{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 19, 2008- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:48\np.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(08-069) Mayor Johnson announced that the Special Orders of the Day\nitems [paragraph nos. 08-070, 08-071 and 08-072] and the Resolution\nof Appointment [paragraph no. 08-073] would be heard before the\nSpecial Joint Meeting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n( (08-070) Presentation of Resolution from Senator Perata and\nAssemblymember Swanson recognizing Alameda Power and Telecom\n(AP&T)\nRachel Weinstein, District Director of the Offices of Senate\nPresident Pro Tem Don Perata, and Carol Jones, District Director of\nthe Offices of Assemblymember Sandre Swanson, read and presented\nthe proclamation to Council.\nAnn McCormick, Public Utilities Board Chair, stated AP&T\nappreciates the recognition.\n(08-071) - Proclamation commending NRC Environmental Services, Inc.\nfor the assistance provided in the clean-up of the oil spill in the\nSan Francisco Bay.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Todd Roloff\nand Kevin Krause with NRC Environmental Services, Inc.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether NRC Environmental Services\nwas the central staging location for the entire Bay Area.\nMr. Roloff responded in the affirmative; stated over 500 people\nworked on the clean-up.\n(08-072 ) Proclamation declaring March 7 through April 19, 2008 as\nthe period for the first \"Across the Pages : an Alameda Community\nReads\" Program.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Annemarie\nMeyer, Supervising Librarian - Adult Services.\nMs. Meyer presented books to Council.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(08-073) Resolution No. 14184, \"Appointing Ching-Ching Ganley as\na Member of the Housing Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Ms. Ganley.\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:00 p.m. to hold the Special\nJoint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting and reconvened the Regular\nCity Council meeting at 9:37 p.m.\n***\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the Open\nMarket Purchase [paragraph no. 08-081] was removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n( *08-074) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special\nJoint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners\nMeeting, and the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 5,\n2008; and the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human\nRelations Board Meeting held on February 6, 2008. Approved.\n(*08-075) - Ratified bills in the amount of $1,504,042.21\n(*08-076) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 3, "text": "for the Period Ending December 31, 2007. Accepted.\n(*08-077) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for\nthe repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 27, No. P.W.\n04-07-17. Accepted.\n(*08-078) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for bids for Janitorial Services in City\nbuildings, No. P.W. 01-08-01. Accepted.\n(*08-079) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for landscape maintenance of median strips\nand special areas, No. P. W. 01-08-02. Accepted.\n( * 08-080) - Recommendation to accept the work of McNabb Construction,\nInc , for Godfrey Park Playfield Renovations, No. P.W. 03-07-06.\nAccepted.\n(08-081) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Open Market\nPurchase of One Hybrid Fire Command Vehicle from Good Chevrolet,\nAlameda, in an Amount Not to Exceed $50,160 and the Purchase of\nAncillary Emergency and Support Equipment Through the Competitive\nQuote Process in an Amount Not to Exceed $51,750 for a Total Amount\nNot to Exceed $101,910. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the vehicle is in its first\nproduction run, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Tahoe Hybrid would replace a\nSuburban requested an explanation of the Suburban's usage.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Suburban is the one and only command\nvehicle used by the on-duty Division Chief the vehicle is in\nservice 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and is equipped as a\ncommand vehicle; the Division Chief is in command of incidents in\nthe City and responds to all fires and incidents involving more\nthan two units; the vehicle has all emergency equipment, such as\nwarning lights and sirens, and a lot of communication equipment.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned the capacity need; stated the\ncommand vehicle has a higher percentage of communication equipment ;\nthe difference between the size of the vehicles is of concern.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Tahoe Hybrid is smaller than the 3/4 ton\nSuburban; the Suburban is a longer, larger capacity vehicle than\nthe 1/2 ton Tahoe which has a shorter, smaller storage capacity; the\nsize of the Suburban works better, however, a hybrid was selected\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 4, "text": "to comply with City policies.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the smaller capacity would be\nacceptable, to which the Fire Chief responded some of the equipment\nwould be moved to other vehicles; the changes would be accommodated\nin the interest of moving into a hybrid.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other hybrids were\nconsidered, to which he Fire Chief responded there are not any\nother large enough hybrid vehicles on the market.\nVice Mayor Tam stated in the climate of belt tightening and cost\ncontainment, the vehicle is $12,000 more than originally budgeted;\nwhen comparing hybrids, purchasing a Toyota Highlander or Mercury\nHybrid could save $12,000 and capacity would be very similar ;\ninquired what is unique about the Tahoe Hybrid that cannot be\naccommodated by another less expensive hybrid.\nThe Fire Chief responded all are considerably smaller than the\nSuburban and Tahoe.\nVice Mayor Tam noted that the Tahoe gets 20 miles per gallon, while\nthe Highlander gets closer to 30 miles per gallon.\nCouncilmember Matarrese questioned whether the vehicle needs to be\npurchased now; inquired whether there is a back up vehicle which\nresults in two command vehicles.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the vehicle is falling\napart, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether or not the vehicle carries\nfire-fighting equipment, to which the Fire Chief responded it does\nnot.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what risk is run if the purchase\nis put off for a year.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Suburban is a 1995 vehicle that was\ndue for replacement in 2005 : the purchase has been deferred for\nthree years; the cost of a vehicle will increase next year; there\nis risk of the Suburban needing a major repair since it has 100,000\nmiles; repair could cost more than the vehicles sale value.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City does not have big calls 24-\n7; inquired whether people use to the car to drive around.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 5, "text": "The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated there are big\ncalls 24-7; the vehicle is not used just to ride around; the\nIncident Commander uses the vehicle to go to Fire Stations to meet\nwith Captains.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry regarding cargo\ncapacity, Vice Mayor Tam stated the cargo capacity of the Tahoe is\n109 cubic feet, while the Highlander is 94 cubic feet; the towing\ncapacity differs greatly; inquired whether capacity is needed for\ncommunication equipment or engine size.\nThe Fire Chief responded the vehicle is not needed for towing;\ncargo capacity is critical.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated purchasing from Toyota would also be\nbuying local; since the Toyota is built in the States, there is no\nconcern over government purchase of a foreign product; there is\nalmost the same capacity with greater fuel efficiency; inquired\nwhether the purchase could be deferred because these are trying\ntimes for the budget.\nThe Fire Chief responded funding is from the vehicle replacement\nfund; deferring the purchase compounds the problem because other\nvehicles are due for replacement next year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the funding is from the General Fund.\nThe City Manager stated equipment replacement funding ultimately\ncomes from the General Fund; the vehicle was identified in the\nbudget process as one that would be replaced; purchasing a Suburban\nwas an option; staff came up with the hybrid recommendation, rather\nthan replacing the vehicle with a Suburban.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the current equipment could be\nreused on the new vehicle.\nThe Fire Chief responded some of the equipment will be transitioned\nover, such as the computer most of the equipment has to be built\nfor the vehicle, such as the light bars; noted the current back up\nvehicle is a cargo van that the City got from the Navy; both\nvehicles are at their life's end.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there would not be a discussion if\nthe vehicle were a patrol car, ambulance or fire truck that goes\nand delivers direct service.\nThe Fire Chief stated the vehicle does so; the Incident Commander\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 6, "text": "must get to the scene.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council is seeking alternatives ways\nthat are cheaper ; inquired what risks are run if the purchase is\ndeferred for a year.\nThe Fire Chief responded the cost remains next year and becomes\ncompounded with the purchase of other vehicles; the cost will be\ngreater next year; the Suburban has 100,000 miles and could require\nexpensive repair.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Tahoe has not been put into\nservice for the intended use; the staff report indicates the\nvehicle has been tested; inquired what type of testing has been\ndone.\nThe Fire Chief responded street tests have been done by consumer\ngroups, but have not been specific to fire service use.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated some equipment will not be on the new\nvehicle; inquired what is the minimum capacity needed for the new\nvehicle and whether the capacity could be met by other hybrids.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Highlander was not considered, but\ncould be reviewed; that he is not aware of other fire departments\nusing Highlanders; both the Suburban and Tahoe are used for fire\nservice and stand up to the required type of service.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether only the makes currently\nused in fire service were reviewed, rather than reviewing all\nhybrids.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he does\nnot know whether the cargo capacity configuration of the other\nhybrids would meet the Fire Department's needs.\nThe City Manager stated in order to receive the vehicle during the\ncurrent fiscal year the City must complete the purchase by February\n22; further research would preclude the vehicle from being\npurchased in the current fiscal year.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the vehicle needs to be replaced, however,\nshe is not convinced that the capacity of the Tahoe is needed; as\ntechnology improves, communication equipment becomes more compact\nand multifunctional; options should be explored.\nMayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the staff effort to\npurchase a hybrid; the vehicle will last 10 to 13 years and buying\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 7, "text": "a strictly gas-powered vehicle would be a mistake.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates staff following\nthe policy to move toward alternative vehicles where practical ; he\nalso appreciates the capacity information brought up by Vice Mayor\nTam; Councilmember deHaan noted that the Tahoe is in the first year\nof production; the Toyota has been in production for several years\nthat he is leery of buying the first run off the production line.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with ouncilmember\nTam about the vehicle needing to be replaced; she is pleased staff\nspent time to select a hybrid; inquired how long the purchase would\nbe pushed back, a calendar or fiscal year.\nThe Fire Chief responded a calendar year.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the purchase of a different\nhybrid would have to be a special order inquired whether the base\nvehicle is ordered and then equipment is added.\nThe Fire Chief responded the vehicle is ordered from the dealer and\na separate vendor adds the equipment.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Tahoe is special order\nbecause it is new or if all Fire vehicles are special orders.\nThe Fire Chief responded the department tries to purchase most\nvehicles off of the State bid; hybrids are very limited on the\nState bid; specifications, including breaking and suspension needs,\nare prepared for the purchase of all Fire vehicles the\nspecifications of other hybrid vehicles will be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a Highlander would be\npurchased off the lot or special order, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded it would probably be a special order.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired the method used to purchase the\nSuburban to which the Fire Chief responded another department's bid\nwas going to be used; the purchase would have been a special order.\nThe City Manager outlined the processes used to purchase vehicles.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether or not there is a forecast\nas to how long it could take to find a replacement vehicle if the\nwindow of opportunity is missed for the Tahoe.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Suburban could be ordered anytime; the\nHighlander needs to be researched.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what are the plans for the reserve vehicle,\nto which the Fire Chief responded the 1988 van would be considered\nsurplus and sold once a new vehicle is purchased; the current\nSuburban would become the reserve vehicle.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased the Highlander will\nbe considered because it is 30% more fuel efficient, which would\nprovide a real cost savings.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Tahoe would have a\nspecial warranty or a regular, new car warranty, to which the Fire\nChief responded a regular, new car warranty.\nMayor Johnson stated adding $50,000 of equipment would be of\nconcern in case the vehicle turned out to be a lemon.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure whether the\nequipment will work on a Toyota; the information needs to be\nreviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City\nManager to work with the Fire Chief and Public Works Director to\nexplore alternatives to the Tahoe Hybrid, which include, but are\nnot limited to, other vehicles in the same class, such as the\nToyota Highlander and Ford Escape, and bring back a proposal.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated considering longevity is important.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Tam noted that she was not trying to focus on the Toyota\nHighlander or take apart the issue, however, she wants to instill\nthe message that the Council is very serious about cost containment\nand exploring all options.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-082) Recommendation to receive report on the Animal Shelter.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated a past problem was people did not understand\nthe policies and procedures; inquired whether the policies and\nprocedures would be posted on the City's website and made available\nto the public.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 9, "text": "The Police Chief responded the suggestion could be reviewed; the\npolicies and procedures are available at the Shelter; all\nvolunteers that have gone through the training will have reviewed\nthe manual, have access to it and will be held accountable to the\npractices in place; a kiosk will be placed in the Library to help\nwith adoptions and further information sharing.\nMayor Johnson stated more information should be on the website.\ninquired whether pictures of lost animals would be posted on a\nwebsite.\nThe Police Chief responded pictures are on a website now.\nVice Mayor Tam stated private donations were received to install a\nclosed circuit television system which will increase security and\nsite monitoring; inquired whether the kiosk at the library would\ntie into the closed circuit system to allow people to see animals\nat the shelter in real time.\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative; stated the security\nsystem is for staff to monitor volunteer activities and help with\nbreak ins; the kiosk at the Library is a marketing tool to allow\npeople to see animals that are available.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired about the management software, to which the\nPolice Chief responded the software would automate management and\nreporting, which was previously done via card file.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the dog walking issue became more\nimportant inquired whether hiring the volunteer coordinator has\nbrought the appropriate level recommended by the Humane Society;\ninquired whether dogs are being walked on a daily basis.\nThe Police Chief responded more volunteers are always being sought ;\ndogs are being walked regularly; there are a number of issues, such\nas quarantined dogs cannot be walked: dogs available to walk have\nbeen walked all but three days this year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the review makes a better overall\noperation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the report.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous vote - 5.\n(08-083) - Resolution No. 14185, \"Opposing the Governor's Proposed\nReductions in Funding for Schools.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 10, "text": "The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired the date that the School District\nhas to notify its employees, to which the Deputy City Manager\nresponded March 15.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the District has to give notices\nbefore knowing its budget situation; it is important that the\nCouncil weigh in on the issue and send a message as a governing\nbody; the health of City is dependent on the health the School\nDistrict in some ways.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Council should oppose any funding cuts. the\nSchool District is having an advocacy day on February 27 and is\nrequesting the support of elected officials.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Superintendent sent a letter\noutlining a myriad of cuts; the quality of schools is one thing\nthat brings people to Alameda; the Superintendent is proposing an\nemergency parcel tax; the district tried not to go to the voters\nfor the last two years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson stated the letter should include\nexamples the School District cuts over the last two years; last\nyear, the middle school athletics program was cut citywide; that\nshe does not know where $4 million in cuts will be found.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the School Board reviewed closing a\nmiddle school and an elementary school and moving the Island High\ncampusi effectively closing three schools and the layoff of around\n50 teachers only cuts $2.3 million from the budget.\nMayor Johnson stated examples like that make what School Districts\nare facing more real.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council and School District had a\njoint session last year; the City spends around $700,000 to support\nthe schools; the City does many things to support schools the City\nis dealing with its own economic concerns, but has not jeopardized\nprograms, such as crossing guards.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 11, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n( 08-084) Bill Smith discussed smoking regulations.\n(08-085) - Ken Peterson, Alameda, submitted a letter; discussed\nissues facing the world.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-086) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Recreation and Park Commission. Continued.\n(08-087) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she and Vice Mayor Tam\nattended a memorial service for Ikhinkhorloo \"Iko\" Bayarsaikhan\nyesterday at Washington Park; a number of Police Officers and\nvarious City Department Heads attended the ceremony; a token of the\nfamily's gratitude was presented.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the ceremony was for a bench dedication and\nplaque presentation in celebration of Iko's sixteenth birthday.\nCouncilmember Gilmore and Vice Mayor Tam unveiled the art.\nMayor Johnson requested that the City prepare a plaque explaining\nthe art.\n(08-088) - Councilmember Matarrese noted the passing of Lois Hanna\nstated Ms. Hanna was a staunch believer in the new Main Library\nADJOURNMENT\n(08-089 - ) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 10:41 p.m. in a moment of silence in honor\nof Lois Hanna.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 19, 2008- -6:30 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(08-065 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations\n:\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units.\n (08-066CC/08-09CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators;\nProperty: 555 Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (APN Number: Portion\nof 074-0905-06-2, Portion of 074-0905-07-2) ; Negotiating parties :\nCIC/City of Alameda and Peralta Community College District; Under\nnegotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council\nreceived an update on public safety negotiations; no action was\ntaken; regarding Real Property, Council and the Commission received\nan update regarding potential acquisition of real property needed\nto complete the proposed Stargell Avenue extension and provided\ndirection to Real Property Negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 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\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 19, 2008- - -7:25 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(08-10 CIC) - Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.\nChair Johnson stated the marquee panels look very good and almost\nlike new.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated differentiating between the new\nand restored panels is difficult.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether options would be provided\nfor softening the look of the parking structure's northern\nelevation.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded staff recommends maintaining\nthe contingency until the Theater project is closed out; stated\nstaff is working with an architect on options and pricing.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested an update on the Central Avenue\nbike lane and parallel parking.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated diagonal parking has been\nconverted to parallel parking in front of the Central Avenue School\nDistrict offices in order to facilitate a bike route, which is part\nof the General Plan.\nCommissioner Matarrese congratulated staff for completing the\nparallel parking.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether monthly parking passes have\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 14, "text": "been successful.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded flyers were sent to local\nbusinesses in the area; stated plans are to advertise in the Park\nStreet Business Association and Chamber of Commerce newsletters;\nall spaces have not been reserved; more marketing will be done.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired where are the monthly parking spaces.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded approximately 40 spaces are\nrestricted to the roof for local business monthly parking; stated\nexpanding the monthly parking spaces to other levels might make\nsense.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the public needs to understand that\nparking is free after 5:00 p.m.\nChair Johnson stated parking is also free on Sunday.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated the increased on-street parking\nrates would also help.\nChair Johnson stated enforcement should help; people are not used\nto going down Oak Street.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated better marketing would inform\npeople that the parking garage is open even though half of Oak\nStreet is closed.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she appreciates that the leak was\ndiscovered early; the remaining Theater contingency is $2,777 the\nremaining garage contingency is $31,000; the original amount of the\n[parking garage] contingency was $415,000. $604,000 in value\nengineering was taken out ; additional expenditures were covered by\ninterest from loans; inquired whether overages would be covered by\ninterest or contingency.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded $55,000 is budgeted for the\nleakage within the current contingency; pending change orders might\ncome back at a higher price; the $31,000 garage contingency should\nbe enough to cover the eastern elevation leakage the interest from\nthe Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan has not been committed\nto anything else; $62,000 was committed from the Cineplex interest\nincome in December: an additional $12,000 available.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether there would be an assessment of\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 15, "text": "available funding for such things as the northern elevation and\nplanting at the end of the fiscal year.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded she would like to wait until\nthe Theater project is closed out and all liabilities have been\naddressed stated the money might be needed for outstanding\nlitigation.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether redevelopment funds specifically\nearmarked for projects cannot be used for the General Fund, to\nwhich the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Theater roofing is in\nfairly good condition.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\nleaking is from cracks in the sidewall; water tests have been done\non the roof; flashing was added.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the western elevation has any leaks.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the western elevation has no\nvisible leaks; stated conditions may arise in the future; reserves\nare being set aside to address issues that may arise in the next\nthree to five years.\nChair Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed if contingency is\nleft over.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether Theater funds and any\nremaining funds are not General Fund or revenue sources but are\nrestricted by law to use on redevelopment projects.\nThe Development Services Director responded the majority of the\nHistoric Theater funding was all bond money and must go to the\nproject along with interest. Section 108 money was used for most of\nthe garage construction; the land was bought with redevelopment\nmoney; Section 108 interest income cannot be used for a non-HUD\neligible economic development project.\nMINUTES\n(08-11 - CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting of January 15, 2008. Approved.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n3\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 16, "text": "Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(08-072 CC/08-12 CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly\nFinancial Report for the period ending December 31, 2007.\nThe Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether retiree medical costs are 2%\n[of the budget) i stated the City is not fully funding the benefit\nnow.\nThe Finance Director responded the 2% represents the current\npayment for retirees.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount could be much larger once\ntrue obligations are addressed.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the\noverall operational budget is $236 million, to which the Finance\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the $4\nmillion [in lost revenue] is for the current fiscal year ending in\nJune; the economic forecast through 2009 continues on the same\npath; the $4 million gap needs to be closed by the end of June;\nthere will be some type of gap in the next two-year budget cycle.\nThe Finance Director stated the first year is predicted to have\nsome type of gap.\nVice Mayor/Boar Member/Commissioner Tam commended staff for being\nahead of the curve and reviewing ways to reduce expenditures by $3\nmillion in anticipation of the $4 million deficit; $1.4 million was\nspent on the Beltline litigation; the money was moved from the\nGeneral Fund to the Risk Management fund; inquired whether the Risk\nManagement fund comes out of the reserves.\nThe Finance Director responded Risk Management is funded by\nallocations from various funds, including the General Fund, which\nis the biggest contributor.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City cannot\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n4\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 17, "text": "anticipate litigation costs; the Beltline litigation ended up\ncosting more than the parcel cost; reserve funding is needed for\nprospective issues; the City directly controls the Utility Users\nTax; inquired whether other revenue sources are controlled by the\nCity.\nThe Finance Director responded the Property Transfer Tax; stated a\nvote would be required to increase the tax.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether focusing\non the Property Tax would result in the biggest bang for the buck.\nThe Finance Director responded an increase in the Property Transfer\nTax would require a two-thirds vote; stated currently the City\ncharges $5.40 per $1,000 and is next to the last of the Charter\ncities.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on the value of the\nBeltline property versus cost of litigation.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the result of the litigation\nis that the City will pay a little under $1 million for the\nproperty; the Beltline estimates the property value between $30 and\n$40 million.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the\nlitigation costs were coming out of the General Fund initially.\nThe Finance Director responded said costs were paid out of the Risk\nManagement fund; the Risk Management fund needed to be backfilled\nfrom the General Fund.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commission deHaan inquired whether the\n$1. 4 million cost occurred over the last several years, to which\nthe Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the third\nrecommendation is to undertake a thoughtful, structural realignment\nfor Fiscal Year 2008-2009; inquired whether the second half of the\nfiscal year would require dipping into reserves to cover the\ndeficit, to which the Finance Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired what\nwould be the risk in deferring the Lincoln Park project.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n5\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 18, "text": "The Public Works Director responded the Recreation and Park\nDepartment thought that the risk would be minimal stated the\nproject would be deferred to July 1, 2008.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether deferring the project to next\nyear would create a domino affect.\nThe Public Works Director responded possibly; stated efforts will\nbe made to continue to look for grants.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is\nalways hesitant to defer Capital Improvement Projects because costs\nincrease down the road; he would like to have the Lincoln Park\nproject reviewed very carefully.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the\nproject cost [Lincoln Park], to which the Public Works Director\nresponded $300,000.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nthe fund balance is commonly called the reserves, to which the\nFinance Director responded the fund balance is the City's reserves.\nlouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested\ninformation on the Emergency Medical Response (EMS) Taxi inquired\nwhether said tax would be a way to gain revenue.\nThe Finance Director responded possibly; stated that she does not\nhave all the facts; information would be provided; she does not\nknow when the advisory vote was taken; Alameda is the only City in\nthe County that does not assess the tax.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the Lincoln Park project\nwould take, to which the City Engineer responded design would take\napproximately six to nine months.\nMayor/Chair Johnson responded the length of time is a problem\nbecause Alameda High School uses the area as its home baseball\nfield; the field needs to be done by December.\nThe Public Works Director stated one option could be to fund the\ndesign now; construction costs could be moved to next year.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested that staff check with the High School\nregarding the baseball schedule.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n6\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated deferment\nof any capital improvement project should be reviewed very\ncarefully from a policy standpoint because continued deterioration\ncauses costs to increase.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated there is not a real reserve because of\nthe millions of dollars in public safety retirement health benefit\nobligations, and deferred street, sidewalk, park, and building\nmaintenance; the money could be spent on very critical City needs\nin a second and is not fun money.\nCouncilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner deHaan requested background\non the reserves accumulation and the erosion over the last two to\nthree years.\nThe Finance Director stated the reserve levels were adopted and\ncodified in a 1997 document addressing financial policies; in 1989,\na motion adopted that reserves be 25% of operating expenditures for\neconomic uncertainties; the fund balance was approximately 27% in\n2004-2005; portions have been used to fund: 1) deferred street,\nsidewalk, and tree maintenance; 2) playing fields; and 3) the\nBeltline litigation; a small portion of expenditure savings were\ncontributed at the end of last year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the\ncurrent reserve level.\nThe Finance Director responded the forecast indicates the reserve\nwill be at 17% at the end of the fiscal year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the concern\nis how much of the reserve is liquid.\nThe Finance Director responded $5.9 million of the $15 million is\nloaned out to the Alameda Public Improvement Corporation, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda Power and Telecom, and $400,00\nhas been designated for fire station replacement.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the\namount of deferred street maintenance; stated the estimate was\napproximately $31 million at one time.\nThe Public Works Director responded $12 million is identified for\nstreet resurfacing $100 million is identified for all of the\nvarious infrastructures.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n7\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan stated costs go upi\nusing reserves for deferred maintenance is important; pension and\nseverance pay is another issue.\nThe Finance Director stated that employees are entitled to accrued\nvacation payout upon retirement; the amount can be substantial;\nvacation payout amounted to $200,000 this fiscal year.\nIn response to Councilmember/Boar Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry regarding operational savings, the Finance Director stated\nthere is a savings of approximately $1.5 in Capital Improvement\nProjects and $1.5 in operating expenditures.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does\nnot see any upswing or leveling at the end of 2009; the City of\nVallejo is considering bankruptcy and is the first city in\nCalifornia to consider such a thing; stated today's phenomenon is\ndifferent from 2003.\nThe Finance Director stated the 2003 phenomenon was industry\ndriven, today's is home sale driven; plans need to be made for a\nvery thoughtful and strategic 2009 budget.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked staff for\nthe presentation; stated best efforts have been made in forecasting\nthe unknown; the State's budget has not passed and may not pass\nuntil fall; what is known now may change dramatically because the\nCity is dependent on what the State does to balance its budget.\nThe Finance Director stated one more chance to input new\ninformation will be available when the Governor presents the May\nrevise; the City could feel a little more home free if a fiscal\nemergency is not declared.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated the City constantly\nreceives feedback from the League of California Cities; information\nwill be received before the May revise.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired what\nprojects are not being done because funds are being shifted to\nclose the $5 million gap, to which the Finance Director responded\ndifferent banks are being used; Proposition 1B money would be used\nfor the Pavement Management Plan rather than General Fund money\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nProposition 1B money was to be used for something else before shift\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n8\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 21, "text": "happened, to which the Finance Director responded street paving.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated things are\nstill being deferred; inquired whether Proposition 1B money is\nbeing shifted into a project that would reduce the street\nmaintenance deficit.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated\nstaff is looking for other funding sources; more street\nimprovements could be completed if General Fund money were used in\naddition to Proposition 1B money.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he\nwants to make sure that the public does not get the impression that\neverything is all right ; no one is talking about the federal\ndeficit; the School District is suffering more than the City.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a specific list needs to be provided\noutlining things that are not being done.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the real\nconcern is where the City is going from here; playing with a good\nestimate of what the cuts will be is important; he does not want to\nwait until June to receive feedback; he wants to feel comfortable\nin knowing what initiatives Council needs to take.\nThe Finance Director stated the City Manager/Executive Director\nwill lead a team of Department Heads in reviewing and gathering\nrevenue enhancement ideas to bring to Council in a workshop\nsetting; the expenditure side of the ledger will be reviewed also\nto determine what level of expenditure can be tolerated; she will\nhave a better idea of property tax revenues on March 19.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated departments have been requested to\nreview cuts through the end of the fiscal year; inquired how much\ndepartments are asked to trim.\nThe Finance Director responded 1.5%; stated some departments are\nable to do more; reductions totaled $1.5 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the cuts were made.\nThe Finance Director responded through a strategic hiring freeze\nand supply and service reductions.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n9\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 22, "text": "timeline on the budget.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded potential revenue\nsources will be reviewed and presented at a workshop discussion in\nMarch or April stated each department's budget is being reviewed;\ninformation needs to be gathered on property tax issues; there\ncould be additional impacts.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is\nnot at the point of considering a moratorium on spending yet.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the issue becomes a\npush pull situation regarding not filling positions; public safety\novertime costs are expected to be $350,000; the work still needs to\nbe done and the public needs to be provided with safety comfort;\nrecognizing the obligation to protect the health and safety of\nresidents is important.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he hopes\nthat the City does not get to that point [moratorium on spending]\n.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the public needs to understand the\nsituation; the City cannot run on a deficit budget the situation\nis going to be longer term; choices are to increase revenues or\ndetermine what services are affordable; she wishes that there were\nmore people here tonight ; the budget needs to be balanced by $4\nmillion in the next four months; the community will have serious\nchoices to make.\nCouncilmember/Board  ember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\nthe staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\na single-year budget could be done, to which the Finance Director\nresponded a budget and a plan are done; the second year would not\nbe adopted until next June.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the real\nfocus has been the General Fund; two-thirds of the budget is not\nbeing discussed tonight; redevelopment and transportation funds\ncould be impacted.\nThe Finance Director stated redevelopment funds could be impacted\nif assessed values decline due to the County Appeals Board grants\nappeals, which lead to less tax increment for redevelopment.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n10\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 23, "text": "Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan\nstated that balancing is being done at the expense of the General\nFund reserve.\nThe Finance Director stated revenues were reduced by $4 million;\nexpenditure reductions totaled $3 million; the difference will be\nfunded by the General Fund reserve money that is not spent at the\nend of the year would go into the General Fund reserve.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-073 CC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending September 30, 2007.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested that sales tax figures be posted to the\nwebsite; stated services are hurt by the fact that residents spend\nmoney outside of Alameda.\nThe Finance Director stated the per-capita comparison can be posted\nto the website.\nMayor Johnson questioned how much more money would be generated if\nAlameda had a per-capita similar to the City of Fremont.\nThe Finance Director stated sales tax revenue would double and\nprovide $4 million.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated $4 million is the amount of the gap.\nMayor Johnson stated Development Services has enabled the City to\nstay even; the City will lose most of the auto sales tax.\nThe Finance Director stated hopefully new businesses will replace\nthe loss.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the third quarter had $1.3 million in\nsales tax revenue; the City is on the verge of bringing in more\nretail; the Alameda Towne Centre is approximately 60% filled; there\nwill not be a lot of change retail is taking the biggest\n[economic] hit; looking toward the future is important.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n11\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 24, "text": "The Finance Director stated the fourth quarter may be something\nentirely different.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n12\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-02-19", "page": 25, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:37 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, Alameda Reuse\n13\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf"}