{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-552) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to\nappropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556]\nwas withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-553) Library Project Update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief update.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in\nthe internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in\nthe negative.\nMayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas\nthat are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in\nother areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the\ncosts for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether\nthe costs are in the contract.\nThe Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for\nconstruction administration; any changes are covered under\nconstruction administration; the percentage of change orders\nattributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney\nat the end of the project.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were\nconstruction administration changes and whether the changes have\nalready been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work\nwould result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project\nManager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 2, "text": "for oversights.\nThe Project Manager responded that the Architect does not\nvoluntarily offer to pay recourse would be a claim on the\ninsurance policy.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for\nthe firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall\nand staircase could be potential claims.\nMayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the\npublic is very impressed with the process.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with\nthe caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate\n$142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] ; noted major\ninroads have been made on the ferry service.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number ]\n( * 05-554) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on November 15, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-555) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52\n(05-556) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff\nFunds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the\nBridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for\nexpenditures incurred. Withdrawn.\n(*05-557) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit\nPlan. Accepted.\n(*05-558) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center\nWorkstations. Accepted.\n(*05-559) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance\nAnnual Review. Accepted.\n(*05-560) - Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 3, "text": "Review. Accepted.\n(*05-561) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and\nFire services. Accepted.\n(*05-562) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for\nthe 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted.\n(*05-563) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire\nContract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for\nexclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex. Accepted.\n(*05-564) Resolution No. 13910, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Sungard Pentamation, Bio-Key International and Omega Group\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount\nof $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus\nSoftware, Bio-Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview\nSoftware. \" Adopted.\n( *05-564A) Resolution No. 13911, \"Authorizing the Purchase of\nStorage Area Network System Using the State of California\nDepartment of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive\nBid Award. \" Adopted.\n(*05-564B) Resolution No. 13912, \"Authorizing the Execution and\nDelivery of a Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, an Escrow\nAgreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the\nAcquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment\nfor the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of\nDocuments Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the\nTaking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the\nTransactions Contemplated by this Resolution. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-565) Resolution No. 13913, \"Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as\na Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate/Land\nDevelopment Seat) \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.\nTrevithick with a certificate of appointment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City\nCouncil, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.\n***\n(05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of\noptions to increase funding for preventative maintenance of\ninfrastructure.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back\nto the Council at mid-year.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer\ntax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per\nthousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal\napproximately $180,000.\nMayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter\nthe Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would\nlike to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home\nprices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for\ndeferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the\nshortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through\nthe transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard;\ninquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and\ndeteriorate over time.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nrecommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term\nstrategy which would be folded into the ten-year model.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only\nband-aids.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more\nstrategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten-year\nbudget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a\ncertain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year tax\nincreases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the\npublic has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the\nlibrary, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding]\nthat have been made over the past five to seven years should not\nhappen again.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once\nwould not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of\nincreasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be\napproached through a public process; sidewalks are the most\ncritical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and\nsafety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and\nnecessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve\nis an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be\nconsidered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under\nbudget because of department head vacancies; there should be an\nanalysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair\nprojects have been scheduled.\nThe Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently\nscheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing\ncould be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year\nsidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between\nthe\ncriticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks.\nMayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk\npriorities are set based on finances is important ; a lot of\nsidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether\nthere should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [ for\nstreets] because of potential injuries and costs.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the total payment of\nsettlement claims and judgments ranged from a high of $37,000 to a\nlow of $10,000 during the last four years.\nMayor Johnson stated that attorney fees exceed the payouts.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether any claims were made\nbecause the streets were in bad condition, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded that he was not aware of any.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems\nto be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been\nreceived.\nThe Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive;\nRedwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was\nwaiting for a report back from staff on the product.\nMayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product\nsaves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed\nconsideration should be given to drawing down on some of the\nreserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs.\nThe City Manager stated that staff could project and identify\nwhether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve,\nusing part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for\nstreets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for\nstreets from the reserve for sidewalks instead.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are\nreviewed.\nThe Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was\ndeveloped to address trees planted years ago which were not the\nmost desirable for long term.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural\nattrition.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that\nidentifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which\nidentifies trees with non-invasive roots.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated\nstandards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being\nreviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have\nLiquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda\nthan in other cities because of the value of large trees.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 7, "text": "drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance\nhas grown experientially over the last four years.\nThe Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep\ngrowing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth\ncould be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund\nreserves.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the\nreserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not\nfunding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done\nfor a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on\nthe reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is\nalready designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8%\nto 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease\nrevenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted\nover to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue\nredevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital\ndollars could pay for improvements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars\ncould be done.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored\nwith caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to\nexplore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a\nreport on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a\ndetailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths,\nsidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader\ncommunity involvement in the process; moving forward was important.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the\nbeltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to\ndiscuss the transfer tax with staff.\nThe City Manager stated that an election would need to be held\nbecause taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet\nwith the Board of Realtors.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the\namount of transfer tax in other cities; the City of Dublin's\ntransfer tax is $1.10 per thousand and the City of Oakland's\ntransfer tax is $16.10 per thousand.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 8, "text": "The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for\nCharter cities is $9.47.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could\nbe unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is\nimportant; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects\nthat would provide benefit.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to\nmake adjustments.\nThe City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff\nrecommendation regarding current funds so that streets and\nsidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be\ninitiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the\nreserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated\nfunds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty\nyear scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial\nprojection.\nMayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that\nbudget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.\nThe City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating\nadditional revenues should also be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be\nreflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking\nthe money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further\ndeterioration.\nMayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if\nnecessary.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-\nyear review and decisions would be made then; there should be an\non-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be\ndeferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be\nestablished as a standing rate in the budget processi determining\nhow projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be\ndone if other funds become available is an important segment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of\ndrawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current\nbudget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 9, "text": "redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4)\nprovide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the\ntransfer tax.\nMayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets,\nsidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred\nmaintenance in the parks the parks and recreation facilities are\nvery valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed\nin the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to\ninclude reviewing the other assessment districts and the\nestablishment of landscaping and lighting districts.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to\ninclude an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt\nunless it was necessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a\nseparate issue.\nMayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time\nexploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was\nsomething the Council would like to review as a solution to the\ndeferred maintenance when the item was brought back.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an\nOff-Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded an Off-Agenda Report seems to be the\nsame as his request for analysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated\nthat determining how much time would be spent on the matter should\nbe determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and\nwould not be able to vote on the matter tonight.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of\nthe Plan.\nMayor Johnson requested a brief Off-Agenda Report describing the\nHenry Gardner Plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include\nan Off-Agenda - Report on the Plan piling debt on top of a deficit\nof deferred maintenance was not a priority for him.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of\ntime on the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as\nnecessary to do a thorough job.\nMayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be\nidentifying the Henry Gardner Plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the\nmotion.\nThe City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval\nof the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an\nanalysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of\nreserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under\nbudgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new\nsources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring\nan adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda\nReport on the Henry Gardner Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include\nreviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of\nlandscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the\nPlanning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and\nresponsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ;\nstated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a\ncomprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the\nefforts to make informed decisions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the\nfeedback: the Planning Department and Development Services\nDepartment staff is top notch.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available\non- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 11, "text": "for delayed viewing i requested investigating how the process is\ndone.\n(05-569) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces\narose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services\nindicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the\nPark Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like\nthe study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is\nthe current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space;\npotential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail\nand being able to buy out, however the study should review costs,\nincluding ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good\nprice anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not\nbe used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was\nbought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be\nreviewed in the parking study.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting\nthe in lieu fee be raised.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and\nmight need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an\nestablished parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the\nowners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail\nat the site and put the burden back on the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which\nCouncilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger\ncontext of parking structures for the downtown areas having half\nof every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown\nplanning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more\nstrategically. money going towards parking structures could be\nemphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot.\n(05-570) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the\ntree lighting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well\nreceived.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the lower lights are lit; suggested\nthat the lights go on at dark.\n(05-571) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Master Plan was one\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 12, "text": "of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park\nCommission meeting he was glad to see some of the major elements\ntackled.\n(05-572) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him\nabout the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of\nrevenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested\nbackground data on the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nregular meeting at 10:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - DECEMBER 6 , 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-053) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property\nFleet Industrial Supply Center Negotiating party: Community\nImprovement Commission and ProLogis, Inc. i Under negotiation Price\nand terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to\nprepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off-agenda issues.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 6, 2005 - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-548) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney\n(05-549) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Mohlen & Skrinde V. City of Alameda.\n(05-550) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:\nKaren Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management\nEmployees.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the\nCouncil discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal\nCounsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel\n;\nregarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a\nbriefing and gave direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 6 , 2006- - -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority\nMembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of\nAlameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05-\n551CC/056CIC] was moved to the Regular Agenda.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese moved\napproval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n(*05-054CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting of November 15, 2005 Approved.\n(*05-055CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with\nKomorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount\nby $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction\nadministration services for the Civic Center parking garage.\nAccepted.\n***\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City\nCouncil Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint\nMeeting at 8:03 p.m.\n***\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 16, "text": "AGENDA ITEM\n(05-551CC/05-056CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive\nAnnual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005,\nAuditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with\nVehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed\nupon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-\n05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement\nSystem Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year\nended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant\nPrograms Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005,\nCommunity Improvement Commission basic component unit financial\nstatements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements\nfor the year ended June 30, 2005.\nThe City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria\nGiannell, Maze & Associates.\nThe External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial\nstatements and management recommendations\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits\nand Miscellaneous Revenues.\nThe External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of\nten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and\nchanges in the fund balance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase\nfrom 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005.\nThe External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and\nForfeitures.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital\nOutlay have declined since 1996.\nouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why\ngeneral expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since\n2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred\nbecause of budget cuts.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 17, "text": "increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in\n2005.\n ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether\nthe External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to\nwhich the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures\nincluded pension costs.\nThe External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total\nexpenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005;\nthe growth was not substantial.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why\nthere was a major increase in the General Government and Payments\nto Other Agencies expenditure.\nThe External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred\nseveral years back within the general government which resulted in\nexpenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Daysog inquired whether\na statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared.\nThe External Auditor responded that a separate report could be\nprovided.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was\ncollected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund\nwas noted.\nThe External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an\nEnterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full-accrual basis. the\nCash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total\namount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been\ndeferred when spending has been less than revenues collected.\nThe External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have\nbeen deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 18, "text": "Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in\n1996.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether\nthe 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External\nAuditor responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have\nbeen discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that\nhas been accomplished has been done without increasing the total\ndebt service.\nThe External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten\nyears have not been easy; more is being done with less.\nMayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual\nsalaries.\nThe External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board\n(GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented\nfor major funds.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were\nincluded in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference\nbetween the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office\nexpenditures; stated the original budget for professional and\nadministrative services was reduced significantly expenditures\nwere almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is\nneeded.\nThe External Auditor responded the increase in professional and\nadministrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated\nbudget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether\nthere were other improvements or further decay from the previous\naudit.\nThe External Auditor stated there has not been further decay;\ncapital assets are very difficult to control and have improved.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n4\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether\nthe improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to\nwhich the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also\ncontributed to the improvement.\nThe External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have\nadjustments.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan stated that the\nExternal Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in\nadministrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans;\nstated the benefits and refunds remain about the same.\nThe External Auditor responded the 1999-2000 increase was the cost\nof the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004-2005 increase was\nthe cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting\nstandards.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to\nfund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds ;\ninquired whether one department charging another department was\nconsidered an inter-fund transfer.\nThe External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one\ndepartment charging another department is not considered moving\nbudgeted resources.\nMayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and\nallocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget.\nVice  ayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether\nthe ten-year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police\nand Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation.\nThe External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the\nobligation outpaces the funding.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore stated the\nchallenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City\nservices too much.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n5\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there\nwas a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to\nprevent the problem from reoccurring.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and\nreport back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the\nmatter.\nThe External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding\nthe employees reporting directing to the City Council which are\noutside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's\nelected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney\nand City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances.\nMayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year;\nsignificant changes were made under the direction of the Interim\nCity Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that\nshe has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance\nDirector worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing\nprevious issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work\nwith the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a\nsystem in place was a good idea.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the\nlouncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n6\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 21, "text": "ensure that internal finances are controlled.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having\nthe City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether\nthere was a way to increase the City Auditor's role.\nMayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be\ninvolved.\nThe City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape\nand improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year\nstudy would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance\nDirector was in the unenviable position of being at the same level\nas other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance\nDirector periodically to address issues.\nThe City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the\nCity Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was\ncomfortable with identifying issues with other departments;\ndiscussions with the City Auditor could be more routine.\nThe City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy.\nMayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern;\nthere have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined\nthe City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that\nshe looks forward to the ten-year projection.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval\nof accepting the submitted reports.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n7\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-12-06", "page": 22, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n8\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nDecember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf"}