{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 26, 2010- - -7:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the joint meeting at 7:10 p.m. Councilmember /\nCommissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*10-029 CC/*10-01 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) meeting held on December 15, 2009, and the Regular City\nCouncil Meeting held on January 19, 2010. Approved.\n*10-030CC) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $60,280 to AZCO\nSupply and Authorize a Ten Percent Contingency to Purchase Twenty-five Streetlight Poles\nas Part of the Woodstock to Webster Street Neighborhood Improvement Project, and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Contract and Related Documents.\nAccepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-031 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Accept Transmittal of the: 1) Comprehensive\nAnnual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2009; 2) Auditor's Agreed\nUpon Procedures Report on Compliance with Vehicle Code Section 40200.3 Parking\nCitation Processing; 3) Agreed Upon Procedures Report on Compliance with the\nProposition 111 21005-06 Appropriations Limit Increment; 4) Police and Fire Retirement\nSystem Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009;\n5) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for Year\nEnded June 30, 2009; and 6) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic\nComponent Unit Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2009.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 2, "text": "The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director and City Auditor gave brief\npresentations.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam stated the City's net assets saw an increase of $6.9\nmillion as a result of revenue exceeding expenses; additional progress has been made on\ncapital asset improvements; refinancing was done; inquired how much of the net increase\nis from revenue exceeding expenses.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded asset increases do not\nnecessarily mean cash revenue increased because debt might have been paid off or a\ncapital project may have finished; stated overall revenues stayed the same; the increase in\nall funds was only $3 million; a $6 million increase in the context of $205 million is not huge.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam stated there was a savings of $3.1 million in the Police\nDepartment fund; $2.6 million was because of debt retirement; inquired whether said\namount contributes to the $6.9 million, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the amount does not represent\na $6.9 million increase in cash, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the workers compensation fund\nis still negative, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the amount is assets, not cash.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated\ngovernment financial assets include cash, bonds, capital improvement projects, etc.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Gilmore inquired whether the net cash available is just\nunder $10 million, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded\nin the affirmative; stated there are still a couple of liabilities.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(10-032 CC/ARRA/10-02 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the Financial Report for the\nFourth Fiscal Quarter Ending June 2009.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 3, "text": "The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director gave a presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Community Development Department fund went down\nsignificantly; inquired the amount, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive\nDirector responded $800,000 was drawn down from the fund balance.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the department is now operating in balance.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nsome of the fund balance would be used during the current fiscal year; continued the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the urban runoff\nfund balance is so large.\nThe Public Works Director stated the Storm Drain Master Plan is currently being completed,\nwhich will result in a 10 or 20-year capital improvement program to spend down the money.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he receives\ncomplaints about the pond near the Tube entrance behind Marina Village Loop; inquired\nwhether the project could be completed since the fund has $7.5 million.\nThe Pubic Works Director responded the project would probably be identified as one of the\npriorities in the Plan; stated other areas might be of higher priority, such as homes that\nwould be inundated by a 100-year flood; that he would check whether the Alameda Landing\nproject might be contributing funds and ensure the project is reviewed as part of the Master\nPlan.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry about\nwhen the Plan would be completed, the Public Works Director stated the Plan should be\ndone in 12 months; the Sewer Plan would be finished first.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the [urban\nrunoff] funds could be used for sewers, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\nnegative; stated 10% of sewer funds can be used for urban runoff.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore's inquiries about the\nnegative fund balance in the risk management and workers compensation funds and about\nincurred liabilities, the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated negatives are\nreal money paid out for claims; incurred liabilities are the amount that an actuarial believes\nshould be reserved for future risks, which the City does not have; the City is trying to get\nout of the $1.7 million negative and, then, will have to start putting money away to cover the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 4, "text": "liability as required by joint powers agreements.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated in Fiscal Year 2008-09,\nrevenues ended up being $3.4 million more than expenditures; the City was able to put\n$1.7 million in the undesignated fund balance; inquired how much of the savings came from\nthe reduction in force; further stated the appearance is cuts were made and the savings\nwent into internal service funds.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the budget was approved\nat $76 million in revenue and $81 million in expenditures; stated Attachments B and C\nfocus on the general fund; $6.5 million was absorbed.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry whether the City\nis still in a dispute with Alameda County over Emergency Medical Service charges, the\nInterim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated the matter is potential litigation and\nis not included [as a liability].\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the potential\nliability should be included; to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director\nresponded the numbers were not included based on Closed Session discussions.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding the amount, the Interim City\nManager/Interim Executive Director stated the amount is $840,000; continued the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired which department has the\nhighest workers compensation allocation, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim\nExecutive Director responded the three highest departments are Police, Fire and Public\nWorks; departments are charged back the following year.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether workers compensation claims are consistent with\nother cities, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded that\nshe did not know.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about whether worker safety programs would\nhelp, the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded Risk Management has\nan aggressive program.\nThe Public Works Director stated Public Works holds meetings every week.\nThe City Attorney stated a citywide safety program is being started.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director continued the presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the [general fund] fund balance would be cut in half\nif the suggested amount for workers compensation was set aside, to which the Interim City\nManager/Interim Executive Director responded $6.5 million would be taken from the $8.4\nmillion [fund balance].\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether funding is included for\nOther Post Employment Benefits (OPEB), to which the Interim City Manager/Interim\nExecutive Director responded in the negative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding the\npresent value of OPEB, the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated the\namount is $74.7 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the claims reduce the City's ability to provide service to the\npublic and need to be managed as best as possible.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated staff worked to have the\n[workers compensation and risk management] funds break even over an 18-month period\n[ending June 2010]; next, staff will work to make the balances positive over the following\n18-month period.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is working to meet\nobligations and has not made additional money.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated staff is working to break down\nthe funds.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the cash in the general fund\nseems like an illusion when there are other funds that should have reserves.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated Council might want to revisit the\nfund balance policy; the fund balance also includes loans.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated maintenance was being deferred to build the fund balance;\ndeferred maintenance ends up costing more.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated new internal service funds, such\nas the facilities maintenance fund, have been created to start having disciple and put\nmoney aside.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated people did not know about the internal service fund negatives\nbecause there were not separate accounts; having a clear budget is very important to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 6, "text": "understand the real fund balance.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated not having workers\ncompensation and risk management funds is very risky.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is also developing a systematic way for dealing with\nlarge maintenance projects.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated \"why\" should be\naddressed in the discussion about the appropriate [general fund] fund balance.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she understand the City is\ntrying to have a balance between providing services and increasing the bond rating by\nhaving a reserve; $9.9 million of the $18.2 million fund balance is cash.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry regarding cash\non hand, the Interim City Manager Interim/Executive Director stated bond rating agencies\nreview all cash reserves, such as the $3 million cash in equipment replacement; going\nforward rating agencies will start to look at issues like OPEB.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how many positions were\neliminated, the Human Resources Director responded the number of positions went from\n650 to 575; stated many positions that were cut were not filled.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the positions remain in the budget, to which the\nInterim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated times are tough; the City had to\nmake cuts; carefully characterizing the [general fund] fund balance is important, particularly\nif there might be about another five years of tough times.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated the State Chief Legislative\nAnalyst is forecasting no growth until 2014; the decision was to make the cuts all at one\ntime; a plan was created to recover negatives in 24 months; the City was not prepared for\nthe latest surprise of the State wanting to take the gas tax.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about full time\nequivalent employees, the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated the audit\namounts are simply the numbers that were included in the budget, not the actual number of\nemployees.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the actual numbers would\nbe provided, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 7, "text": "actual numbers for the current fiscal year could be provided with the mid year report.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the public expects the Council to put the City into as sound\na\nfinancial position as soon as possible; there are still a lot of negative funds; the City dose\nnot have any extra money and still has a lot of liabilities that need to be paid, as well as\ndeferred maintenance.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated staff will be recommending\ncertain funds be designated as part of the mid year report, which will bring the fund balance\ndown to $8.1 million; further stated the general fund budget went down from around $87\nmillion to $63 million.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan noted revenue projections are not very\ngood.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated Alameda and Piedmont are the\nonly two cities in the County that have not had property tax losses.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City has done a good job managing the cuts with minimal\nimpacts on public service levels.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the sewer fund is down from\n$18.4 million to $12.4 million; $3 million was loaned to a project; inquired whether $3 million\nwas spent on sewer projects.\nThe Public Works Director responded the affirmative; stated projects were completed on\nboth Central Avenue and Fernside Boulevard.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding\nspending projections for the current year, the Public Works Director stated staff is planning\n$2 million in capital improvement projects per year and will review new requirements as a\nresult of the wet weather facility issue.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much revenue is\ngenerated each year, to which the Public Works Director responded $6.5 million, which is\nclose to what is spent for operations.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's further inquiry\nregarding the sewer fund, the Public Works Director responded the audited revenue is $6.5\nmillion; the $6.4 million in expenses does not include capital projects; further stated a\npresentation would be given in spring or summer.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-033 CC) Supplemental Education Revenue and Augmentation Fund (SERAF) -\nProposed Payment Plan\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated no one knows what the State will do to balance its budget this year.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the State had a $24 billion shortfall in June 2009; the\ndeficit was $14 to $15 billion in January, 2010; the deficit will continue to accelerate since\nthe State has not made significant cuts; the biggest concern is whether the State will\nsecuritize more property tax borrowing from cities; that she does not know what the State\nwill do with the gas tax.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated redevelopment tax increment is no longer sheltered but is\nbeing taken away; any thought of selling redevelopment bonds will be seriously\nencumbered.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a job loss analysis has been performed, to which the\nEconomic Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the State has taken money away [from cities] for years.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Alameda has given $54 million to the State over the years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated over $5 million has been taken from redevelopment.\nMayor Johnson stated State representatives will be coming to the Mayor's Conference in\nFebruary.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what will happen to cities that have made tax increment\ncommitments.\nThe Interim City Manager responded cities have to meet obligations; stated trying to get a\ndeveloper to forego repayment of tax increment commitments is very optimistic.\nMayor Johnson stated some amounts are so large that some cities would not be able to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 9, "text": "find a cash fund from which to borrow; inquired whether other cities would need to cover\ncities within the County that cannot pay, to which the Interim City Manager responded in\nthe negative.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated redevelopment would be impacted tremendously; cities are no\nlonger going to be able to commit tax increment to development projects.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the legislature and Department of Finance have had very\nlittle communication in the past; the Department of Finance tried to explain that old base\nnumbers cannot be used for calculations; some cities have already made pledges; no bond\nproceeds are left for tax allocation bonds; the West End Capital Improvement Projects' net\ncash available has gone down from $11.4 million to $6 million in one year.\nMayor Johnson stated the State is putting in policies that will kill jobs.\nThe Interim City Manager stated 80% of tax increment is the most flexible and is used to\nsubsidize commercial and industrial development and job creation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is infuriated with the State; the State was $24\nbillion in debt; the State did not cut their budget but took property tax money from cities; the\nState is also taking redevelopment money; the current deficit is $14 billion and will probably\ngo back up to the previous deficit.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the State deficit was up to $21.6 billion last week.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the State has taken property taxes and redevelopment\nmoney and is threatening to take gas tax; the State is not acting to cut its budget; at some\npoint, the State will not be able to squeeze any more money out of local jurisdictions.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Governor's proposal is to eliminate furloughs, require\nState employees to pay part of PERS, and cut school administration costs; that she is still\nuncertain how the State will use ERAF to pay the traffic court; Alameda's gas tax of\napproximately $1.3 million is used for pothole repair.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the State will have to act to cut their budget sooner or later.\nThe Interim City Manager stated one-third of the Assembly will be termed out and 17%will\nbe up for re-election; the proposed payment plan is very conservative and ensures that all\nobligations are covered; no action is needed tonight; the matter will come back to Council\nfor approval.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore suggested a cover letter be included when the check is sent to the\nState.\nMayor Johnson stated the State should be made aware of how the City has been impacted.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City has yet to receive securitization money, but\nmoney has been taken out [of property taxes]; the State is making the City absorb the\nnegative cash.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated reserves act as a buffer; redevelopment has changed;\ndevelopment will have to be done differently.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the LCC is trying to stop the raids; hopefully, the League's ballot\ninitiative will be on the November ballot.\nMayor Johnson stated California government needs significant restructuring to save the\nState.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the LCC has collected 273,000 signatures; one million\nsignatures are needed.\n(ARRA) ARRA Revenue and Expense - Ten-Year History\nAuthority Member Matarrese inquired why ARRA has a fund balance, why the balance is so\nlarge, and what is the use of the fund balance; stated the fund balance is approximately $9\nmillion; buildings cannot be secured; more money will need to be put in the buildings if\nsecured; questioned whether the fund balance is being spent appropriately.\nThe Interim Executive Director responded fund balance issues cannot be discussed at this\ntime because of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement; stated staff will review better\nstrategic planning for long-term leases; fund balance uses will be discussed as part of the\nmid year report.\nAuthority Member deHaan inquired how much funding the Alameda Collaborative brings to\nthe table, to which the Economic Development Director responded none.\n(10-034 CC) Golf Enterprise Fund Revenue and Expense - Ten Year History\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the negative interest is derived.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a negative interest indicates a reversal or credit from\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 11, "text": "a prior year.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired why supply costs are so different; stated supply costs were\nconsistent between 2001 and 2009; now costs are down to almost nothing.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she would look into the matter; continued the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the unrestricted fund balance was $8.35 million in Fiscal Year\n2000-2001 and went down to $1 million in Fiscal Year 2008-2009; the South Course needs\na new sprinkler system which would cost approximately $1 million; inquired whether the $1\nmillion would come from the unrestricted fund balance.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the net income loss would be the same as an operating\nloss, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the Golf Course has been operating at a loss for a number of years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the general downward trend of the unrestricted fund\nbalance does not match up with capital outlay and capital improvement numbers; some of\nthe delta from year to year in the unrestricted fund balance is assumed to go into\noperations; the actual net income is the cash balance; June to December shows a positive;\nthe missing piece of data is what the unrestricted fund balance total will be for Fiscal Year\n2009-2010; all deltas need to be known prior to operating contract discussions; Fiscal Year\n2001-2002 to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 had a $4 million loss; details are needed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter will come to Council at the second meeting in\nFebruary; staff will provide some generic negotiating criteria as to what direction Council\nwants to take.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether different accounting practices have been applied.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the audit was closed by a person with no history or\nknowledge of the Golf Course; stated ten years of data was gathered.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is not comfortable with some of the numbers or\nexplanations; he has concerns with the extreme draw down.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the numbers are real; the balance sheet would be\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 12, "text": "discussed; General Fund transfers have declined from $8 million to $830,000 over the last\nten years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated knowing what kind of policy is needed is important going\nforward in order to protect the asset.\nThe Interim City Manager stated everyone thought that the fund balance was cash, which is\nnot true.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council was given a presentation regarding building a\nClub House with the fund balance.\nMayor Johnson stated Council had a joint meeting with the Golf Commission on the matter;\nthe idea was shut down because Council had serious concerns with the numbers; building\na Golf Course at the former Naval Base was another crazy idea presented.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated in Fiscal Year 2004-05 the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)\nwas used bail out the General Fund; the PILOT grew around $215,000; subsequently, the\nPILOT went down because of less play.\nSpeaker: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission.\nIn response to Ms.Sullwold's inquiry, the Interim City Manager responded the Return on\nInvestment (ROI) is blended in with the PILOT.\nIn response to Ms. Sullwold's inquiry, the Interim City Manager responded the\nGovernmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requires the City to inventory\neverything at the Golf Course and create a present value of the asset.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council and the Golf Commission were told that there was\na fund balance of over $5 million at a previous meeting.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council could rely on the numbers presented tonight.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a National Golf Federation\n(NGF) number should not be used as an actual.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is confident the current numbers are good.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has a hard time characterizing net income as a\nprofit because capital outlay shows mostly zeros.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 13, "text": "Ms. Sullwold stated the only way to get capital improvements is to infuse cash into the\nproperty; seeing funds dwindle over the last five years has been frustrating; Council needs\nto allow the maximum amount of time to ensure that the right choice is made regarding an\noutside manager.\nMayor Johnson stated many golfers do not acknowledge how much money is needed to\nmaintain a golf course; the Golf Course has not been taken care of for at least ten years;\nthe asset is wasting away.\nMs. Sullwold stated the driving range was the last major capital improvement.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the greens have been redone and a new irrigation system was\ninstalled on the North Course, which is not enough.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-035 CC) Discussion of Athletic Field Improvement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Council/School District Subcommittee discussed the\ndesire to have artificial turfs for Thompson and Willie Stargell Fields; tonight's referral is to\nrequest Council to consider giving direction to the Interim City Manager to research how the\nCity might be able to work with the School District to pull funds or have the City finance the\nartificial turf fields with a joint use agreement to allow City use; saving water would be one\nthing to consider; a joint use agreement would allow the City to gain field space and allow\nthe School District to get maximum use of the fields.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other fields are jointly used with the School District.\nThe Park and Recreation Director responded the School District uses City fields; stated\nthere are formal agreements for the use of the pools and Peralta College hardball fields.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City uses the School District's fields, to which the\nPark and Recreation Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a joint use agreement could allow City use when the\nSchool District is not using a field.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated having artificial turf would increase the School District's\nusage and may not give the City an opportunity to use the fields; the School District would\nwant the fields at the same time as the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a joint use agreement would guarantee commensurate\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n13\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 14, "text": "use.\nMayor Johnson stated the City's sports programs jointly use many School District facilities,\nsuch as the gyms.\nThe Park and Recreation Director stated non-profits also use School District facilities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a joint use agreement would provide an opportunity to\nmake an improvement; Richmond High School has artificial turf.\nMayor Johnson stated that she attended an Alameda/Encinal football game and the field\nwas extremely muddy.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has a joint use agreement for Ruby\nBridges, to which the Park and Recreation Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated a more comprehensive joint venture for athletic facilities has been\ndiscussed along with joint maintenance; a meeting is needed with Nino Borsoni (Alameda\nSoccer Club); a higher level of maintenance is needed; athletic facilities maintenance\ndiffers from the other parks.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much time staff would need and what would be put\naside if Council votes to give the Interim City Manager direction to research the issue.\nThe Park and Recreation Director responded not much time would be needed for the\nresearch; stated figuring out financing might take some time.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a lot of things have been done with the School District on\na handshake; a huge clean up is being done; artificial turf can be used in the rain and could\ncover its own maintenance costs.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to make up for what it does not have; other cities\nhave beautiful athletic facilities.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the cost of an all weather field.\nThe Park and Recreation Director responded the cost depends upon infrastructure but\ncould be approximately $1 million.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the lifespan is a concerning factor; the Interim City Manager is\non the right track; understanding which fields have joint use agreements is important.\nThe Park and Recreation Director stated centralized scheduling would become more\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n14\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 15, "text": "efficient.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter could come back to Council in May and could\nbe put into the budget.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda High School does not have a track; Alameda College has a\nbeautiful track that is locked; requested that the Interim City Manager discuss the possibility\nof having the City and School District work with the College to use the track.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why Alameda College would not let the City use the track.\nThe Park and Recreation Director responded the College wants to keep the track pristine;\nthe College would charge a fee for having a custodian open the restrooms.\nMayor Johnson stated many colleges have nice facilities open to the public.\n(10-036 CC) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he and Councilmember Gilmore had the\nopportunity to meet with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation on the SS\nPetersburg; the ship discharges petroleum offshore; piers are not adequate to bring a\ntanker in for fueling in Haiti.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the ship will take sixteen days to get to Haiti and has the\ncapability to pump fuel as far away as four miles from shore; the first cargo will be jet fuel;\nthe jet fuel on the island is not close to the airport; the distribution system was destroyed by\nthe earthquake; other countries aiding Haiti do not have the capability to pump fuel.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Secretary of the Department of Transportation emphasized\nthat infrastructure will be built, not repaired; Haiti is very underdeveloped.\n(10-037 CC) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended a kickoff of the 2010 census; the\ncensus is a ten minute questionnaire which will go out in March; allocation of federal funds\nis predicated on the census.\n(10-038 CC) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities\nPolicy Committee Meeting last Thursday as well as the East Bay Division Meeting; the\nState is looking at a $21.6 billion deficit over the next 18 months which is expected to\npersist over the next five years; the Governor is proposing to use State transit monies to\npay off State bonds which will adversely affect AC Transit; the Governor wants to lower the\ntax on gas; the approach is not transit friendly; the legislature is trying to be optimistic, not\nshut down during the budget crisis and hoping to get some policy changes despite the fact\nthat this is an election year; Assembly Member Wesley Chesbro is helping to get some\nfunding to improve the recycling rate; the priority for cities is job creation and economic\nstimulus; the League is trying to get Councilmembers help to gather signatures; the League\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n15\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 16, "text": "is expecting approximately fifty different measures which could be distilled down to\neighteen; pension reform is not part of the League's goals this year; the ballot initiative\nsignature allocation is 24,000 for the thirty-three cities in Alameda and Contra Costa\ncounties; Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Mary Piepho focused on the delta\nwater issues and her opposition to the $11 billion water bond that will be coming in\nNovember; Supervisor Piepho stated the State cannot afford more dept and is very\nopposed to any effort to build a different version of the peripheral canal which is causing\nmajor divides in the Legislation between northern and southern California.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the joint meeting at 10:32\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\n16\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 26, 2010--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe special meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(10-028) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Joe Wiley and Human\nResources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association\nFollowing the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that the City Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding\nthe status of negotiations; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 6:50\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-26", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 26, 2010-- - 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the joint meeting at 10:35 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe joint meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-039 CC/ARRA/10-03 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:\nAlameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under\nNegotiations: Price and terms of payment\nFollowing the Closed Session, the joint meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson\nannounced that the City Council/ARRA/CIC met in closed session to discuss a request from\nSunCal to take an action prior to February 2, 2010 to extend the term of the Exclusive\nNegotiation Agreement (ENA) and the performance milestones for two years; no action was\ntaken in closed session and in the interest of government transparency, the governing\nbodies referred SunCal's request to be placed on a regularly scheduled open session\nagenda for public discussion prior to any action.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the joint meeting at 11:10\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 26, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-26.pdf"}