{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 20, 2008- - -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:55\np.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(08-209) - ) Mayor Johnson addressed the Resolution of Appointment\n[paragraph no. 08-211] before the Consent Calendar.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-210) Presentation by Bill McCammon on the East Bay Regional\nCommunications System.\nBill McCammon, East Bay Regional Communications System Authority\nExecutive Director, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that cities need to know infrastructure and\nongoing operation and maintenance costs; inquired when said costs\nwill be known.\nMr. McCammom responded CTA Communications is starting an evaluation\nnext week; stated the second phase of CTA Communications Contract\nis to help put together bid specifications for the remaining\npurchase of the system; the plan is to work with the Finance\nCommittee in the next six months to get a handle on costs.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether grant funds would pay for the on-\ngoing operations and maintenance.\nMr. McCammon responded grant funds would be used to purchase\ninfrastructure; stated on-going operation and maintenance costs\nwould not qualify under grant funding and would be borne by local\nparticipating jurisdictions on a per-radio cost.\nMayor Johnson stated the City would not commit until costs are\nknown.\nMr. McCammon stated no jurisdiction has committed beyond the $100\nper radio; each jurisdiction would have the opportunity to decide\nwhether or not to continue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether on-going operation and maintenance\ncosts would be known within the next six months.\nMr. McCammon responded in the affirmative; stated being part of a\nregional system versus a stand-alone system allows for a 40%\nsavings because of the economy of scale.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned that Oakland is\nnot part of the system; Oakland would be the first responder for a\nlarge event in Alameda inquired whether staff is talking to\nOakland.\nThe Fire Marshall responded Oakland has loaned Alameda compatible\nportable radios; Alameda and Oakland would have interoperability\nwhen both cities have the P25 Compliant Communications System in\nplace.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether buying into Oakland's\nsystem would be cheaper, to which the Fire Marshall responded that\nhe did not know.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated staff should ask Oakland about the\ncost to have competition.\nThe Fire Marshall stated Alameda will be able to communicate with\nOakland even though Oakland is not on the East Bay Regional\nCommunications System (EBRCS) ; Lawrence Livermore National\nLaboratory and Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS)\nDistrict will be part of the EBRCS system; he would be glad to\nentertain discussions with Oakland.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much Alameda pays for the current\nsystem, to which the Fire Marshall responded said numbers would be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the EBRCS would pyramid up to\nthe State level.\nMr. McCammon responded the EBRCS would meet the guidelines; stated\nthe systems would be able to connect together State agencies would\nbe able to roam onto the systems.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other counties are looking at\nthe same system.\nMr. McCammon responded other counties are doing similar things ;\nregional efforts are not as together as Alameda County.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Motorola is the only\nprovider.\nMr. McCammon responded the first standard completed was for the\ncommon air interface which allows radios to work on P25 compliant\nsystems stated agencies will not be bound to Motorola radios.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the East Bay Municipal Utility District\n(EBMUD) uses the conventional system; inquired about other\nutilities, such as Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)\n.\nMr. McCammon responded EBMUD would become a member stated EBMUD\nsites are being used for infrastructure; discussions with PG&E\nwould be initiated as things progress.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how the system would future-proof\nitself.\nMr. McCammon responded changes are being made from analog to\ndigital technology; stated digital technology requires software\nchanges; fifteen years is a reasonable time for a digital platform;\nsoftware upgrades would be needed, rather than whole scale hardware\nreplacement.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether transmitters and repeaters would be\nMotorola.\nMr. McCammon responded the standard has not been flushed out ;\nstated sites have to be tied into the same vendor system when a\nmaster site controller is bought ; radios could be any vendor that\nworks on the system.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether other vendors make systems that are\nnot proprietary, to which Mr. McCammon responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether everything would be interoperable\nwith the P25 Phase 2 compliance.\nMr. McCammon responded the standard has five suites stated\nlogistical problems would be created on how the Fire Department\nwould be dispatched if Alameda decided to go with Oakland.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Alameda uses Nextel for some\ncommunications.\nThe Fire Marshall responded in the affirmative; stated Nextel has a\ndirect connect; Nextel customer service and coverage is very poor\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 4, "text": "operational.\nMr. McCammon responded some sites are being brought on now; stated\nhe would expect the system to come to the western side of Alameda\nCounty late next year.\nCouncilmembe: Gilmore inquired whether the western side of Alameda\nCounty would be the first area.\nMr. McCammon responded units should be working in eastern Alameda\nCounty by the end of the year.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated costs estimates should be available by\nthe end of the year; inquired whether real-world field testing\nwould be available once eastern Alameda County units are working.\nMr. McCammon responded in the affirmative. stated real-world\ntesting would be done before anyone comes on to ensure that the\nsystem performs in the way it is designed to perform; ratios\npurchased would be compatible on the new system because Alameda is\non the County's 800 MHz system.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the EBRCS operates on 800 MHz.\nMr. McCammon responded in the affirmative; stated 700 MHz would be\navailable and would fold into the system.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is enough 800 MHz capacity for\nthe system right now.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. McCammon responded in the affirmative; stated additional 800\nMHz is not available; the body that allocates spectrum is\nallocating 700 MHz to regional systems only.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda could operate on the 700 MHz\nsystem, to which Mr. McCammon responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the spectrums have capacity issues.\nMr. McCammon responded potentially; stated the system has been\ndesigned to take capacity issues into account; Alameda County has\n21 channels; another 20 channels have been allocated to Contra\nCosta County; another 100 channels would become available in the\n700 MHz spectrum; the system allows for priority accessi public\nsafety has the highest priority; San Diego County has a 800 MHz\nsystem; the 2003 fires had capacity issues; the system has been\nfixed and worked well during fires.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether San Diego County has a similar\nnumber of radios on the system.\nMr. McCammon responded in the affirmative; stated San Diego County\nhas approximately 23,000 users on the system.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether San Diego County has as many\njurisdictions as Alameda County, to which Mr. McCammon responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the Power Point presentation\nbe posted to the website and that Council receive hard copies of\nfuture Power Point presentations in the Council packet.\nThe City Manager stated presentations by outside sources do not\nbelong to the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that staff has control over the\nagenda; people should provide presentation material ahead of time\nso that the material is in the packet and gets posted to the\nwebsite.\nThe City Manager stated that staff can request said material.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Power Point presentations are usually a\nsummary; a full report would be more than adequate; Power Point\npresentations that do not have a report would be good to have ahead\nof time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there is no reason to not have Power\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 6, "text": "Point presentations ahead of time in this electronic age.\nMayor Johnson stated a report would be more appropriate.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(08-211) Resolution No. 14209, \"Appointing Arthur A. Autorino as a\nMember of the Planning Board. \" 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 Mr. Autorino.\nMr. Autorino thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the\nEconomic Development Commission (EDC) ; stated he looks forward to\nserving on the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Mr. Autorino left the EDC ; the EDC\ncurrently has one vacancy and two more are anticipated; keeping the\nEDC at full capacity is a top priority.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to accept the\nQuarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. 08-214 and Resolution\nApproving an Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding [paragraph\nno. 08-220] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n( *08-212) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April\n1, 2008; and the Special City Council Meeting of May 6, 2008.\nApproved.\n(*08-213) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,142,477.91.\n(08-214) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending December 31, 2007.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 7, "text": "quarter.\nMayor Johnson stated information should be provided anyway people\nhave not had an opportunity to spend money in Alameda in the past.\nThe Finance Director stated the number one category is restaurants\nand has been for two quartersi Monterey County is the only other\narea that lists restaurants as the primarily sales tax generator.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the table on Page 2 shows the \"All Other\nAreas\" category at -9.4%; new businesses are coming to Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park; inquired what impact Harbor Bay Business Park has\nhad in the \"All Other Areas\" category.\nThe Finance Director responded the majority of businesses coming to\nHarbor Bay Business Park do not generate sales tax; said businesses\nare research and development type firms; Harbor Bay Business Park\nhas not been included as a specific geographic area.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether hotel tax is a separate tax, to\nwhich the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the historical gross sales tax per capita\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 8, "text": "comparison shows a snapshot of every fourth quarter since 1997;\nStatewide comparisons seem to be leveling off, but Alameda County\nis on an upward tick; the City seems to be having a downward trend;\nit is not clear whether the chart indicates trending or just a\nsnapshot of the fourth quarter.\nThe Finance Director stated the comparison is a snapshot; the Sales\nTax Consultant produced the graph; advances are given during the\nfirst two months of the quarter; a true up is given the last month\nof the quarter; a final true up is given the first month of the\nnext quarter; she is not sure whether a comparison can be done\nother than as a quarterly snapshot.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired about trending.\nThe Finance Director stated trending is stable and has been within\nhalf a percent up and down.\nMayor Johnson stated that Harbor Bay Business Park should be shown\nas a separate area; Harbor Bay Business Park businesses do not\nprovide revenue to the City; stated that Clif Bar is not a sales\ntax generator.\nThe Finance Director stated that staff would work with the Sales\nTax Consultant; information will be provided in the next Quarterly\nSales Tax Report.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that breaking down Marina Village\nretail would be advantageous also; increased food product\ntransactions indicate that people are coming into Alameda.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*08-215) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal\nAdvertising for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2009. Accepted.\n(*08-216) Recommendation to accept the work of Cummins West, Inc. ,\nfor the provision of two main engines for the Peralta. Accepted.\n(*08-217) - Recommendatior to accept the work of E.A. Sparacino\nGeneral Contractor, Inc. for the roof structure for the Maintenance\nService Center transfer pad and dumpsters, No. P.W. 04-07-14.\nAccepted.\n(*08-218) - Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 9, "text": "$504,334 including contingencies, to Redgwick Construction for\nFernside Boulevard bike path and street improvements, San Jose\nAvenue to north of Otis Drive, No. P.W. 03-08-10. Accepted.\n(\n*08-219) Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent\nintegrated Waste Management charges for June 17, 2008. Accepted.\n(08-220) Resolution No. 14210, \"Approving an Amendment to\nMemorandum of Understanding between the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association and the City of Alameda for the Period\nCommencing January 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008. \" Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated Council is very happy that the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) consented to enter into\nan agreement to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding for\none year; requested that the Building Official advise who is in\nMCEA; stated MCEA came forward before negotiations started.\nThe Building Official stated MCEA consists of approximately 130\nmembersi the MCEA is fully aware of the City's revenue issues and\nthought that it was important to make the offer to the City; 80% of\nthe membership was in favor of the recommendation.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Building Official pass on\nCouncil's appreciation.\nThe Building Official stated that he would be happy to do so.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*08-221) Resolution No. 14211, \"Intention to Levy an Annual\nAssessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of\nAlameda for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and Set a Public Hearing for June\n3, 2008. \" Adopted.\n( *08-222 - ) Ordinance No. 2981, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Creating a Civic\nGreen Building Ordinance. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(08-223 - ) Resolution No. 14212, \"Implementing the National Incident\nManagement System (NIMS) as the Official Regulatory Guidance for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 10, "text": "Emergency Response, Preparedness, Mitigation, Prevention and\nRecovery within the City of Alameda. \" Adopted.\nThe Disaster Preparedness Officer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should understand what NIMS is before\nadopting the resolution; Council wants to have a clear\nunderstanding of the NIMS technical requirements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the State has a system in place; the\nfederal government bases its system on what the State does;\ninquired what the City and Fire Department would have to do\ndifferent operationally\nThe Disaster Preparedness Officer responded the current\nStandardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) requires the City\nto identify an Emergency Operations Center, use said Center in the\nevent of a disaster, and document expenses; stated said\nrequirements are already in place; the federal government adopted\nthe State's system; the federal government wants training to\ninclude the federal model of Command in Control as opposed to the\nState's model, which is essentially the same; Alameda County and a\nnumber of cities within Alameda County have adopted NIMS.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much money Alameda receives from the\nfederal government.\nThe Disaster Preparedness Officer responded that he is not sure;\nstated Alameda receives $22,000 per year to support the Community\nEmergency Response Team (CERT) Program; the City would be eligible\nfor other programs.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda receives very little money through\nHomeland Security; it is important to know the costs to implement\nNIMS.\nThe Disaster Preparedness Officer stated costs could be provided\nmoving forward with the updated Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is\npart of the reason for implementing NIMS.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City is already doing everything\nrequired Council would be adopting NIMS which would allow the City\nto scrape and fight for federal funds.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is doing everything\nrequired.\nThe Disaster Preparedness Officer responded the first compliance\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 11, "text": "issue was simply to use the Incident Command System (ICS) ; stated\nmembers have been trained to work in the EOP Center; the second\nstep would be to adopt NIMS.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the County adopted NIMS, to\nwhich the Disaster Preparedness Officer responded last fall.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any changes have taken place.\nThe Disaster Preparedness Officer responded in the negative; stated\nresource tracking is one new element of NIMS.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-224) - Consideration of establishing an Economic Sustainability\nCommittee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated establishing an Economic\nSustainability Committee is time critical because of the budget\npath layout; the State budget will not be adopted at the same time\nas the City's budget the City's budget will need to be adjusted,\ndepending upon what the State does; recovery is a long way off;\ntime should be used now to establish a Task Force or committee to\ndiscuss retirements benefits, revenue versus expenses, and the true\ncosts of services.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember deHaan previously mentioned a\nBlue Ribbon committee that would consist of people familiar with\nthe issues and who would be available to advise management and\nCouncil about long-term budget issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City Treasurer and Auditor should\nbe included.\nMayor Johnson stated community members should be included: there\nneeds to be an opportunity to educate people.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that starting the process for\nestablishing a committee is imperative so that there is a committee\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 12, "text": "once the budget is adopted.\nMayor Johnson stated it is easy for people to be uninformed but\nprovide lots of opinions i the committee could consist of fifteen or\ntwenty members.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated economic stability is a long-term\nprocess and should not only include the City budget but should also\nhave a component such as a rainy day fund so that the City is not\nat the whim of the State budget; the committee would need to make\nplans to weather the storm.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it is never too soon to start a\ncommittee; budget information could be shared with the committee;\nsuggested that the City Manager come back with a recommendation;\nall municipalities are starting to have an uneasy feeling.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that Alameda is better off than other cities\nbecause of reserves the City and County of San Francisco was able\nto spot some cost offset for the School District because it\ndeveloped a rainy day fund; taxpayers, community businesses, the\nmedia, School District, and hospital representatives were involved\nin the discussions; the San Francisco model was a short duration\nand resulted in a voter initiative that established a rainy day\nfund; the City is very tight on resources now; she would like to\nget a feel for how much staff time would be required and staffing\nrecommendations.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated bringing together diverse groups and\ninterests is more about community welfare, not the economic\nstability of the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City had an Economic Development\nStrategic Plan Task Force; the Task Force had a limit duration,\nspecific end points, and a large cast of people representing\nvarious sectors of the community, including the School District; a\nprospective should be available on what the costs were.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to emphasize reviewing\ntrue long-term costs for long-term commitments.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested using the ten-year planning tool\nthe City invested in a couple of years ago.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City Manager could be\ntasked with how the Economic Sustainability Committee would be\nstructured, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated one or two Councilmembers could work\nwith the City Manager on the matter.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmembers deHaan and Matarrese\nwould work with the City Manager, to which Councilmembers deHaan\nand Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 9:30 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\n13\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 20, 2008- - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(08-208CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units.\n(08-27CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (Alameda Landing) ; Negotiating\nparties CIC and Catellus; Under negotiation Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council\nreceived a briefing from its Labor Negotiators; regarding Real\nProperty, the Commission received a briefing from its Real Property\nNegotiators regarding potential amendments to price and terms\nrequested by Catellus on the Alameda Landing Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe Special Meeting at 7:30 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\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MAY 20, 2008- - - -7:31 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 9:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Boaro Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan 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( *08-225CC/*08-28CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners Meeting of May 6, 2008. Approved.\n(*08-226CC/*08-29CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year\nThird Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(ARRA/08-30CIC) Workshop on FY 2008-09 ARRA and CIC Budgets.\nThe Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation\non the CIC and ARRA budgets.\nThe ARRA budget discussion is included in the ARRA Minutes record.\nFollowing the ARRA discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe budget includes any funds that are obligated to another entity,\nsuch as the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)\nThe Development Services Director responded staff nets out all\nobligations; the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP)\nand West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) unrestricted\ncash flow shows that staff nets out all obligations; the line which\nreads pass through to taxing entities includes AUSD; an audit was\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 16, "text": "conducted of the last five years; a one time adjustment of $300,000\nis being made this year; the audit was done because the formulas\nfor each entity differ; numbers are different if they are pre-1994,\npost-1994 - and from separate negotiated agreements ; 90% of entities\nwere not doing the calculations correctly the right formula will\nbe used in the future; the same person will work with AUSD to\ncorrect its reporting.\nCommissioner deHaan requested a final report on the matter.\nChair Johnson stated the extreme diversity of the Development\nServices Department's projects is amazing; the Department does not\nhave a very large staff.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the budget is complex; thanked the\nDevelopment Services and Finance Departments; stated the Commission\nis in charge of the budget if the Commissioners do not know where\nthe money is going and where revenues are coming from they would be\nin trouble.\nThe Development Services Director thanked Finance for being\naccommodating in the creation of the cash flow spreadsheet.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the budget presentation was very\nclear, which is particularity important when the budget news is not\ngood.\nADJOURNMENT\n(08-227CC/08-31CIC) At the request of Councilmember/Commissione:\ndeHaan, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at\n10:55 p.m. in a moment of silence in honor of the recent natural\ndisaster victims.\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\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}