{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 3, 2008- - -7:30 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 9:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent 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(*08-233) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on May\n6, 2008, and Regular City Council Meeting held on May 20, 2008.\nApproved.\n(*08-234) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,913.93.\n(*08-235) Recommendation to set June 17, 2008, as Hearing date for\nFiscal Year 2008-2009 Proposition 4 appropriation limit. Accepted.\n( *08-236) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland and\nKnight in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative advocacy\nservices. Accepted.\n(*08-237) Report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under\nCalifornia Government Code Section 20903. Moved to paragraph no.\n08-250]\n(*08-238) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of\n$3,571,810, including contingencies, to D'arcy & Harty\nConstruction, Inc., for Cyclic Sewer Replacement, Phase 5, No. P.W.\n10-06-22. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 2, "text": "(*08-239) Recommendation to allocate $1,210,409 in Proposition 1B\nLocal Streets and Roads Funds, and award a Second Amendment to the\nContract in the amount of $2,965,000, including contingencies, to\nGallagher & Burk, Inc., for the repair and resurfacing of certain\nstreets, Phase 28, No. P.W. 04-08-12. Accepted.\n(*08-240) Recommendation to accept the work of Bay Line Concrete,\nCutting, Coring, and Drilling, Inc. for the Grand Street Bridge and\nBallena Boulevard Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No. P.W. 11-06-24.\nAccepted.\n(*08-241) Recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay\nConstruction, Inc. for the replacement of curb, gutter, and related\nimprovements to address street ponding Citywide, No. P. . W. 02-07-04.\nAccepted.\n(*08-242) Recommendation to accept the work of Power Engineering\nContractors, Inc. for the Grand Street Sewer Pump Station, No.\nP.W. 04-07-16. Accepted.\n( (*08-243) Resolution No. 14214, \"Approving a Third Amendment to the\nAgreement for Additional Funding from the State California Coastal\nConservancy in an Amount up to $57,000 to Implement Spartina\nEradication and Mitigation Measures, and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute All Associated Agreements and Documents. \"\nAdopted.\n(*08-244) Resolution No. 14215, \"Requesting and Authorizing the\nCounty of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property\nin the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General\nObligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held on\nNovember 7, 2000. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-245) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent\nbusiness license fees via the property tax bills.\nThe Finance Director provided an updated list and a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount of uncollected\nbusiness license fees is typical, to which the Finance Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether reimbursement comes from the\nCounty, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City needs to do anything\nelse after the letter is sent, to which the Finance Director\nresponded in the negative.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed home businesses.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-246) Public Hearing to consider collection of delinquent\nadministrative citation fees via the property tax bills.\nThe Code Compliance Officer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the normal process if an appeal is\nnot filed.\nThe Code Compliance Officer responded the process depends on the\ncomplexity of the case; stated sometimes a courtesy call is made or\nanother citation is issued.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Municipal Code addresses what to\ndo if an appeal is not filed.\nThe Code Compliance Officer responded in the negative; stated the\nMunicipal Code simply states that an appeal can be filed within ten\ndays.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how often citations can be given and\nwhether there is a maximum.\nThe Code Compliance Officer responded most citations are issued\nevery thirty days; stated citations can be issued every seven to\nten days if there are safety issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Municipal Code allows\nstaff to continue enforcement every seven days.\nThe Code Compliance Officer responded in the affirmative; stated\nanother option would be to hire a contractor for abatement.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has not received a copy of the\nordinance he requested.\nThe Building Official stated no minimum or maximum timeframe was\nset when the ordinance was written; the Administrative Citation fee\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 4, "text": "provides an enforcement tool.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff has worked with the Lafayette\nStreet property owner to remove the trailers since 2001, to which\nthe Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the trailers have been occupied\nsince 2001.\nThe Code Compliance Officer responded staff was not aware that\nanyone was occupying the trailers until today.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the trailers appeared on the\nproperty, to which the Code Compliance Officer responded 2001.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not recall seeing the\ntrailers on the property.\nThe Code Compliance Officer stated twenty-sever calls have been\nreceived for Police service since 2007.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the response has been for code\nenforcement.\nThe Code Compliance Officer responded the son of the deceased owner\nhas never responded; stated the daughter of the deceased owner is\nin charge of the estate; the estate's attorney has responded.\nLance Russum, Attorney for the Estate of Juanita Ogle, stated the\nson is not a tenant of the estate but has occupied the property\nwithout permission the son has been evicted but has come back; the\nson's appeal rights expired on May 8; the administrator has control\nof the property because of the eviction and is trying to determine\nthe best way to dismantle the containers; combustible materials are\non the property; the Fire Department should inspect the property as\nsoon as possible.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the owner passed away\nMr. Russum responded June 2007; stated letters were issued in\nAugust 2007; he does not think the estate has a responsibility to\npay for the citations.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the property has a mortgage, to\nwhich Mr. Russum responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the estate has assets, to which Mr.\nRussum responded the estate has no liquid assets now.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the house is an asset of the estate.\nMayor Johnson suggested continuing the item and setting deadlines ;\nstated the estate has a responsibility not to create blight in the\nneighborhood; the goal is to get rid of the blight.\nThe Code Compliance Officer stated staff has agreed to cease\nissuing additional citations until August.\nMayor Johnson suggested tabling the matter for three months until\nthe trailers are gone, and then address the issue of accumulated\nfines.\nThe Code Compliance Officer stated the lien is a judgment lien and\nwould be payable at the time sale.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether verification can be made on\nwhether anyone is living in the trailers.\nMr. Russum responded the son enters the trailers in the evenings ;\nstated the Police Department has intervened on a regular basis.\nMayor Johnson stated taxpayer resources are protecting the\nproperty.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the estate is current with property\ntax payments, to which Mr. Russum responded the daughter advanced\nmoney for property tax payments.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether it would be less expensive for the\nestate if the City did the abatement now versus collecting the\nfines.\nMr. Russum responded breaking up the trailers for scrap would be\neasier.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with health and\nsafety issues.\nThe Code Compliance Officer stated blight has become a health and\nsafety issue.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the trailers cannot be removed tomorrow;\nstated a crane could load the trailers onto a large truck.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Building Official stated code\nenforcement would continue, but citations would not be issued\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 6, "text": "through the end of August; suggested that staff continue to work\nwith the estate and levy fines on the property tax bill to help the\nCity recover costs incurred.\nMayor Johnson stated that the matter should be brought back at the\nfirst City Council meeting in September Council expects blight and\nhealth and safety issues to be remedied by September.\nThe Building Official stated that citations stop if property owners\nwork with the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that staff research the cost of\nbringing in a crane and semi-truck to remove the trailers; stated a\ndecision could be made in August on whether to continue to fine or\nattach the abatement cost [to the lien].\nMayor Johnson stated Council should consider removing the trailers\nsooner than August because of health and safety issues.\nMr. Russum stated the administrator's resources could be used to\nremove the trailers if costs are provided.\nMayor Johnson stated the estate has the responsibility to deal with\nthe blight and danger, not the City.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of creating a lien on both\nproperties and not issuing any more citations on the Lafayette\nStreet property until the matter is brought back at the first City\nCouncil Meeting in September for review.\nMayor Johnson stated Council would expect the daughter to take care\nof removing the trailers in the near future.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is not comfortable with\nassessing the entire $9,750 on the Lafayette Street property;\nintervals of the citations are peculiar.\nMayor Johnson stated the case initiated in 2001; the property has\nhad a lot of neighbor complaints; the Police and Fire Departments\nhave been called numerous times; inquired whether citations were\nissued in compliance with the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated citations\ncould have been issued more frequently.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that further\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 7, "text": "7\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 8, "text": "Avenue property and administrative citation process.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-247 - ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14216,\n\"Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2008-09 and\nLevying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement\nArea of the City of Alameda for FY 2008-09. \" Adopted.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of resolution) : Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) ; Kathy Moehring.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nMayor Johnson inquired which funds pay for the maintenance, to\nwhich the Development Services Director responded Landscape and\nLighting District funds.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much is collected.\nMs. Moehring responded approximately $32,000; stated maintenance\ncosts are approximately $54,000.\nMayor Johnson stated Webster Street property owners are not paying\nfor the [entire] maintenance; stated the public invested several\nmillion dollars and the investment should be maintained.\nMs. Moehring concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated there was not\nenough time to educate property owners.\nMayor Johnson stated that an attempt was made three years ago to\nincrease the assessment.\nMr. Ratto stated an attempt was made to increase the Business\nImprovement Assessment (BIA) boundaries the vote failed.\nMs. Moehring stated the number one priority is to work with\nproperty owners to help them understand the importance of\nincreasing the Landscape and Lighting District fees.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(08-248) - Recommendatior to allocate $99,218 in Measure B -\nTransbay Ferry Funds, and approve a Second Amendment to the\nContract in the amount of $99,218 to Marine Express, Inc. for the\nMain Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project.\nThe Ferry Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the additional work would\nbring the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge up to a satisfactory\nstandard; further inquired whether staff anticipates any further\ncorrections to the barge.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded no further work is required\nstated the final work would include lifting up the west end of the\n70-foot gangway approximately six inches.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-249 ) Recommendation to establish a Fiscal Sustainability\nCommittee.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a ten-year plus horizon should be\nconsidered; the City of Vallejo is comparable to Alameda and\nprovides a good, real life case study large and small business\nexpertise is valuable because said businesses have real experience\nin managing budgets someone with some actuarial experience could\nfill the financial seat; the six-month period is aggressive, is\nmeant to start after budget approval and anticipates that the State\nbudget will not be approved in June; the committee would make\nrecommendations regarding the pros and cons of deferring payment\nand long-term obligations to retirees.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the committee would provide a golden\nopportunity to have highly skilled individuals look at best\nbusiness practices; the ten-year budget model can be a good tool;\ngood direction would be provided to build on policy; the City\nAuditor and City Treasurer picked up the challenge; a financially\nexperienced facilitator could be brought in to bring the committee\nup to speed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the size of the committee, to\nwhich Councilmember Matarrese responded eight.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether eight members would be enough.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have any objections\nto broadening the committee as long as the focus is kept on the\ngoal.\nMayor Johnson stated the committee is a way to get the public\ninvolved in the City's financial issues. questioned whether every\nmember should be required to be a resident. ; stated Alameda business\nowners, who are not residents, could be valuable; the committee\nshould decide on whether a facilitator is needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the intention would be to have a\nfacilitator gather data.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Chair would drive the meeting,\nnot the facilitator.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is thinking of a secretary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is fine with having an\nAlameda business owner serve on the committee; the number of\nmembers should be set now.\nCouncilmember Gilmore recommended that the committee not exceed\nten.\nCouncilmember deHaan recommended that the committee not exceed\neleven.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the committee would not be a\nconsensus committee.\nMayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese recommended that the\ncommittee consist of eleven members.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the labor member would not be\nsomeone associated with the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that his intention is to include a\nlabor union representative who does not represent City employees\nbecause of contract issues and a vested interest.\nVice Mayor Tam stated having a public safety union representative\nparticipate would be good because public safety unions make up 60%\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 11, "text": "of the General Fund budget i the Climate Protection Task Force\nmeetings were open to the public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the committee meetings would be\npublic and noticed.\nMayor Johnson stated educating the public is one of the purposes of\nthe\ncommittee; concerted efforts should be made to let the public\nknow about the committee.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the sub-committee and staff;\nsuggested having someone from the real estate community serve on\nthe committee or be used as a consultant.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that heavy financial expertise is\nneeded; tax experts could provide briefings.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the real estate representative\nwould not have to be on the committee, but could be a consultant.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a real estate representative could\nbe used from a financial standpoint.\nMayor Johnson stated looking longer than ten years is important.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the committee would look at a long\nhorizon, which would not be less than ten years.\nMayor Johnson suggested membership be placed on the next Council\nagenda.\nThe Development Services Director stated that she is not sure\nwhether the matter could be brought to Council that fast.\nMayor Johnson stated recommendations could be brought to Council at\nthe first meeting in July and voted on at the same meeting.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Council would hand select the\nmembers.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed involvement in the community.\nKevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated the proposed committee is a\ngood idea; times are tough right now; distinguishing between formal\nand informal members is important ; encouraged Council to keep the\ncommittee small and nimble so that things can be accomplished.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the committee would need to be high profile\nand should be used to educate the public about budgeting and\neconomic realities.\nKevin Kearney, City Auditor, stated some ideas are already in\nplace; reinventing the wheel is not necessary ; information needs to\nbe updated; the main goal is to educate the public.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated past, good faith decisions are starting\nto bite the City today; future needs should be reviewed; having\neveryone [committee members) show up for every meeting would be\ndifficult.\nMayor Johnson stated the committee would not have quorum\nrequirements.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the members should understand that\nthere are expectations to meet twice a month, more or less, and\ndeliver a product within the six-month timeframe.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the City Treasurer and City Auditor\nfor taking charge and being excited; stated that she agrees\neducating the public is an important function; citizens do not\nunderstand fund source restrictions.\nThe City Treasurer stated committee members should be tasked with\naddressing revenues and expenditures; members would gather\ninformation independently; members should have no vested interest\nin issues being discussed; issues need to be reviewed impartially.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of moving forward with the\nFiscal Sustainability Committee along the lines set out in the\nstaff report; limiting the membership to eleven; and removing the\nrequirement that members be Alameda residents.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a non-resident 25% cap should be\nincluded in the motion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she would rather leave the cap up\nto the committee; the committee should have the flexibility to get\nthe job done.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated nominated experts would be\nperforming a community service, which would be greatly appreciated.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 13, "text": "(08-250 ) Report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under\nCalifornia Government Code Section 20903. Withdrawn.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(Public Comment)\n(08-251 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Federal\nEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) would perform a disaster\npreparedness demonstration in the City of Oakland on June 25, 2008,\nbetween 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 11:40 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\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 3, 2008- - -6:30 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(08-229) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from\nits Labor Negotiators regarding the status of negotiations; no\naction was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 3, 2008- - -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\n/\nAuthority\nMembers / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson -\n5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that recommendation to authorize the\nExecutive Director to enter into Contracts [paragraph no. 08-33\nCIC] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the\nremainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. ]\n(*08-230 CC/08-32 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand CIC Meeting, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meeting held on May 20, 2008.\nApproved.\n(08-33 - CIC) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to\nenter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association, and\nthe West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nChair Johnson stated that the Greater Alameda Business Association\n(GABA) Contract is a small amount; Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) members pay\nfees; understanding how GABA works is important.\nThe Development Services Director stated GABA does general\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n1\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 16, "text": "advertising and hosts different activities; a part-time person\nkeeps the membership informed, maintains a database, and handles\nactivities.\nChair Johnson inquired whether GABA has membership dues.\nThe Development Services Director responded that GABA does not have\na Business Improvement Area (BIA) ; stated that she does not know\nabout dues; members sponsor different projects.\nChair Johnson stated it is important to know how much GABA\ncontributes to expenses.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the City's investment in the\nAssociations yields a return to the City in sales and business tax;\nthe staff report notes that there is no impact on the General Fund\nand the Contract amounts are budgeted from tax increment funds;\ninquired whether funds come from the CIC budget, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what is the impact on the CIC\nbudget further inquired whether GABA businesses qualify since they\nare not in the redevelopment area.\nThe Development Services Director responded GABA qualifies; stated\nfunds are part of the 10% of the CIC budget that pays for general\nactivities, staff, and basic overhead costs; there are very few\nmiscellaneous activities that are being funded this year.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the matter should be\ndiscussed tonight since the budget has not been adopted.\nThe Development Services Director responded staff is requesting\nauthorization to do the Contracts; stated the Contracts would not\nbe executed until the budget is adopted.\nCommissioner Tam concurred with Commissioner Matarrese; stated the\nbudget sessions have been very painful; a 3% increase is not very\nmuch, but some employee contracts are not going to be increased\nnext year; the proposed PSBA budget amount is $111, 446; PSBA is\nproposing to levy assessments totaling $88,000; inquired whether\nPSBA's entire budget would be the combination of $111, , 446 and\n$88,000.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated\nthe budget includes fundraising also.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n2\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 17, "text": "Mr. Ratto stated PSBA would raise approximately $135,000 in special\nevents this year.\nCommissioner Tam stated PSBA's BIA annual assessment is $88,000 and\nthe proposed City grant of $111, 446, which is 20% over the annual\nassessment. stated WABA's proposed grant is $101,146 and the BIA is\napproximately $32,000, which is almost 300% above; requested an\nexplanation of the difference between the two ratios.\nThe Development Services Director stated support is meant to take\nplace of economic development activities; the business districts\nare disproportionate in size; staff is trying to build capacity and\nhelp the Associations keep enough staff and help with other\ncontractual activities.\nChair Johnson stated serious conversations need to take place with\nthe business districts; WABA failed to increase assessments; the\npublic contributed millions of dollars; the business districts need\nto help themselves and be part of the solution.\nThe Development Services Director stated a classic challenge is\ntrying to bridge the gap between property owners and business\nowners.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Alameda Landing Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA) requires that businesses be Association\nmembers GABA is a worthy cause and needs to put a budget together\nto justify the $12,000 [ in grant funds]\nThe Development Services Director stated information provided by\nGABA shows the funds support the part-time staff activity.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he would like to defer the staff\nrecommendation until the CIC budget is adopted.\nChair Johnson inquired whether deferring the item would have an\nimpact on PSBA and WABA.\nThe Development Services Director responded typically installment\npayments are made in July.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of continuing the item until\nadoption of the budget.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he would like to have more defined\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n3\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 18, "text": "information about GABA come back.\nChair Johnson stated that she would like to know how much the\nmembers contribute to support the Association.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that GABA is a worthy Association;\ninquired whether Contracts could be executed in time to meet the\nrequirements if the budget is adopted by the end of the month.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated Contracts have been prepared; stated authority needs to be\ngiven to execute the Contracts.\nCommissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(08-231 CC) Resolution No. 14213, \"Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of a Second Amendment of the Disposition and Development\nAgreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation. \" Adopted and\n(08-34 CIC) Resolution No. 08-156, \"Authorizing the Executive\nDirector to Enter Into a Second Amendment to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with\nPalmtree Acquisition Corporation. Adopted.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nAidan Barry, Catellus Development Group, stated Catellus has\nentered into an agreement with the Navy and the Department of Toxic\nSubstances Control (DTSC) which allows for the removal of covenants\nand restrictions that precluded the opportunity to do the mixed -\nuse development; Catellus worked with the City to redesign the\nwaterfront; the Stargell Avenue acquisition involves multiple\nparties currently, negotiations are taking place with Target.\ndiscussions are continuing with Clif Bar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired where the hospital\ndemolition is referenced in the report.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Page 12\nof the Second Amendment, Section D.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n4\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when Catellus would\nacquire the UP right-of-way; further inquired where Catellus is in\nterms of deciding whether or not to proceed.\nMr. Barry responded Catellus negotiated a term sheet with UP;\nstated Catellus is in negotiations on a draft purchase and sale\nagreement he hopes to conclude negotiations this month; a formal\ndue diligence effort needs to be done and should be concluded\nwithin sixty days; Catellus is running a parallel path of\nnegotiations with the retailers.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam acknowledged the help of former Mayor\nBill Withrow and General Counsel of the Peralta Community College\nDistrict provided in negotiating the four-way agreement; stated\nthat significant expenditures were made, such as the removal of the\nFaithful; funds were expended to fix some major water leaks; the\nCity helped redesign the waterfront when it was determined that it\nwas not financially feasible to seismically retrofit the area\nbecause of pier decay; stated State Transportation Improvement\nProgram (STIP) funds must be requested by February 2009 in order to\ngo before the California Transportation Commission (CTC) ; inquired\nwhat is the level of competition and availability for said funding.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\nassurances have been given that STIP allocations would not be\nimpacted by the State budget.\nThe City Engineer stated a lot of the projects are large\nprioritization is based upon how many people are impacted by the\nproject, how much safety will be enhanced, and where the projects\nare in the planning process.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether the money is in\njeopardy money will be in serious jeopardy if the City does not\nmove forward with the project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated larger\nprojects will start to come on line as the Fiscal Year progresses\nopportunities are maximized by getting in before the other\nprojects.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the City would\nget the money if an application is submitted, to which the Base\nReuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; the City could be in jeopardy if it waits until\nFebruary 2009.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n5\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned with\nthe timeframe; inquired whether the Clif Bar parcel is pushed into\nPhase 2 now.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all of\nthe office property would be in Phase 31 stated an early office\nparcel could be the first or second parcel developed.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is any\nlikelihood of keeping the original deadlines, especially retail.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation (PAC) requested that certain timeframes be\nextended for the performance milestones due to early expenditure of\nfunds.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how close the retail\nproject would be to the original timeframes.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded PAC'S\nimmediate timeframe is a year and a half from now; stated PAC would\nneed to commence with an alternative Phase 1; PAC has another five\nand a half years to commence on the retail.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would happen if the\nStargell Avenue Extension Project is not constructed.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded PAC\nwould not have any time extensions; stated everything would go back\nto the original DDA timeframe.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the most important\naspect is obtaining the right-of-way i the stars have lined up and\nwill not line up again; funds would be allocated to the project and\nwould go towards covering upfront reimbursements for acquiring the\nright-of-way if the developer pulls out or the City terminates the\nAgreement.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the\nresolutions.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the\ncaveat that the project has a rigid timeframe.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore requested more detail on the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n6\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 21, "text": "Operating Memorandum.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the\nexisting DDA has a section that provides for an ability to do\nOperating Memorandum if there are technical details that the\nparties want to work out; the Operating Memorandum will look at\nproperty management issues and will deal with a scenario that may\npresent itself in the future; the Operating Memorandum would deal\nwith issues such as fewer lease revenues coming in than property\nmanagement expenses and how to handle said situation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Operating\nMemorandum would come back, to which the Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated Section D on Page 12 notes that\nthe developer would reimburse the CIC for the cost incurred if the\nCity issues a demolition permit within sixty days inquired how\nsoon the hospital demolition can start.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\ndemolition would have to be authorized through the budget processi\nstated the demolition work could commence fairly quickly if funds\nare authorized; Catellus has already prepared the demolition plans.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the cost estimate for\ndemolishing the hospital, to which the Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Manager responded several million dollars.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Stargell Avenue Extension Project\nhas gone on for years she appreciates the cooperation of the\nPeralta Board; inquired whether the Board approved the project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nBoard would take action on June 10.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-232 CC) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Directing the\nPreparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents,\nAuthorizing the Preparation and Distribution of a Preliminary\nOfficial Statement in Connection with the Offering and Sale of\nCertificates of Participation Relating Thereto, and Authorizing and\nDirecting Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. Continued; and\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n7\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 22, "text": "(08-02 - APFA) Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and\nDirecting Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing\nDocuments and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with\nRespect Thereto. Continued.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the cost of refinancing.\nThe Finance Director responded the cost of the additional debt\nservice over the new life of the issue is $594,658.75.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the cost of issuance, to\nwhich the Finance Director responded $150,000.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the total cost would be\n$150,000 plus $594,000.\nThe Finance Director responded the $150,000 is included in the\n$594,000.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese inquired whether $150,000\nwould be spent to save $203,000, extend the debt a couple years,\nand pay approximately $600,000 in interest.\nThe Finance Director responded $600,000 would be spent over fifteen\nyears in order to get the first year savings of approximately\n$600,000.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he has a hard\ntime borrowing money and encumbering two extra years on someone in\nthe future.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the proposed refinancing would cost the\nCity money.\nThe Finance Director stated cash would be saved now and would be\npaid over the next fifteen years.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether refinancing would cost\n$594,000.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated\napproximately $600,000 would be saved in interest.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would not call it a savings\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n8\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 23, "text": "because the amount is deferred.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that she totaled a\n$5.1 million debt; $6 million would be issued; inquired whether\nthere is some minimum limit.\nThe Finance Director responded $6 million is the approximate\namount; stated $5,490,000 would be issued; interest rates change\nthe numbers are based on estimated interest rates; the interest\nrates are favorable now.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the matter is a cash\nflow issue; approximately $600,000 would not be spent in the first\nyear; $600,000 would be spent over fifteen years.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the loans\nwere refinanced already.\nThe Finance Director responded only the Police Building was\nrefinanced in 1996.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired why the Police\nBuilding was refinanced.\nThe Finance Director responded because interest rates dropped\nsignificantly.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated the City gets into\ntrouble by deferring and refinancing.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the Police Building was\nconstructed, to which the Finance Director responded 1990.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the original planned bond\nissue.\nThe Finance Director responded the $2.8 million bond was issued in\n1990 with interest rates of 5.8% to 7.25%.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the bond would have been paid if\nnot refinanced, to which the Finance Director responded she would\nguess 2010.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he is not in\nfavor; savings are not being made on the interest rates and future\nCouncils will be burdened; debt will be deferred if not paid now.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n9\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 24, "text": "The Finance Director stated budget increases would be needed\notherwise.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Library Fund is paid out\nof the General Fund.\nThe Finance Director responded approximately 50-55% of Library\nexpenditures are supported by the General Fund, stated the Police\nBuilding Bond would have been paid off in 2015, if not refinanced.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the first year\nsavings is approximately $600,000; inquired how much cash would not\nbe spent the second year, to which the Finance Director responded\n$367,000.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired how many more years\nthe repayment would be pushed out, to which the Finance Director\nresponded two years.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what are the fees.\nThe Finance Director responded $150,000 for issuance; stated the\nunderwriter's discount is $41,175.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $41,175 is in addition to\nthe $150,000, to which the Finance Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated fees would be rolled back\ninto debt service.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated money would be borrowed to restructure\nborrowed money.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the\ninterest on the 1996 Police Building, to which the Finance Director\nresponded 4% to 6%.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the\ninterest on the Golf Course, to which the Finance Director\nresponded 3.9% to 5.75%.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what the new\ninterest rate would be, to which the Finance Director responded the\nall in true interest costs is approximately 5%.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n10\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the interest\nrate is fixed.\nThe Finance Director responded the interest rate varies over time i\nstated everything is taken into account with an all in true\ninterest cost.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated money would need to be found elsewhere\nif refinancing is not done; she does not view refinancing as a way\nto balance the budget.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated refinancing would be a\none-time fix and a deferral.\nThe Finance Director stated the proposed refinancing was\na\npotential solution for not having sufficient budget capacity to\nmeet all needs.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether timing\nwould be impacted if Council and the Commission decide to made a\ndecision to go forward at the end of June.\nThe Finance Director responded missing the August 1 call date for\nthe Police Building might cost more money, but could be done.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese inquired how much is owed\non the police bonds.\nThe Finance Director responded $1.5 million; stated Library and\nGolf is 3.5%; 63% is for Library and 34% is for Golf.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated $1 million needs to be spent on\nrenovating the driving range the City is still paying off the\nconstruction debt.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated staff should look\nat paying early because there is no tax deduction for paying\ninterest.\nThe Finance Director stated the scenario could be reviewed; the net\npresent value of the future debt service versus using the fund\nbalance to pay it off can be reviewed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether major\nrefinancing was done in 2002-2003.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n11\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 26, "text": "The Finance Director responded in 2002 refinancing was done for\nreconstruction of City Halli stated tax increment bonds were done\nfor the CIC in 2003.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether refinancing\nwas done for interest rates only.\nThe Finance Director responded City Hall reconstruction bonds were\nrefinanced in 2002 and were originally issued in 2000.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the impact\nover the out years.\nThe Finance Director responded the debt service was the same level\nevery year; the prime motivation for the current proposal is not to\nget interest rate savings, but deferral.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to look long-term; the\nreport only looks at short-term.\nThe Finance Director stated staff reviewed the matter from a\nperspective that the proposal is not good for the long-term, but is\nwhat needs to be done in order to have budget capacity for the next\ntwo years.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated direction has been given to always look\nat long-term.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated it does not make sense to\nspend down the fund balance if the same interest is earned on the\nfund balance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated it does not make sense to use the fund\nbalance because the City has so many other things to pay for with\nthe fund balance, such as deferred health care retirement costs;\nthe City needs to be living within its means and not defer\npayments.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the amount of money\nbeing deferred over the first two years is slightly under a million\ndollars; the extra money that would be spent over the life of the\nloan is $600,000. payments would be extended for two more years;\nshe would like to hear from the City Auditor and City Treasurer.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the payments are for the last\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n12\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 27, "text": "two-year extension.\nThe Finance Director responded the payments for total debt services\nfor all three funds is about $573,000 each year.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the deferred payments\nnot being made over the first two years are slightly under a\nmillion dollars.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the added interest and cost of\nrestructuring is an additional $594,000.\nThe City Treasurer stated bills should be paid when due.\nThe City Auditor stated money needs to be spent to refinance; he\ndoes not see the benefit in pushing obligations into the future;\ntough decisions need to be made now.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated deferred payments\nover the first two years are approximately $1 million; $594,000 is\nthe delta between what would need to be spent if nothing is done\nand what would need to be spent for refinancing; inquired whether\nthe savings would be the difference between $1 million and\n$594,000.\nThe Finance Director responded there is no savings because the $1\nmillion is part of the calculation of the $594,000.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the non-payment years cannot be counted\nas savings inquired whether payments would be higher in the third\nyear because of the restructuring.\nThe Finance Director responded the payments go up to $567,00 in\nyear three; in year three payments would be $610,000 as compared to\n$567,000; payments start to decline in 2017 because the 1996 Police\nBuilding debt would be paid in 2015 the existing debt service\nwould decline to $369,000; the new debt service would stay in the\n$570,000 range.\nThe City Treasurer stated the situation is whether to borrow money\nover the next two years to balance the budget and pay it back over\nthe next twenty years.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore moved approval of tabling\nthe item pending budget discussions.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n13\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-03", "page": 28, "text": "Vice Mayor/Chair/Authority Member Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated that she\nappreciates the fact that there will be a challenge to define what\nit means to live within means.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: uncilmembers/Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore,\nTam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember/Authority\nMember Matarrese.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that criteria needs\nto be set for when money is borrowed to balance the budget.\nMayor/Chair/ Johnson requested that a policy regarding borrowing\nmoney be brought back.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Alameda Public Financing\nAuthority\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\n14\nFinancing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting\nJune 3, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf"}