{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 21, 2008 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:54 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-440 ) Proclamation declaring October 2008 as Breast Cancer\nAwareness Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Susan Bunker.\nMs. Bunker thanked Council for the proclamation.\n(08-441) Proclamation recognizing the benefits of public power and\nhonoring Alameda Power and Telecom for its contributions to the\ncommunity.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Alameda\nPower and Telecom General Manager.\nThe Alameda Power and Telecom General Manager thanked Council for\nthe proclamation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n(*08-442) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on\nOctober 1, 2008; Special City Council Meeting held on October 2,\n2008; Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on October 7,\n2008. Approved.\n(\n*08 - 443) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,722,309.26.\nRegular Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 2, "text": "(*08-444)\nRecommendation to accept the Annual Report for the\nManaged Investment Portfolio for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. Accepted.\n(*08-445) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Signal Coordination on Eighth Street,\nOtis Drive, and Park Street/San Jose Avenue, No. P.W. 01-08-03.\nAccepted.\n(*08-446) Resolution No. 14277, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute the Grant Contract Between the State of California\nDepartment of Boating and Waterways and the Alameda Police\nDepartment. Adopted.\n(*08-447) Resolution No. 14278, \"Approving an Agreement with\nAmeresco Butte County LLC for the Purchase of Power from Landfill\nGas Generation for a 20-Year Term. Adopted.\n(*08-448) Resolution No. 14279, \"Recommending Opposition to\nProposition 7.\" Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-449) Discuss the principles and framework for the potential\ncuts to balance the City's Fiscal Year 2009-1 budget.\nThe City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nTony Santare, Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board (submitted\ncomments) ; Ewart A. Wetheral, Mastick Senior Center (submitted\ncomments) ; Barry Christensen, Mastick Senior Center; Jim Thomas,\nMastick Senior Center; Virginia Fierro, Mastick Senior Center;\nArlene Talbot, Alameda; Patricia Meier, Alameda: Olga Crowe,\nAlameda; Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters (submitted study) ;\nAlbert J. Hahane, Residents for Cardinal Point; Ken Gutletsen,\nAlameda; Robbie Dileo, Alameda Museum; Chuck Millar, Alameda\nMuseum.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated decisions will not be made on\npotential cuts tonight that he would like Council to give\ndirection on policy standards to provide measurement and flattening\nand restructure the organization, which have been addressed at\nprior budget hearings; cuts should be made farthest away from the\nRegular Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 3, "text": "point of service delivery; the City has a structural problem that\nneeds to be fixed; consolidating departments should be reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated more impacts can be anticipated due to\nthe current financial crisis; concurred with Councilmember\nMatarrese; stated funding was strong from 1995 to 2000; that he\nwould like to compare current staffing with levels ten years agoi\nhe is appalled that Mastick Senior Center closure is being\nconsidered as a potential cut.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City Manager and Department\nHeads are responsible for determining how to deliver service; that\nhe wants to outline what services need to be protected; public\nsafety staffing needs to be maintained at a level to ensure\nadequate response time; that he is pleased that the Police Chief is\nurging Council not to consider a Special Duty Unit reduction which\nwould result in the loss of a parolee, a probationer, sex\nregistrant monitoring, special operations capabilities, and\nsurveillance and investigative functions the City is kept safe\nbecause of parolee surveillance, speed limit enforcement, and\nproperty crime investigation; the City has three missions 1)\nkeeping the City safe; 2) protecting individual citizens; and 3)\nprotecting infrastructure; the City cannot eliminate sidewalk and\ntree pruning maintenance.\nMayor Johnson stated the Fire and Police Departments\nSustainability Reports should have included economic analysis and\nbeen a financial planning tool for the next five or ten years;\nreports should include the retirement medical cost issue.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated follow up should be given to the\npossibility of contracting out certain Finance Department\nfunctions, such as payroll, parking citations, business licenses,\netc., as well as combining Risk Management and Human Resources into\none administrative department; consolidating Boards and Commissions\nshould be reviewed because City time is used to staff the Boards\nand Commissions; contracting out engineering services should be\nreviewed; that she is not sure about contracting out Fire services\nto the County; that she does not see how public safety services\nwill not be touched given the fact public safety accounts for 66%\nof the General Fund.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the City Manager\nto explore the possibility of contracting in; Alameda Unified\nSchool District could contract with the City for field maintenance\nand payroll services part-time versus full-time employment should\nbe reviewed for professional services.\nRegular Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated issues should be reviewed with more of an open\nmind; Council has been clear on minimizing public service cuts as\nmuch as possible; many cities utilize retirees to supplement public\nsafety forces the Fire Dispatch Center was contracted out years\nagoi the Police Chief provided a brief analysis on the matter, but\nnumbers were not provided.\nThe City Manager stated that the issue was noted as something to\nconsider in the future because more analysis is needed.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed if there is a\npossibility to save money and provide the same service; every issue\nshould have an associated dollar amount.\nThe City Manager stated that staff is working to ensure that costs\nare identified in future studies; structural changes can be\nreviewed; the amount needed to balance the [2009-2010] budget is\nsubstantial.\nMayor Johnson stated Council needs to know the exact amount of\nmoney that would be saved by eliminating positions, including\nretirement benefit costs.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the City does so much with so little; the\nCity's public utility is doing very well; fifty percent of the\nAssistant City Manager's time is charged to Alameda Point Mastick\nSenior Center is a model for the region; the Police and Fire\nDepartments are incredible; it is important to see whether\nstructural changes would have an impact on the General Fund; that\nshe is not sure whether all Public Works' programs are charged to\nthe General Fund; questioned whether funding is received for tree\ntrimming and sidewalk repair; stated clear assessments need to be\nmade regarding contracting out public safety services to Alameda\nCounty; the City is not facing easy choices.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council is discussing 2009-2010 budget\ncuts now; economic advisers do not see the financial situation\ngetting better for a few years; she does not want the City to\nbecome another Vallejo.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated people do not want to put a price\ntag on public safety services or the Mastick Senior Center, but the\nservices cost money; the City's core missions and need to be\nreviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City's financial situation\ndeveloped over several years; corrections need to be made now to\navoid further impacts.\nRegular Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the City cut $4 million [ from the budget ] this\nyear; millions of dollars were cut the year before; structural\nreform is needed.\nThe City Manager stated expenditures and revenues will continue to\nbe monitored; the community will be impacted.\nMayor Johnson stated Council voted to place Measure P on the ballot\nto increase revenue; people need to be given a choice between\nincreasing revenue or making cuts; a public safety parcel tax\npolled very poorly.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated some departments night need to be\nconsolidated; the City cannot support the current structure;\nsharing services with the School District should be reviewed; the\nCity cannot afford not to develop the North of Lincoln Avenue and\nAlameda Landing projects.\nThe City Manager stated the Revenue Enhancement Team looked at a\nvariety of revenue raising opportunities; discussions involved\nusing Marina fees to help support public safety services in the\narea.\nMayor\nJohnson stated Council needs more information on Marina fees.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated tonight's report is very clear and\nhelpful; requested that the report be posted more predominately on\nthe City's website.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated an analysis would be needed\nfollowing the outcome of Measure P; quarterly reports will be\nprovided in November mid-year reports will be provided in\nFebruary the budget will be reviewed in May.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated most municipalities are going through\nthe same exercise and are making drastic cuts.\nMayor Johnson stated Measure P would lessen cuts, but cuts would\nstill need to be made.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-450) Recommendation to receive the Fiscal Sustainability\nCommittee report on Other Post Employment Benefits.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a presentation.\nRegular Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what happens when a retiree reaches an age\nto qualify for Medicare, to which the City Manager responded that\ninformation would be provided.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a significant number of increased\nparticipates need to be assumed.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded actuarial assumptions are\nbased on certain revenue and cost growth estimates; stated\nactuarial assumptions need to be updated every twenty-four months.\nMayor Johnson stated that projecting the number of retirees in the\nnext ten years is important.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated that employee census growth is\naddressed [in actuarials].\nMayor Johnson requested clarification on national health care in\nten years.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated Bartel Associates' theory is\nthat national health care costs would be the base line; the amount\nwould be subtracted from the City's liability.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not agree with said assumption;\nassumptions need to have a rational basis; reducing the health care\nrate of inflation to 4.2% is irresponsible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the assumption should not be made.\nThe Interim Finance Director continued the presentation.\nKevin Kennedy, Fiscal Sustainability Chair and City Treasurer, gave\na brief presentation.\n***\n(08-451) - Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting\npast midnight.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the $6 million cash payment assumes a\n4.5% and 7.75% fixed rate of return.\nMr. Kennedy stated the higher rate of return is being used; the\nmoney set aside to deal with the liability can be invested like a\npension fund investment the City's General Fund can only have\nRegular Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 7, "text": "highly rated securities with very limited maturity; the Public\nEmployee Retirement System (PERS) has a program that cities can use\nto set up irrevocable trusts to fund OPEB benefits.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the City would need to contribute\nmore if the return is not 7.75%.\nMr. Kennedy responded figures should not deviate very much unless\nstaff levels significantly change or there is an unusual employee\nturnover.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the Fiscal Sustainability\nCommittee's recommendation, to which Mr. Kennedy responded a\nstraight thirty-year amortized schedule.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether outstanding loans from\nAlameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority (ARRA) are returning approximately 6%\ninterest each.\nThe Development Services Manager responded ARRA is paying interest\nonly to the General Fund; stated the principle would not retire;\nAP&T is not paying anything on its obligation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether lease revenues are pumped\ninto the General Fund as an interest only payment.\nThe Development Services Manager responded a payment of $130,000 is\nmade, which is 6% in interest.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the interest comes from lease\npayments lease revenue is to go into infrastructure and\nmaintenance at the former Base, but is going into the General Fund.\nMayor Johnson stated Council needs to decide whether revenue should\ncome to the General Fund or go into crumbling infrastructure that\nthe City does not own.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether redevelopment funds would be\nprotected from State raiding if revenues were put into the General\nFund.\nThe Development Services Director responded lease revenue funding\ndoes not have anything to do with tax increment received from the\nState; stated the law states that a city's General Fund can make\nthe payment; ARRA is scheduled to make principle payments this\nfiscal year.\nRegular Meeting\n7\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is whether principle\npayments should be made; decisions need to be made on the best\nplace for cash flow.\nMr. Kenney stated the City is trying to work another $2.5 million\ninto a budget that is already strained to ensure that obligations\nare met the City may get to a point where the retiree budget will\nengulf the entire budget for current services.\nMayor Johnson questioned how the City would provide needed levels\nof public safety when payments are required for retiree health\nbenefits.\nMr. Kennedy stated that a lot of cities are looking at the issue;\nthe current economy is exposing a lot of weaknesses that were\nhidden by a strong economy.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Committee's recommendatior is\nAlternative B, which requires raising an additional $2.3 million on\ntop of $1.2 million; stated Alternative B would increase the\nshortfall of approximately $4 million next year to $6.3 million;\nquestioned whether the Committee is suggesting that the City not\ntap into the fund balance for said amount.\nMr. Kenney responded in the affirmative; stated the General Fund\nbalance could be spent down to zero if significant changes are not\nmade to free up revenue going forward; stated the City has a $75\nmillion liability; staff presented a variety of payment options;\nthere is a lot to be said for pre-funding as much as possible.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many retirees are assumed on Attachment\nB and what are the premiums.\nMr. Kennedy responded the current population was considered and\nassumptions were made regarding turnover and change in\ndemographics.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated no one is supporting the pay-as-you-\ngo approach; the question is how much the City will pay over and\nbeyond the annual premium; the money needs to be squeezed out of an\nalready tight budget that he appreciates the work of the Fiscal\nSustainability Committee; he prefers a fixed figure even if\nadjustment would be needed; the obligation is real and contracted;\nthat he likes the idea of taking the from an ARRA loan to help fund\nthe obligation.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated a\nfixed number has to be set; funding was not provided for the 1079\nRegular Meeting\n8\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 9, "text": "and 1082 Plans; Council is dealing with the consequences.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nMichael D'Orazi, IAFF 689, stated the Police and Fire Associations\ndid not get off to a good start when the City was approached for\ntransferring the 1082 Plan to PERS; the ball was set in motion\nthrough a meeting with Former Mayor Chuck Corica; actuarial\nassumptions were obtained from PERS which showed that the City\nwould save 13% on employer costs for pensions and there would be\n$3 million left over after the conclusion of transfer of funds;\npublic retiree healthcare benefit discussions were limited because\neveryone felt that life expectancy for public safety employees was\nshorter discussions continued for adding spouses to the benefit;\nthe 13% could have been used to help pre-fund pension costs; pre-\nfunding is an important option to consider urged Council to be\ncautious; stated only two people are left in the 1082 Plan; the\n1079 Plan unfunded liability will decrease substantially over the\nnext few years.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nThe Interim Finance Director noted that the City would have more\nthan an additional $700,000 shortfall if the ARRA obligation\nrepayment was not included in the current budget and 2009-2010\nbudget.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the Interim Finance Director and\nFiscal Sustainability Committee for the report; stated that she\nknew there was an OPEB liability, but she did not know what target\nthe City needed to shoot for to start paying for the obligation.\nMr. Kennedy stated that the Fiscal Sustainability Committee would\nnot provide a final report in January.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Fiscal Sustainability Committee\nfor input and the Interim Finance Director for a clear\npresentation; stated that no one anticipated the rise in healthcare\ncosts; the 1079 and 1082 Plans are in sunset and provide an\nopportunity for some ramping up; that he would like staff to come\nback with a hybrid approach which would include pre-funding ramp up\nand Alternative E.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's comments regarding mandatory\npayment, Mr. Kennedy stated one way to make payment mandatory could\nbe pre-funding with a bond; if a $50 million pension bond were\nissued, a 5% interest rate would equal $2.5 million in interest\nRegular Meeting\n9\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 10, "text": "payments ; earning 6%-8% would result in additional revenue i the\ninterest payment would be non-negotiable.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Peralta Community College District\nhad an approximate 2% delta between what was borrowed on a bond and\nwhat was earned.\nMayor Johnson stated that a number needs to be set and consequences\nneed to be known; requiring non-discretionary payments could be\nestablished through an ordinance or could be part of the Charter.\nMr. Kenney stated that he would have an issue with issuing a bond\non the entire obligation; a number of cities have partially pre-\nfunded the obligation.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated pension obligation bonds are\ntaxable; borrowing $75.4 million of taxable municipal debt at\ntoday's rate would result in a $3.2 million payment; the bond would\nbe a serial bond and would never stop.\nMr. Kenney stated bond counsel could provide more information on\nthe matter.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated that paying the $75.4 million\nover thirty years would result in paying three times the amount; a\nbond would be good for pre-funding the obligation and controlling\nthe difference of the delta every year.\nMr. Kenney stated the pay-as-you-go approach is irresponsible;\ncommended Council for facing the issue; stated more information is\nneeded on how a pension bond would work.\nMayor Johnson stated information is needed on paying the obligation\nover thirty years, the 1079 and 1082 Plans, and using [1079 and\n1082 Plan] decreases to pay for the current [OPEB] plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated consensus is not to select the pay-\nas-you-go approach; to shoot for the $4.4 million; to review the\npension bond alternative; and to see how $2.8 million from the 1079\nand 1082 Plans figure into payment further stated a resolution or\nordinance could be considered as a vehicle for locking in the\npayment commitment.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she wants information on General\nFund repercussions.\nVice Mayor Tam requested clarification on the $3 million that was\nto go into the OPEB [when the 1079 and 1082 Plans ended] and where\nRegular Meeting\n10\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 11, "text": "the 13% savings went that the City incurred as a result of the\nconversion from the 1079 and 1082 Plans; stated that she wants to\navoid repeating past mistakes.\nMayor Johnson stated actuarial numbers need to be reviewed in order\nto ensure that payments are adequate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated dramatically increased healthcare\ncosts and participant fluctuation need to be considered.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated today has to be the worst of all times\nto pay but might be the best in terms of securing a bond.\nMr. Kennedy stated markets have been frozen; IBM borrowed money at\n250 basis points over Treasury, which is ridiculous.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated that the last quarter\nstatistics indicated that the Municipal Bond market was 25% less\nthan demand timing is the issue; updated actuarial assumptions are\nneeded; real numbers are needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated accurate information is needed, but\nhe does not want the matter pushed aside.\n(08-452) Report on the impact of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Fee\nIncreases.\nThe Interim Golf Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated rounds have increased, but cart rentals\nhave decreased.\nThe Interim Golf Manager stated golfers are making careful spending\ndecisions.\nMayor Johnson stated one month's data is not enough to track\nimpacts.\nJim Strehlow, Alameda, stated fewer people will play golf because\nof the current economic conditions; Council should not rely on\nshort-term impacts.\nJane Sullwold, Alameda Golf Commission, stated September 2008 only\nhad four weekends and did not include Labor Day weekend, which was\nincluded in September 2007 statistics; revenue increased by\napproximately $24,000; the first month was a very positive\nexperience under the new rate structure; the Interim Finance\nDirector has been extremely helpful in providing information to the\nRegular Meeting\n11\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 12, "text": "Golf Commission.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding figures,\nMs. Sullwold stated the Par 3 Course continues to increase in play\nand decrease in revenue.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether increased rates would decrease play.\nMs. Sullwold responded higher rates decreased play in the past;\nstated the Par 3 Course if price sensitive.\n(08-453 ) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate\na Master Siting Agreement with AT&T to upgrade their distribution\nsystem in order to provide Lightspeed Services in Alameda and to\nexecute all necessary documents to implement the project.\nThe Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether every site would require a permit.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated\nnotification would be provided to property owners within 300 feet\nof a site.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council has the ability to say no to\nthe Agreement.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded in the negative; stated the\nCity would have the right to control the way equipment would be\ninstalled within the public right-of-way\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the franchising roll has been taken\nover by the State, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the staff report indicates that the\nCity would receive a 5% franchise fee; inquired how much the 5% is\nin dollars.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded 5% of gross revenue for\nvideo services; stated the actual dollar amount would depend on\nsales.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 5% [franchise fee ] is\nin the budget.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded in the negative; stated\nconstructing the system would take approximately eighteen months.\nRegular Meeting\n12\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired why the City cannot charge franchise fees on\nsatellite dishes.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated franchise fees are for\noccupation of right-of-ways.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether all cabinets would be on\npublic property, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded\nall cabinets would be within the public right-of-way.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any cabinets would be placed\non private property at any point.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded there are no plans to place\nthe cabinets on private property.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether locations would be new.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative; stated\nAT&T estimates that seventy-sever boxes will be installed; the\nquantity depends depend on cable length; the new cabinets would be\nwithin 150 feet of the existing Serving Area Interface (SAI)\ncabinets.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether electrical underground boxes\nwere placed on public or private right-of-ways, to which the Public\nWorks Coordinator responded public right-of-way.\nMayor Johnson stated placing some of the cabinets on private\nproperty would be beneficial. placing cabinets in landscape areas\nwould be better.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether AT&T would be willing to\nsubsidize staff's efforts.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded AT&T would be pay for\npermits.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether permit fees would be\nadequate, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Agreement has a lot of protections for\nthe City.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation\nRegular Meeting\n13\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(08-454) Resolution No. 14280, \"Approving the Amended and Restated\nNorthern California Power Agency Power Pooling Agreement. \" Adopted.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor provided a brief presentation.\nThe City Manager stated that the Agreement was unanimously approved\nat the Public Utilities Board meeting last night.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether all Northern California Power Agency\nmembers are changing the Agreement, to which the Utility Planning\nSupervisor responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Agreement would have\nany affect on the source of power generated.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded there should be no\nimpact stated the City has been operating under revised procedures\nfor a number of years.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n08 3-455 - ) Griff Neal, Alameda, submitted handout; stated\nundergrounding costs were estimated to cost homeowners between\n$1,500 and $2,000 that his estimate is $10,000; electric services\ncan be reimbursed but cable and phone service costs are divided by\nthe number of services; hook up costs are not reimbursed if a house\nrequires a non-standard service hook up.\nMayor Johnson requested that information be provided to Council on\nhow charges work and the reimbursement process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the matter be placed on an\nagenda so that Council can take action.\nMr. Neal suggested selling AP&T to balance the budget.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\n14\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 15, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-456) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the\nSocial Services Human Relations Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Douglas Biggs.\n(08-457 ) Councilmember deHaan stated that gas prices are down ;\nferry fees were raised; inquired whether the increase should be\nrevisited.\nThe City Manager responded that she would check with the Public\nWorks Department.\nMayor Johnson stated that fees could possibly be reduced.\n(08-458 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he attended the AC\nTransit Interagency Liaison Committee Meeting; he requested that\nCouncil receive a report on the meeting because discussions\nincluded casual carpooling and line 63; the line 63 route changes\nonly saved two minutes.\nMayor Johnson inquired what were the thoughts on casual carpooling.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded points of discussion included:\n1) casual carpooling is bad for the bus system; 2) the City should\nplace a sign for a designated casual carpooling zone; and 3) casual\ncarpooling should be moved to a ride share location; stated the\nmatter is a question of policy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated concerns involved sheriff's issuing\ntickets.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated tickets are issued if someone pulls\nup to a red zone that is a bus stop.\n(08-459) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities East Bay Division meeting last Thursday PG&E\nmade a presentation; PG&E is trying to reduce its carbon footprint ;\nBerkeley, Albany, and Emeryville are trying to create a municipal\npublic power entity; studies show that rates would be 10% higher\nbecause of PG&E's broad base; that she has been elected to the\nExecutive Board which requires reviewing legislation on local\ncontrol for the Light Brown Apple Moth issue.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is PG&E's renewable portion of their\nportfolio.\nRegular Meeting\n15\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 16, "text": "The AP&T General Manager responded 11%; stated AP&T is number one\nin the State.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Johnson announced that the November 4, 2008 Regular City\nCouncil Meeting will be adjourned to November 6, 2008 due to the\nNovember 4, 2008 General Municipal Election. There being no\nfurther business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at\n1 :45 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\n16\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 21, 2008 - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(08-436) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations:\nAll Bargaining Units.\n(08-437) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\na briefing from Labor Negotiators regarding status no action was\ntaken; regarding Legal, Legal Counsel briefed Council on potential\nlitigation; Council provided direction to Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:25 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\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -OCTOBER 21, 2008- - -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:36 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. .\n]\n(*08-438CC/ARRA) Recommendation to authorize execution of a Payment\nPlan for Sales Tax Guarantee between the City of Alameda and\nAuctions by the Bay, Inc. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(08-439CC/ARRA/08-54CIC) Recommendation to accept the Year End\nFinancial Report for the period ending June 30, 2008.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the equipment replacement fund is $2.5\nmillion, which is too much; there should be a discussion on what\nthe equipment replacement is for and why there is so much money in\nthe fund.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the revenue is generated by\ndepreciation, which departments have as an expense how quickly the\nfunds are used depends on budget decisions made each year the\ndepreciation rate is based upon the schedule adopted as part of the\naudit and is pretty much the IRS's depreciation schedule.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the number represents real\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 19, "text": "dollars, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount is too high.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much\nwas added last year, to which the Interim Finance Director\nresponded $400,000\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount in the fund increased last\nyear when 4% to 5% cuts were made in department budgets; the matter\nshould be reviewed.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide Council\nwith information on what auditors would expect.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether\nthe $1 million sales tax overpayment would come from the General\nFund.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe amount would not be included in the last Fiscal Year; provided\nbackground information on the State Board of Equalization's claim\nthat the City was overpaid $1. 1 million in sales tax.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired about the ambulance service bill from\nthe County.\nThe City Manager responded the City returned the bill to the County\nbecause the City does not have a Contract.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired the amount, to which the City Manager\nresponded over $1 million.\nMayor/Chai Johnson inquired what the bill is for.\nThe City Manager responded the bill is for the County providing\nregulation for ambulance services; stated the City pays the amount\nfrom the General Fund because the City does not assess residents\nfor the service; the City has been negotiating with the County\nsince 2005.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City Fire Department provided back\nup to American Medical Response (AMR) approximately 600 times; the\nnumber of times AMR backed up the City is much, much less; the City\nshould send the County a bill for the disproportionate amount of\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n2\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 20, "text": "mutual aid; the City should not provide backup for AMR, a private\ncompany; taxpayers should not support AMR; the County should\nreceive a $1 million bill for the service.\nThe City Manager stated staff would follow up; the City made\nchanges to avoid the situation in the future.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the bill should be sent for past mutual\naid.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nthe $1 million sales tax overpayment and $1 million bill from the\nCounty are outstanding, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired the\nlikelihood of the City prevailing on the outstanding County bill.\nThe City Attorney responded the City is in good shape; stated the\namount relates to an expired Contract that the City has been trying\nto negotiate; the county refunded the City when the Contract has\nexpired in the past.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner inquired how outstanding\namounts are captured on the balance sheet.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the amount is captured as a\nliability at the time the process is concluded and the amount is\nreal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested a\nbreakdown of the $6 million in IOUs [owed to the General Fund].\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the three large amounts are\n$2.2 million from Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) ,\n$2.4 million from Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T), and $1.2\nmillion from Alameda Point.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry regarding repayment of the $6 million loaned out from the\nGeneral Fund, the Interim Finance Director stated the principle is\nnot being retired; ARRA is paying interest only, which is booked as\n$130,000 in General Fund revenue.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthere is a funding mechanism for repayment.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 21, "text": "The Interim Finance Director responded the matter would be visited\nin more detail in the future; stated some housekeeping paperwork\nneeds to be done to make it [loans] more formal; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested the outstanding bonds debt balance.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide the debt\nservice schedule, including a description of why the City went to\nthe market and what was financed.\nMayor/Chain Johnson stated the City needs to maintain what has been\nbuilt and cannot let assets deteriorate before they have been paid\noff.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated one of the things that\ngovernment does not do very well is anticipate maintenance costs\nand roll [maintenance] costs into operations; some cities adopt\npolicies.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City should do so [adopt a policy].\nThe Interim Finance Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $38\nmillion in the sewer fund is the asset, not cash; inquired whether\n$38 million is the amount it would cost to put in the sewer system.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated GASB\n34 requires that a value be placed on infrastructure; stated the\nreplacement cost would be a lot more than $38 million.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the amount\nshould be grounded to reality requested the matter be reviewed;\nstated the value should be understood.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated a GASB 34 report could be\nprovided on the sewer and ferry systems.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is trying to catch up on\ndeferred maintenance for streets and sidewalks; the City needs to\nhave a plan and funding mechanism in place to deal with assets so\nthat they do not crumble awayi the Council needs to know the\nexpected maintenance needs in the near and long term for all\nassets, such as the sewers.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n4\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a real\nnumber is needed, not a number driven by an accounting standard.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the\n$300,000 in the Golf due from ARRA fund would be repaid, to which\nthe Interim Finance Director responded staff would look into the\nmatter.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired the\namount in the ARRA fund balance.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded in the aggregate, fund\nbalance is $10.3 million.\nThe City Manager stated staff would get back to Council because\nthere are differences between the amount and the cash flow.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nthe [ARRA] fund owes money to the General Fund and Golf, to which\nthe Interim Finance Director responded staff would look into the\nmatter.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated some of the commitments are\npretty poorly documented.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to do a better job [of\ndocumenting commitments].\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the [ARRA] funds might not be\navailable due to obligations in a Disposition and Development\nAgreement or something else; the numbers would be broken down more\nclearly; continued the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Workers'\nCompensation fund.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the fund has been set up to\ninclude the potential liability similar to Other Post Employment\nBenefits (OPEB) .\nThe City Attorney stated both federal law and the City's\nparticipation in a workers' compensation risk pool require that the\nCity show the actuarial loss reserve; the number is very high and\nrepresents the worst case scenario; the City has to have the funds,\nrather than just show the number on paper; the funds are held in\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n5\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 23, "text": "the General Fund; as claims come in during the year, money is\nbackfilled into the workers' compensation budget.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested that the reporting be made clearer.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the amount is on the balance\nsheet, not the profit and loss statement. the amount does not have\nto be liquid and can be in an asset.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City\nis federally required to have $5 million [for workers'\ncompensation] ; inquired whether the $5 million is part of the $10\nmillion that is cash in the [General Fund] fund balance.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated the\nnumber is recorded as a liability; however, the money is not\nearmarked exclusively for workers' compensation.\nThe City Attorney concurred that the amount does not need to be\nearmarked; stated there must be at least that much money in the\nGeneral Fund.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated if Council wanted to fund it,\nthe cash would be moved someplace.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the fund balance is $16 million, $10\nmillion of which is cash; $5 million of the $10 million [in cash)\nhas to remain liquid [for workers' compensation].\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the federal requirement is that\nthe City has to have the capacity to pay.\nThe City Attorney concurred that the City has to demonstrate the\ncapacity to pay; stated the way the City does so is by keeping the\nmoney in the General Fund.\nThe Interim Finance Director concluded the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested that the amount budgeted for the next\nfiscal year be included in another column in future reports; stated\nsome funds have significant balances and might need to be reviewed;\nfurther requested that the police overtime Contract overtime be\nreviewed to ensure that the amount charged fully funds all costs.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated contract overtime would be\nhandled differently; there would be an object code to show expenses\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-10-21", "page": 24, "text": "along with a revenue source by detail.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount charged needs to include the\namount of time a Captain spends overseeing contract overtime.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the Meyers House,\nthe City Manager stated the amount was removed from the Recreation\nbudget and was not funded.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\nthe staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commission Tam seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:54 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n7\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 21, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf"}