{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -AUGUST 19, 2008- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nCommissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(08-341) Mayor Johnson announced that the Presentation to the\nClimate Protection Task Force Members [paragraph no. 18-342] and\nthe Resolution of Appointment [paragraph no. 08-343] would be heard\nfirst; and that the Public Hearings to consider appeals [paragraph\nnos. 08-353 and 08-354] were withdrawn.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-342) Presentation to the Climate Protection Task Force Members\nrecognizing their efforts for the successful completion of the\naward-winning Local Action Plan for Climate Protection.\nMayor Johnson thanked the members on behalf of the entire\ncommunity.\nMr. Burton stated a Community Action for Sustainable Alameda kick-\noff meeting would be held on September 17, 2008 at the \"O\" Club at\nAlameda Point.\nMayor Johnson presented certificates to Andrew Cunningham, Michael\nKrueger, Ann McCormick, David Burton, and Lizette Weiss.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(08-343) - Resolution No. 14959, \"Appointing Jane Q. Lee as a Member\nof the Transportation Commission (School District Seat) Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms.\nLee with a certificate of appointment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 2, "text": "***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. to hold the Special\nJoint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting and reconvened the Regular\nCity Council meeting at 8:41 p.m.\n***\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-344) Presentation by the League of Women Voters on the\nRedistricting Measure.\nThe League of Women Voters members gave a Power Point presentation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Note: Councilmember Gilmore abstained from voting\non the minutes. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n( *08-345) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nAugust 5, 2008. Approved.\n[Note: Councilmember Gilmore abstained from voting on the minutes. ]\n( *08-346) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,807,590.17\n(*08-347) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor period ending June 30, 2008. Accepted.\n(*08-348)\nRecommendation to award a Contract in the amount of\n$166,183, including contingencies, to Chrisp Company for Annual\nStriping, Phase 6, No. P.W. 10-07-31. Accepted.\n(*08-349) Recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay\nConstruction, Inc. for repair of Portland cement concrete sidewalk,\ncurb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, Fiscal Year\n2006-2007, Phase 8, No. P.W. 08-06-18. Accepted.\n(*08-350) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Citywide sewer mains and laterals video\ninspection, Phase 2, No. P.W. 07-08-19. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 3, "text": "(*08-351) Recommendation to appropriate $46,600 in Dwelling Unit\nTax monies to Rittler Park irrigation and field renovation\nimprovements, No. P.W. 11-07-34. Accepted.\n(*08-352) Resolution No. 14260, \"Approving Final Map and Accepting\nAssociated Dedications and Easements for Tract 9689 (Esplanade). .\n\"\nAdopted.\n(*08-353) Resolution No. 14261, \"Approving Street Names for the\nGrand Marina Project. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-354) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's Conditional Approval of a Major Design Review for an\nAddition and a Remodel that Includes Raising a Single-Family\nStructure and Constructing a Detached Two-Story Dwelling Unit at\n3327 Fernside Boulevard, Within the R-2, Two-Family Residential\nZoning District; and adoption of related resolution. Withdrawn.\n(08-355) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's denial of a Variance and Major Design Review to build an\n868 square foot hobby woodworking structure at 1607 Pearl Street /\n2622 Edison Court, within the R-1, One Family Residence District;\nand adoption of related resolution. Withdrawn.\n(08-356) Recommendation to adopt the Alameda Theatre Community Use\nPolicy and Fee Schedule.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the Theatre is an unusual facility for the\nCity to have and is even more unusual because there is a Theatre\noperator; minimum attendance should be 400 or 500 people; the \"O\"\nClub could be used for 200 people; the Theatre should not be closed\ndown for an event for 200 people; staffing should be set at a\nminimum level; the level could be increased based on the event;\nstaffing should be provided by the Theatre; the security deposit\nneeds to be higher for non-profits; the Theatre should not be made\navailable to non-profits seven days a week; days and hours should\nbe restricted; that she does not like the idea of first-come,\nfirst-serve; a prioritization process should be in place; local\ngovernment and the School District should have first priority; the\nTheatre could be available to non-profits if there are days left\nover; non-profits should have to complete an application and\nselection process.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated staff discussed a prioritization\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 4, "text": "cultural events and using the stage and venue to the utmost ; that\nhe would love to have an oversight committee to deal with setting\npriorities; that he has concerns with using the Theatre for\ngraduations.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she concurs that the Theatre is a\nprecious asset; $30 million of public money was spent; the Theatre\nis similar to the Meyer's House, which has a limited time of\noperation and has a lot of restrictions; alcohol is allowed at the\nTheatre; the other seven theatres would be available for movie\nviewing the Theatre was used for the Alameda County Mayor's\nConference non-profits do good work for the City and should get\nsome priority; that she concurs with Councilmember deHaan regarding\nhaving an oversight committee.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated uses should be flushed out.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson\nregarding not shutting down the Theatre for 200 people; inquired\nwhether the mezzanine and balcony would be shut down if the\nauditorium were shut down.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the balcony would be shut down;\nthe mezzanine would be shut down if the user wanted to use the area\nfor the event.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City has other facilities to\naccommodate 200 people.\nMayor Johnson stated there should be full cost recovery and a\ncharge for utilities and staffing knowing the minimum staffing\nlevel required to protect the asset is important; the maximum way\nto use the Theatre would be musical performances, speaker series,\nand community events with 700 or more people.\nThe Redevelopment Manager inquired whether Council would like staff\nto come back with a revised policy, to which Council responded in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 5, "text": "the affirmative.\n(08-357) Resolution No. 14262, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No.\n12191 by Changing Various Chuck Corica Golf Complex Rates. \"\nAdopted.\nThe Interim Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.\nJane Sullwold, Golf Commission Chair, stated the Golf Commission\nhas difficulty with imposing resident fee increases; residents have\nbeen getting an incredible break in the past.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why the junior fee would remain at\n$1.00.\nMs. Sullwold responded the Junior fee was not changed because of\nthe basic formula used for the rate increases and the political\nsensitivity of the matter; stated the Northern California Golf\nAssociation (NCGA) reimburses the Golf Complex up to $8.00 for both\nresident and non-resident Junior golfers.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether having annual passes makes sense.\nMs. Sullwold responded annual passes generated approximately\n$42,820 last fiscal year.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether annual pass rounds are tracked.\nMs. Sullwold responded tracking is done on the number of people who\nplay on passes; stated the average pass holder plays approximately\nten rounds per month.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the annual pass fee would be raised.\nMs. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated the Golf\nCommission feels that the annual pass ranking should be senior\nresidents, residents, senior non-residents, and non-residents.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the nine-hole rate is new.\nMs. Sullwold responded in the negative; stated the rate is for\nearly morning and late evening play.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is okay with trying out the fee\nincreases; play impact should be watched carefully Golf Course\nrevenue needs to pay for operating costs and funds should be put\naside for long-term maintenance and infrastructure; inquired\nwhether the proposed fees would cover the operating expenses if\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 6, "text": "there is no decline in play.\nMs. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated the approved\nbudget anticipates a 10% decline in play.\nMayor Johnson stated the goal is to break even; the Golf Commission\nshould consider a surcharge for maintenance and infrastructure\ncosts; the Golf Course cannot continue to deteriorate.\nMs. Sullwold stated that she would be concerned with imposing a\n$2.00 surcharge after adopting the fee increases; the Request for\nProposals (RFP's are due on August 27, 2008; good solutions might\nbe provided; a surcharge would not generate enough money needed for\ncapital improvements.\nMayor Johnson stated a lot of people want to leave things as is.\nMs. Sullwold stated that she is hearing a lot of resistance to\nprivatization; that she feels the Golf Course needs a strong\nmanager on a full-time basis.\nMayor Johnson stated operating costs need to be covered as well as\nlong-term maintenance and infrastructure improvements.\nMs. Sullwold stated that she has not heard a lot of negative\nfeedback on the proposed fee increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the golf courses have always\nhad separate fees.\nMs. Sullwold responded in the negative; stated separate fees were\ninitiated in April, 2007; a consultant suggested separate fees\nbecause the Earl Fry Course is the premium Course; the consultant\nthought that the Earl Fry fee increase would transfer more demand\nto the Jack Clark Course; the problem was that there was not enough\nof a fee differentiation; Golf Digest sent a letter to the Golf\nCourse stating that the Jack Clark Course is recognized as one of\nthe top one hundred municipal courses in the country.\nVice Mayor Tam requested clarification on the $700,000 Golf Course\nestimated shortfall for the next fiscal year; inquired whether the\nfee structure was examined to bring fees up to a level that the\nmarket could bear and would close the estimated operating gapi\nfurther inquired whether the surcharge was intended for\nmaintenance, operation, and capital improvements.\nThe Interim Golf Manager responded the approved budget contains an\nestimated $150,000 expenditure for Risk Managers and results in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 7, "text": "$700,000 deficit; stated a fee structure that would totally\neliminate the deficit was never examined.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the increase in play over the last\nfive months could offset any potential decline as a result of the\nproposed fee increases.\nThe Interim Golf Manager responded the increase in rounds was from\nthe short course and was a direct result of fee reductions; stated\nthe downward trend will continue for the next couple of years; the\neconomy is in tough shape; further stated the original surcharge\nwas not earmarked for capital improvements, but went back into the\nGeneral Fund.\nThe City Manager stated the original surcharge was established in\n1991.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a progress report for the last\ntwo months, including revenues and rounds by course; further\nrequested continual tracking; stated that he would like to approve\nthe increases, see how things go, and review the real numbers when\nthe RFP's come back.\nThe Interim Golf Manager stated that reports are provided to the\nGolf Commission each month; reports can be forwarded to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the $700,000 shortfall had a\nwrite-off of $400,000 [in golf cart savings)\nThe Interim Golf Manager responded $400,000 is not included in the\nnext few years; some of the money should be made back; the monthly\ngolf cart lease payment would go to the vendor in the next three\nyears.\nJon Hasegaw, Alameda, stated that he is against the fee increase;\nmore people will come back to play if the fee is reduced.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the cost per round based on\noperations, to which the Interim Golf Manager responded just under\n$39.00.\nMayor Johnson stated almost everyone is paying less than the cost\nper round.\nThe Interim Golf Manager stated there are other revenue sources\nsuch as golf cart rentals and restaurant concessions; golf cart\nrentals generate approximately $20,000 per year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson encouraged golfers to participate in the effort to\nsave the Golf Course and not just complain about what other people\nare proposing; inquired what would be the trigger point if play\ndeclines with the proposed fee increases.\nMs. Sullwold responded rounds should be reviewed at the end of the\nfirst month after the proposed fees go into affect.\nThe Interim Golf Manager stated the proposed fees would go into\naffect September 1st\nMayor Johnson stated the review could be placed on the October City\nCouncil agenda, or could be dropped from the agenda if there is no\ndecline in play.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter should come back to\nCouncil regardless.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to provide a monthly review starting one month after\nimplementation of the fee increases.\nMs. Sullwold stated updates could be provided at the second City\nCouncil meeting every month.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nmatter come back so that Council could choose to act or not.\nCouncilmember Matarrese restated the motion to approve the rate\nincrease recommended by the Golf Commission and staff, and direct\nstaff to monitor the matter on a monthly basis starting in October.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether monitoring would be in the\nform of written reports from the Interim Golf Manager.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded he would like the matter to be\npresented at Council meetings every month starting in October.\nMayor Johnson seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following\nvoice vote : Ayes : Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 2.\nNoes (via non-response) : louncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, and Tam -\n3.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he understands the desire to\nincrease fees; resident golfer fees were $80.00 in 2002; he would\nhave liked to have more data available on fee increases over the\npast years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 9, "text": "The Interim Golf Manager stated fees were increased in 2004 and\n2007.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that anticipating more play with\nincreased fees does not wash.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not like the idea of raising\nrates and neither does the Golf Commission; she is relying on the\nGolf Commission's recommendation because they are much more\ninvolved; she is concerned that the proposed fee increases might\ncause a decline in play; the matter would come back to Council in\nOctober; the City cannot keep operating at the current deficit and\nsave the Golf Course.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council was aware of the problem three\nyears ago and should have addressed the issue then; he does not\nthink that the proposed fee increases are the salvation to the\nproblem.\nMayor Johnson stated Council and the Golf Commission have not been\nin a state of inaction over the Golf Course; a golf fee study was\ndone several years ago; there has been a substantial change in\npersonnel in the last two years; the change has been positive; the\ngolf environment gets worse and worse as time goes on.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how the City's fees compare to the\nclosest competitor.\nThe Interim Golf Manager responded the City's fees are lower by a\nsubstantial amount; stated other courses are completely renovated,\nhave newer amenities, and better drainage.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what is the differential between resident\nand non-resident fees at other golf courses.\nMs. Sullwold responded resident discounts are more substantial.\nMayor Johnson stated there should be a greater difference in\nresident and non-resident rates; the Golf Course is in a crisis\nmode; inquired what would happen if the proposed fee increases are\nnot adopted.\nMs. Sullwold stated the Golf Commission anticipated that the new\nfees would cause as much as a 10% decline in every category, but\nwould still generate approximately $163,000; the Golf Commission\ncannot think of anything else to do to balance revenues against\nexpenses ; expenses have been cut as close to the bone as possible.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that rate increases have occurred, but\noperating expenses have increased also.\nMs. Sullwold stated that the 2007 rate increase was insignificant,\nand had no impact on demand for play.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the motion recognizes the Golf\nCommission's work; there are not too many other choices the cost\nto produce a round of golf is approximately $39.00, and fees are\nless than $39.00; the golfing public needs to help save the Golf\nCourse.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Sullwold for providing the\nhistory on fee increases; stated that she is more comfortable with\nsupporting the proposed fee increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether consideration was given to\nraising all of the Jack Clark fees to the current Earl Fry fees,\nand increasing the monthly fees by 10%-15%.\nMs. Sullwold responded the Golf Commission considered a similar\ncase scenario; stated not enough money would be generated; raising\nall Jack Clark rates to Earl Fry rates would generate approximately\n$100,000 a 10% annual pass increase would generate approximately\n$40,000; the Golf Commission was trying to come up with something\nmore substantial; the Golf Commission ran a scenario of trying to\nraise all rates to a level that would generate $700,000 additional\nincome and the rates were astronomical.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is not opposed to raising fees;\ninquired whether there is any way to recover the cost per round\nwith the fee structure.\nMs. Sullwold responded $39.00 is the average cost per round; stated\nsome rounds are priced higher, some lower; rates need to be lower\nthan more desirable competitors; the City does not offer some of\nthe same amenities as competitors.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Golf course would be resigned to forever\nlosing money if operating costs cannot be met.\nMs. Sullwold stated the Golf Course could be in the black if a fee\nincrease generates $300,000 an operator does some marketing and\npromotion, and strong management is in place.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated approximately $1 million is being taken\nout of the operating budget ; Council is willing to lose $500,000 in\nGeneral Fund revenue when the operator comes in.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has not reached that point\nyet; contracting out would insulate the City from the risk of\nlosing the Golf Course.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed increases would be\ncloser to the real cost of providing a round; many decisions would\nhave to follow.\nCouncilmember Matarrese reintroduced the motion to approve the\nincreases presented by the Golf Commission and staff with direction\nto review the outcome at the second City Council Meeting in\nOctober.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed increases would not solve the\nGolf Course problems, but would slow the bleeding.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated adoption of the proposed\nfees is a band aid that hopefully will stop some of the bleeding .\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated saving golf for the City is important\n;\nsaving or padlocking the Golf Course are the two choices; that she\nsupports the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes Councilmember deHaan - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08 - 358 ) Joe McNiff, Alameda Police Officers Association, stated\nthe Association has been in negotiations since November 2007, which\nis the longest negotiation process the Association has participated\nin; outlined services provided.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-359) Report on Fire and Police Department calls.\nThe Police and Fire Chiefs provided a brief report.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what type of services are grouped\ninto the Public Service Assistance category.\nThe Fire Chief responded services include cutting a ring off, or a\nchild getting caught in playground equipment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have any problem with\nmedical assist calls or lock outs, but she does have a problem with\nlock ins a lock in should be handled by a locksmith; the Fire\nDepartment no longer gets people into locked vehicles because\nclaims were filed for damages she considers a water leak a\nplumbing issue; the Fire Department repeatedly responds to elevator\ncalls.\nThe Fire Chief stated that elevator calls could be coded\ndifferently.\nMayor Johnson stated that owners should be discouraged to rely upon\nthe Fire Department for elevator calls; owners should be charge\nappropriately to encourage proper maintenance of buildings.\nThe Fire Chief stated staff could review what the appropriate fee\nshould be; the cost of collection would need to be reviewed.\nThe City Manager stated an analysis would need to be done; an\nanalysis would take approximately four weeks.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department ceased responding to\nlock outs.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department responds to\nhouse or car lockouts.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative stated responses\ntotaled 37 in 2007\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether there is a fee schedule for false\nalarms, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether businesses are charged through\ndirect means, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated previous discussions involved trying to\nmaintain Fire Department staffing levels at twenty-seven per shift\nto avoid brown outs; inquired whether the ability to maintain a\ncertain level of staffing would be compromised [for responding to\nlock ins and lockouts].\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the calls are low\npriority; staff would be leave the call if a higher priority call\nwas received.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether overtime would incur.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 13, "text": "The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated overtime would\nincur if there were multiple, major emergencies at the same time;\nstated non-emergency calls do not incur overtime.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities charge for\ncalls.\nThe Fire Chief responded that some cities charge for water\nevacuation and lock in/lock out calls.\nMayor Johnson stated substantial cost recovery fees should be\nimposed for elevators being stuck in commercial buildings.\nThe Fire Chief inquired whether Mayor Johnson was referring to a\ncharge for the response cost.\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated a basic fee\ncould be charged, plus an amount per hour or half hour.\nThe Fire Chief inquired whether a residential lock in or lock out\nwould have a full cost recovery or flat fee.\nMayor Johnson responded the fee should be high enough to make\nresidents think twice about calling the Fire Department rather than\na locksmith.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a way to track\nwhether an elevator call is repetitive.\nThe City Manager responded the matter can be researched; stated\nthat power outages differ from maintenance issues; research would\nbe done on what other cities charge.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a formalized\nprocedure for diverting repeat calls to other agencies.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the City\nreceived a grant to put together a program to deal with repeat fall\nvictims who need to be directed to some other social service to get\nattention and care.\nThe Police Chief stated that the Police Department works with a\nnumber of social agencies also.\nMayor Johnson stated that direction to review fees is the same for\nthe Fire Department and Police Department.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated that she received a call from a gentleman who\nbelieves that the City is issuing more tickets and citations in\norder to generate a quota.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department always provides\npolice services that are not disparate in any way and are very\nappropriate and professionally managed and delivered; fees are not\nbased on a quota.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the gentleman is an Oakland Police Officer\nwho lives in Alameda and perceives that his neighborhood is being\ntargeted.\nThe Police Chief stated that he would talk to him.\n(08-360) Consideration of creating an Ordinance Establishing an\nIrrevocable Trust Fund for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)\n.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the referral outlines and references\na January 15, 2008 report showing accrued liability for OPEB : the\nprojected accrual was $75 million; currently, the City is using the\n\"pay as you go\" approach; requested that Council consider an\nordinance establishing an Irrevocable Trust Fund which would\ninclude a minimum annual contribution as a percentage of the\nGeneral Fund budget; further requested that the Fiscal\nSustainability Committee recommend a minimum fund contribution\nlevel to be included in the ordinance; Council would review the\nordinance so that funding the liability could start this year.\nThe City Manager stated staff recommends research be continued and\naddressed at the Fiscal Sustainability Committee August 26 meeting;\nthe timeline [for adopting the ordinance] would be mid October or\nNovember.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the end goal is to have the\nordinance move along in parallel with starting funding this year ;\nthe commitment is already made.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the intent is to put the ordinance in\nplace, but not indicate the dollar amount.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the dollar amount would be left\nblank.\nThe Interim Financial Director stated other cities have considered\nother options beyond a trust alternative; that she has five\nsignificantly different options for Council consideration.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the Government Accounting Standards\nBoard (GASB) is a reporting requirement; a commitment has been made\nto fund retirement and the City needs to pay for it.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the obligation is to\ndemonstrate that the City can financially handle the payment, not\nnecessarily fund it.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that showing the ability to pay for\nOPEB and paying for it are two different things that he does not\nwant to push off the liability onto another Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated choosing the ordinance route might be\npremature given the fact that the Interim Finance Director will\ncome back with alternatives she would like to hear the\nalternatives and then choose the appropriate mechanism with the\nunderstanding that the City would start doing something.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated payment has to start this year; the\nlonger the City waits, the higher the liability becomes; the City\nneeds to start putting money in the bank by December 2008.\nMayor Johnson stated that she wants to ensure that a minimum amount\nof money would go to pay for the obligations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a problem with\nestablishing an ordinance now.\nMayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Matarrese is suggesting a\nparallel process.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates trying to be aggressive;\nshe would like to have a full vetting regarding an ordinance versus\na policy restricting the City's future negotiation ability.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter could be discussed with\nthe ordinance; that he would like to have formal Council direction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to move\nforward on the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nThe City Manager stated that staff would meet with the Fiscal\nSustainability Committee on August 26; staff would provide\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 16, "text": "information on the fund balance to Council mid September.\nCouncilmember deHaan discussed the Council Referral process; stated\nthe City Manager is to advise Council on the cost for staff to\naddress the issue and whether priorities would be displaced.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the recommendatior from\nthe Fiscal Sustainability Committee would come to Council in\nOctober, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(\n08-361) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Youth Advisory Commission. Continued.\n(08-362) Councilmember deHaan requested that Council consideration\nof support for Proposition 11 be placed on the next agenda.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:27 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\n16\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -AUGUST 19, 2008 -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent\n:\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n08-337 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nHuman Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organization :\nFirefighters IAFF.\n(08-338CC/ARRA/08-44CIC Conference with Real Property Negotiators;\nProperty : Alameda Point; Negotiating parties City Council, ARRA,\nCIC, and SunCal; Under negotiation: Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council\nreceived a briefing on an offer made by IAFF; no action was taken;\nregarding Real Property, Council, Board Members, and Commissioners\nreceived a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators regarding\nprice and terms for conveyance and development of Alameda Point ;\ndirection was given to Real Property Negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -AUGUST 19, 2008 - - -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note:\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the\nAugust 5, 2008 minutes. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( 08-339CC/*ARRA/*08-45CIC) Minutes of Special ARRA meeting held on\nJuly 1, 2008 and the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting held on August 5, 2008. Approved.\n[Note:  ouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on\nthe August 5, 2008 minutes. ]\n( *ARRA) Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a\nSublease for RockWall Wine Company, Inc. at Alameda Point.\nAccepted.\n(\n*ARRA) Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a\nSublease for Auctions by the Bay, Inc. at Alameda Point. Accepted.\n( *ARRA) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter\na Contract, through PM Realty Group, with General Construction\nCompany to Dredge the Alameda Point Channel and Turning Basin in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $2,586,675. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n1\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 19, "text": "(08340CC/ARRA/08-46CIC) Recommendation to concur with the Non- -\nBinding Summary of Terms and Conditions for a transfer of the\nExclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC to a New\nEntity with D.E. Shaw or transfer of an Ownership Interest in the\nSCC Alameda Point LLC to D.E. Shaw; and\n08-340A CC/ARRA/08-46A CIC) Recommendation to authorize the City\nManager/Executive Director to negotiate a Second Amendment to the\nExclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC .\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nProponents (In favor of the staff recommendation) : Michael Krueger,\nAlameda Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense;\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.\nNeutral : Richard Bangert, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that a financial partner is being\nconsidered density and transportation issues are not relevant\ntonight.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of\nthe confidentiality of the term sheet.\nThe City Attorney stated the term sheet is a confidential real\nproperty document and is being negotiated; discussing the document\nin Closed Session is appropriate.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nthe term sheet would be disclosed at some point.\nThe City Attorney responded the term sheet would be disclosed once\nthe project is finalized.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated everyone is\nencouraged that the Master Developer is able to secure a funding\npartner in difficult economic times; the Master Developer is\nwilling to pay for the planning process as well as the $108. 5\nmillion conveyance cost; written assurance is being sought to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n2\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 20, "text": "ensure that D.E. Shaw and SunCal would be committed to each other\nfor the duration of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) ; a\ncommitment has been made on behalf of the community; a lot of\nmomentum has been generated; the process has been open and straight\nforward; she supports directing staff to ensure that the ENA\nreflects the City's commitment to have SunCal selected as the\nMaster Developer and to ensure that the timeline in the term sheet\nbetween D.E. Shaw and SunCal comports with the timeline expected\nfor the planning process with SunCal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commission Matarrese stated that he\nwants to ensure that the City would have the ability to terminate\nthe ENA if SunCal was removed from the position of Master\nDeveloper; D.E. Shaw would be a financial partner, not the\ndeveloper ; the timeline should be kept the same; direction should\nbe provided to the City Manager/Executive Director to negotiate the\namendments to the ENA.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested background\ninformation on the timeline.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated currently,\nthe ENA has a twenty-four month term; the City is thirteen months\ninto the term; the ENA expires July 19, 2009; the ENA has a\nprovision for progress expansion and mutual extension; the ENA\nallows for an automatic progress expansion if the project moves\nforward; a mutual extension could be granted for up to twelve\nmonths if there are third party entities. when the ENA was\ninitially approved, requirements were not in place mandating that a\nconveyance term sheet be completed within nine months from the\neffective date of legislation; legislation may be approved next\nmonth or may not be approved until March, 2009. SunCal has a land\nplan that would require approval by initiative, which is not a\ntimeframe that is consistent with the July 2009 expiration.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the\nballot measure would be.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal\nrevealed a land plan showing 4,000 units; units could increase to\n6,000 in the event of a long-term transit solution; both plans are\nnot consistent with the City's Charter; SunCal understands and\nrecognizes that the land plans would need to qualify for the ballot\nand be approved by initiative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n3\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 21, "text": "there is a land plan that represents Measure A.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal\nis not working on a Measure A compliant plan as part of the\ncommunity process.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nSunCal would have a fallback position if the measure did not\nqualify.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff\nwould recommend terminating the ENA at that point because there\nwould not be a project.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nSunCal would be willing to stay in the project if the measure did\nnot pass.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal\nmight be willing stated the question is whether the City would be\nwilling to keep SunCal as a partner.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what\nSunCal's position would be if the measure did not pass.\nPat Keliher, SunCal, responded that SunCal wants to have some type\nof fallback plan; stated SunCal is looking at Measure A compliant\nplans internally.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nSunCal would still be willing to be in the process if the plan was\nMeasure A compliant.\nMr. Keliher responded that today, SunCal would not want to walk\naway from Alameda Point stated SunCal would like to look at other\nalternatives.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nSunCal was in for the long-term, to which Mr. Keliher responded of\ncourse.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked SunCal and\nD.E. Shaw for transparency and honesty with the public; stated the\nCity went through a very long, public process to select SunCal as\nthe Master Developer ; D.E. Shaw has a lot of say in the term sheet\nprovisions regarding what could potentially happen at Alameda\nPoint ; that she will be looking very closely at the Operating\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n4\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 22, "text": "Agreement to ensure that SunCal remains the Master Developer ;\nSunCal has been straight forward with the City; appropriate\nprotections need to be in place to protect the community and retain\nSunCal unless a mutual decision is made that the project would not\nwork or would not be feasible; a commitment was made to SunCal, not\nto a third party.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\npurpose of the ENA is to drive the City to a Development Agreement\nwith SunCal as the selected developer.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nincluding a provision stating that the City could terminate the ENA\nif SunCal is terminated for reasons other than illegal activity or\nother malfeasance; the timeline being capped to take out some of\nthe flexibility for an automatic extension; milestones being\nadjusted to meet the current progress and state of the project; and\nthe matter being brought back for public review.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested that the motion include language for\nmaterial cause for termination.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend\nthe motion.\nCouncilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner\ndeHaan\nrequested\nclarification regarding the timeline.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\ntimeline should be capped to take away the automatic extension\nflexibility in the current ENA; staff would come back with a\nproposal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired who was the\noriginal financial partner.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal\nanticipated self-financing the ENA period; stated SunCal identified\nthe need to bring on a financial partner sooner given the real\nestate market.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Lehman\nBrothers has an investment in the project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Lehman\nBrothers has some holdings within D.E. Shaw; D.E. Shaw is a $40-$50\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n5\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 23, "text": "billion hedge fund; D.E. Shaw is SunCal's existing partner for a\nbig project in Albuquerque, New Mexico.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how D.E.\nShaw builds assets.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded D.E.\nShaw is a typical hedge fund; stated D.E. Shaw's wherewithal to\nfinance obligations pursuant to the ENA has been verified.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Lehman Brothers was ever a\npartner of the Alameda Point project, to which the Base Reuse and\nCommunity Development Manager responded in the negative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated D.: E. Shaw is a privately held\nhedge fund; investors are confidential.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated cross-\ndefault is a concern because of all the projects that SunCal and\nD.E. Shaw have together ; the City wants to ensure that any ripples\nstop before reaching Alameda if something happens to another SunCal\nproject.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese restated the\nmotion to move approval of the staff recommendation with direction\nto: 1) negotiate a second amendment to the ENA, which would include\na provision that the City would have the right to terminate the ENA\nif SunCal was removed for any reason other than illegal activity or\nmaterial cause; 2) place a cap on the timeline to remove the\nflexibility of an automatic extension; 3) insulate against the\npossibility of cross defaults; and 4) establish mandatory\nmilestones which would be synced with the status of the project.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory\nBoard (RAB) representative.\nBoard Member Matarrese stated the August 13, 2008 Chronicle had an\narticle about the Army giving the Fort Ord Reuse Authority 3,300\nacres and $100 million for remediation: inquired whether\ninformation is true, to which the Assistant City Manager responded\nin the affirmative.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n6\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-08-19", "page": 24, "text": "Board Member Matarrese stated the City needs to talk to its federal\nelected officials to find out why the City cannot get less acreage\nat no cost and receive money for cleanup.\nChair Johnson inquired whether $100 million is enough to clean up\nthe contamination.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the Environmental Protection\nAgency (EPA) believes the amount is sufficient stated the Army\nwould be liable for the waste.\nBoard Member deHaan stated the [Fort Ord] Reuse Authority would be\ndissolved once the land is transferred.\nChair Johnson stated cleanup would be privatized; working with the\nArmy is different than working with the Navy.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:43 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n7\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 19, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf"}