{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nSATURDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 25, 2010- 9:00 A.M.\nVice Mayor deHaan convened the meeting at 9:04 a.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and\nMayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note: Mayor Johnson arrived at 9:09 a.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-461) Evaluation of City Assistance to Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) in Order\nto Offset Some or All of the Costs in Operating the Toddler and Before/After School\nProgram, Presently Operated by AUSD. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to analyze any\npotential funding and/or operational solutions that the City can offer in order to continue\nservice delivery of one or both of these programs.\nThe Interim City Manager and School Superintendent gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding for the program is traditionally cut first.\nThe School District Superintendent responded not in the past few years.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council and School Board Subcommittee is in favor of the\nrecommendation and is bringing the matter forward to allow the rest of the Councilmembers\nto give direction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the School Board has a risk right now because of the\nrequirement to notice layoffs; the Subcommittee wanted to determine how the City could\nhelp mitigate the School Board's risk and keep the program going while the City and School\nwork out the long-term future of the program.\nBoard Member Spencer stated the School Board has agreed to a 45-day extension twice;\nthat she is looking for a shared risk between the School District and the City to protect the\nprogram.\nPresident Mooney stated the School District would like the City Council to commit to finding\napproximately $200,000 for [running the program for] three months; the School District has\nreporting requirements to show the State and County the funding source.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 2, "text": "The Superintendent stated the School District has to be cautious regarding funding; the\nDistrict could lose State funds if the City gives money to the District; staff has to work to\nensure the money does not end up reducing the District's State funding.\nThe School District Director of Fiscal Services stated there are unknowns about whether\nthe Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding would be a transfer, donation or\nloan; then the District has to determine whether receiving the funds would reduce its [State]\nfunding.\nThe Interim City Manager questioned whether the funding could be a reimbursement;\nstated CDBG funding has to meet requirements; no one wants the funding to end up being\na subsidy for the State; providing the funds would not be a loan.\nMayor Johnson stated general direction can be given if a funding solution, without\ndetrimental impacts discussed, can be found; the situation has been created by the State;\nthe State takes money and then ties the City's and School's hands regarding funding\nsources.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the funding would be a stopgap; inquired whether funding the\nprogram has been an on-going problem; stated that he recalls problems 10 years ago.\nThe Superintendent responded past discussions focused on whether the School District\nshould be in the business of pre-K and day care; stated the District has provided subsidies\nto the program in the past; the District is trying to make the program funded solely by\nmoney that comes from the State.\nBoard Member Spencer noted that the District received $50,000 for the program from the\nCounty in the past.\nBoard Member Jensen stated the School District could reimburse the City if the State\nincludes [funding for] the program when it adopts the budget.\nMayor Johnson stated the funding would be a short-term stopgap measure, and would not\nbe a long-term solution; time has to be taken to determine if the program needs to be\nmodeled into something different.\nBoard Member Jensen stated there are ways to make the program more efficient; inquired\nwhether expenses could be reduced even further and whether State requirements can be\nmet with fewer teachers and staff.\nThe Superintendent responded in the affirmative; stated the District is also reviewing\nwhether the program can be relocated.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City is looking at using CDBG funds; further\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 3, "text": "inquired whether the funds were allocated months ago and whether re-allocating the money\nrequires noticing.\nThe Interim City Manager responded administrative funds and unused funds are left over;\nstated staff has reviewed the cash balance; $210,000 is needed for three months; the City\nis looking at other eligible funds that could be used for the program; CDBG funds for next\nyear would have to be prioritized if the State does not fund the program and there is way\naround the certificated teacher requirement.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the current program is fee based or fully\nsubsidized by the School District and State; further inquired whether the program would be\nfee based if the City were to provide the service going forward.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City's ability to do so would be based on the\neconomics of the children in the program; stated fee based, full cost recovery is not\nexpected.\nThe Superintendent stated a family pays from $2 to $16 per day.\nMayor Johnson stated right now, the goal is to solve the immediate problem; the State has\nnot adopted its budget, which leaves the program without money; the City is trying to help\nthe program survive until the State adopts the budget.\nPresident Mooney noted that the Governor is proposing taking the funds away.\nCouncilmember L. Tam stated that she appreciates the idea of pooling resources; she is\nunclear about the urgency; the City has to go through a hearing process to reallocate\nfunds; inquired how the timing fits with the District's need.\nThe Superintendent responded the School Board would take action Tuesday night\non\nwhether or not to fund the program; listed options.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the School District would be willing to do another 45-\nday extension, to which the Superintendent responded that matter is up to the Board.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the program costs $850,000 annually; inquired how much is the\nCDBG annual funding, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded $1.4 million.\nSpeakers: Mary Rudge, Alameda; Teresa Lee, Alameda; Caroline Tope\u00e9, Alameda;\nWilliam Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; Gregory Matthews, Alameda; and\nHelda Moya, Alameda.\nBoard Member McMahon gave a brief history of the program funding.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council could make a motion, to which the Interim City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore acknowledged the difficultly the School District faces putting\ntogether its budget; stated the School Board's core mission is providing education from\nkindergarten to twelfth grade; however, cutting the program would be difficult.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion should include that the\nCity's contribution should not jeopardize State funding and end up subsidizing the State;\nsaid direction applies to every item on the agenda today.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the long-term solution has to come from the School District; the\nCity will be available to help in any way possible.\nBoard Member Jensen stated a substantial cost of the program is the after school program;\nthe funding addresses both the toddler and after school part of the program.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe School Board addressed the matter.\n(10-462) Recommendation to Support Alameda Unified School District Special Legislation.\nThe Interim City Manager and Superintendent gave a brief presentation.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired whether the legislation would impact the City's ability to\nprovide low- and moderate-income housing.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the opposite would happen if\nan arrangement that would not jeopardize the School District is worked out; the City would\nhave the money that has been taken out of the housing set aside fund for the School\nDistrict; the City does housing; the question is whether complications for the District\nregarding the 80% funds would exist.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired whether the City's requirement to provide low- and\nmoderate-income housing would be reduced, to which the City Manager responded in the\nnegative; stated more dollars would be set aside for the City to do housing.\nBoard Member Jensen raised questions about amending the 1991 agreement and the\nSchool District General Counsel responded.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Jensen inquired whether a Senator or Assembly Member would carry the\nbill.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the bill would have go through the Assembly first;\nstated having the bill co-sponsored would be nice.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated four points have been repeated at subcommittee\nmeetings: 1) money provided should not penalize AUSD and result in a State take away of\nmoney; 2) the City should not be held liable for moving the money out of the\nRedevelopment Agency, either from the State taking redevelopment money or the City\nbeing expected to replenish the money; 3) the core mission of the School District is not to\nprovide housing, which is a core mission of the City; and 4) the City should provide\nunencumbered money to the School District; further stated the crisis is kind of a good thing\nbecause action is occurring on items that have been discussed for two years.\nMayor Johnson stated the solution is fairly complex.\nCouncilmember L. Tam stated the draft resolution states the economic crisis is being faced\nbecause the federal government ceased funding when the Naval Air Station (NAS) closed;\nCongressman Stark has explained that students left when the NAS closed and funding\ncame with the students; inquired how the School District has been restructured to account\nfor losing said students and funding when the NAS closed; further stated the proposal was\nto have access to the funding earmarked for housing through sale of surplus property when\nthe matter was reviewed two and a half years ago; then, the funds could be used by the\nSchool District in any way without penalties; the concept was that the Housing Authority\nwould use the land to meet affordable housing requirements; inquired whether something\nchanged and said option is no longer acceptable.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City has looked at the idea of creating\ntransactions whereby the City contracts and the School District gets money; stated the\nproblem is it does not \"clean\" the money; staff has looked at numerous options, including\ncontracting back with the Housing Authority; the money would still be housing dollars; a\njoint venture, even with a developer, did not pass according to redevelopment attorneys;\nthe proposed legislation is the fastest, easiest solution; the legislature should look favorably\non the matter, which is very unique.\nThe Superintendent stated the problem with the [land sale] idea is that the $3 million\n[housing set aside] belongs to the School District and the property is owned by the School\nDistrict; the funds should not come to the District through the sale of School District\nproperty.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what about the NAS funding.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson responded the State funding formula was set when Alameda still received\nthe Navy subsidy, which is why Alameda's baseline is lower than other communities.\nPresident Mooney stated school districts have sued the State; the State legislature will not\nbring forward equalization to get Alameda close to the amount received by other cities in\nAlameda County.\nMayor Johnson stated the problem is more districts benefit from current formulas, unlike\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether special legislation allows school districts to use\ncertain money for operations right now.\nThe District Legal Counsel responded there is legislation; stated the sale of real property is\nusually restricted from being used for operational purposes, but the legislature has\nsuspended the provision.\nSpeakers: William Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; David Howard, Alameda;\nand Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nBoard Member McMahon reviewed the history of the School District funding.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a question has been raised regarding the impact on the City's\nrequirement to provide low-and moderate-income housing; inquired whether the matter has\nbeen flushed out.\nThe Interim City Manager responded going forward, the amount [currently for the District]\nwould be freed up; stated the question is whether or not Council wants to off set the\namount [currently for the District] with a share of the 80% in the future; the City's 20%\n[housing set aside] would not be reduced.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney agrees.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the tax sharing agreement is unique;\nnormally, tax sharing agreements are not for 20% money; further stated special legislation\nreprogramming funds meant to be used for the School District does not impact the rights of\nthe Guyton Settlement Agreement plaintiffs.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff has gone through the review and feels\ncomfortable, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the amount has grown for 20 years; questioned how the future\nwill be handled.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 7, "text": "The City Attorney stated the money set aside [for the District] pursuant to the tax sharing\nagreement could not have been accessed by the Guyton plaintiffs because the amount is\nfor school uses; the City's ability to spend all of the 20% money for housing would increase\nif the [tax sharing] agreement can be amended so that the School District does not receive\npart of the 20% funds.\nPresident Mooney requested District staff to ensure that the [Guyton Settlement]\nAgreement referenced by Mr. Smith is not an issue for the School District.\nThe District Legal Counsel stated the District is not a party to the litigation.\nMayor Johnson stated the School District had an interest in building affordable housing for\nteachers in the past; however, it is not practical or possible anymore.\nBoard Member Spencer addressed the agreements being referenced; stated both\nagreements should have been attached to the staff report for the public; requested the\ninformation be provided as soon as possible.\nBoard Member McMahon acknowledged Mr. Howard for his work; stated in addition to the\nhousing fund, the School District has already received $1 million in capital funds as a result\nof Mr. Howard's pursuit.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired whether the legislation would be a precedent or if other\ndistricts have done something similar.\nThe City Attorney responded the legislation is probably unique because the tax sharing\nagreement is unique; however, there is lots of precedent for getting special legislation to\ncure unique agency problems.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired whether the District would have received funds if the\nagreement had not been executed.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the District would have been a tax\nsharing entity of the 80% redevelopment money; that she wants language included to make\nit clear that the State cannot use the funds to subsidize its obligation; statutes need to be\nreferenced.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether redevelopment money that goes to the School\nreduces the amount that comes from the State, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe School Board addressed the matter.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson thanked City and School District staff; stated hopefully\nthe money can go to the School District without subsidizing the State.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-463) Policy Discussion on Joint Use Agreement, including Capital Improvement to\nAlameda Unified School District (AUSD) High School Fields. RECOMMENDATION: Direct\nstaff to finalize a joint use agreement between City of Alameda and AUSD with respect to\njoint use of Encinal and/or Thompson athletic fields, including an evaluation and\nrecommendation for installation of artificial turf (all-weather/multi-purpose) fields at these\nsites.\nThe School District Director of Operations, Maintenance and Facilities and District Legal\nCounsel provided a handout and gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated assurance that the City's contribution of improving the\nfields on School District property would not have any adverse impacts on the School\nDistrict's revenue stream from the State is needed.\nIn response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry about the underlay, the Director of\nOperations, Maintenance and Facilities responded the issue would be addressed as part of\nthe design; stated there are different types.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the longevity of the turf depends on the material that is\nunderneath.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Subcommittee has addressed the issue and has\nrecommended that the specifications be for safety first, then longevity and quality.\nPresident Mooney stated staff does not know whether or not there is sufficient funding for\nboth fields; inquired whether the matter would be addressed.\nThe Interim City Manager responded $2.1 million is needed for Encinal, including the track,\nand $1.2 to $1.3 million is needed for Thompson; stated the City has enough to cover\nEncinal and half of Thompson; one field can be done; fields can be used constantly;\nmaintenance costs will be reduced and funds can be used to maintain grass fields.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter would come back with the figures; the staff\nreport should address the investment being a savings in the long run.\nPresident Mooney stated the process of jointly using facilities is moving forward; issues,\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 9, "text": "such as access to Encinal, will have to be addressed.\nMayor Johnson stated there would also be significant water savings.\nBoard Member Jensen inquired how much maintenance funding would be available to be\nused elsewhere, to which the Director of Operations, Maintenance and Facilities responded\nthat he could provide said number.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding City funds that would be used, the\nInterim City Manager stated the budget includes a special capital improvement\ndiscretionary fund; the funds are from an Alameda Municipal Power $1.2 million back\npayment, an assessment district administrative fee $880,000 back payment, and the sale of\nthe employee parking lot [on Lincoln Avenue] for $750,000.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns about the other places the City could use\nthe funding; further stated the Recreation and Parks Department provided a list of\ndeficiencies; inquired why the City has not been able to use [School] facilitates in the past;\nstated Thompson and Encinal fields have not been available to the City.\nThe Superintendent responded staff has made a commitment to review all of the joint uses;\nstated the swimming pool is another example; these [field] joint uses are step one; step two\nwould be to look at every field.\nPresident Mooney stated one issue has been the need to \"rest\" natural grass; the joint use\nagreement will create clear guidelines; taxpayers own the property, which should be put to\nthe best use; lead time is needed in order to have the fields built in the summer.\nMayor Johnson stated water and maintenance savings would be economically beneficial\nand the community would benefit, too.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the matter would come back to Council with more detail; further\nstated Alameda Point fields are other opportunities.\nBoard Member McMahon stated neighbors of Thompson field have opposed lighting the\nfield and Saturday morning use.\nMayor Johnson stated the limitations at Thompson field are understood, which is why she\nprefers [improving] Encinal field.\nBoard Member Spencer stated involving the public is important; discussed the safety of\nartificial fields.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated direction should be given today; that he concurs with the\nMayor that the Encinal site is more conducive to continual use; safety data should be\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 10, "text": "presented to the public.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated artificial turf is where everything is going; the City leases fields;\nthere are needs in the community; fields should not be leased to outside entities and should\nbe for Alameda residents.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not aware of groups not getting access to fields.\nBoard Member Jensen stated the recently formed athletic consortium, which includes all\nsports, should be part of the discussion and weigh in on the location.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City could receive $250,000 for the Mif Golf Course; that he\nwould like the Golf Course included in the process.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter is not on the agenda.\nThe School Board addressed the field issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to work with the School District\nto get the necessary implementation of the agenda item scheduled with the concerns that\nhave been addressed by Council regarding funding.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the motion includes direction regarding public input,\nto which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated having the location issue resolved before the matter returns to\nCouncil would be great.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nBoard Member Spencer inquired how the public input would work; further inquired whether\nboth agencies would hold community meetings.\nMayor Johnson responded the School District should be involved; stated staff would work\nwith the sports groups.\nThe Superintendent stated the agencies would not engage the community separately.\nPresident Mooney noted the School District has to send the project to Sacramento.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the fields would remain [in the present locations]\nregardless of the future school configuration.\nBoard Member Spencer stated it sounds like the City will engage the public.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-25", "page": 11, "text": "Special Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 25, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-25.pdf"}