshop.
The City Manager stated it was an outcome of the workshop ; part of
the task to staff was to develop the form; due to the way the
system is set up, a resolution is required to put a new section on
Regular Meeting
7
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,8,"the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with Council
communicating with staff that she was on the Council when Council
voted to get rid of the Council-staff communication rules
established by a prior City Manager the Council has to be careful
with individual Councilmembers directing staff; that she does not
see how a matter can be placed on the agenda without numerous staff
hours being spent.
The City Attorney stated Council cannot legally take a consensus
action regarding items raised under Council Communications because
there has not been a description on the agenda and the public does
not know what may be brought up; the purpose of the formalized rule
is to provide an opportunity to get the public involved in the
discussion; if the matter is submitted ahead of time, it can be
placed on the agenda under the new section with a sufficient
description; there will not be a staff report yet so staff
resources will not have been expended; however, the title can be a
sufficient description so that the public understands what will be
considered, Council can take an action that night, there could be
no action taken, or Council could request a formal staff report and
more information at a future meeting; the purpose is to permit a
legal action to be taken and allow public participation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said explanation clarifies the
matter and removes the chance of it becoming a gag rule; the matter
can be discussed and a vote can be taken, which cannot occur under
Council Communications the proposal enhances the ability to get
something from a single Councilmember heard in a fashion noticed to
the public without running into the legal problem of providing
direction, even by consensus, on a matter that was not on the
agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated what the Council is doing today is
bringing the matter as an agenda item; questioned why a separate
agenda section is needed to do it.
The City Attorney stated the Council has never violated the Brown
Act during Council Communications because a vote has never been
called for; the City Manager has voluntarily placed a matter on the
agenda or provided information upon seeing an interest from one or
more Councilmembers; the process is being formalized to provide
greater public participation; the matter is a follow up of the
issue addressed at the workshop.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he pulled the February 6, 2006
minutes regarding the war resolution and there was an official
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,9,"vote; requested the record be reviewed.
The City Attorney stated there can be a vote if the matter is
placed on the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter was raised by the public.
Mayor Johnson stated that the matter was on the agenda.
The City Manager stated a title was placed on the agenda under
Council Communications; Council Referral would be the proper place
for such an item.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how one Councilmember directing
the City Manager to place an item on an agenda tests against the
Charter's provision that the Council provides direction to the City
Manager.
The City Attorney stated under the Charter, the City Manager is
responsible for operations and implementing the policy decisions of
the majority of Council: a majority of Council is required to
direct the City Manager to take an implementing action or to
implement anything within the realm of operations.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether that includes putting the
agenda together.
The City Attorney responded putting the agenda together is part of
operations; the City Manager controls the agenda.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether one Councilmember directing a matter
be placed on the agenda is a Charter violation.
The City Attorney responded making a request is not a Charter
violation; it is up to the City Manager to put something on the
agenda if she determines that it is an operational matter that
comes under her authority under the Charter; it does not matter
that one Councilmember may have suggested it; however, no
Councilmember individually has the authority to direct the City
Manager to do a certain thing a certain way if it is under
operations; a cleaner way is to try to find a way to seek
consensus.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she cannot recall a Councilmember
raising something under Council Communications that he or she
wanted placed on the agenda and there not being a consensus or that
the matter did not come up later as an agenda item; Councilmembers
are very generous with each other and pretty much put everything on
Regular Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,10,"the agenda for discussion; with said history for background, she
would suggest that [staff report item] b state: ""The City Council
after discussing the item may do any of the following;"" she would
take out number 1) [take no action] because, by and large, the
Council does take an action, the issue is discussed, the matter
might be deferred, which is even taking an action; she wants to
make sure whatever the item, that the matter gets discussed;
putting the matter on the agenda ensures that the matter is
discussed; numbers 2 and 3 can be left as is; she would suggest
that the practice be implemented and, six months after adoption,
the issue be placed on an agenda to discuss whether Council likes
the practice and hear what the public thinks.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said suggestion was a
motion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the City Attorney
indicated that the City Manager has the authority [over the
agenda]; inquired how an item is placed on the agenda under the
jurisdiction of the City Attorney or City Clerk.
The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant
Closed Session items, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in
the negative.
The City Attorney stated the only things that she has the power to
put on the closed session agendas are certain attorney-client
privileged communications within the Brown Act she can put said
matters on the agenda because she needs to be able to talk to the
Council since she works directly for the Council; however, she does
not have any authority to go to the City Manager and request that a
matter be placed on the agenda she has no such power under the
Charter; she is not a policy maker and is not involved in
operations.
Councilmember deHaan stated there would be an upcoming discussion
on Charter amendments, which do not come under the City Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter comes under the voters.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a majority of the Council gave
direction to place Charter review on the agenda; this [the
proposal] puts the items into public view; when an individual
Counci wants something on the agenda, which the City Manager
does not have time for, the item can get on the agenda for
Regular Meeting
10
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,11,"discussion and a potential action from the entire Council with full
public notification, in full public view with a published version
of what is going to be discussed; inquired whether he understands
correctly.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if anything
the proposal is a way of ensuring that matters of interest to
individual Councilmembers get on the agenda because Council would
not be dealing with just City Manager discretion.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Vice Mayor Tam has
information about other cities practices.
Vice Mayor Tam responded the City of Palo Alto adopted a similar
protocol as one way to address openness and public transparency
regarding discussions between an individual Councilmember and the
City Manager.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City's current procedure brings it
out in the open.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the procedure allows Council to formalize it
[ the procedure]
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote Ayes Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
Councilmember Gilmore noted that the matter would return in six
months and [staff report] item 1 was deleted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-570) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending June 30, 2007.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the next report could provide the
sales tax percentage in other cities budgets, to which the Finance
Director responded possibly.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Page 2 notes that construction sales
posted the largest increase related to building materials and
wholesale. Alameda does not have a Home Depot.
The Finance Director stated Alameda has other businesses in town
that are classified as being part of the construction and wholesale
Regular Meeting
11
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,12,"category.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the business that fabricates windows
on Oak Street would be classified in said category; the report is
good; a two-year budget will be adopted next June; the revenue
stream is flat; auto dealerships will be on the decline; requested
that the report be posted to the website for public review.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether taxes would be impacted by
approximately one third because of a decline in auto sales tax.
The Finance Director responded there are a variety of auto dealers
such as used auto dealers and yacht sales.
Councilmember deHaan stated yacht sales have declined because a
portion of a Marina was closed down for housing development ; used
car dealerships will be lost when the new car dealership moves out.
The Finance Director stated there are independent used car lots.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the report is timely because a local
newspaper editorial exhorted residents to spend money locally; the
City needs to promote businesses on the Island.
The Finance Director stated the referenced editorial noted that
every penny of the sales tax comes to Alameda, which is not true;
Alameda only receives three-quarters of one percent.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the Alameda Towne Center has been
undergoing construction in the last two years; inquired whether the
new stores would offer hope for some minor recovery to offset the
auto dealership.
The Finance Director responded that she is not sure that there will
be a total offset stated some improvement has been made; more
improvement is anticipated as newer stores finish construction and
come on line; the impacts from Old Navy and TJ Max are not known
because the report only covers the period ending June 30.
Mayor Johnson stated that Park Street sales tax generation north
and south of Lincoln Avenue is over $500,000 for the second quarter
of 2007; inquired what the City of Albany has that makes sales tax
generation higher than Alameda.
Councilmember Gilmore responded the City of Albany has a Target.
Councilmember deHaan stated that people need to pay attention to
the chart that shows General Fund distribution. the impact will be
Regular Meeting
12
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,13,"on the General Fund when shortages occur, particularly for Police
and Fire.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-571) Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Rent Review
Advisory Committee.
Mayor Johnson appointed Jerome Harrison.
(07-572) - Councilmember deHaan noted that he would place the matter
of campaign reform on the agenda using the Council Referral
process; he would like to see limits on the amount from individual
donors and the total amount spent for a campaign he hopes to get
support in moving the matter forward.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
13
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2007 - -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 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 :
(07-560) 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 on
the status of negotiations.
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
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2007- - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize
the use of up to $50,000 [paragraph no. 07-051CIC], and the
recommendation to approve a $300,000 loan [paragraph no. 07-052
CIC] were removed for discussion.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of
the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board 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. ]
(*07-050 CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting of November 20, 2007. Approved.
(07-051 CIC) Recommendation to authorize the use of up to $50,000
in interest earnings to complete the enclosure of the Historic
Alameda Theater Balcony Access Corridor and related improvements.
Commissioner deHaan stated that the Commission discussed bringing
back value engineering items if money became available; inquired
whether other worthy items should be considered.
The Development Services Director responded the CIC would not be
required to make other significant, hard construction improvements
to the Historic Theater in the future; stated decorative or
restoration items could be considered; the mezzanine balcony
rehabilitation and restoration is the last hard construction item
left unfinished; the Historic Theater is required to have certain
fire and life safety exiting paths as well as American with
Disabilities (ADA) access; the proposed platform is part of the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
1
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,16,"existing path for fire safety as well as ADA access. ADA access
would be provided using an elevator system in the new theater; the
second floor was always assumed to be part of the second phase; the
balance of the second story improvements are the responsibility of
the developer.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated that he
supports the staff recommendation; he is concerned with safety
issues; PSBA urges Council to accept the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson stated the enclosure should be done now since money
is available.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether a canopy would be used or a
full enclosure, to which the Development Services Director
responded a full enclosure.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the enclosure should be done now
because the contractors are on site and there would be minimal
disruptions.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that staff and the developer did an
excellent job; he supports the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07-052 CIC) Recommendation to approve a $300,000 loan to Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L. P. for rehabilitation and restoration
of the mezzanine balcony in the Historic Alameda Theater and for
augmentation of the Cineplex construction contingency budget.
The Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Tam stated that the use of $691,000 Merged Area Bond
is fairly restricted.
The Development Services Manager stated that the 2003 Merged Area
Bond anticipated financing a number of projects; $4 million was
unspecified; using the Bond for the Library was not anticipate; $2
million was pledged to the Library to finish construction; State
funding for the library is closed out; the unused money was
intended to come back to the CIC for other projects.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
2
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,17,"Commissioner Tam stated the remainder of the fund cannot be used
for branch libraries because said libraries are not in
redevelopment areas.
The Development Services Manager stated typically funds have to be
used in redevelopment project areas or benefit redevelopment
project areas.
Commissioner deHaan stated the West End library would fall well
within said criteria because the library is the only library in the
area; he is concerned with 738 seats; inquired whether there is a
market for 738 seats.
The Development Services Director responded she called a number of
theaters; stated three or four shows can be sold out in a row on an
opening day or the day before.
Commissioner deHaan stated that previous discussions addressed
utilizing the balcony differently; 254 seats were never anticipated
in previous discussions.
Kyle Connor, Developer, stated theater strategy is to double track;
a lot of auditoriums are needed to double track; capacity is needed
to meet demand; 1,300 people attended a silent film festival at the
Castro Theater in San Francisco.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the next largest theater other
than the main theater.
Mr. Connor responded three theaters have approximately 200 seats.
Commissioner deHaan stated that the Castro Theater film festival
was a special event.
Mr. Connor stated that hopefully Alameda will have film festivals;
films pay off in approximately 2.7 weeks; 90% of business is done
within the first three weeks; facilitating capacity is important.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how the other portion [of the balcony
would be closed, to which Mr. Connor responded drapery would be
used.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, urged approval of the staff recommendation;
stated the community wants the balcony open.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the $2 million was not designated for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
3
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,18,"the Library inquired whether the $2 million was redevelopment
money that was held in case Library costs escalated, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated there is still Measure O money that
is supposed to go for branch upgrades a report is needed on the
matter at some point; he would rather open the mezzanine balcony
now; people saw the potential for the theater  he thinks the loan
should be given to complete the job; twelve public days might
demand 800 seats.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore requested a run down on
restoration that has been accomplished.
The Development Services Director stated the project has gone very
well: major, significant repairs and alterations were made to the
ceiling; all the trim molding was painted; original light fixtures
were installed; fabric workers restored the original curtain;
artisans did all of the leaf work; the original art work was put
back in place; the detail is phenomenal; some of the original
furniture might be recovered.
Chair Johnson stated the marquee sign is beautiful.
Commissioner deHaan stated that the Historic Alameda Theater is one
of the better restorations; separating the upper balconies into
theaters would be a shame. inquired how many seats will be gained,
to which the Development Services Director responded 150.
Commissioner deHaan requested a breakdown of efforts made for the
transition into the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director stated some of the original
carpeting will be put back into the Historic Theater; the Cineplex
will have similar carpeting and upholstery; similar icons and
images have been carried through the Cineplex.
Commissioner Gilmore requested staff to update the website photos.
Commissioner Tam stated that the schedule shows a March opening
;
all contingencies are being used; inquired whether the CIC would be
requesting another loan in the next four months.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
4
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,19,"The Development Services Director responded there is approximately
$106,000 left in contingency.
Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff is requesting $200,000 on
top of the loan, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the negative.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $300,000 loan is coming
from undesignated bond money, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*07-053 CIC) Recommendation to accept the Annual Report and
authorize transmittal to the State Controller's Office and the City
Council. Accepted.
(*07-573 CC/*07-054 CIC) Recommendation to accept transmittal of
the: 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal
Year ended June 30, 2007; 2) Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures
Report on compliance with Vehicle Code Section 40200. 3 Parking
Citation Processing; 3) Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance
with the Proposition 111 21005-06 Appropriations Limit Increment;
4) Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092
Audit Report for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2007; 5) Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for
Year ended June 30, 2007; 6) Community Improvement Commission Basic
Component Unit Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30,
2007; and 7) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic
Component Unit Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30,
2007. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
(07-574CC/07-055CIC) Public Hearing to consider approval of a first
addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed-use Development Project
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the
Development Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and
Development Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to
modify the Public Waterfront Promenade;
07-574A CC) Resolution No. 14162, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of an Amendment of the Disposition and Development
Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree
Acquisition Corporation. Adopted and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
5
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,20,"(07-055A CIC) Resolution 07-151, ""Approving a First Addendum to the
Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Executive Director
to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing
Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. "" Adopted ;
and
(07-574B CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development
Agreement Amendment DA-06-0003 to the Development Agreement
(Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) By and Between the
City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated January
16, 2007. Introduced.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a Power
Point presentation.
Dan Bucko with SMWM provided a brief presentation on wharf
redesign.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief
summary of the proposed modifications to the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA)
.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether utility lines
would be above ground going to Clif Bar and restaurants.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
existing 115 kV line would be relocated into the Mitchell Avenue
right-of-way; stated Catellus would perform the trenching and
install the conduit necessary for the ultimate undergrounding; the
115kV line starts at the High Street Bridge, runs the entire length
of the City's waterfront, and terminates at Pacific Avenue and Main
Street adjacent to Alameda Point.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the estimated
insurance cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the cost
has not been calculated; stated the idea is to obtain insurance if
available at commercially reasonable rates.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be a
commercially reasonable rate, to which the Base Reuse and Community
Development Manager responded that she would provide the
information
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Alameda Landing tax
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
6
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,21,"increment would be parceled off; Merged Improvement Areas would be
paid back first with tax increment from other areas; requested
clarification on the matter and whether Alameda Point would be
affected.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Alameda
Point is in the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP)
redevelopment area and would not be affected the Merged Area is
the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) ; the Merged Area Bonds were
issued in 2003 and were an existing condition when the DDA was
approved with Catellus in 2006; the bond was sized and assumed a
zero tax increment from Alameda Landing because the property is not
on the tax roll; all of the tax increment in the entire project
area is pledged to the repayment of the debt; typically
underwriters have a debt to loan value ratio when debt is issued
technically, the Alameda Landing tax increment is already pledged
to the repayment of the existing obligation; the Bond was sized
when there was no tax increment at Alameda Landing; the project
area should have no trouble making the bond payment without Alameda
Landing tax increment eventually, property taxes will be on the
rolls for Alameda Landing.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that some of the proposed
Development Agreement (DA) amendments spread the cost and shift
some of the liabilities; the staff report notes that the City's
financial obligations do not increase but overall project costs
increase and references just the acquisition of the property;
inquired whether that is the only additional cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is
a one time cost for fencing the wharf and acquisition of the
property insurance; stated the 115kV obligation would not be
triggered until the DA is amended to remove the project obligation;
the process is sequential.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan requested elaboration on the
utility assessment district; inquired whether an assessment for the
wharf is required.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded a
Municipal Utility District is anticipated which would pay for
maintenance and operations of the public open spaces such as the
wharf; the undergrounding district would be just like the Rule 20A
Undergrounding District where there is an assessment.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
7
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,22,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the district would
cover.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
district would be comprised of the properties from Alameda Landing
to Alameda Point.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be
an assessment fund to maintain the wharf.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
assessment fund would be from the Municipal Utilities District,
covers more than the wharf, and includes other City services.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
George Phillips, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, urged approval and
expedition.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, encouraged the developer to keep both
warehouses.
Roberta Rockwell, Alameda East Bay Miracle League, stated that she
supports the Alameda Landing Project.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated he thought that the May 29 plan
was great; he was distressed when the September amendment came
before the Planning Board and the western portion of the wharf and
a major structure were removed; he thinks that there may be ways of
saving and repairing the pier over time.
Mario Mariani, Alameda, stated he supports the changes.
Don Lindsey, Alameda, encouraged moving forward with the project.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the buildings
would be demolished or deconstructed and reused.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
buildings would be a combination of deconstruction and potential
demolition; stated the existing DDA does not obligate the developer
to maintain the warehouses the Planning Board added a Condition of
Approval which states that prior to making a decision about the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
8
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,23,"disposition of the second warehouse, the developer will go back to
the Planning Board and make a presentation regarding the
feasibility of retaining the warehouse; the May and September plans
do not contemplate the retention of the second warehouse;
currently, the Plan calls for the retention of the first warehouse
for Clif Bar; several other warehouses south of the wharf will be
partially deconstructed and made into parking sheds; the developer
is committed to recycle and reuse elements if the second warehouse
is not used.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the office space
square footage for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse and Community
Development Manager responded approximately 100,000 square feet.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the
remaining square footage of the building, to which the Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager responded approximately 300,000
square feet.
Councilmember/CommissionerdeHaan inquired whether three to five
story buildings are still contemplated on the wharf.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Master Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the
height limit was reduced to 85 feet last year.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the waterfront
would have five-story buildings, to which the Base Reuse and
Community Development Manager responded possibly.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the issue would
be contrary to the planning principles of having more open, step
down designs to the waterfront.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
Master Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the new
buildings would be set back from the waterfront; there would be
waterfront access and open space more than 100 feet from the water ;
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requires a
minimum 100 foot setback from the water.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost
estimate for retrofitting the wharf.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded between
$30 million and $35 million; stated San Francisco waterfront
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
9
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,24,"improvements are estimated at $1 billion; the Cruise Terminal did
not go forward because of a $144 million bill to retrofit the piers
at the Cruise Terminal San Francisco's challenge is much bigger
than Alameda Landing but is similar to the challenges of upgrading
the wharf to current seismic conditions and Uniform Building Code
as well as geotechnical issues.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the anticipated
cost would be.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the cost
would be approximately $15 million in order to accommodate Clif
Bar.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said cost was
new compared to the original estimate, to which the Base Reuse and
Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the original
estimate.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that she
would need to check; stated an additional $30 million to $35 was
originally budgeted to retrofit the wharf and is cut back to $15
million to preserve the warehouse for Clif Bar; the developer
states that it is infeasible to spend an additional $15 million to
$20 million to preserve the remainder of the wharf; the developer
believes that the redesign maintains a lot of the public amenities
and benefits and is a better plan in some ways in that the entire
waterfront experience is not seven feet above the water; there is
the ability to step down and access the water at the water level.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the
history construction costs escalate; costs for preserving the
warehouse and rest of the wharf are not worth holding up the
project everything should be done to recycle materials if a couple
of buildings are lost; historic significance can be preserved in
photos and videos; the buildings are warehouses on a dock; he likes
the idea of getting closer to the water's edge and getting millions
of dollars in sales tax which helps to have a safe City and good
parks; everything should be done to underground the 115kV line,
including pursuing Homeland Security money; keeping the project on
track is important.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she concurs with
Councilmember/Commissione: Matarrese; there has been a six-month
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
10
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,25,"delay in trying to get Clif Bar onto the site; conditions will
change ; seventy-five percent of the piers are compromised. the
recommended amendments accommodate changed conditions in a way that
does not expose the City to additional financial obligations.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolutions
and introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated that
she assumes that a future feasibility study would take into account
the condition of the warehouse and piers and would be part of the
question of whether or not the pier can be saved.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated new technology might be available in five years
that would make pier replacement more cost effective; stated the
feasibility study would address requirements to retain the building
as well as the requirement to do what needs to be done to the pier.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is time to move the project
forward; the delay was unfortunate; opening up the waterfront and
shoreline is great BCDC would not approve building a pier over the
water today; exposing more of the shoreline is good; inquired
whether there is a timeframe for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager responded fall of 2009.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the phase is not
going to be completely designed out within the next two to three
years; his concern is how the waterfront office buildings are
treated; he would be discouraged to see a five-story building flush
on the shoreline; he hopes that the developer will look at other
alternatives in the interim; the waterfront was always questionable
and never thought to be something that could be saved; he is
concerned with the amount of money that could be deferred from the
project; he would like to see the money used in a better way to
support the project and community.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07-575 CC/07-056 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal
Year 2007 First Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.
The Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
11
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,26,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that
Proposition 1A did not provide any protection for the City's
redevelopment fund; requested clarification on the issue.
The Finance Director stated the last Educational Revenue
Augmentation funds (ERAF) were $711,000 out of $5 million of
property tax in the past years; the construction of a takeaway
formula is unknown; redevelopment agencies are the most vulnerable.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Council
did not intend to use reserves for Beltline litigation costs;
inquired what will be done in the future to prevent reoccurrence.
The Finance Director responded any direction for use of funds needs
to come from the City Manager to the Finance Department and needs
to have discussions on funding.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated all money needs to be budgeted with
approval of Council.
The Finance Director stated that she understands that the money was
approved for payment from the Risk Management Fund.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
audit practices and protocols are sufficient to catch any in the
Finance Director's opinion; stated that authorization happened over
a year agoi audits have been performed since that time; the matter
is just coming to light now; inquired whether audit practices and
protocols are sufficient.
The Finance Director stated the only way that an auditor would be
aware of the issue was if substantial information was available
about the fact that the litigation was directed by Council; the
direction would be in the form of information from the City Manager
and the City Attorney to Finance.
Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired how the
issue was discovered.
The Finance Director responded by review of the Risk Management
Fund when the balance became a deficit.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
the auditors look for deficits.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
12
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,27,"The Finance Director responded the auditors pointed out that it was
a deficit this year but the issue was already determined.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Power
Point presentation should be posted to the website and Council
should receive a copyi the national economic environment affects
California and will affect the City; thanked the Finance Director
for doing a good job on the presentation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam echoed Commissioner
Matarrese's appreciation for the presentation; inquired how the
City deals with replenishing or drawing down on the reserves from
the 20% to 25% range.
The Finance Director responded the draw down was purposeful and
well thought out by Council in terms of trying to meet unmet
infrastructure needs.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether reserves
are replenished also.
The Finance Director responded reserves are replenished only by
having revenues exceed expenditures; stated the expenditure budget
is $85.7 million; typically, not all money is spent and will go
back into the fund balance; an absolute commitment cannot be made
at this time.
Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a
draw down on the reserves because of needed infrastructure; the
draw down was supposed to be 25% to 23% and is now 21%; 18% is left
and will leave approximately $12 million; a lot of the $12 million
is obligated.
The Finance Director stated 18% leaves approximately $15.5 million
the $400,000 reserve designated for Fire Station 3 replacement is
excluded; approximately $6 million is loaned to other funds.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the
$6 million could be called back.
The Finance Director responded the $6 million could be called back,
but the disaster would be pushed off to another area.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what loans
are in the $6 million.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
13
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,28,"The Finance Director responded $2.2 million is from Alameda Power &
Telecom (AP&T) and is scheduled to be repaid in 2009; the remainder
is all redevelopment agency loans.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Public Safety
equates to approximately 60% of the budget and 30% of the staffing;
the out years obligation is concerning; Public Safety retirement
funds are escalating.
The Finance Director stated the actuarial evaluation was received
in October from the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) ; the
City's contribution rate for Public Safety is remaining very close
to 30% and is not increasing or decreasing significantly.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the dollar amount increases because of
salary increases.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
immediate action is necessary to the extent of hiring freezes, etc.
The Finance Director responded department heads have been requested
to restrain spending; stated discretionary spending should be
postponed.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated department heads have
been advised that a minimum of 1.5% needs to be saved; the budget
is reviewed at weekly meetings; more changes may be necessary mid-
year.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that out
years are a real concern; different plans will need to be
developed; requested elaboration on Proposition 1A.
The Finance Director stated the report includes an excellent
description of Proposition 1A; the Governor has to declare that
there is a severe State fiscal hardship the State can temporarily
suspend Proposition 1A basic protection of property tax; the
Legislature has to agree by a two-thirds vote; a separate statute
must be adopted that requires the State to repay local governments
in three years and can be done only twice in ten years.
Councilmember/Boaró Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he has heard
about a 25% cut a 10% cut would be disastrous at a State level.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated one way to
build up the General Fund reserves is by having revenues exceed
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
14
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,29,"expenses the other way is to not fund infrastructure, as was done
in the past; Council decided that the City could no longer do that
[not fund infrastructurel; tough choices will need to be made.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is
not overly concerned with replenishing the reserves; the reserve
was built partially on the PERS bonanza that occurred in the
dot. . com boom.
The Finance Director stated two years had a zero percent
contribution; the money was allowed to flow back into the fund
balance rather than setting the money aside to be used in the
future for payments.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his
biggest concern is balancing the budget and delivering essential
services; the big difference between 2002 and today is that there
was not $10 billion a month of tax dollars flowing out of the
economy at the federal level; tonight's discussion sets the stage
for what will be a very tough fiscal environment for the
foreseeable future; it is important to put on the brakes now.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how department heads cut budgets when
there are already built in increases.
The Finance Department responded salary and benefits are
contracted; a position can be left vacant.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated department heads are being asked to cut
budgets by 1.5%; however, budgets are increasing more than 1. .5%
because of fixed increases.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Contracts
are tied to salaries; the salaries are paid to people; the blunt
end is either not filling the position or lay offs.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long
the City had the 25% reserve.
The Finance Director responded Council was presented with a policy
for adoption in late 1997 or early 1998.
Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Matarrese requested a copy
of said policy.
Vice Mayor/Board  Member/Commissioner Tam stated Alameda is one of
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
15
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,30,"the few cities that has a reserve many cities are being hit hard;
the League of California Cities cautioned all cities regarding
Proposition 1A; it is easier for the Legislature to raid local
government than it is to go up against the educational lobbyists.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Oakland was audited; $3
million is questionable on payrolli inquired whether an operational
review or audit would be beneficial to Alameda.
The Finance Director responded an operational review never hurts;
there is a great deal of coordination between Human Resources and
the Finance Department a review could be scheduled later in the
fiscal year and there has been some practice with the conversion of
the new payroll system.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated operational reviews were performed with
significant findings for AP&T and the golf course.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the City of
Oakland did a performance audit; inquired what would be the cost
for such an audit.
The Finance Director responded a Request for Proposal (RFP) would
need to be done.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated AP&T and the golf course
are enterprise funds and are different.
The Finance Director stated a RFP could be issued in the spring.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated expenditures are 23% to 25% generally;
some are lower; inquired whether some categories are over budgeted,
such as Police Contract overtime, abandoned vehicle abatement, and
advance life support.
The Finance Director responded the Police Contract overtime does
not follow a straight line and is based upon the need of outside
persons to contract with the Police Department for overtime, such
as for school dances.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is enough in the budget
for additional animal shelter staffing and improvements.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded a grant fund could be
used; stated funding impacts would need to be identified.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
16
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,31,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the golf course had more of a shortfall
than was anticipated; inquired how much is left in the golf course
fund, to which the Finance Director responded $1.9 million.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the golf course fund is burning through
approximately $60,000 per month.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the $15.5
million [reserve] is pretty well obligated; he believes that staff
has the skills in getting requirements in order; having an outside
review process would be a shame; actions have to be weighed; AP&T
and the golf course are other concerns.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a 1.5% reduction is aggressive
enough for the next six or seven months.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the 1.5% reduction is
a beginning; stated the matter will be monitored; she believes that
the reduction fits at this point; direction can be changed if
necessary.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council needs to consider how cuts are
made.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the matter would be
brought back to Council mid year.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the
first quarter financial report and requested recommended
appropriations.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 11:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
17
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,32,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
18
and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf