{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JUNE 17, 2008- -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:58 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\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\n(08-259 - ) Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by gay\nand lesbian residents and encouraging the community to recognize\nthese contributions, particularly during the month of June, Gay\nPride Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Maia and Liz\nBradford-Ryan and Debra Arbuckle.\nMai Bradford-Ryan thanked Council for the proclamation.\nLiz Bradford-Ryan thanked Council for the support in recognizing\nthe gay, transgender, and lesbian community.\nDebra Arbuckle stated that she is proud to have Council and the\ncitizens stand up to equality when problems arise; a workshop will\nbe held at the Main Library on June 23, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. to\ncontinue the dialog on equality.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is working on setting up a process to\nperform marriages at City Hall.\nSpeakers in support of proclamation: Morten Wellhaven, Alameda; Dr.\nMary Abu-Saba, Buena Vista United Methodist Church; David McIntyer,\nBuena Vista United Methodist Church.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she shares in the appreciation of the\nlesbian, transgender, and gay community; fourteen inquiries or\nrequests have been received for marriage ceremonies at City Hall.\nCounci Lember Gilmore stated the new right [of gay marriage] brings\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 2, "text": "a whole new appreciation [of marriage]\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is pleased that the\nCalifornia Supreme Court upheld the notion that is in the United\nStates Constitution regarding equal protection under the law;\ncontinued progress should be made.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated prior Councils educated the community\neverything is moving in the right direction.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that Introduction of Ordinance [paragraph\nno. 08-260] was 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(*08-261) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on May\n27, 2008; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on\nJune 3, 2008. Approved.\n(\n*08-262) - Ratified bills in the amount of $1,867,330.46\n( *08-263) Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising\nfor Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Accepted.\n(*08-264) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of\n$163,112, including contingencies, to Saurez & Munoz Construction,\nInc. , for Rittler Park irrigation and field renovation\nimprovements, No. P.W. 11-07-34. Accepted.\n(*08-265) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize a Call for Bids for repair of portland cement concrete\nsidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, Fiscal\nYear 2008-2009, Phase 9, No. P.W. 05-08-13. Accepted.\n(*08-266) Resolution No. 14217, \"Adopting a Multiple Year\nResolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit Grant\nApplications to the California Integrated Waste Management Board\nfor All Available Grants Under the California Oil Recycling\nEnhancement Act for the Period of July 1, 2008 Through June 30,\n2012. \" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 3, "text": "(*08-267) Resolution No. 14218, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nSubmit a Request and Execute All Required Agreements and Documents\nto the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for the\nTransportation for Clean Air Grant Applications, in the Amount of\n$315,000 for the Signal Coordination and Transit Signal Priority\nAlong Constitution Way Between Mariner Square Drive and Atlantic\nAvenue. Adopted.\n(*08-268) Resolution No. 14219, \"Amending Resolution No. 9460 to\nReflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City\nof Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution\nNo. 14094. \" Adopted.\n(08-269) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 8-26. 1 (Use of Coasters, Roller Skates,\nand Similar Devices Restricted) of Section 8-26 (Coasters, Skates,\nEtc. ) of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles, and Alternative\nTransportation Modes) and Subsection 23-1.3 (Riding of Bicycles and\nSkateboards in Parks, Etc. ) of Section 23-1 (Parks and Squares) of\nChapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas and Public Property) to\nExpand the Prohibition to Include Skateboards and Their Use in City\nOwned or Leased Property, Buildings or Structures Unless Authorized\nby Subsection 23-1.3. Introduced.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the intent of the ordinance to address\nskateboarding in the parking structure makes a lot of sense; her\nconcern is that there might be some unintended consequences that\nwould prevent bicyclists from riding to the parking garage racks or\nacross a parking lot; inquired whether there is some way to isolate\nskateboarding concerns in parking structures owned by the City.\nThe City Attorney responded that there was never an intent to stop\nbicyclists from riding through the parking structure in order\nsecure bikes at racks or lockers; stated the ordinance does not\ncreate a prohibition until a sign is posted; an exception could be\nmade regarding riding a bicycle to or from a locker or rack within\nthe parking garage.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed ordinance would\nprohibit riding a bicycle in any public park, playground, school\nproperty, City parking lot or parking structure; bicyclists would\nnot be able to get to racks or lockers behind the Library or\nparking structure; an exception should be made for bicyclists going\nto racks or lockers: inquired whether bicycles are governed by the\nrules of the road, and skateboards are not.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 4, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the intent\nis that bicycling and skateboarding might be okay in some parks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nproposed ordinance have an exception for bicyclists riding to park\nracks and lockers he does not see any reason for a skateboarder to\nskate through the parking structure or parking lot.\nMayor Johnson stated bicyclists need to walk bicycles through parks\nto get to racks.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the distinguishing factor is whether\nthe area is accessible to vehicles; inquired whether the proposed\nordinance could be modified now and move forward, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether requiring signs is in the proposed\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded the Municipal Code has two existing\nprovisions one addresses no skateboarding in City business\ndistricts a sign does not need to be posted; the other provision\ndeals with City parks; the intent is to prohibit skateboard riding\nin a City park if a sign is posted.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance should change; parks should not\nbe cluttered with signs; the City should not be burdened with\nplacing signs in the parks.\nThe City Attorney stated the City could make an outright\nprohibition of skateboarding in parks.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance should state that there are\noutright prohibitions unless otherwise authorized; inquired who\nwould enforce the ordinance, to which the City Attorney responded\nthe Police Department.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Park Directors could be authorized\nto issue citations.\nThe City Manager responded the matter would be explored and brought\nback to Council.\nThe City Attorney read into the record the following proposed\nlanguage: \"It shall be unlawful, unless otherwise posted, for any\nperson to operate or ride a bicycle or skateboard propelled wholly\nor in part by muscular power within or upon any public park,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 5, "text": "playground, or school property in the City or parking lot/parking\nstructure owned or leased by the City, except that a person may\nride a bicycle to and from bicycle racks or lockers provided within\nany City parking lot, parking structure, or park.\"\nMayor Johnson stated bicyclists need to walk bicycles through\nparks.\nThe City Attorney stated \"or park\" could be removed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with\nthe proposed, modified language.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-270) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14220,\n\"Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management\nAccounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills. \" Adopted.\nThe Environmental Services Manager provided an updated list and a\nbrief presentation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the staff report notes seventy-one delinquent\naccounts; the updated list show forty delinquent accounts.\nThe Environment Services Manager stated residents had until 5:00\np.m. to pay on delinquent accounts.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she did not reconcile the list with\nletters received requesting that settlement be held in abeyance\nuntil the issue can be resolved; inquired how the issue is handled.\nThe Environment Services Manager responded delinquent accounts\nremain on the list; staff works with the property owner to iron out\nissues.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether accounts do not need to be pulled\nfrom the list if property owners contacted staff.\nThe Environment Services Manager responded staff has been\ninstructed to work with property owners who have protested.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-271) Public Hearing and related actions regarding Alameda\nFerry Services :\n(08-271A) Resolution No. 14221, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nApply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, Including Five\nPercent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll\nReserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for\nthe City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into All\nAgreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal Year 2008-\n09. \" Adopted;\n(08-271B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a\nthird amendment to the amended and restated Ferry Services\nAgreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for one\nadditional year at a cost of $83,117;\n(08-271C) Public Hearing on the proposed implementation of a fuel\nsurcharge for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, and recommendation\nto authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of\nthe Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland\nFerry Service, and execute an amendment to the Agreement to extend\nthe term through June 30, 2010, adopt associated budgets, and\napprove the proposed fuel surcharge for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry\nService; and\n(08-271D) Public Hearing on the proposed implementation of a fuel\nsurcharge for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and recommendation to\nauthorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension of the\nHarbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating Agreement with the Alameda\nHarbor Bay Ferry, and to execute an amendment to the Agreement to\nextend the term for one additional year, adopt associated budgets,\napprove Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget Adjustment and Measure\nB\nallocation, and approve the proposed fuel surcharge for the Alameda\nHarbor Bay Ferry.\nThe Ferry Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired where is fuel bought.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry\n(AHBF) is fueled by a truck in San Francisco; the Alameda/Oakland\nFerry Service (AOFS) is fueled by using the Blue and Gold fuel tank\nat Pier 41.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is any other way to fund the\nincreasing fuel cost. stated AC Transit is not raising rates; she\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 7, "text": "does not like to raise rates on public transit; ferry tickets are\nexpensive already.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there has been an increase\nin ridership and what the increase is worth in dollars relative to\nthe amount of money that would be raised in by a surcharge.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded that he does not have current\nfigures; stated weather and other factors affect AOFS ridership\nsignificantly; AHBF is maintaining ridership; tickets are up to 768\nfor January, February, and March.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have numbers\ncome back in real dollars that show what the impact of the\nsurcharge would be versus the delta between ridership last year and\nthis year; he wants to see whether there is a windfall [ in\nridership] because fuel costs have increased.\nMayor Johnson stated public transit ridership has increased.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated ferry ridership is up quite a\nbit; staff has not found another way to fund the increased fuel\ncosts; the staff recommendation does not bring the full cost of\noffsetting the new fuel expenses; the proposal is to offset some of\nthe increase by using the $241,000 Measure B reserve.\nMayor Johnson requested more information on the proposed fuel\nsurcharge stated the Contracts could move forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the projected AHBF fare box\nratio.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded 42% under the assumption that\nCouncil would approve the fuel surcharge and that ridership would\nremain the same.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the AOFS fare box recovery.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded presently 51% to 52%; stated\nthe projection is 54%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nContracts go forward; have an analysis done as soon as possible;\nhave numbers presented to Council; and defer the decision on the\nsurcharge.\nMayor Johnson stated Council could authorize the City Manager to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 8, "text": "apply for funds.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution and\napproval of the staff recommendations except for the implementation\nof fuel surcharges.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that a lot of staff time has been spent on\nthe ferry system which ultimately will no longer belong to the\nCity; inquired what is the threshold to stop spending staff time on\nthe matter.\nThe City Manager responded staff would provide an update on the\nstatus of the Ferry Service transition; clarified that Council is\napproving all items except the proposed fuel surcharge.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08-272) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Relay for Life\nwill be held on June 21 and 22; Amateur Radio Week is June 21\nthrough June 29; the City of Oakland will have disaster\npreparedness presentations on June 25.\n(08-273) Debra Owen, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, stated the\nCenter is willing to explore options to partner with the City to\nproduce Art in the Park.\n(08-274) Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).\nstated the Webster Street Jam event would be held in September ;\nWABA'S goal is to increase awareness of Alameda artists; WABA would\nlike to have the [Art in the Park] art community be part of the\nWebster Street Jam event.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-275) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Civil\nService Board, Film Commission, Housing Commission, Library Board,\nPlanning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board,\nSocial Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Kenneth I. Dorrance, Patricia Grey, and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 9, "text": "Teddy B. Tabor for reappointment to the Film Commission; Aiesha P.\nBalde and Arthur A. Kurrasch for reappointment to the Housing\nCommission; Gail A. Wetzork for appointment to the Library Board;\nPatrick Lynch for reappointment to the Planning Board; Elizabeth A.\nCandelario and Eric Ibsen IV for appointment to the Public Art\nCommission; Peter W. Holmes for reappointment to the Public\nUtilities Board; Regional L. James for reappointment to the Social\nService Human Relations Board; and Kathy L. Moehring for\nappointment to the Transportation Commission (Business District\nSeat) .\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 8:53 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\n9\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 10, "text": "Special Meeting at 7:20 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 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) AND ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING AND\nANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 17, 2008 - - -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint City Council, APFA\nand ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC Meeting at 8:53 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Authority Members /\nBoard Members\n/\nCommissioners deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/ Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(08-276CC/08-03 APFA/08-35 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City\nCouncil, Alameda Public Financing Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting held on June 3, 2008. and the\nSpecial Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on\nJune 4, 2008. Approved.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese\nmoved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(08-277CC/08-04APFA) Public Hearing and related actions regarding\nthe Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget :\n(08-277A CC) Resolution No. 14222, \"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. Adopted; and\n(08-04A APFA) Resolution No. 08-17, \"Approving, Authorizing and\nDirecting Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing\nDocuments and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with\nRespect Thereto. Adopted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the new interest rate.\nBill Reynolds, Gardner Underwood & Bacon Financial Advisor,\nresponded rates are excepted to produce present value savings in\nexcess of 4%; stated the exact rate would not be known until the\nsale date; the assumption is that the rate would be in the mid 4%\nrange.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Reynolds is confident with\nthe assumption.\nMr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated the upgraded\nrating makes the process very competitive; refinancing would not\nmove forward without a good rate.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was opposed to refinancing\nbefore; now she is happy to see that the term would not be extended\nand there would be a lower interest rate.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the first\nyear would not have interest or principal payments and the second\nyear would have interest payments only.\nThe City Manager responded interest payments would be made in the\nfirst year.\nCouncilmember/Authority deHaan inquired whether the cost of the\nloan would be amortized, to which Mr. Reynolds responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the estimated savings,\nto which the City Manager responded $317,600.\nMr. Reynolds stated market data would be available on the date of\npricing to show comparables.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what percentage\nwould be the breaking point.\nThe City Manager responded 5.5% is set in the resolution.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the old and new interest rate\nfor each issuance.\nThe City Manager responded the original issue rates ranging from\n5.8% to 7.25% would mature in 2015; $2.77 million was issued for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 13, "text": "the Police facility; stated Library and Golf issues in the amount\nof $4.9 million have rates of 3.9% to 5.75%.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that a maximum should be set for each\nissuance.\nThe City Manager stated 5.5% is a blended rate; refinancing would\nnot go forward if expected savings are not realized.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated the 2022 date\nshould not be exceeded the previous proposal did not go forward\nbecause there was no savings, the term was extended, and debt would\nbe pushed back; now, debt would not be pushed back and the term\nwould not be extended.\nMr. Reynolds stated the interest rate and savings are two different\nnumbers; a $317,600 savings is the underwriter's best guess based\non current market conditions; 5.5% would produce less than $317,600\nin savings.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the savings goal should be approximately\n$317,000.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that anything over\n$300,000 in savings works.\nouncilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he would like the\nfirst two-year savings to be at least $400,000.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferring debt payments is not the\nbest way to do budgeting.\nMr. Reynolds stated that bond counsel drafted the resolution with\nthe idea that a limit would be placed on the average interest rate.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the most important issue is savings ;\nmanagement's goal is to defer payments to limit budget cuts; that\nshe does not want to pay more and save less due to deferring.\nMr. Reynolds stated an interest only payment would be made; savings\nwould be limited in the first two years; the present value savings\nwould change slightly with annual savings versus up front savings.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of\nresolutions as long as the duration of the bond would be the same\nand the savings threshold would not be less than $300,000.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 14, "text": "Counci Imember/Authorit; Member deHaan seconded the motion with the\ncaveat that principle would be pushed out.\nUnder discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated refinancing makes\nsense because the interest rate would be lower and over $300,000\nwould be saved.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-277B CC) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14223,\n\"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191. \" Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the prior fire inspection\nfee.\nMayor Johnson stated a chart showing fee comparisons would have\nhelped.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Fire Marshall\nstated fire inspection fees are based on an hourly rate and do not\nhave 100% cost recovery; currently, a business fire inspection fee\nis $77.50; full cost recovery would be approximately $148.\nMayor Johnson questioned whether Building staff should perform\ninspections instead of firefighters; stated business owners have\ncomplained about inspection fees; the proposed increase would\nresult in more complaints.\nThe Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department uses civilian\ninspectors, which lowers the expense.\nMayor Johnson questioned what the cost would be if Building staff\nperformed inspections.\nThe Fire Marshall stated Fire Department civilian inspectors have\nthe same salary as the Building Inspectors.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Building inspectors are busy already\nnew personnel would need to be added.\nThe Fire Marshall stated that fire and storm water inspectors are\nvery specialized and require additional training.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 15, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese stated an 80% increase is stiff; inquired\nwhether building fees could be raised by a very small amount over\ninflation in order to subsidize fire inspection fees.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded fees cannot be over 100% cost\nrecovery for any service.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many inspections are a one hour minimum\nand cost $215; inquired how often inspections occur, to which the\nFire Marshall responded annually.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated\nincreased inspection fees would put an undue burden on small\nbusinesses.\nAlan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA). stated ACEA\nfeels that Council should not pass a blanket resolution for a no\nfee increase for the Golf Course.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the collection rate on ambulance\nservice.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the report notes the collection\nrate was 51% in 2007 and excludes Medicare and Medi-Cal write offs.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when was the last time ambulance\nfees were raised.\nThe City Manager responded rates were restructured by the County\nlast year.\nMayor Johnson stated Council needs to know the cost recovery for\nambulance service.\nThe Fire Chief stated the collection rate is approximately 85% if\nMedicare and Medi-Cal are taken out as non-collectibles new\nrevenue anticipates a 50% collection rate.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the cost to provide ambulance\nservice and how much revenue is received, to which the City Manager\nresponded information would be provided.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Page 8 shows that $1,297 is the base rate for\nthe ambulance fee; inquired whether said fee is a significant\nportion of the City's cost for providing the service.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 16, "text": "The Fire Chief responded the fee is close to the cost.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City charges above what\ninsurance pays.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated generally,\ninsurance pays approximately 80%; the patient is billed the\nremaining 20%.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the recovery rate for private\nambulances, to which the Fire Chief responded that he did not know.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how much of the $300,000 would be\naccountable to inspection fees.\nThe Fire Chief responded the EMS portion is approximately $280,000;\nstated inspection fees are estimated at approximately $65,000.\nThe City Manager stated $20,000 would be related to the new fees.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would be a $15,000\nshortage, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see raising fees 80%.\nThe Fire Chief stated false alarm fees were not included and are\nestimated at $20,000; $300,000 could be achieved in new revenue if\nfalse alarm fees were included.\nMayor Johnson stated false alarm fees should be included; inquired\nwhat is sent out for a fire alarm, to which the Fire Chief\nresponded three engines, one truck, and a Chief Officer.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether one free false alarm is allowed per\nquarter, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated one free false alarm should be allowed every\nsix months, not every quarter.\nThe City Manager stated that the Fire Department responded to 454\nfalse alarms in 2007.\nMayor Johnson stated second false alarms fees should be raised to\n$125; $200 should be charged for the third false alarm, and $250\nfor the fourth false alarm.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether businesses have different\nfees, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson stated commercial businesses should be allowed one\nfree false alarm per year.\nThe Fire Chief stated fire alarms might be disconnected if\nrestrictions are too severe.\nMayor Johnson stated commercial false alarm rates should be $125\nfor the second alarm; $250 for the third; and $375 for the fourth.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the first free false alarm should\ncover a period of six months.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager\nstated the Golf Commission has not recommended golf fee increases\nat this point.\nMayor Johnson stated said increases could come back.\nThe City Manager stated the last golf fee increase was not in\nconjunction with the annual Master Fee resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the\nfollowing revisions to the Master Fee Schedule: 1) the false fire\nalarm schedule for residential be $125 for the second alarm, $200\nfor the third alarm and $250 for the fourth alarm; 2) the false\nfire alarm for commercial be $125 for the second alarm, $250 for\nthe third alarm and $375 for the fourth alarm; 3) that the period\nfor false fire alarms be changed from quarterly to every six\nmonths; and 4) the rest of the fees be increase by CPI.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much less revenue would be\nraised with the proposed revisions.\nMayor Johnson responded the amount is not known now; stated the\nmatter can be brought back.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he understands that $280,000 of\nthe $300,000 comes from the ambulance fee increase; an additional\n$65,000 would have come from increased fire inspection fees;\nrevenue would drop from $65,000 to $15,000 by using the CPI.\nMayor Johnson stated that she wants ambulance collection fees\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 18, "text": "brought back because collection should be improved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that information be brought back\non how much the uncollected [ambulance] fees represents in dollars.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda goes to\nOakland 273 times versus Oakland coming to Alameda 23 times; the\nrecovery rate could change if determinations are made later.\nMayor Johnson stated the Contract should state that mutual aid\nshould be proportionate.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated revenue generation would be impacted if\nthe City does not provided services to Oakland.\nThe City Manager stated the issue would be monitored and\nadjustments would be made in the quarterly report if necessary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated reports need to be provided more\nthan quarterly; some issues need to be monitored continually and\nconstantly.\nMayor Johnson requested monthly reports.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote - Ayes Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.\n(08-277C CC) Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit\n(Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2008-2009; and Resolution No.\n14224, \"Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2008-09. \"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated data is based on the amount\nof City or County population growth and CPI; Alameda's population\ngrowth is smaller than other cities in the County; inquired where\nis the demand for services and commensurate need for increased\ncosts if population growth has not increased.\nMayor Johnson responded services are decreasing, but costs are\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n8\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 19, "text": "increasing.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that complete cost recovery is recommended\nfor some areas, but no others; there seems to be some disparity in\nwhich services are more valuable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated small businesses provide sales tax;\nCPI is recommended instead of cost recovery because small\nbusinesses are taking on the extra burden of property tax;\nbusinesses need to be kept alive.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is in support of giving small\nbusinesses a break; the City seems to be subsidizing the Golf\nCourse.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council had previous discussions\nregarding only being able to raise fees so high and get same number\nof players.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is not subsidizing the Golf Course\nnow; raising golf fees would result in less revenue; golf fees\nwould not be frozen.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Golf Commission would be\ndiscussing the Golf Master Plan soon; looking at golf fees today\nwould be premature.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nMayor Johnson stated a policy is needed regarding not having the\nGeneral Fund subsidize the Golf Course.\n(ARRA) Resolution No. 42, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating\nBudget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures\nProvided in Fiscal Year 2008-09. \" Adopted\n(08-36CIC) Resolution No. 08-157, \"Approving and Adopting the\nOperating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the\nExpenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09. \" Adopted\n(08-277D CC) Resolution No. 14225, \"Approving and Adopting the\nOperating Budget and Capital Improvements and Appropriating Certain\nMoneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09 and\nEstablishing an Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Plan.\"\nAdopted;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n9\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 20, "text": "(08-277E CC) Resolution No. 14226, \"Establishing Guidelines for\nReimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business\nTravel. \" Adopted.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director provided a handout on issue bin\nitems from previous workshops and gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the cost for a Park Director,\nto which the City Manager responded $25,000 per year.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $25,000 would fully restore\nPark Directors at sites without reducing hours, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated direction should be given to not reduce\nPark Director hours; inquired how much it would cost to light\ntennis courts, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded\n$7,500.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to find money to\nlight the two tennis courts.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long\nit would take to go through the $300,000 restored to the Fire\nDepartment overtime budget.\nThe Fire Chief responded the current overtime usage is averaging\nfour people per day which costs $6,000 per day for a twenty-four\nhour shift.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long\nit would take to implement rotating a truck out of service.\nThe Fire Chief responded early July; stated operationally, the Fire\nDepartment could be ready within four to six weeks; the meet and\nconfer process would take longer.\nlouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated adding\n$300,000 would still leave a $520,000 shortage inquired how the\n$520,000 would be absorbed in the budget.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded overtime would still\nneed to be managed stated the $520,000 would not be restored back\ninto the budget.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated an engine replacement plan should be\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n10\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 21, "text": "reviewed; the vehicle replacement policy may need adjustments.\nThe Fire Chief stated deferring purchases would build a huge,\nfuture liability; another truck is scheduled to be replaced next\nyear.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would\nbe the total price.\nThe Fire Chief responded an engine would cost between $400,000 to\n$425,000 and would have a ten to twelve-year lease.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the\ncompliment of Fire Department staff.\nThe Fire Chief responded nine firefighters have been hired due to\nretirement vacancies; currently, eight positions are unfunded; new\nhires will be necessary as retirements occur; otherwise, additional\novertime would be created.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much\novertime would be reduced [with new hires]\nThe Fire Chief responded average overtime covers four positions ;\nstated adding two to three positions per shift would be beneficial. ;\nmoney would be saved in the long run.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how said\nscenario is equated into percentage of overtime.\nThe Fire Chief responded that he guesses that 60% to 70% of\novertime would be saved.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would\nbe the total compliment.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded 110 funded positions\nare assumed for 2008-2009; stated 102 positions are for sworn\nofficers, 8 are non-sworn.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\novertime would still exist with total staff compliment, to which\nthe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what\novertime costs would be with total compliment, to which the Fire\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n11\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 22, "text": "Chief responded $200,000 to $300,000.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that numbers are needed regarding hiring\nseven firefighters versus overtime ; overtime should be reduced\nsince nine new firefighters were hired; specific numbers are\nneeded.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated replacement\nvehicles could be deferred; additional replacements will be needed\nnext year; inquired whether take home vehicle costs have been\ndiscussed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nMayor/Chain Johnson stated the vehicle replacement policy needs to\ncome back for discussion.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated the vehicle replacement\npolicy was changed; only a limited number of safety related\nvehicles were identified for replacement.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being proposed for vehicle\nreplacement next year.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded $717,750, which\nincludes some vehicles carried forward from the current fiscal\nyear.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that vehicles should not be replaced\nuntil the matter is brought back to Council; shortfalls could be\ncovered by taking less out of department budgets.\nCouncilmember/Boar\u00f3 Member/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions\nare needed regarding deferring an engine or command vehicle\nreplacement; a fall back position is needed.\nMayor/Chail Johnson stated $200,000 is proposed to be spent in one\nyear for a Fire Department command vehicle, Division Chiefs' and\nDeputy Chief vehicles.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated said vehicles met the\ncriteria last year.\nThe Fire Chief stated delivering service in the streets takes\npeople, good tools, and training.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the issue\nwill be revisited many times for many reasons ; mechanical\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n12\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 23, "text": "assessments are needed; repair costs need to be evaluated versus\nreplacement costs.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicle use needs to be identified; fuel\nefficiency needs to be reviewed if a vehicle travels a lot of\nmiles.\nThe Fire Chief stated the proposal is to replace Fire Department\nsedans with hybrid vehicles.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nvehicles would be replaced with the Toyota Prius.\nThe Fire Chief responded vehicles would be replaced with Ford\nEscapes.\nMayor/Chair Johnson questioned whether the command vehicle needs to\nbe replaced next year.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated annual fuel\ncosts need to be reviewed for take home vehicles; decisions need to\nbe made regarding reassigning vehicles and reduction of the overall\ninventory.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the proposed\nbudget reflects a certain level of trade offs $300,000 would be\ngenerated through the proposed fee structure and would offset the\n$820,000 in mandatory [Fire Department) overtime costs; there still\nwould be $520,000 in mandatory overtime cost expenditures that\nwould be controlled through rotating the closing of a fire truck;\ninquired what differs other than postponement.\nThe Fire Chief responded hopefully some other revenues enhancements\nwill occur in the fall; stated the additional $300,000 would be\ncounted on to delay the immediate closure [of a fire truck].\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that additional funds could be generated\nby not replacing vehicles.\nVice Mayor/Boar Member/Commissioner Tam stated said savings is not\non-going.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated continued discussions are needed\nregarding long-term issues.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated increased Police\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n13\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 24, "text": "Department grant and fee revenues would be allocated to the\nCrossing Guard program; the proposed rescheduling results in\napproximately 40% cost reduction; inquired whether the $93,000 is\nexpected to offset the reduction.\nThe Police Chief responded $93,000 would help to recover the\nadditional cost not budgeted for the next fiscal year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would\nbe the reporting procedure for Fire Department overtime.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded the Fire Department\nwould be monitoring the issue on a daily basis; stated monthly or\nquarterly reports could be presented to Council.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the\nPublic Works Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be addressed.\nThe Public Works Director responded the CIP would be adopted with\nthe budget.\nCouncilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the\ndeferred maintenance; stated the report shows medium priority\nprojects total $66.5 million.\nThe Public Works Director responded the deferred maintenance report\nwill be coming to Council in approximately four weeks; Council will\nsee the Pedestrian Plan later in the year; high, medium, and low\npriority projects were identified for the Pedestrian Plan;\nappropriations will be reviewed this coming year; the only\nPedestrian Project included in the next two year CIP is for access\nacross the Estuary.\nMayor/Chai Johnson stated the concern is that $4 million was spent\nfrom the General Fund to catch up on some of the deferred\nmaintenance and this year $1.5 million will be deferred.\nThe Public Works Director stated all Measure B funds are being\nused; staff was successful in receiving Proposition 1B funds.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a funding\nstream has not been identified for other post employee benefits ;\nthe proposed General Fund budget totals $75.4 million for the\nfiscal year; the accrued liability for post employment benefits was\n$75.4 million as of January 2007.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n14\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 25, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferred costs are between $75\nmillion and $107 million for health and safety post employment\nbenefits.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that some\nof the fund balance could be used to seed the trust fund.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nSpeakers Carol Quintal, Crossing Guard; Janet Crandall, Citizen\nEmergency Response Team (CERT) i David Baker, Alameda; Fred Blass,\nAlameda; Christine Novosel, Crossing Guard; Christopher Buckley,\nAlameda Rich Bennett, Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter\nDomenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Steve Floyd, Local 689; Tim\nMcNeil, Retired Fire Chief; Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda Chuck\nMillar, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; Kathy Moehring, WABA.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\n* *\n(08-278CC) Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner\nMatarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00\nmidnight.\nMayor/Chair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City will not be spending money\non the Meyer's House; Greater Alameda Business Area (GABA) funding\nshould not be approved until information is brought back; $50,000\nis allocated to the EcoPass program.\nThe Public Works Director stated the total program is approximately\n$36,000; $14,000 is from the General Fund; the AC Transit General\nManager is allowed to reduce the passes by 15%.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a better to way to\nencourage people to take public transit, such as discount tickets\nfor BART or other forms of public transportation; suggesting\nperforming an employee survey.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that open\ndialogue should be initiated regarding the Meyer's House;\nadditional funding might become available.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n15\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 26, "text": "The Recreation and Park Director stated Trust representatives have\nnot indicated that any additional funding would be available but\nare willing to review how current funds are invested.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the community gets more per dollar for\nfunding Park Directors than the Meyer's House.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much\nthe Fun Fair costs.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the Fun Fair is funded\nthrough fees charged to participants; stated funding is also\nreceived through recycling grants; costs are a wash.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the proposal regarding the Art\nin the Park.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded the proposal is to\nuse money from the Pubic Art fund.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Art in the Park should be self-\nsustaining.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated major issues still\nexist regarding keeping current public safety levels; Council and\nthe community want to have a safe community; she would rather buy\nmore time for the Fire Department than the Golf Complex.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a gap would\nstill exist if revenue raising options are placed on the November\nballot and revenues start coming in January.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated overtime needs to be monitored; the\nvehicle replacement policy also needs to be reviewed.\nCouncilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the vehicle\nreplacement policy is a mechanism to buy time.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue would be understood better\nwhen the vehicle replacement policy comes back; keeping vehicles\nlonger might be possible.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a lot of\nphone calls and emails have been received regarding not cutting\npublic safety and increasing staffing levels; maintaining current\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n16\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 27, "text": "levels is difficult, let alone adding additional staff; contractual\nagreements cannot be made unless there is revenue in hand.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nhiring people is a contractual obligation; stated people can be\nlayed off; the Fire Chief mentioned that two to three positions per\nshift should be added; more information is needed; enough direction\nhas been given to the City Manager/Executive Director to approve\nnumbers provided tonight trees need to be addressed so that\nfurther liability is not incurred; plenty of notice needs to be\ngiven before spending down the $300,000 of overtime; some matching\nfund capability needs to be left to provide an incentive to the\nMuseum; information has been requested regarding setting up a trust\nthis year for unfunded post employment benefits.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what\nagreement has been arrived at regarding trees.\nThe Public Works Director responded Zone 4 will commence July 1;\nMr. Buckley suggested not pruning specific species at all, which\ndoes not make sense; structural pruning will be performed; left\nover money will be applied to new street tree planning.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the\nprocess would equate to manpower.\nThe Public Works Director responded the tree crew would be reduced\nby a Maintenance Worker I and a Team Leader; stated $50,000 has\nbeen added to the Consultant Contract.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of the\nwork would be outsourced.\nThe Public Works Director stated all mature tree pruning is done by\nan outside contractori currently, emergency response to down limbs,\nsome new tree planting, and young tree pruning is done in house;\nemergency removal of down limbs and young tree pruning is being\nproposed to be done by existing contractor.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated time would\nbe provided if the Golf Return on Investment (ROI) and surcharge\nwere not rebated and put into the General Fund; the money would be\nable to fund Fire Department overtime and not take a truck out of\nservice.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the projected Golf Course deficit is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n17\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 28, "text": "approximately $700,000; the Golf Course cash reserve is $1.1\nmillion; the Golf Course would still be able to cover the shortfall\nfor this year without the rebate.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the 2004-2005\nROI for the Golf Course and AP&T was to be for a short period of\ntime.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the proposal is to rebate both\nthe ROI and surcharge, to which the City Manager/Executive Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is the surcharge.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded $171,960. stated\n$99,040 is the ROI revenue.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the surcharge has been in\nplace, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded since\n1991.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated intending to\nfund Fire Department overtime needs to be done with the realization\nof buying more time in hopes that revenue enhancement ideas pass in\nthe fall; another plan needs to be in place if the revenues do not\npass.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he\nwould support additional time being gained on the back of Golf.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that\neverything is being put on a fast track; the top priority is public\nsafety.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the $300,000 is not\ngoing to buy enough time past the fall; having the extra $271,000\nwould provide the comfort needed not to rotate a fire truck out of\nservice.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated $271,000 revenues would\nbe taken from the Golf Course and added to the General Fund.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that three\nyears ago he stated that the Golf Course was on a death spiral\n;\nAlameda Point is placing the City in another situation of eroding\nthe General Fund; lease revenues needs to be increased as much as\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n18\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-17", "page": 29, "text": "possible; the crises is here.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the public is starting to understand the\nchallenges.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of\nthe resolutions with direction provided tonight; stated that he\nwould not reiterate all points, but summarized the following\ndirection: 1) supplement the $300,000 [from fees) in Fire\nDepartment overtime funds with the reinstatement of the ] Golf ROI\nand surcharge; 2) require matching funds [of $3,800] for the Museum\nsubsidy [and reduce the allocation by $7,500]; 3) use grants or\nsavings to re-adjust the Tree Maintenance Program so that young\ntrees are pruned and trees are replaced; 4) bring back information\nfor putting aside a seed amount for the Trust Fund for Other Post\nEmployment Benefits (OPEB) ; 5) bring back operational plans for\nsustaining services long-term; 6) look for funding to light the\ntennis court [proposed to be turned off]; 7) bring back the Vehicle\nReplacement Plan, including potential reduction in the fleet 8)\nbring back an analysis of increasing fire staff by two to three per\nshift; stated the motion includes approving the numbers presented\nto Council [including changes outlined in the staff report :\nallocation of $93,340 to the Police Department for crossing guards;\nuse of $25,000 in Meyers Housing funding for a Recreation Leader]\nand adoption of resolution Establishing Guidelines for\nReimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business\nTravel\nVice Mayor/Boar Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint City Council, APFA and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC\nMeeting at 12:55 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nAPFA and CIC Secretary\nThe agenda for meeting this was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Public\nFinancing Authority, Alameda Reuse and\n19\nRedevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 17, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf"}