{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)\nTuesday, February 3, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 12:10 a.m. (on 2/4/09) with Chair Johnson\n2-B\npresiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special\nCIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. (City Clerk) [CIC].\n2-B. Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the\nMerged Area Bond (Funds 201.11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades\nat Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue; and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional\nannual support of the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program. (Development Services) [CIC and ARRA]\nItem 2-B was pulled for discussion. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member\nMatarrese and seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes:\nAyes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\nDiscussion of Item 2-B: Leslie Liittle, Development Services Director, summarized the project\nand asked the Board for consideration so that the project can get underway for construction in\nthe October timeframe. The request is essentially an appropriation of $800,000 that staff\nexpects there will be a trade of some funds between the FISC and the CIC. The tax exempt\nbonds will go into the FISC water project as a Public Works project and the FISC lease\nrevenues will come back to the CIC to be used outside of redevelopment project areas and\ndoes not have the same restrictions as redevelopment funds.\nRob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, discussed the current improvement program on Park\nStreet and urged the CIC/Board to approve the money for the undergrounding, the fa\u00e7ade grant,\nand the FISC property.\nApproval of Item 2-B was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Vice-Chair\ndeHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Recommendation to consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315\nCentral Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine\nCompany, LLC, Tenant. (Development Services) [CIC]", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Little gave a brief overview of Alameda Wine Company's request to amend their lease to\nchange their hours of operation. Staff is recommending no change to their lease at this time.\nThe tenant addressed the CIC explaining her request is due to financial reasons, stating that the\nhours of 11:00 a.m.- - 4:00 p.m. are the least profitable for her business.\nMember Matarrese motioned to follow staff's recommendation to keep the status quo and\ndefer any change to the Alameda Wine Company lease until such time that there is the\neventuality and risk of the business closing. Only at that time should this item be\nbrought back to the CIC. Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes: 3 Noes: 1 (Vice-Chair deHaan) Abstentions: 1. (Member\nTam)\n3-B. Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-off with\nAC Hornet Foundation. (Development Services) [ARRA]\nMs. Little and Nanette Mocanu, Finance & Administration Division Manager, summarized the\nHornet's' repayment plan to alleviate their debt.\nThe Board gave direction to staff to bring this item back after revisions to the repayment plan to\ninclude that the Hornet provide: a new business plan, credible financial reports, evidence of\ncreditors, and address the issue of the benefit to the ARRA of moving the Hornet for profitable\nuse of Pier 3. The Board also requested that a representative from the Hornet attend the\nmeeting when this item is brought back before the ARRA.\n3-C. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris &\nAssociates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement\nApplications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Development Services) [ARRA]\nThis item was continued to the next Regular ARRA meeting on March 4, 2009.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese requested the Board review the handouts regarding OU-5 and OU-2B\ntechnical details. The next RAB meeting is on Thursday, 2/5.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT - ARRA, CIC\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:22 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAirna Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 3, 2009- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:06 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-041) Mayor Johnson announced that the resolution of\nappointment [paragraph no. 09-043] would be heard after the\npresentation [paragraph no. 09-042].\n.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-042) Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District on Measure\nWW .\nDoug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson thanked Mr. Siden for all the work done on behalf of\nthe City; stated that 71% of Alameda residents who voted in favor\nof the Measure indicates confidence with the District.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(09-043) Resolution No. 14303, \"Appointing Donna Talbot as a Member\nof the Historical Advisory Board (Building Design seat). \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Ms. Talbot.\nMs. Talbot thanked the Council for the appointment; stated that she\nlooks forward to serving the community.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the\nAnnual Progress Report [paragraph no. 09-046] would be removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent 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( (*09-044) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nJanuary 20, 2009. Approved.\n[Note: Mayor Johnson abstained from voting on the Minutes. . ]\n( *09-045 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,595,610.60.\n(09-046) Recommendation to accept the Annual Progress Report on\nimplementing the Local Action Plan for climate protection.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers Susan Welch, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda\n(CASA) i David Burton, CASA; Stefani Leto, CASA; David Teeters,\nCASA; Herb Behrstock, CASA.\nFollowing Mr. Burton's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the\nprocess for setting new emission standards would be through Alameda\nMunicipal Power (AMP).\nThe AMP General Manager responded the green house reduction plan\nwill happen later, not in February stated CASA would be more\ninvolved in AMP's energy efficiency program; everyone shares the\ncommon goal of being successful.\nFollowing Ms. Leto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired how much\nspace would be needed for the requested garden area.\nMs. Leto responded a four foot by four foot square; stated the\ngarden area could be on lawn or cement.\nMayor Johnson stated a possible area could be the vacant lot across\nthe street from City Hall; the front lawn of City Hall is used as a\ngathering place.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she has concerns regarding\ncontamination on the vacant lot.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated staff should proceed with the garden\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 3, "text": "area.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City is listening to the speaker's\nrequest; water usage would be a problem this year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated staff should be given direction to :\n1) involve CASA, 2) schedule an annual meeting separate from a\nCouncil Meeting, and 3) provide a proclamation in advance of Earth\nDay and Earth Week; stated the items should come back to Council\nfor action.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated activity measurements should be\nincluded.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated measuring progress to goals should\nbe done on a discipline basis.\nThe City Manager stated staff could provide a proclamation; other\nitems could be included in the green team's work plan.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *09-047) Resolution No. 14304, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. - \"\nAdopted.\n(*09-048) Resolution No. 14305, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment District 01- - 1\n(Marina Cove) . Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-049) Presentation by CalPERS Representatives, Alan Milligan,\nActuarial Unit Supervisor on the City of Alameda CalPERS Actuarial.\nThe City Manager introduced Mr. Milligan.\nMayor Johnson stated the public does not have a clear understanding\nof who pays for PERS benefits.\nMr. Milligan stated CalPERS is a defined benefit system, not a\ndefined contribution pension system; benefits are defined in\nwriting in a defined benefit system; in a defined contribution\nsystem, contributions go into the system during a person's career;\nthe City has a 2% at age 55 formula for miscellaneous employees and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 4, "text": "a 3% at age 50 formula for public safety employees.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of the formulas.\nMr. Milligan stated pensions are based on years of service\nmultiplied by a certain percentage and final compensation; the\npercentage varies by age; the highest level of benefits is accrued\nat age 63; the number of years of service continues to increase\nafter 63; public safety benefits cap at 90% of compensation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a miscellaneous employee would get\n40% of final compensation after working twenty years and reaching\nage 55, to which Mr. Milligan responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether benefits are calculated on\nthe highest one year or three year compensation.\nMr. Milligan responded one year; stated bonuses and overtime are\nnot included.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City funds any\ninvestment income shortfall, to which Mr. Milligan responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the 1985 investment return was 35.4%;\ninquired whether CalPERS offsets when earnings are higher and\ncities contribute less.\nMr. Milligan responded in the affirmative; stated CalPERS has\nalways had a smoothing mechanism; CalPERS reevaluated the asset\nmoving policy in 2001 and put in a strengthened asset moving\npolicy; CalPERS has the highest level of smoothing used in defined\nbenefit pension plans.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether contributions are based on a\npercentage or dollar figure, to which Mr. Milligan stated\ncontributions are a percentage of pay.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much the City pays in contribution for\nthis Fiscal Year, to which Mr. Milligan responded 13.18% of pay.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the dollar amount.\nMr. Milligan responded the estimate is $4,366,592 for miscellaneous\nemployees. stated public safety is at 30.034%, which is\napproximately $7,241,000; 2009-2010 public safety figures are\n30.827%, which equals $7,524,000 miscellaneous employee figures\nare 12.862%, which equals $4,449,000.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired whether niscellaneous employee\ncontributions went down.\nMr. Milligan responded in the affirmative; stated the decrease was\nexpected because the 2009-2010 contribution rate is based on the\nJune 30, 2007 actuarial evaluation report; 2007 was a good\ninvestment year; 2010-2011 estimates are 30.4% for public safety\nand 12.7% for miscellaneous employees.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Milligan has dollar figures for\n2010-2011, to which Mr. Milligan responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired when real property investment losses are\nrealized.\nMr. Milligan responded there is usually a three-month lag.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the FY 2011-1 - 12\npercentage contribution if the 20% loss held.\nMr. Milligan responded employer contribution rates are anticipated\nto increase between 2% and 5% of payrolli stated the range is\ndependent on assets; the miscellaneous employee plan has lower\nasset to payroll ratios; public safety plans tend to have higher\nasset to payroll ratios.\nMayor Johnson requested an explanation of asset to payroll ratios.\nMr. Milligan stated CalPERS has a fund of assets dedicated to\nproviding pensions to the City's former and current employees i the\ncontribution rate is adjusted because of losses or gains.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether more assets are tied to public\nsafety employees than miscellaneous employees.\nMr. Milligan responded more assets are put aside for public safety\nthan for miscellaneous employees; stated more money needs to accrue\nover a shorter period of time for public safety; public safety\nbenefits are paid for a longer period of time.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether CalPERS relies more heavily on\ninvestment returns to cover the cost of public safety retirements.\nMr. Milligan responded CalPERS does not have as much time to earn\ninvestment income for public safety; stated employer contributions\nare relied upon more heavily.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 6, "text": "The Interim Finance Director stated the total CalPERS earnings this\nyear is $58.1 million; $33 million is for miscellaneous employees,\nand $25.1 is for public safety; a 1% increase for miscellaneous\nemployees equals $330,000; a 1% increase for public safety equals\n$251,000.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the full, future impact of the\n3% at 50 and 2% at 55 formulas, to which Mr. Milligan responded\nthat he would get information back to Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated currently, the City is paying $4.5\nmillion for miscellaneous employees and $7.2 million for public\nsafety; inquired whether the City is paying additional money for\nretirees.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded retirees receive retirement\nchecks from stated funds are coming from the City's\nCalPERS pot.\nThe City Treasurer stated that he projects City contribution rates\nto go up approximately 2% for miscellaneous employees and 4% for\npublic safety; approximately four years of elevated contribution\nrates are assumed; better investment returns would bring the rates\ndown in the out years; the increase would be $1.7 million over four\nyears.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether CalPERS would adjust the\nsmoothing model to make up for the fund payout stated benefits\nhave to be paid.\nMr. Milligan responded that CalPERS is not anticipating any changes\nto the smoothing methodology; stated the City will be paying higher\nrates until the market turns around.\nMayor Johnson inquired how long the City might be paying higher\nrates.\nMr. Milligan responded the big impact would be in 2011-2012; stated\nrates would drift up a little if the market is still down; rates\nwould come down once the market rebounds.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what return rate is needed to\nsustain the system.\nMr. Milligan responded 7.2% over a long period of time; generally,\nCalPERS has exceeded 7.2% over the previous fifteen years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated today is an extraordinary period of time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 7, "text": "for a long time.\nMs. Mock stated employees always pay in good and bad years; returns\npay the lion share of costs in good years; employer contributions\nrise in bad years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 8, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese stated the presentation is enlightening;\nthat he hopes CalPERS will be available to the City and Fiscal\nSustainability Committee.\nMr. Milligan stated CalPERS will be very happy to work the Finance\nDepartment and City Treasurer.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated tonight's presentation is very unusual\nand has not been done before; thanked CalPERS and staff for the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the report is enlightening; that she is\ncomforted in understanding the modulating and tempering affect with\nsmoothing; the City does not have to incur the entire amount\nbecause of the methodology built into the CalPERS calculation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City needs to increase the\ncontribution amount in the short run and come up with more money,\nwhile taking a hit on sales and property taxes; expenses have\nincreased and revenues have decreased.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-050) Resolution No. 14306, \"Authorizing Application of Grant\nFunds from the East Bay Regional Park District Under Measure WW\nPark Bond Act Extension. Adopted.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated all projects are needed; that he\nhopes the proposed upgrades are not temporary, modular buildings.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the money would be distributed.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the program is a\nreimbursable program.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the timeframe is restricted.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated\neverything needs to be done by 2018.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether some of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 9, "text": "projects are in the future budget cycle.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the projects are\nidentified but not funded.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City would front the money and then\nseek up to $3. 4 million in reimbursements from the Park District i\ninquired whether the City has enough funding within the cycle to\nfront the money.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the City would not\nfront the entire amount at once.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the construction environment is very\nfavorable now; some projects could be funded out of reserves. ; the\nCity would be reimbursed; the City should take advantage of\nfavorable conditions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff is confident that the City\nwould have funds for the Alameda Point gym project, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated each project would come back to\nCouncil; Council would be in a position to authorize the use of\nMeasure WW funds; Council would address fronting more money out of\nthe General Fund based upon the Interim Finance Director':\nrecommendations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City does not own the Alameda\nPoint gym building which is not part of the reuse plan; Council\nshould take a look at what the City owns first.\nMayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese;\nhowever, the Alameda Point gym is an important asset; inquired\nwhether there is any possibility of working with the federal\ngovernment to carve out conveying the building to the City.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the gym would be the first\nproperty conveyed from the Navy once certified as clean.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council would then decide whether to\nkeep the building or not.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Coast Guard housing would come to the\nCity also.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated part of the Coast Guard housing\nwould come to the City.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 10, "text": "months stated a fix it ticket should be issued; perhaps the matter\nshould be transferred to the Building Department.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the responsibility should be on the\nproperty owner because the City has the leverage of a lien.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 11, "text": "The City Attorney stated the ordinance could be done two ways; one\nway would be to characterize billable responses; the standard would\nbe property negligence; another way would be to have a list of\nreoccurring events.\nMayor Johnson stated the simplest way is to have a list of billable\nsituations.\nMayor Johnson stated most people are offended that people call the\nFire Department for maintenance problems; community training should\nbe done.\nSpeakers : Bill Klump, Alameda Firefighters Local 689; Deborah\nJames, Urban Habitat; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association;\nJeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter; Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the six-month period could be extended to\none year; inquired whether listing billable events could be done.\nThe Fire Marshall responded a detailed list becomes limiting;\nstated that he would prefer a list that is not hard and fast.\nMayor Johnson stated \"property due to owner neglect\" should be\ntaken out and the list could be open-ended.\nThe City Attorney stated more certainty would be created if\nspecific events trigger a charge; a catchall category could be\ncreated; a standard is needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there could be a list and conditions\ndue to property owner negligence; a six-month period is too short\nthat he would prefer one year.\nMayor Johnson inquired about having a trigger for a building\ninspection.\nThe Fire Marshall responded the issue is part of the process.\nMayor Johnson stated having a trigger point should be part of the\nordinance; the Building Department should be required to follow up\non the matter.\nThe Fire Marshall stated Fire Inspectors would refer building code\nviolations to the proper department.\nThe City Manager stated a modified ordinance would be brought back\nto Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 12, "text": "(09-052) Resolution No. 14307, \"Endorsing the Street Rehabilitation\nProjects for the Federal Economic Stimulus Program and Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Approve Plans and Specifications and Call for\nBids for the Annual Resurfacing Project, No. 82-01-29. Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City was way ahead in preparation of a\nlist of potential projects; Council has received emails regarding\nthe need to prioritize bus shelter installations; inquired how the\nmatter would fit into Measure B funds.\nThe Public Works Director responded each department was requested\nto provide a wish list; the Public Works Department looked at items\non the unfunded list staff has not been able to receive funding\nfor bus shelters; the first round of economic stimulus funds is for\nroad rehabilitation only.\nSpeaker Michael John Torrey, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Manager stated that the Fiscal Sustainability Committee\nprovided a memo regarding the stimulus program for soft story\nretrofit buildings funding sources will be reviewed in the future.\n(09-053) - Resolution No. 14308, \"Allocating $100,000 in Measure B\nFunds as the Local Match to Prepare the Estuary Crossing Project\nStudy Report for a Total Cost of $1 Million, and Authorizing the\nCity Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the $1 million would cover.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Project Study Report (PSR)\nfor the estuary crossing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the PSR would be a joint report with\nthe City of Oakland.\nThe Public Works Department responded the City of Oakland sits on\nthe Policy Advisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland proposes to pay\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 13, "text": "half of the $1 million, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would love to have an\nestuary crossing because riding through the Tube is terrible;\nstated there is a lot of ship traffic; the price tag is upwards of\n$50 million; inquired whether the Coast Guard and Port of Oakland\nagree that a bridge would be allowed; to which the Public Works\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the bridge would belong to\nAlameda and whether Alameda would be responsible for maintenance\nand operation.\nThe Public Works Director responded the issues would need to be\nreviewed in the PSR.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a possibility\nthat the $1 million would be spent and there would not be a\nproject, to which the Public Works Director responded possibly.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City would be obligated\nto go forward with the project if $100,000 is allocated and the two\ngrants are not received.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City would be obligated if\nonly one grant was received, but the City would not move forward\nwith the PSR unless both grants were received.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether any funding has been identified for\nthe project.\nThe Public Works Director responded the bicycle/pedestrian bridge\nestimate is $48 million; stated a completed PSR would make the City\nmore competitive for additional State, federal, and regional funds.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the likelihood of receiving $50\nmillion for a bicycle/pedestrian bridge in the near future.\nThe Public Works Director responded a lot of changes are being made\nin the federal government; stated the project is long term; the\nproject would be broken down into pieces.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff looked at a multi-purpose\nbridge, such as a combined transit and pedestrian/bicycle bridge.\nThe Public Works Director responded a multi-purpose bridge is\nincluded as an option in the feasibility study; stated AC Transit\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 14, "text": "indicated a drawbridge would not be a viable option; the bridge\nwould be built to a lifeline standard.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the price tag includes maintenance for\na thirty-year period; inquired how much it would cost to build the\nbridge, to which the Public Works Director responded $48 million.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed project is an engineering\nfeat.\nThe Public Works Director stated the consultant team determined\nthat construction would be schematically feasible.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the grant source for the $48\nmillion, to which the Public Works Director responded federal and\nState grants.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Oakland is proposing to make the\nestuary crossing project a priority.\nThe Public Works Director responded that Oakland contributed to the\nfeasibility study.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Alameda and Oakland would\neach receive funding if both applied.\nThe Public Works Director responded one grant would be co-\nsponsored.\nMayor Johnson stated a joint use bridge should be considered;\nincluding transit makes the project more credible.\nThe Public Works Director stated the joint use could be added to\nthe scope.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see any advisory\ngroup or endorsers putting money on the table to move forward; that\nhe is concerned about maintenance costs.\nSpeakers : Nancy Johnson Horton, Alameda; John Strehlow, Alameda;\nJohn McKeon, Bike Alameda Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda; Evan Lovett-Harris, Cycles of Change; Ricardo Pedevilla,\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how many bicycles and pedestrian use the\nCity's bridges.\nThe Public Works Director responded the feasibility study shows 521\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 15, "text": "combined bicycle and pedestrian trips for the Park Street Bridge i\nno statistics are available for the High Street or Fruitvale\nbridges; the demand would increase to 2,000 to 3,000 trips per day\nfor the proposed bridge future development at Alameda Point and\nAlameda Landing would increase bridge usage to approximately 4,000\ntrips per day.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the west side of the Tube has a walkway;\ninquired whether staff has reviewed use of the walkway.\nThe Public Works Director responded that CalTrans would not support\nrelocating the pipes [blocking the walkway 1; the air circulation\narea [between the tubes ] was rejected also.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the study could include a\ntransit option.\nThe Public Works Director responded the transit option could be\nadded to the resolution; stated staff discussed the possibility of\nlimiting the number of crossings for AC Transit.\nMayor Johnson stated AC Transit deals with trains in Oakland.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated running shuttle buses to the 12th\nStreet station in Oakland has been discussed; the shuttle buses\ncould use the proposed bridge.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed bridge needs to be more\nthan a bicycle/pedestrian bridge; the City would be encumbered with\nmaintenance and operating costs if the bridge was only an Alameda\nbridge; obtaining geological information is good; that he does not\nwant to be committed if maintenance and operation conditions are\nnot met or the bridge is not feasible.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the study would include the multi-\nmodule option.\nThe Public Works Director responded the option could be added to\nthe resolution; stated staff could talk with the granting agency.\nMayor Johnson stated the City does not have the tax base to operate\nand maintain a bridge people do not want a toll bridge in Alameda ;\na condition should be added to require that the bridge would be a\nCounty bridge.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of allocating $100,000 to\nperform the study noting that Council's preference is to do a\nmulti-modal bridge.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated the study should be done regardless of\nwhether granting agencies are not in favor of a transit bridge\nbecause the geological and technical information would be useful in\nthe future.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the bicycle/pedestrian bridge study\nwould need to be redone to include transit.\nThe Public Works Director responded some information would need to\nbe redone, but some of the geotechnical information could be used.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to\nmake sure that the motion includes the attempt to make the bridge\nlifeline and multi-modal.\nCouncilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;\nstated Oakland should help pay if the bridge is determined to be\nfeasible; Alameda would be willing to take the first step but would\nnot be willing to continue down the path on its own.\nMayor Johnson stated Oakland indicates that the proposed project is\na priority; inquired whether there has been any discussion\nregarding contributing to the $48 million, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded that he does not think so.\nThe Public Works Director stated that Council direction is to move\napproval of adopting the resolution with the following changes 1)\nthe preference is that transit be included on the bridge however,\nif the granting agencies will not award funds with a transit\ncomponent, the PSR should move ahead for bicycles and pedestrians\nbecause the information received will be valuable moving forward\nwith a transit bridge in the future; 2) ensuring a bridge is truly\nfeasible and is lifeline; 3) find out who would operate and\nmaintain the bridge; and 4) approaching other jurisdictions\nregarding contributing to the local match.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to be clear that it does not\nintend to operate or maintain the bridge.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the bridge should not be built if no\none is willing to handle operation or maintenance i inquired whether\nthe City would get any money back if something comes up midway\nthrough the study that shows that the proposed bridge is\ninfeasible.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 17, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the feasibility study could be\nphased.\nThe Public Works Director stated that grants typically are pro-\nrated.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(09-054) - Recommendation to accept the Financial Report for the\nSecond Fiscal Quarter - October, November and December 2008.\nThe City Manager suggested that the item be continued to Saturday's\nbudget workshop.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the item would come back to\nCouncil since the workshop does not have action items.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the workshop have action\nitems stated the he is very concerned about negative cash fund\nbalances and accumulated cash deficits; that he would like to act\non the issues.\n(09-055) Recommendation to accept transmittal of the Comprehensive\nAnnual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30,\n2008.\nThe City Auditor stated the former AP&T telecom sale was not a run\nof the mill type item; staff received guidance on how to reflect\nthe transaction; thanked Maze and Associates and City staff for all\nefforts made; the report is clean and numbers are fairly stated.\nThe City Manager stated the Public Utilities Board reviewed the\nreport and is happy that all information is available and\ntransparent.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the new format\nand text; the narratives are easy for the public to read.\nThe City Auditor thanked the Interim Finance Director for all her\nhelp.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the designated amount for\nworkers compensation is part of the $10 million unreserved cash.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the workers compensation\npotential worse case scenario is in the Workers Compensation Fund\nwhich is in the Internal Services Fund.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Internal Services Fund is\nnot recovering costs completely.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the City's potential outside\nclaim risk is an unfunded liability, but is not the same as the\nfund running a cash negative; the City would need to write a check\nfor $6.6 million if every claim settled for the highest amount and\nall came due at the same time; the City needs to start budgeting\nfor a claim liability reserve; at some point the City will be\nwriting checks for the claims.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\n(09-056) Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting\npast midnight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\n(09-057) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for\nthe period ending December 31, 2008.\nThe City Treasurer provided handout and gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether California Municipal obligations\nare 4.4% of the City's portfolio and whether the City's mortgage\nbacked security is 2.6% of the portfolio; stated the majority of\nthe City's portfolio is federally backed securities which caused\nthe 7.6% rate of return in 2008.\nThe City Treasurer responded the City owns U.S. Treasury\nobligations, bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, individual\nissues from some financial institutions, and a taxable State of\nCalifornia bond; City investments are restricted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 19, "text": "(09-058) Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters, discussed\nbrownouts stated thirteen calls have been impacted with delayed\nresponses the rescue boat was placed out of service in May 2008\nbecause of mechanical issues the fire boat was placed out of\nservice in November 2008; direction has been given to leave the\nboats in the water, which creates a deception that the Fire\nDepartment is not being picked on and that the boats are still in\nservice; service levels are being reduced in the community.\n(09-059) Bill Klump, Alameda Firefighters Local 689, discussed\novertime costs versus costs for full time Fire Department staff.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-060 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Conference of\nMayors mid January the economic stimulus package and energy have\nbecome very popular topics; that she hopes solar energy will become\nan option for Alameda.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 12:10 a.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\n19\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 3, 2009- - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 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(09-039) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title:\nCity\nManager.\n(09-040) Conference with Labor Negotiator (54957.6) ; Agency\nNegotiator: Council Subcommittee to be determined; Name City\nManager Employment Agreement.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council\ngave direction to the Council Subcommittee of the Mayor and Vice\nMayor no other action was taken; regarding Labor, Council\ncontinued the item; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 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\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT ALAMEDA REUSE AND\nREDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 3, 2009- - - -7:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting on February 4, 2009 at\n12:10 a.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nBoard\nMembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nChair Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the\nuse of $350,000 [paragraph no. 09-05 CIC/ARRA] would be removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nBoard Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the remainder of\nthe Consent Calendar. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\nBoard Member/Commission Tam seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-04 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC\nMeeting, and the Special CIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009.\nApproved.\n(09-05 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000\nof Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the Merged Area Bond (Funds 201.1 11\nand 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and\nElectrical Upgrades at Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue and\nauthorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional annual support of the\nFa\u00e7ade Grant Program.\nThe Developer Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nBoard Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an explanation of the\n$390,000 returned from the Library.\nThe Development Services Director stated the 2003 Merged Bond\nProject pledged $1 million for the Library; the Library did not use\nall of the money and returned $690,000; $300,000 has been spent for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\n1\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 22, "text": "the second floor theatre seating.\nChair Johnson stated the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program is one of the most\nimportant things the City does, especially for small businesses;\nthe Buena Vista Avenue and Park Street electrical project will\naffect all of Park Street and became an issue when the Market Place\nwas established.\nBoard Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether underground\nprojects cannot be taken from Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP , s)\nundergrounding efforts.\nThe Development Services Director responded the City has a list of\npriority underground projects; stated the City needs to partner\nwith AMP and the Redevelopment Agency to perform multiple economic\nefforts.\nSpeaker : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nBoard Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation in the following amounts : $450,000 for water\nrepairs $150,000 for electrical upgrades and $200,000 for the\nFa\u00e7ade Grant Program for a total of $800,000\nBoard Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(09-06 CIC) Recommendation consider an amendment to the Lease\nAgreement of 2315 Central Avenue between the CIC of the City of\nAlameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine Company, LLC, Tenant.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers Karen Ulrich, Alameda Wine Company owner; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda; Jim Foster, Alameda.\nChair Johnson stated operating hours were outlined in the lease\nbecause the Commission did not want dead zones near the theatre ;\nthe business plan does not seem to be fully implemented the owner\nneeds to determine whether she can run her business in a way that\ncomplies with the lease requirements; otherwise, the owner should\nconsider moving to another location.\nCommissioner Gilmore concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the\nCommission considered many potential tenants for the space and had\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\n2\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 23, "text": "specific hours of operation; many potential tenants that could not\ndo lunch hours were disqualified; the owner would not have been\ngranted the lease for just a bar.\nCommissioner deHaan stated starting a new business is a challenge i\nthe owner would go back to full hours if the right mix is found; a\nlot of money has been forgiven at Alameda Point a six month trial\nperiod is reasonable.\nChair Johnson stated there are reasons for business hours.\nbusinesses need to be open to have a customer base.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the business is already profitable\nlater in the day and in the evening; that she does not understand\nhow the business would be built up by closing from 11:00 a .m. to\n4:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the Commission was very clear on the\nlease provisions; the business is profitable now and ahead of\nprojections; dead hours cannot be addressed if the business is not\nopen; that he does not see the advantage of reducing hours; a\nchange in the lease is premature.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of deferring any change to\nthe lease until the business faces possible closure.\nChair Johnson stated the business owner needs to implement the\noriginal business plan; changes need to be made.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Tam stated that she would abstain\nfrom voting on the matter the staff report suggests the need for\nmore marketing; that she does not feel there is enough information\nto tell the business owner how the business should be operated.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated that the business owner should live up\nto the terms of the lease; the hours of operation are very clear.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the business owner needs some leeway ;\nthe City needs to work with the business owner.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated street activity was part of the plan\nto renovate the theatre and build the parking structure. the\nbusiness plan is a good model; the retail side needs to be\nreviewed; salvaging the business might be an option if the business\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\n3\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-02-03", "page": 24, "text": "was in the red and in danger of folding the business is profitable\nand is almost a year ahead of projections.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the theatre developer was going to open\na wine bar in the theatre and that has not happened; hours of\noperation would be limited.\nThe Development Services Director stated the theatre developer\ndiscussed opening a wine bar at the same time; the lease does not\nrequire a wine bar be built upstairs.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair\nJohnson - 3. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1. Abstentions\nCommissioner Tam - 1.\n(ARRA) Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment\nPlan/Write-of: with AC Hornet Foundation.\n[Note: The minutes for this item are part of the ARRA record]\n(ARRA) Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant\nContract with Harris & Associates for On-Call Services for Review\nof Land Development Entitlement Applications for Redevelopment of\nAlameda Point. Continued.\nORAL REPORTS\n(ARRA) Oral Report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory\nBoard (RAB) - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\n[Note: The minutes for this item are part of the ARRA record]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 1:22 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\n4\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf"}