{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nMONDAY- - -AUGUST 3, 2009- - - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:17 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL- -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers / Authority Members /\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09-315 - CC /\n09-27 CIC] and Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association [paragraph no. 09-317 CC ] were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of\nthe remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number ]\n(09-315 CC/09-27 CIC) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting,\nthe Regular City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council\nand Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and the Special City\nCouncil Meeting held on July 21, 2009.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that\npage 3 of the Regular City Council Meeting minutes should read:\n\"...every day will be a conscious budget day.'\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved\napproval of the minutes as corrected.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes :\nCouncilmembers/Authority Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 2, "text": "Matarrese,\nand\nMayor/Chair\nJohnson\n-\n4.\nAbstentions :\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam - 1.\n( (*09-316 CC) - Resolution No. 14369, \"Approving a Revised Memorandum\nof Understanding Between the International Association of\nFirefighters and the City of Alameda for the Period of January 6,\n2008 Through January 2, 2010. \" Adopted.\n(09-317 CC) Resolution No. 14370, \"Amending the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association, Alameda Fire Management\nAssociation, and Executive Management Salary Schedules. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam questioned why\n[Fire] command staff would be increased at the expense of street\nlevel line staff; inquired whether reclassifying the Deputy City\nClerk position to Assistant City Clerk was being done to deal with\nY rating, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether\namending the Deputy City Manager salary schedule is due to the\nDeputy City Manager taking on additional line functions; stated the\nDeputy City Manager classification is lower than the League of\nCalifornia Cities' classification; inquired whether the intention\nis to bring the classification up to a level that would be on par\nwith being competitive in the area.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated most\nDeputy City Managers and Assistant City Managers have no line\nauthority; the Deputy City Manager would assume line authority with\nrespect to Finance and IT functions.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why\na\nDivision Chief position would be eliminated in order to create a\nDeputy Fire Chief classification.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the Police Department's command\nstructure is far stronger than the Fire Department; stated the Fire\nDepartment command staff needs to be strengthened.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the Fire Department would have\ntwo Deputy Fire Chief positions and three Division Chiefs.\nThe Interim City Manager stated three Division Chiefs would be\ndedicated to Battalion Chief duties and would allow for a command\nstructure at management level.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of\nthe resolution.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by the following voice vote : Ayes\n:\nCouncilmembers/Authority Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4.\nAbstentions\n:\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-318 CC) Financial State of the City - FY09-10; - State Budget\nImpacts - Present and Future; and City Budget Forecast - FY10-11\nand Thereafter.\nRon Matthews, Alameda Little League, discussed the importance of\nsaving parks for children.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when\nhard, definitive PERS numbers would be received.\nThe Interim City Manager responded preliminary PERS numbers would\nbe released to the PERS Executive Board in October stated the City\nwill be advised of anticipated rates in February or March for\nFiscal year 2011-2012 and Fiscal Year 2012-2013; the City should\nhave hard numbers by April of next year if past practices are\nfollowed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated having a PERS representative come to the\nCity in October would be a good idea; stated the City should know\nwhat would happen to PERS if cities start defaulting on payments.\nThe Interim City Manager stated PERS is a pool investment and she\ndoes not know how PERS would allocate a city's inability to pay a\nliability.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested\nclarification on State takeaways and cities' inability to pay its\nfair share.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she received an email from\nlocal representatives commenting on new details of the State budget\nyesterday Alameda County cities would need to make up a\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 4, "text": "proportionate share if an Alameda County city has financial\nhardship and cannot pay.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated other\ncities' budgets need to be watched.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated PERS takes no risk; cities would be\nbilled more if obligations are not covered.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the burden is on the employer, not\nthe employee.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether cities are looking at other\nretirement options.\nThe Interim City Manager responded some Orange County cities are\ndiscussing joining the County retirement system and dropping out of\nPERS; stated dropping out of PERS takes two to three years; the\nCity has not analyzed the issue.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the budget\nmemo states that the City has relied on staffing cuts to preserve a\nfund balance of $8.8 million; the amount could drop down to $7.9\nmillion with the State Board of Equalization sales tax shift;\ninquired whether the intent is to preserve $8.8 million in Fiscal\nYear 2010 and $7.9 million in Fiscal Year 2011 in order to address\neconomic uncertainty.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City's hope is to hold the\n$8.8 million firm for twenty-four months; stated the City would\nneed to use approximately $1 million out of fund balance in Fiscal\nYear 2011 if other strategic things are not done.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated page 14\nshows new revenue sources would be needed in the future to maintain\ncurrent service levels inquired whether current service levels are\nidentified and proposed in this budget.\nThe Interim City Manager responded previous levels are identified;\nstated options are to increase revenues or decrease expenses\nprograms will be evaluated and prioritized after Labor Day; cuts\nhave to be made if revenues are not increased.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated headlines\nsuggest that the economy might turn around; Measure P funds could\nprovide some revenue in 2011.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 5, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated the upside to Measure P is that the\nCity has not had many foreclosures.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe 8% expenditure growth includes an increase in PERS, to which\nthe Interim Cit Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the\nGeneral Fund deficit has been over the last two years.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City broke even this year ;\nstated the deficit was approximately $4.5 to $5.5 million in the\nprior two years; the deficit was $6.6 in Fiscal Year 2007-2008.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-319 CC) Resolution No. 14371, \"Appointing Lorre Zuppan as a\nMember of the Planning Board. \" 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 of Office and presented a\ncertificate of appointment to Ms. Zuppan.\nMs. Zuppan thanked Council for showing support and confidence.\n(09-320 C CC) Resolution No. 14372, \"Calling a Special Election in\nthe City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors\nan Initiative Charter Amendment Entitled, \"Fire and Emergency\nMedical Services Minimum Protection. Adopted; and\n(09-320A - CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election in the City\nof Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal\nto Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 17-18 -\nRegarding Funding of Minimum Staffing and Equipment Requirements\nand Proposing said Charter Amendments. Not adopted.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam's\ninquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the $750,000 cost for a\nfire truck is not included in the $4,054,476 [initial cost of the\nmandated minimum staffing].\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what are the election options.\nThe City Attorney responded under Election Code 9255, the Council\nhas the discretion and authority to set a Charter amendment for any\nelection as long as the action is at least eighty-eight days before\nthe set date; stated there is no outside date.\nThe City Clerk stated the established election dates are November\n3, 2009, June 8, 2010, November 2, 2010, June 7, 2011, and November\n8, 2011.\nProponents : (In favor of placing the matter on the November 8, 2009\nelection) : Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters Deanna Johe,\nAlameda; Jeff DelBono, Local 689 Alameda.\nOpponents: (Not in favor of placing the matter on the November 8,\n2009 election) : Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda;\nGail A. Wetzork, Alameda; Ron Basarich, Alameda; Marshall Comer,\nOakland; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ;\nWalter Schlueter, Alameda Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef,\nAlameda; Bill Sonneman, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda\nBusiness Association (WABA) ; Rob Bonta, Alameda; Melody Marr,\nAlameda Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Schumacher, Government\nRelations Committee; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the deficit built up over a long period of\ntime; the question is whether the City should have a special\nelection when there are many unknowns; inquired whether the\ncompanion measure would cost property owners $200 per parcel, to\nwhich the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council needs to decide whether to\nplace the matter on the November election or a later election; that\nhe does not support placing the matter on the November election;\ntime is needed to absorb what the State is going to do; that he\nprefers a June 2010 election in order to analyze all points\nreferenced in the staff report; the right people need to show up\nwith the right equipment in an acceptable amount of time when a 911\ncall is received; that he puts very little faith in the\nInternational City/County Management Association (ICMA) report.\npractical and fiscally feasible deliverable core services need to\nbe examined Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) need to be\naddressed.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the City Clerk repeated\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 7, "text": "possible election dates.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when the City would be advised of\nPERS' 2010 rate estimate, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded February or March 2011.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated knowing service costs is important\nmore time is needed because the City needs to understand what the\nState will do; the City cannot afford a special election; the City\ndoes not have an option to not have an election on the matter\nbecause the issue is a ballot initiative; placing the matter on the\nballot before November 8, 2011 would be fiscally irresponsible.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution setting the\nelection for November 8, 2011.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated uncertainties still\nexist; time is needed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would like to propose another\nmotion; the City's b allot measure requires a funding mechanism\nbefore the firefighters initiative is implemented core services\nhave been discussed; public safety was an overwhelming core service\nwhen polling was done for Measure P; funding should rest with City\nmanagement; the amount of risk the community is asked to take on is\na Council prerogative; the City's ability to respond to an\nemergency would be compromised by depending upon Oakland or San\nLeandro.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of placing both measures on the\nJune 8, 2010 ballot the next ten months can be spent evaluating\nappropriate staffing levels, exploring whether there are additional\nrevenues beside taxes, and working with the International\nAssociation of Fire Fighters ( IAFF) to see if there is an\nopportunity to develop a collaborative measure; inquired whether\nthe motion is allowable and what are the deadlines for a June 8,\n2010 election.\nThe City Attorney responded a date cannot be changed once an action\nis taken to set the matter for an election.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether both measures need to go on\nthe ballot at the same time.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 8, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated any Charter\namendment can be set by the Council at any election as long as the\nelection is not set earlier than eighty-eight days after the\nresolution calling the election.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what the timing would be to get\nthe measure ready to place on the ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded an action needs to be taken on the IAFF\nmeasure; stated Council can put off taking any action on the\ncompanion measure.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would prefer not to take action on\nthe companion measure tonight the City did not expect Measure P to\nsolve all problems; that she is reluctant to have a tax measure to\nfund additional fire staffing levels; November 2011 is a reasonable\ndate.\nCouncilmember Tam stated June 8, 2010 provides timely\naccountability for 9,048 signatures secured by the fire fighters\nand provides enough time to work on a collaborative effort with the\nfire fighters.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he believes in a competing\nmeasure, not a companion measure because staffing should not be in\nthe City charter; the Fire Chief and City Manager should ensure\ncorrect staffing levels; that he agrees with having a June 2010\nelection because he wants to put a sense of urgency on the matter;\nfunding is part of the issue; the other part is whether the City is\ntaking a risk; staff should be able to determine whether there\nwould be a difference in response time and service with reduced\nstaffing and apparatus; PERS' worse case scenario can be projected;\nthe matter is urgent.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why the matter is\nurgent the fundamental question to the voters would be whether the\nCharter should require a minimum level for staffing and apparatus\nunits; providing voters with needed information is important.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why seventeen new firefighters would be\nadded if staffing levels are restored to 27 fire fighters.\nMayor Johnson responded the City paid $5 million in overtime in\nthirty months.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated information received from the Fire\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 9, "text": "Chief shows that response times and service levels have not changed\nsignificantly since the brown outs; a ballot measure is the wrong\nplace for minimum staffing issues.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Measure P polling indicated that\npublic safety ranked high but nobody wants to pay; a public safety\nparcel tax, which requires a two-thirds vote, did not even poll\n50%.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the question is whether to have the\nelection for the IAFF measure on June 8, 2010 or November 2011\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was a second for Councilmember\nTam's substitute motion. There being none, the MOTION FAILED.\nCouncilmember Gilmore clarified that her motion is just for the\nIAFF measure, not the companion measure.\nOn the call for the question, Councilmember Gilmore's motion\ncarried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember Tam -\n1.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what are the next steps.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the issue would be addressed\nwith the budget item.\n(09-321 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14373,\n\"Establishing Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal\nYear 2009-2010. \" Adopted.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is $40 million below the conservative\nJarvis/Gann cap on government spending.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the ratio is the same as in\nyears past, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the\nratio is getting worse every year.\nMayor Johnson stated income is not keeping up with the cost of\nliving.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:53 p.m.\n***\n(09-322 CC/ARRA/09-28 CIC) City Council Resolution No. 14374, ARRA\nResolution No. 46, and CIC Resolution No. 09-161, \"Approving and\nAdopting the Operating and Capital Budget and Appropriating Certain\nMoneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2009-2010. \"\nAdopted.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson thanked the Interim City Manager for the\nambitious plan.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nVeterans' Building is not listed on the parks, facilities and\namenities chart.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Veterans' Building is shown\non the map, but not the chart.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Mastick\nSenior Center is not listed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the chart would be revised.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry regarding the $3.5 million reduction between 2008 and 2009,\nthe Interim City Manager stated at the end of Fiscal Year 2007-2008\nexpenses exceeded the General Fund revenue by $6.6 million, which\nwas adjusted to $2.1 million.\nouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why the\nFiscal Year 2009-2010 ambulance transport expenditure has been cut\nin half from Fiscal Year 2007-2008].\nThe Interim City Manager responded data is hard to pull from past\nhistory; stated the intent is to have Fiscal Year 2009-2010 fund by\nprogram; everything was merged together in the past; the best\ncomparison is to look at total department dollars, rather than a\ntrend in administration.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 11, "text": "Counci lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether\nthe same situation occurred for the Disaster Preparedness Program.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a lot of administration overhead\nwas allocated to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the past\nstated a specific amount of money for a position would be allocated\nto the Disaster Preparedness Program in the future.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam noted Homeland\nSecurity requires documentatior on cost centers in order to secure\nreimbursement even for volunteer services.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner\nGilmore's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated page 86 shows\nGeneral Fund expenditures by program.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nVice layor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe Capital Improvement Project Fund actual revenue to expense\ncharge has flattened out or whether funding has been moved, to\nwhich the Interim City Manager responded revenues are reducing.\nThe Public Works Director stated the full costs are funded at the\nbeginning of a project.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe Gas Tax revenue staying flat is typical.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City has not had a lot of\npopulation growth.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated cars are becoming more fuel-efficient.\nIn response to Councilmember/Authority Member/ Commissioner\nMatarrese's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the City will\nalways have some projected negatives; the idea is not to have all\nnegative funds and be able to recover in a year; that she would\nrecommend zeroing out the $87,650 negative balance in the\nPolice/Fire Construction Impact Fund at the end of the next fiscal\nyear if recovery does not occur i the amount would come out of the\n$8.8 million General Fund balance; stated the Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center (FISC) Revenue Fund has come a long way from the\ninitial negative; the FISC cash balance is dropping.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor/Authority  Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe drop would continue.\nThe Development Services Director responded the City received a\ndeveloper advance that is paid off annually with tax increment from\nthe Bayport project; construction of a community building is the\nonly outstanding obligation at Bayport $2 million in expenses is\nexpected for Bayport this year; the APIP debt is being kept as a\ndebt because redevelopment requires debt in order to collect tax\nincrement; only interest is being paid on the APIP loan.\nCouncilmember/AuthorityMember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether\nfunds intended for the Carnegie Building renovation help keep the\ncommunity development funds positive.\nThe Interim City Manager responded $887,206 in community planning\nfees were transferred into Capital Improvement Fund; the\nexpectation was that the money would be used for capital\nimprovements for the centralized planning facility at the Carnegie\nBuilding money could have been left in the Capital Improvement\nFund; however, it would not be prudent because she does not see the\nproject happening within the next three to five years; the fund\nwould be negative $500,000 without the $877,260; the Worker's\nCompensation negative was $2. 1 million last January and February\ndepartments worked very hard in five to six months to reduce the\namount to approximately $1.5 million; a charge back system is now\nin place; departments will pay on a proportionate consumption rate.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\ncharge back formulas would be revisited, to which the Interim City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired where is\nthe $400,000 intended for the Fire Station 3 replacement study.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the $400,000 continues to be a\nreserve within the General Fund.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired\nwhere is the money for the special election.\nThe Interim City Manager responded nothing was budgeted; stated\napproximately $150,000 is in non-departmental funds as a\ncontingency\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 13, "text": "In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the 5.5 authorized\npositions is Council plus half of the Deputy City Manager position\nthat works on intergovernmental relations.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether the Library's collection level is anticipated to be stable\nfrom year to year.\nThe Library Director responded the number of items would remain the\nsame because more money will be spent for fewer items and there\nwill be less money to spend.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether any City services are leveraged with the Boys and Girls\nClub, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative, especially dances and sports.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated\nconstituents complain about the Lincoln Park Bartell Field\nmaintenance; the field is not being dragged.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the matter would be\ninvestigated.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is\nthe thinking regarding evaluating the transition of the Meyers\nHouse & Garden to a historic preservation non-profit.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the thought is to review\ndifferent options for the property.\nThe Interim City Manager stated opportunities have been raised with\nrespect to utilization of the facility.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nCity spent money on property that the City does not own.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated there was a subsidy in the\npast; now, the City only spends money from the trust.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired when information would be available on\nthe trust.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff has done some preliminary\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 14, "text": "research on the matter; stated there is confusion about what would\nhappen if the City cannot use the facility because of lack of\nparking.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Golf\nFund balance started with a fund balance of $748,430 in Fiscal Year\n2009; the Fiscal Year 2010 projected balance is $275,590;\npotentially, reserves could be drained before Fiscal Year 2010 is\nover; Golf Course operating expenditures are exceeding revenues by\nalmost $500,000.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Kemper Sports has slowed the draw\ndown; decisions need to be made this year.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated that the Teen Program\npersonnel services expenditure includes part-time personnel.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated all part-\ntime personnel should be included [in the personnel summary]\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she could not come up with a\nformula base or standard format that would work; a footnote could\nbe added stating that part-time wages are included.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the Assistant City\nManager's position is budgeted 50% in Community Development and 50%\nin Economic Development.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nEconomic Development Department is responsible for commercial\nleasing at the former Base; there should be a discussion regarding\npast direction and whether direction is still applicable in the\ncurrent or future environment.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter is scheduled for the\nSeptember 1 City Council meeting.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what needs\nto happen to ensure that there will be enough Fire personnel to\nstaff current equipment further inquired whether an apparatus\nwould be browned out if staffing falls below 24.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 15, "text": "The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated approximately\n$550,000 is budgeted for overtime.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Police Chief's monthly community\nnewsletter is very good; the Fire Department should do the same.\nThe Fire Chief stated the Fire Department has started a weekly\nnewspaper article.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Fire Department should do a monthly\ncommunity newsletter because not everyone reads the newspaper 1 the\nPolice Department posts the newsletter on the website; people need\nto be educated on when to call 911 and when to call a locksmith or\nplumber.\nThe Fire Chief stated all avenues would be entertained.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated\nthe\ncommunity will be placed at risk if equipment is not staffed in the\nevent of gas fires; inquired what needs to happen to ensure that\nequipment is staffed.\nThe Fire Chief responded staffing levels could drop below 24 40% to\n50% of the time based on July statistics.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated\na\ntrigger point is needed that looks at response time and impact so\nthat Council can make a policy decision not to exceed a threshold\nthat puts the community and staff at risk; the Fire and Police\nDepartments have periods of intense activity that punctuate long\nperiods of less activity that he wants to make sure that the\npublic and personnel are not put at uninformed risk; trigger points\nare needed to ensure that the matter is brought back to Council if\ntrends are going the wrong way.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she would work with the Fire\nand Police Chiefs on trigger points and standards and bring the\nmatter back to Council on September 1; the Fire Department issue\nwould be addressed first.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether\nnow is an appropriate time for Council to discuss using the\n$400,000 discretionary reserves intended for Fire Station 3 in\norder to keep apparatus staffed through the end of the next fiscal\nyear.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 16, "text": "The Interim City Manager responded Council took action a while back\nto earmark the $400,000 for Fire Station 3 rehabilitation; stated\nreserves are earmarked at Council discretion.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Council needs to be very protective of\nreserves and fund balances; inquired how many fire fighters are\nscheduled per shift, to which the Fire Chief responded twenty-\neight.\nVice\nMayor/Authority\nMember/Commissioner\ndeHaan\nstated\nopportunities are available to use overtime to make up the delta;\nthe City has obtained a portion of the Beltline property.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated getting\nanother fire station seems ludicrous if staffing would be reduced.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would be reluctant to have\nCouncil use the $400,000 for overtime without further analysis.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether there has been a situation this fiscal year where staffing\nhas dropped below twenty-four and over time was not used, to which\nthe Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how\nlong it would take to deplete the overtime budget.\nThe Fire Chief responded each month is different; stated $100,000\nwas spent in July.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is\ntime to study options and discuss whether or not to shift the\n$400,000.\n***\n(09-323 CC / ARRA / 09-29 CIC ) Councilmember / Authority Member /\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting\npast midnight.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissione: deHaan stated $400,000 was\nintended to be used for a study for Fire Station 3 replacement ; the\nbuilding is not adequate; plans need to be evaluated.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested\nthat staff provide matrices and a report showing whether\nadjustments need to be made.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the\nFiscal Year 2010-2011 false alarm response projections are the same\nas Fiscal Year 2009-2010; the public should be educated more\naggressively to ensure that the number of false alarms drop.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated false alarm response numbers are very\nhigh.\nThe Fire Chief stated all cities are experiencing a high volume of\nfalse alarms; fees have been implemented; the number of false alarm\nresponses is not that high in consideration of the number of smoke\nalarms, sprinkler heads, detectors, and pull stations within the\nCity.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether calls for plumbing problems\nhave decreased, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nSpeaker Domenick Weaver, Alameda Fire Fighters.\n ouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether the ambulance transport expenditure is approximately $3.\n1\nmillion.\nThe Interim City Manager responded approximately $2 million [of the\n$3. 1 million] is for staffing the Ambulance Transport Service\nProgram.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether EMS billable collections are $1.8 million.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the program brings in\napproximately $2,040,000.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether the $1.8 million is a subset of the $2,040,000, to which\nthe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated one\nextreme would be keeping things status quoi another extreme would\nbe outsourcing to the County; that he would like to review\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 18, "text": "insourcing, including the hospital; the Police Department should\nfollow the same matrices as the Fire Department to ensure that the\ncommunity and police officers are not put at risk.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Police\nDepartment does not have a way of charging for an inappropriate\ncall such as Fire Department false alarms.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department does not want to\ndiscourage anyone from calling 911.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the response for someone\ncalling the Police Department for being locked out of a house.\nThe Police Chief responded the call would be referred to a private\nentity if not a safety, welfare issue.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the\ndichotomy seems to be that the Fire Department is allowed to\nrespond within six minutes for a cardiac arrest call, but the\nPolice Department's standard is three minutes if the matter is life\nthreatening.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fire\nDepartment is dispatched from the County and has no say in how many\npeople respond; the Police Department is different.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nFire Department was staffed at twenty-sev at one time. the delta\nbetween twenty-four and twenty-seven should be reviewed.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department has a process that\nmonitors staffing; personnel is moved out of other units if\nstaffing gets to a point of needing additional resources.\nThe Fire Chief stated response times for automatic device calls are\nreduced; stated a full response would not be sent for said calls.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the\nPolice Department's three minute response time is measured.\nThe Police Chief responded the response time is measured from the\ntime the dispatcher answers the call to the first arriving unit on\nthe scene; stated the benchmark in most communities is under a five\nminute response for a priority-one life threatening emergency and\nis an excellent response time.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 19, "text": "The Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how\nthe depreciation allocation is calculated for the equipment\nmaintenance reserve.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the purchase price is\ndepreciated; stated that she would find out whether depreciation of\nan inflated number would be allowed.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she\nis afraid that the depreciation would be short of actual money\nneeded.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether plans for keeping up with\nstreet and sidewalk maintenance is being reviewed.\nThe Public Works Director responded more money is available for\nresurfacing this year because of ARRA (American Recovery and\nReinvestment Act) funds stated $4.2 million is budgeted this\nfiscal year; $350,000 is budgeted for sidewalks; $550,000 should be\nbudgeted; the City is receiving less Measure B money.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated new development should be responsible\nfor putting sidewalks on both sides of the street.\nThe Public Works Director stated developers are now required to\nmaintain public infrastructure.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an eye\nshould be kept on the health of the sewer system to ensure that the\nCity does not cost itself out down the road; the storm water runoff\nand lagoon system are high price tag items.\nThe Public Works Director stated lagoon project funds come from the\nUrban Runoff Fund, which is separate from the Sewer Fund; master\nplans are being developed for the Urban Runoff and Sewer projects\nstaff is very close to receiving ARRA funding for the lagoon\nseawalls.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired\nwhether mapping has been completed for sewers, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded mapping is in Phase 2.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore clarified\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 20, "text": "references to ARRA means the American Recovery and Reinvestment\nAct, which is federal stimulus money, and not the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired\nwhether federal money is coming to Alameda, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the public should know about the\nfunding information should be posted on the website.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nthe Appezzato Parkway parking strip and Alameda Beltline\nlandscaping are budgeted.\nThe Public Works Director responded currently, funding has not been\nallocated; stated the current General Plan requires the Alameda\nPoint developer to build a multi-modal facility; the current ballot\ninitiative removes the requirement.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved\nadoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nlouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese complimented\nthe Interim City Manager on the report's clarity.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked the\nInterim City Manager for the new format ; stated the public will be\nmore informed on how the City is spending money.\nMayor/Chair Johnson concurred with Councilmember/Authority\nMember/Commissioner Gilmore; stated everyone worked very hard on\nthe budget.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated seeing the\nfinal product is nice; the budget is more understandable;\na\ndepartment staffing summary is the only thing missing.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a summary would be provided.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-08-03", "page": 21, "text": "Special Joint Meeting at 12:35 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Agency, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf"}