{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:57 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-058) - Proclamation declaring January 30, 2006 through April 4,\n2006 as A Season for Nonviolence.\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation and requested staff to forward\nthe proclamation to the New Parent Support Group and Alameda\nCollaborative for Children, Youth & Families.\n(06-059) Presentation by the Port of Oakland on the draft 20-year\nMaster Plan for the Oakland Airport.\nSteve Grossman, Director of Aviation, provided a brief report on\nthe Master Plan study, and Doug Mansel, Project Manager, provided a\nPower Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson thanked Mr. Grossman and Mr. Mansel for the\npresentation; recognized Dave Needle with the Airport Operations\nCommittee; expressed thanks to the Port Executive Director and the\nBoard of Commissioners for working with the community stated she\nwas impressed with the projected cargo traffic reductions.\nMelody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Port of\nOakland for including the community in the process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Port of Oakland and members of\nthe community who participated in the work sessions; stated he\nappreciates throttling back the noisiest operations; he is\nconcerned with the accident prone general aviation which ends up\nover Bay Farm Island and the east end of the Island; he hopes that\nAlameda's and San Leandro's weight exceeds the other nine Bay Area\ncounties regarding the full 2025 projection; he does not want to\nsacrifice Alameda's safety or comfort for others convenience.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that the City should be proud of the\nknowledgeable residents involved with the Airport Operating\nCommittee; the progress has been positive.\nMayor Johnson stated that resident knowledge has been extensive.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when regional dialogue would commence\nregarding the other runways.\nMr. Grossman responded preliminary discussions have been initiated\nwith the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Regional\nAirport Planning Committee; the work should start within the year\nand continue to be a multi-year process.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Alameda's voice is important throughout\nthe process.\n(06-060) Library project update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief update.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether branch library hours would cover the\nMain Library hours during the closure.\nThe Acting Library Director stated covering the hours was not\nfeasible because extra staff was needed for the tagging process;\nthe public would be advised on the closure through a major press\nrelease along with a notice from the schools; staff could review\nthe matter again.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether collections would be tagged on the\nweekends.\nThe Acting Library Director responded collections would be tagged\nsix days a week at the Main Library; the branch library collections\nwould be tagged on the existing closed days [Friday and Sunday].\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the branch library collections would\nbe tagged in two days.\nThe Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated the\nbranch library tagging will not start at this time the two-week\nprocess would concentrate on the Main Library.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether high school students or\ntemporary staffing could help with the tagging process.\nThe Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 3, "text": "process is quiet involved.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a plan seems to be in place for the\ntransition.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the desire to keep\none of the branch libraries open full time; the branch libraries\nare small and would not accommodate the number of people who use\nthe interim Main Library; she is not sure of the additional benefit\nin opening a branch library for seven days.\nThe Acting Library Director stated that extended hours are being\nplanned for the branch libraries during the closure in October.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what are the closure days, to\nwhich the Acting Library Director responded March 6 through March\n19.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the closure could be in\nthe summer.\nThe Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated\nsummer closure would not provide enough time for tagging and would\nimpact the summer reading programs.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much time is needed for the tagging.\nThe Acting Library Director responded that two-thirds to three-\nquarters would be completed during the closure.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the process would be completed, to\nwhich the Acting Library Director responded hopefully October.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the school schedule would be\naffected.\nThe Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated Donna\nFletcher, Alameda Unified School District, advised her that the\nproposed closure dates are the best time to perform the tagging\nthe School District is helping to get the word out through a\nnewsletter.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to review the possibility of keeping\none of the branch libraries open during the two-week closure of the\nMain Library if there is a huge outcry over closure.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether future rains would affect the\nprogress of the project, other than brickwork.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 4, "text": "schedule and within budget.\n***\nCouncilmember deHaan excused himself from the City Council Meeting\nat 9:49 p.m. due to a pinched nerve.\n***\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph\nno. 06-061] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1.\n]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number ]\n( *06-062) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on January 17, 2006, and Special Joint City Council and\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February\n1, 2006. Approved.\n(06-063) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,501,850.82.\nMayor Johnson thanked the Finance Director for the new check\nregister format.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of ratifying the bills in\nthe amount of $5,501,850.82.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]\n(*06-064) Resolution No. 13924, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 5, "text": "Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. \"\nAdopted.\n(*06-065) Resolution No. 13925, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . \"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-066)\nOrdinance No. 2946, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II\n(Administration) Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and\nPrescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. \" Finally\npassed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Film Commission would help to\nmanage the impacts on the neighborhoods and increase business\nopportunities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]\n(06-067) Resolution No. 13926, \"Supporting Equal Opportunity\nAccess to Community Sports Facilities and Community Sponsored\nRecreation Programs. Adopted.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief report on\nAssembly Bill 2404.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Alameda programs are in\nfull compliance, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that adoption of the Resolution\nwould ensure that requirements are met for both City-owned and non-\nCity owned programs and facilities; he is please with the efforts\nmade in advance of the Resolution.\nMayor Johnson requested that the actual policy to be adopted by the\nRecreation and Park Commission on February 9 be brought back to the\nCouncil for review; stated that the Resolution is vague; the policy\nneeds to be consistent with the Resolution and State law; thanked\nstaff for being responsive; stated she is impressed with the plans\nto move forward with renovation and improvements of three fields.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the resolution provides non- -\ndiscriminatory access to fields and times; certain groups have been\ngiven the least favorite fields and times in the past the\nResolution would ensure a balance in times and field locations.\nMayor Johnson stated that she appreciates former Councilmember\nBarbara Kerr originally bringing the matter to the Council's\nattention.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(Communications from Council)\n(06-068) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Economic Development Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Lorre Zuppan for appointment to the\nEconomic Development Commission.\n(06-069) Discussion regarding a resolution calling upon steps to\nwithdraw our Reservists, Coast Guard Units and members of the\nCalifornia National Guard troops from Iraq.\nJoseph Woodard, Alameda, quoted 2005 Nobel Prize Playwright Harold\nPinter urged a return of the troops.\nMary Abu-Saba, Alameda Peace Network, stated that Alameda needs the\nCalifornia National Guard back.\nSusan Galleymore, Alameda, stated the War has caused a lot of\nhorror and destruction; urged bringing the National Guard home.\nMark Irons, Alameda, urged the Council to place the resolution on\nthe next agenda for discussion.\nSallyanne Monti, Alameda, stated the death rate of the National\nGuard is 35% higher than other units of service; urged return of\nthe National Guard.\nDorothy Kakimoto, Alameda, stated that the War is robbing social\nservices ; urged the return of the National Guard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 7, "text": "Kathryn Neale Manalo, Alameda Chapter, Network of Spiritual\nProgressives, urged the return of the National Guard.\nPat Flores, Alameda, urged the Council to speak out by passing the\nresolution.\nNoel W. Folsom, Alameda, commended Councilmember Matarrese for\nbringing the matter to public attention; urged the Council to adopt\nthe resolution.\nCarl Helpern, Alameda, stated that he was in support of the\nresolution; the California National Guard was not intended to be an\narmy operational force and should be brought home.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda is the appropriate\nplace to address the issue and vindicates the controversial vote\nthat occurred four years; there is a difference between a no-cost\nconveyance and hundreds of millions of dollars of clean up that\ncannot be done; the City needs to beg for money from the Corps of\nEngineers to repair the seawalli Alameda's Marine unit was\ndeployed; the National Guard and Coast Guard deployment directly\nimpact Alameda; requested the Council to place the resolution on\nthe next City Council agenda.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the resolution language could\nbe discussed if the Council votes to place the matter on the next\nagenda, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to hear comments\non the wording of the resolution.\nMayor Johnson stated the Councilmembers could make comments at this\ntime; public comment would be heard when the resolution is brought\nback; stated that a Senate Hearing addressed concerns with the\nState levels of the National Guard; the percentage of National\nGuard troops in Iraq was approximately 40% and is currently down to\napproximately 30%; the National Guard has a two-year time limit for\nactivation; she supports the resolution with regard to the National\nGuard; she does not believe that California is prepared to deal\nwith a natural disaster; stated she is a little less comfortable\nwith locally dealing with the troop levels, although spending money\nin Iraq has an impact on local governments ; stated that two\nresolutions could be proposed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that Alameda is a middle-of-the-road - -\ntype City; Alameda's comments carries weight on issues of global\nsignificance words should chosen carefully and wisely; the public\ncan be engaged to receive more input on the terms of US policy in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 8, "text": "Iraq; kindling should not be thrown on the fire that is already in\nWashington, D.C. and Sacramento; there is an opportunity to\nresponsibility discuss the matter.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the eloquence\nof tonight's speakers; urged that the matter be placed on an agenda\nfor action; stated she can see the arguments for bringing the\nCalifornia National Guard home; she is comfortable in supporting\nthe decision; she is less comfortable about inserting herself in\nthe national debate regarding levels of troops, even though\npersonally she is not in favor of having troops in Iraq; she would\nlook forward to having a discussion on the matter and receiving\nmore information from experts before rendering an opinion; two\nresolutions may be appropriate.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated several resolutions could be\nconsidered.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved to place the matter on the next City\nCouncil agenda.\nMayor Johnson stated that there was some discussion on Assembly\nMember Hancock's resolution regarding the authority of the Governor\nand Federal Legislation; she would like to have more information on\nhow the issue relates to the National Guard.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that there is some urgency regarding\nthe matter he would like to have Alameda's voice heard in getting\nAssembly Member Hancock's resolution passed; the deficit impacting\nAlameda is a certainty just like an earthquake on the Hayward\nfault; the deficit impact has already visited Alameda on the Base.\nThe City Manager requested clarification on the concept of two\nresolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate a\ncombination; he would prefer a simple, direct approach.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to pursue a more\nsimple resolution which has no reference to situations in\nWashington, D.C. or Sacramento, but which addresses a statement of\nbelief from Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated that any Councilmember could bring ideas for\ndiscussion; other draft resolutions could be part of the Council\npacket.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of placing the matter on the next\nagenda.\nCounci Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: 4 by consensus/Absent: Councilmember\ndeHaan - 1.\n(06-070) Councilmember Matarrese stated a number of signs\nthroughout the City may violate the sign ordinance; requested staff\nto investigate the matter.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the signs were temporary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded that some of the signs are more\npermanent than temporary.\nADJOURNMENT\n(06-071) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe meeting at 10:43 p.m. in a moment of silence for Former Mayor\nChuck Corica and Coretta Scott King.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:30 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(06-054) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation.\n(06-055) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Alameda City Employees\nAssociation, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association, the Council\nobtained briefing and gave instructions to labor negotiators;\nregarding the City Attorney, the Council discussed the City\nAttorney's employment Contract.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 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\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese,\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Amending\nResolution No. 98-78 [paragraph no. 06-002CIC] was removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of\nthe Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissione: Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted\nare indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.\n]\n( *06-056CC/06-001CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on December 20, 2005.\nApproved.\n(06-002CIC) Resolution No. 06-139, \"Amending Resolution No. 98-78\nRegarding Commission Bylaws Article II, Section 12 Regarding the\nPowers and Authority of the General Counsel. Adopted; and\n(06-002A CIC) Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring\nProcedures for Special Legal Counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that the changes made to the Bylaws were fine\nthe policy and resolution have inconsistencies; the policy states\nthat General Counsel is authorized spend up to $35,000 per matter;\nthe resolution states that matters estimated to cost more than\n$35,000 must be brought to the CIC.\nCommissioner Daysog inquired whether the policy question was that a\nmatter should still come to the CIC if the matter costs $25,000 as\nopposed to $35,000.\nChair Johnson responded in the negative; stated the policy states\nthat the General Counsel is authorized to spend up to $35,000 on\nany matter and then come to the CIC, whether the matter costs\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 12, "text": "$200,000 or $35,000; the resolution is correct in stating that the\nmatter should be brought to the CIC at the earliest convenience if\nthe estimated costs exceeds $35,0000.\nThe General Counsel stated the policy was adopted by the Council on\nSeptember 6; noted Page 2, Item #3 states \"Comply with the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Policy regarding Procedures for\nHiring of Special Legal Counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that the policy and resolution state two\ndifferent things ARRA may have the same inconsistency the intent\nwas that matters be brought to the CIC if estimated outside counsel\nlegal fees are more than $35,000.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Commission would approve the\nresolution.\nCommissioner Gilmore and Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner\ndeHaan.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the ground rule should be that the\nmatter comes to the appropriate governing body if the estimate is\nover $35,000 but General Counsel can spend up to $35,000 per matter\nto initiate the process.\nChair Johnson stated that bullet point 1 [General Counsel is\nauthorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from\nappropriate project budget without prior CIC approval] should be\nomitted; the correction should be made to the ARRA policy also.\nCommissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution and approval\nof the policy with modification to omit bullet point 1 [General\nCounsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from\nappropriated project budget without prior CIC approval].\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-057CC/06-003CIC) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial\nReport and approve mid-year budget adjustments, including General\nFund reserve policy and infrastructure review.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief update on the December 6,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 13, "text": "2005 allocation and the infrastructure plans.\nMayor Johnson requested that a street resurfacing schedule be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that a sidewalk resurfacing schedule\nbe provided.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the field renovation included\nsprinkler systems in addition to drainage, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that certain trees, such as eucalyptus trees,\ngrow rapidly and pruning of the trees is costly; suggested\nreviewing the possibility of replacing trees that are too expensive\nto maintain.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether project timelines would be\nbrought back to the Council, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that residents have to pay an $85\npermit fee to repair a sidewalk square; inquired whether the fee\ncould be lowered to encourage homeowners to take care of the\nreplacement.\nThe Public Works Director responded both property owner and City\nresponsibilities are identified when sidewalk inspections are\nperformed; homeowners are given the option of using the City's\ncontractor; in which case, the City would cover the encroachment\npermit.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired what was the outcome of the rubberized\nsidewalk experiment, and whether the City was contemplating having\nrubberized sidewalks.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the feedback has been\npositive; currently, the City is not doing any rubberized\nsidewalks the Council would receive a proposal for installing\nrubberized sidewalks; a $90,000 grant would be applied to\nsidewalks; the intent is to piggyback on the City of Oakland's\nContract for rubberized sidewalks.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a level of complexity exists in terms\nof the timing of available dollars; oversight is needed; there are\ntwo types of budgeting issues: 1) the two-year budgeting process\nand midyear adjustments, and 2) dedicating dollars when the reserve\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 14, "text": "is above the 20% level.\nThe Public Works Director stated that the City Manager and Finance\nDirector have assurances that the $2 million is available and is\nenough to keep the remaining General Reserve funds at 20%.\nThe City Manager stated that the recalculation of the General Fund\nReserve is reviewed every year at mid-year to ensure that the\nreserve is based on the actuals.\nThe Fire Chief provided a brief presentation on the $400,000 for\nfire station planning and acquisition.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether new sites are being\nconsidered which would adjoin existing residential areas.\nThe Fire Chief responded all West End fire stations should be\nreviewed to determine the best way to proceed over the long term.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed study would be\ndirected to the West End fire stations, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether procurement was being\nconsidered for West End fire stations.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the priority is\nFire Station 3.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $400,000 was for the\nstudy and acquisition, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe City Treasurer stated reducing the reserve levels is a serious\nmatter; he is concerned with how the money will be used; a good use\nwould be investing the money in City assets; reserves should be\nspent on projects that result in a lollar-for-dollar benefit; the\nFire Department issues should be addressed during the normal\nbudgeting process the proposal reduced the reserves from 25% to\n20%; stated that he understood that reducing the reserves to 20%\nwas temporary.\nThe City Auditor stated that money from the reserves should go\ntoward identifiable projects; he takes exception to using reserve\nfunds for a study; questioned why a planning decision needs to be\noutsourced; stated staff should make decisions; paying for a study\nis not a prudent way to spend down the reserves.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council is not changing the\nreserve limit policy but is requesting to pull money out of the\nreserves today because the infrastructure is accruing debt faster\nthan the reserves are accruing benefit; every dollar should be tied\nto an infrastructure repair; spending money on Fire Station 3 also\nqualifies because the station is a crumbling asset; money spent on\na study is not appropriate; suggested looking for funding in the\nARRA planning budget.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding not\nchanging the reserve limit policy; stated money is being allocated\nto pay for needed projects.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has known about fire\nstation issues; there is no immediate urgency except for Fire\nStation 3; the next budget process can review appropriating money\nfor the study; there are deeper problems if $20,000 cannot be found\nin the normal budget processi the reserve reduction should be\nconsidered a one-time occurrence; the goal will be to continue to\nbuild reserves back up to 25%.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the reserves were built up by not\ninvesting in the infrastructure over the years; now is the time to\ninvest back into the sidewalks and streets; inquired what the\naffect will be on the undesignated reserves.\nThe Finance Director responded that there are no undesignated\nreserves the policy sets a 25% target for economic uncertainties;\nsome portions of the reserves have been loaned to other funds and\nthe cash is not available; $6 million out of $18 million has been\nloaned out; the remaining funds would allow sufficient time to make\ndecisions on how to proceed.\nThe City Treasurer stated that $380,000 remains in the pool for\nplanning and acquisition costs after the $20,000 for the study\nquestioned why $380,000 should be taken out of reserves today to\nput the money into an interest-bearing account for future\nacquisition.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the funds should be held in abeyance\n[designated reserve] for Fire Station 3; money would not be\nallocated [designated] from the reserves for a study, only for\nacquisition and/or repair.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated impact funding was set aside; inquired\nwhether the impact funding was earmarked for studies and how the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 16, "text": "balance of the fiscal year looked.\nThe Finance Director responded that the year should end with\nrevenues exceeding expenditures based on what is being done today.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there will always be adjustments.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that some of the money allocated in\nDecember would be invested in field repair; a turf management plan\nwas discussed earlier in the year; the turf management plan should\nbe accelerated to ensure repairs are not lost after a year of play\nor a season of rain; the plan should be accelerated to protect the\ninvestment.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director stated that the turf\nmanagement plan has been initiated; solid plans should be in place\nwithin the next month.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the process could be\naccelerated to have plan in place before investments are made, to\nwhich the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether most of the $1.6 million would go to\ncontractors.\nThe Public Works Director responded some money would cover costs\nfor design, inspection and contract administration; staff levels\ncannot cover the physical work; sidewalk inspections are intensive.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much of the $1.6 million would toward\ndesign and contract management.\nThe Public Works Director responded that design is generally 10% of\nthe construction cost; contract administration and inspections can\nbe 3-5%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the design, construction\nmanagement and inspections would be handled by contractors, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded the tasks would be\nhandled by existing staff.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why the costs need to be covered\nif existing staff is used.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Public Works Engineering\ndivision functions like an engineering firm; 80% of the engineering\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 17, "text": "budget comes from revenues.\nMayor Johnson stated department budgets should not be supplemented\nby drawing down on reserves; the $1.6 million should be spent on\nhard construction projects; 16% of the $1.6 million would go to the\nPublic Works Department and is an extraordinary expenditure to\ninvest in the City.\nThe City Manager stated that the process could be reviewed; other\nprojects would need to be contracted out staff can review the cost\nof design and contract management in terms of allocation to obtain\neconomy of scale.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether additional money would be\nneeded to backfill the other projects.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that staff should determine the best\nresources for the projects; there is an economy of scale to be\nderived which might not be a full 10% for design; however, the job\nhas to be inspected.\nMayor Johnson stated that part of Council direction could be to\nhave the City Manager review costs with the Public Works\nDepartment; she hopes that the costs could be below 16%; the City\nshould not pay flat fees and end up supplementing the Public Works\nbudget.\nThe City Manager stated some City staff would be dedicated to the\nprojects; more definitive costs will be provided.\nMayor Johnson requested that the budget for the $1.6 million\nappropriation come back to Council for review.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funds from\nthe [General Fund] reserve [$1.6 million for infrastructure\nprojects and $400,000 to designated reserve for Fire Station3\nacquisition] and accepting the staff report as written with the\nfollowing conditions 1) that the City Manager work with the Public\nWorks Department and Fire Department to break down associated costs\nto execute the outlined tasks [ infrastructure and Fire Station 3\nprojects] including reviewing economy of scale, 2) review ways to\nprotect the renovations and improvements, such as the turf\nmanagement plan, and 3) that the policy is to maintain a 25%\nGeneral Fund target level [but allow for a temporary reduction to\n20%].\nMayor Johnson requested the motion be clarified for the $400,000\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 18, "text": "item.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the motion is that the $400,000\nwould be for acquisition [of Fire Station 3] only, and the study\nwould be addressed during the budget process.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $400,000 would be taken out of\nthe reserves.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded that the $400,000 would still\nremain in the reserves but would be designated for Fire Station 3\nacquisition.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the\nCity Manager would review existing funding sources for the study.\nMayor Johnson stated a fire station needs study for the Base might\nbe premature because the property has not been acquired.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Fire Station 3 needs to be\naddressed; the problems at Fire Station 3 are comparable to the\nworst sidewalk or pothole.\nCouncilmember deHaan amended the motion to include that Contracts\nreturn to the Council for review.\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Gilmore agreed to the\namended motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:56 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}