{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 15, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:57 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(11-069) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution of Appointment [paragraph no.\n11-072 would be addressed after special orders of the day, which would be followed by\nthe Alameda Landing matter [paragraph no. 11-009 CIC on the joint meeting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-070) Proclamation Declaring January 30, 2011 to April 4, 2011 as A Season for\nNonviolence.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Cynthia Wasko, Social Service\nHuman Relations Board (SSHRB) President.\n(11-071) Proclamation Declaring February 15th as Kathy L. Moehring Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Kathy Moehring.\nSpeaker: Judi Friedman, West Alameda Business Association.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(11-072) Resolution No. 14550, \"Appointing Charles Patrick Wallis as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Wallis with a\ncertificate of appointment.\n* *\nMayor Gilmore called a recess to hold the joint meeting at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened\nthe meeting at 9:13 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 2, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA\n(11-073) Omer Karacaylak, Alameda, invited everyone to attend his daughter's art\nexhibit at the Alameda Library and provided an announcement about the exhibit.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to approve the Acting City\nManager and Acting City Attorney pay [paragraph no. 11-078], the recommendation to\naccept $397,216 from the US Department of Homeland Security [paragraph no. 11-079\nand the Resolution Increasing Parking Penalties [paragraph no. 11-087 were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the remainder 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(*11-074) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on January 25, 2011; and\nthe Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 1, 2011. Approved.\n(*11-075) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,929,344.76.\n(*11-076) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending\nDecember 31, 2010. Accepted.\n(*11-077) Recommendation to Adopt the Legislative Program for 2011. Accepted.\n(11-078) Recommendation to Approve Acting City Manager Pay at $213,524 Per Year\nand Acting City Attorney Pay at $196,484 Per Year Effective December 29, 2010 for the\nDuration of the Acting Assignments.\nThe Acting City Manager and Acting City Attorney left the room.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the previous City Manager was making $250,000; the\npay is for an interim period during the selection process; inquired whether $213,000 is\nthe highest pay.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the Interim Police Chief's salary is currently\n$212,524.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Acting Police Chief benefits are higher, to\nwhich the Human Resources Director responded the amount includes most all benefits,\nwith minor exceptions, such as equipment or uniform pay; stated the salary is pretty\nmuch the full compensation.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the process has not started for the City Attorney.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City still has a City Attorney.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the public should understand there are retirement\nbenefits, which are a very substantial cost.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the full benefit package is higher for the Police\nChief if the PERS retirement contribution is counted; the amount for public safety is\naround 30%, while for miscellaneous, the contribution is closer to 12%; the health and\nwelfare benefit is also not included.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the amounts are known; the amount is closer to 70% of\npay for public safety; that she does not know the amount for non-safety.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the amount is around 30%.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the amount [$213,524] is the base pay, not the entire\npackage.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the amount is base plus any benefits that are\nconsidered salary; the compensation package is exclusive of the PERS contribution that\nthe City pays and any health and welfare benefits for medical, dental and life insurance.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-079) Recommendation to Accept $397,216 from the US Department of Homeland\nSecurity's Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program for the Replacement of a Fire\nRescue Vehicle Using the Alameda County Fire Department's Competitive Bid Award,\nAppropriate $99,304 from the General Fund to Meet the Matching Funds Requirement\nof the Grant, and Authorize Purchase.\nThe Acting Deputy Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Acting Deputy Fire Chief stated\nthe converted delivery van is used to transport equipment for training; the van is unsafe.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the Fire Department responds to hazardous\nincidents, to which the Acting Deputy Fire Chief responded mutual aid.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 4, "text": "sources.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the $100,000 would be taken out of the General\nFund, not the Vehicle Replacement Fund.\nThe Controller responded the Vehicle Replacement Fund has limitations and require\ncertain qualifications bet met.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council direction should be to take the $100,000 from\nthe Vehicle Replacement Fund.\nThe Acting City Manager stated existing vehicles pay into the Vehicle Replacement\nFund; the current vehicle came from the Navy and depreciation was not being paid.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council could amend the rules for the Vehicle\nReplacement Fund.\nThe Controller stated the Vehicle Replacement Fund is an extension of the General\nFund; Council could authorize using a designated portion of the Vehicle Replacement\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 5, "text": "Fund.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired how much is in the Vehicle Replacement Fund, to which the\nController responded a little over $2 million.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the $2 million has been budgeted for other things.\nThe Acting City Manager responded the Fire Department needs a truck, engine, and\nambulance, which would total $1.7 million; stated the Police Department also has\nneeds; the City does not have enough money in the fund to pay for everything needed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated using the Vehicle Replacement Fund would force\nCouncil to set priorities.\nThe Acting City Manager stated unfortunately, fire trucks and engines are very\nexpensive.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Vehicle Replacement Fund payment could be\naccelerated.\nCouncilmember Tam stated forcing the money to come from the Vehicle Replacement\nFund would create an inherent inequity because the converted delivery van was\ninherited from the Navy and depreciation has not been paid.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated payments should be accelerated to cover older vehicles;\nquestioned whether the City has other older vehicles that do not qualify to use the\nVehicle Replacement Fund.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City holds onto a lot of vehicles that have outlasted\nusefulness; the Fire Department has an old white truck that came from the Navy; the\nCity has over 500 vehicles; that he is surprised the 1981 converted delivery van still\noperates.\nThe Public Works Director stated the City's fleet has been reduced by twenty or thirty\nvehicles; the inventory is approximately 400, including equipment; a Council resolution\nstates any Navy vehicle that does not pay into the Vehicle Replacement Fund cannot\nuse the Fund.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that Council approve the staff recommendation and have a\ndiscussion later regarding how many Navy vehicles the City has and whether to amend\nthe resolution; at a later date, Council can address the policy.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Johnson requested staff to bring the resolution back to Council.\nMayor Gilmore requested that the resolution come back in enough time to discuss and\nset policy prior to next year's budget.\n(*11-080) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Sand Channel Greens for the\nAlameda Point Multi-Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04-09-11. Accepted.\n(*11-081) Recommendation to Accept Works of Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for\nCulvert Reconstruction at Various Locations, No. P. W. 02-10-04. Accepted.\n(*11-082) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Salt River Construction, Inc. for the\nHarbor Bay Dredging Project, No. P.W. 06-09-16. Accepted.\n(*11-083) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Top Grade Construction for the\nWebster Stret/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26.\nAccepted.\n(*11-084) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $433,431, including\nContingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering Documents for\nthe Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 1: Reliability\nImprovements, No. P.W. 12-10-33. Accepted.\n(*11-085) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $93,373, including\nContingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler for the Preparation of Engineering Documents for\nthe Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 2: Immediate\nImprovements, No. P.W. 12-10-34. Accepted.\n(*11-086) Recommendation to Authorize the Replacement of Two Street Sweepers\nthrough the Houston-Galveston Area Council Procurement Program, Known as\nHGACBuy, Appropriate $60,000 in Urban Runoff Funds, and Authorize the Acting City\nManager to Execute All Required Agreements. Accepted.\n(11-087) Resolution No. 14551, \"Increasing Civil Penalties for Parking Violations of the\nMunicipal Code and California Vehicle Code.\" Amended and adopted.\nThe Acting City Manager and Controller gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how the State is able to take part of the money for a\nmunicipal code violation, to which the Controller responded all parking citations are\nprocessed through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).\nThe Acting City Manager stated the money is used to fund trial courts.\nVice Mayor Bonta requested an explanation of the 35% collection fee.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 7, "text": "The Controller stated a person would be assessed an additional 35% if a citation is not\npaid within a certain period of time; the additional assessment would cover attorney\ncosts.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the City was handling citation collection in house before\ncontracting with the City of Inglewood.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether a 35% collection assessment is typical, to which the\nController responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 9:54 p.m. and returned at 9:55 p.m.\nSpeakers: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; and Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated all violations should not have a fixed fee; that she\nwould not mind considering different fees for different violations; inquired what \"Major\nRepairs/Display for Sale\" means.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded blight issues; stated people cannot work on vehicles\non City streets.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the fine for said violation should be more expensive.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated different violations should have different fees; currently, the\nCity has varied fees; inquired why flat fees are being proposed.\nThe Controller responded for simplicity sake; stated most of the current fees range from\n$30 to $35; the difference is minimal; the collection part of the staff recommendation is\nthe most important part because the collection agency is looking to implement the\nproposed increases March 1, 2011.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a $50 assessment would be reasonable given\nthe egregiousness of a violation.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded that he is very reluctant to get involved with the fee\nstructure because enforcement should not be tied to fees; stated that he supports\nupdating the fee schedule; he does not want it to appear that the Police Department is\ndoing enforcement to generate revenue.\nCouncilmember Tam stated asking the Finance Department should not have to answer\nwhether an expired meter is worse than parking by a fire hydrant.\nThe Acting Police Chief stated that he likes the simplicity of the $50 fee; taking a closer\nlook at a fee variance is hard to argue against.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated a $50 fee would be fairly standard and would not vary\ntoo much from other cities.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would prefer to have the fees refined; the\nmetered parking fee should be reduced; the downtown area should be welcoming and\nfriendly; the overnight commercial vehicle fee should be more egregious; that she has\nno problem with moving forward with the collections portion of the staff\nrecommendation.\nThe Acting City Manager summarized that the Council direction is to decrease the fees\nfor parking time limit, overtime parking in the City lot, overtime meter zone, expired\nmeter and increase more egregious violations such as overnight commercial vehicle\nparking and 15' from a fire hydrant; stated staff would come back with a new schedule.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would like to lower the street sweeping fee;\nmany people are given a ticket after street sweeping has been done.\nThe Acting Police Chief stated the Police Department is looking at a system to remedy\nthe problem.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff is trying to keep in line with other cities; the fees\ncould be tiered into three categories.\nMayor Gilmore stated the parking prohibited at all times and RV trailer parking violation\nfees should be raised; the City has an ordinance regarding RV trailer parking.\nThe Acting Police Chief stated the problem has dropped significantly since passage of\nthe ordinance.\nMayor Gilmore stated fees should be raised if people are not paying attention to the\nordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated fees should be raised for front or side yard parking,\nheavy vehicle three hour parking, and 72-hour limit violations.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what is the definition of a heavy vehicle.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated knowing how other cities define a heavy vehicle is\nimportant.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Acting Police Chief responded a heavy\nvehicle has six wheels or more.\nMayor Gilmore stated she is particularly concerned with cabs pulling long trailers, being\ndisconnected, and parked on Ralph Appezzato Parkway.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 9, "text": "The Acting Police Chief stated that he would get back to Council on the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is fine with the average for handicap and disabled\nparking.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a lower fine should be given for overtime parking in the\nparking structure.\nThe Acting City Manager stated fees apply to all City lots, not just the parking structure.\nMayor Gilmore requested a motion on the collections and court part of the staff\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the section of the resolution pertaining to\ncollection and court fees, with direction to bring back the modified fees as discussed.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nThe Controller suggested the court fees be addressed as part the overall fees.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether there is agreement to modify the motion, to which\nCouncilmembers deHaan and Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*11-088) Resolution No. 14552, \"Supporting the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority's Response to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Request for\nQualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point.\" Adopted.\n(*11-089) Ordinance No. 3026, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 3-7 at Article I, (Finance) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation), Regulating\nHolders of State Video Franchises.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-090) Public Hearing on Community Development Block Grant Action Plan\nAmendment Two and Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.\nThe Housing Division Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpeakers: Lisa Gross, Bay Area Community Services; Cyndy Wasko, SSHRB; Liz\nVarela, Building Futures with Women and Children; Cherri Allison, Family Violence Law\nCenter; Franklin Hysten, Alternatives in Action; Ginger McBride, Alternatives in Action\n(submitted handout).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta thanked the SSHRB, the social service organizations, and staff for all\nthe hard work.\nCouncilmember Tam echoed appreciation to the SSHRB; stated the SSHRB is very\nconsistent in making the best use of limited resources.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion; urged everyone to do everything\npossible to advocate against cutting CDBG funding allocations.\nMayor Gilmore thanked the SSHRB and providers; stated the SSHRB is asked to do\nmore with less every year.\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked the SSHRB and groups; stated it is commendable to\nsee what has been done.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-091) Recommendation to Approve the Next Steps in the City Manager Selection\nProcess.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Department Head participation is a good idea;\nhowever, input should be provided informally to the Council subcommittee; inquired\nwhat would be the plan to get Department Head input.\nMayor Gilmore responded a panel process; stated Department Heads would interview\ncandidates.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the input should be confidential.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Johnson.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how a final decision would be made.\nMayor Gilmore responded a meeting would be scheduled to discuss recommendations\nand selection; inquired whether \"Public Employment\" would be appropriate for Closed\nSession discussion.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council might want to narrow down the candidates and\nhave another round of interviews.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Acting City Attorney stated past practice\ninvolved a recruiter and Closed Sessions under the title of \"Public Employment\"; offering\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 11, "text": "a contract would be in open session.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated after interviewing the six candidates on Saturday, the list could\nbe narrowed down to a smaller subset; the subset could be interviewed by\nstakeholders, a panel of Department Heads, and those attending the reception; then,\nCouncil could interview the finalists again.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the Council subcommittee's thoughtful\nprocess; she is comfortable in having a panel of stakeholders with each Councilmember\nappointing a community member and Councilmember Johnson's suggestion regarding\nDepartment Head input; suggested replacing the reception process with something\nmore related to the City; inquired whether the City has 13 employee associations, to\nwhich the Human Resources Director responded the City has 8 bargaining units.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested having bargaining unit leaders interview the finalists\nand share input in a confidential manner.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Bonta except for the\nreception; the process should not be too laborious.\nMayor Gilmore stated the social portion may be premature and could be done after a\nfinal candidate is selected; the social portion could be more of an introduction to the\ncommunity; including panels of stakeholders, Department Heads, and bargaining unit\nleaders and having the top candidates interviewed by the Council again after receiving\ninput seems to have consensus.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the matter [follow up Council interviews] could be left to\nthe discretion of the Council.\nThe Human Resource Director stated that Council might want to interview again\nbecause of the length of time since meeting the candidates.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated in the past, people within the community where the\ncandidate lived were interviewed.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated said interviews could be part of the process.\nMayor Gilmore stated the interviews were conducted when Council got down to the last\ncandidate.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated having Council take a formal action to create a panel of\nstakeholders would become subject to the Brown Act; however, the interviews could be\nheld in Closed Session.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Closed Session would include the Council\nappointees but the City Council would not be there.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what are the aspects of applicant confidentiality by the time\nthe candidates are the final two; further inquired how the reception concept has been\nused in other executive searches.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the process would be more open once two\nfinalists come back for a more intense process; stated the expectation would be that\nthere would not be any confidentiality; that she has seen one informal reception; the\npurpose was for Council to look at how a candidate interacts in a social environment;\nshe has seen a reception start out as a public forum.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the on-line input tool is still available.\nThe Human Resources Director responded public input has been requested regarding\nthe City Manager criteria; stated said information submitted would only be provided to\nthe Council.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether hard copies could be provided to Council for\nSaturday, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated the more she hears, the more she agrees that a reception should\nnot be included in the process; the process should include stakeholder, Department\nHead, and bargaining unit panels; then, the Council could interview the top candidates\nagain.\nCouncilmember Johnson responded all Departments Heads should be included in the\npanel.\nThe Human Resources Director stated someone from Human Resources would sit on\nthe panels.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the panels would involve all six candidates,\nto which Mayor Gilmore responded only the top two or three candidates.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated last time, the reception involved community stakeholders\nproviding comments to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated each Councilmember could have one community at\nlarge selection and one organization selection.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated each Councilmember could pick an organization and\nvolunteer someone.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she likes the organization aspect but there might be an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 13, "text": "overlap if each Councilmember picks an organization.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Mayor could ask for representatives from the\norganizations.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she likes the idea of a list of various organizations; suggested\nlimiting the group to 14 to 15 which would expand Step 1; the Council sub-committee\ncould provide a list to the Human Resource Director; the Human Resource Director\ncould e-mail the list to the rest of Council for input.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he agrees with the three panels; Step 3 [the reception] is a\nvaluable piece of the process; the process should be as open and transparent as\npossible; the more input the better; having the public meet the finalists and provide input\nis important.\nMayor Gilmore stated having candidates go through the process [reception] could be\nawkward because two of the three candidates would be rejected.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Step 3 [the reception] could be narrowed\ndown to one candidate, to which Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember Tam, and\nCouncilmember deHaan responded they are okay with said idea.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Step 3 could happen before the contract.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated a reception would be good at a later date but would not allow\ncommunity input.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council has reached consensus on the three panels\n[stakeholders, Department Heads, and bargaining unit leaders] and has decided not to\ndecide address the social event; the social event could be discussed later.\nThe Acting City Attorney requested clarification on how Councilmembers would select\none person per Councilmember.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she assumes that each Councilmember would provide a\nname to the Human Resources Director; the Human Resource Director would advise\nCouncil in the event Councilmembers nominate the same person.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated deciding the number on the stakeholder panel would be helpful\nin order to know how many organizations to have.\nThe Human Resources Director stated getting all calendars together might be difficult.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a date should be set with five representatives; notice\ncould be given to organizations to send a representative; if a representative cannot\ncome, another organization could be selected.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired what type of groups would be considered.\nMayor Gilmore responded the Alameda Unified School District, College of Alameda,\nand a business community representative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether church and advocacy groups would be\nconsidered.\nMayor Gilmore responded church groups could come under the heading of service\norganization; stated service organizations could be a broad category which would\ninclude a church group and the Red Cross; the organization would have to be active in\nAlameda.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 15, 2011 - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Boaro Members Bonta, deHaan,\nJohnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-068 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nTwo\n(11-016 ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point;\nNegotiating parties: ARRA and Navy; under negotiation: Price and terms\n***\nMayor/Chair Gilmore called a recess to hold the regular meeting at 7:50 p.m. and\nreconvened the closed session at 12:30 a.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, legal strategy was discussed and the\nCity Council provided direction; and regarding Real Property, price and terms were\ndiscussed; direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 1:38\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 15, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2011--7:01 - P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 8:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\nBonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(11-009 CIC) Recommendation to Approve Execution of Estoppel Certificates and\nConsent to Assignments of the Following Documents (collectively, \"Alameda Landing\nAgreements\") to Catellus Alameda Development, LLC (\"Catellus\") Conditioned upon\nReceipt of Entity Relationship Information: 1. The Disposition and Development\nAgreement Dated December 5, 2006, By and Between the Community Improvement\nCommission of the City of Alameda (\"CIC\") and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation\n(\"PAC\"), as Amended by (a) the First Amendment to Disposition and Development\nAgreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) Dated as of December 4, 2007, and\n(b) the Second Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement Dated as of\nJune 4, 2008 (Collectively, the \"Alameda Landing DDA\"); 2. The Development\nAgreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) Dated as of January 16,\n2007, By and Between the City of Alameda (\"City\") and PAC, as Amended by the First\nAmendment to Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial\nProject) Dated as of December 4, 2007 (Collectively, the \"Commercial DA\"); 3. The\nDevelopment Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed use Residential Project) Dated as of\nJanuary 2, 2007, By and Between the City and PAC (the \"Residential DA\"); 4. The Right\nof Entry for Preliminary Work (Alameda Landing - Testing/Investigation) Permit, Dated\nAugust 31, 2009, By and Between PAC, as Permittee, and the CIC, as Amended by\nThat Certain Right of Entry for Preliminary Work (Alameda Landing\n-\nTesting/Investigation), Dated August 30, 2010 (the \"Permit\"); 5. Agreement of Property\nExchange and Joint Escrow Instructions, Dated as of May 13, 2008, By and Among\nPAC, the Peralta Community College District (the \"District\"), and the CIC, as Amended\nby (a) the First Amendment to Agreement of Property Exchange and Joint Escrow\nInstructions Dated as of June 3, 2008, and (b) the Second Amendment to Agreement of\nProperty Exchange and Joint Escrow Instructions Dated as of June 24, 2008\n(Collectively, the \"Property Exchange Agreement\").\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 17, "text": "Tom Marshall and Sean Whiskeman, Catellus Development Corporation, gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCommissioner Tam stated the schedule is aggressive and inquired whether the new\nowners have committed funding.\nMr. Marshall responded a financial analysis has been done as part of the asset\nacquisition; stated TPG has an interest in developing Alameda Landing; standard things\nhave to happen before going forward; the Governor's pursuit of redevelopment funds\nneeds to be understood; lining up Target and additional retailers and bringing\nconversations with homebuilders to fruition are important; close to $20 million has\nalready been spent, including Stargell improvements; TPG would be the majority owner,\nnot an investor, and would be prudent underwriters.\nCommissioner Johnson inquired how the project would be impacted if the Governor's\nproposal goes forward, to which Mr. Marshall responded that he does not know whether\ngrandfathering in the project would be possible.\nCommissioner Johnson stated existing debt could be grandfathered, but no future debt\nwould be issued.\nMr. Marshall stated $20 million has been spent based upon the assumption that\nredevelopment funds would be available; there is a contract [DDA] to that effect,\nhowever, the City has been careful not obligate itself to something it does not have;\nother cities and developers are in the same position and will fight to avoid it [elimination\nof redevelopment funding]; the loss would not be insurmountable.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the City considers that it has\nan obligation that constitutes debt under redevelopment law.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated an action was taken several weeks ago to protect\neverything locked in by contract.\nCommissioner Johnson inquired when are the next milestones under the current DDA.\nMr. Marshall responded an infrastructure commitment would be needed by the end of\n2012; stated the DDA includes a first phase or an alternative first phase, which is\na\nminimum of 14 acres; the intent is to comply with the milestone.\nChair Gilmore inquired whether Target would be opening in 2013, to which Mr. Marshall\nresponded the current schedule is working towards a 2013 opening.\nChair Gilmore inquired whether infrastructure for the 14 acres would have to be done\nwell before [Target opens], to which Mr. Marshall responded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 18, "text": "In response to Commissioner Johnson's inquiry regarding the timeline in the agreement,\nMr. Marshall stated Catellus is proposing to abide by the timelines in the DDA; operating\nunder a tighter timeframe would be difficult; the schedule has been discussed with\nTarget; adequate contingency is needed for issues that might arise.\nCommissioner Johnson stated the community has been hearing about Target for some\ntime; the term sheet was negotiated a couple of years ago; inquired whether there is\nanything firmer now.\nMr. Marshall responded Catellus has four deals with Target; stated Target has set\npriorities and has slotted Alameda Landing for 2013; ground is being broken for a\nTarget in Fremont, which has a more pressing need; Target calls the shots; Catellus is\nnot in a position to push the schedule because of the economic environment; new\nownership and an improved economic environment allow Catellus to better project the\nschedule; however, the Target project is not iron clad and cannot be guaranteed.\nIn response to Commissioner Johnson's inquiry regarding when the project would start,\nMr. Marshall stated demolition would have to start soon.\nCommissioner Johnson stated Catellus would have to move quickly to meet the\nmilestone with or without Target.\nMr. Marshall stated quite a few decisions have to be made to commit to the process;\nTarget is an important piece; Catellus has its work cut out to deliver on schedule.\nCommissioner Johnson stated that she is disappointed to hear that the project was\nrelegated to a non-core asset status [under ProLogis; inquired how and when the status\noccurred and how the City can ensure it does not happen again.\nMr. Marshall responded ProLogis never indicated the project would not go forward;\nstated the point is that Alameda Landing would be the centerpiece going forward [under\nTPG]; the project is reintroducing the Catellus brand.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the proximity of the Emeryville Target would\nimpact Alameda.\nMr. Whiskeman responded Target took over the old Home Depot Expo in Emeryville;\nstated the store would open March 6th and is in an area that is massively underserved.\nCommissioner deHaan stated milestones have been extended; the City put up $2\nmillion to remove the hospital; inquired how the City would be reimbursed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has discussed the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 19, "text": "matter with Catellus; stated Catellus would be asking for DDA amendments; both\nCatellus and the City want recognition for past expenditures.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the City's sewer funds were loaned to the Stargell\nProject, which some thought should have been covered by Catellus.\nCommissioner Johnson inquired when conveyance would occur, to which Mr. Marshall\nresponded Catellus is focused on committing to infrastructure, which would precede\nconveyance.\nCommissioner Johnson stated not moving forward aggressively would be easy for\nCatellus; the City does not want Catellus holding on to the land longer than necessary.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated Catellus would be taking\ndown the land and selling 10 acres to Target.\nCommissioner Johnson stated having something more concrete on Target's plan to\nmove forward in Alameda would be nice; Target is opening in other areas within close\nproximity; questioned when market saturation would be reached; stated decisions have\nbeen made based on Target coming to Alameda; an economic disincentive should be\nestablished, such as conveying the land by a set date, to prevent Catellus from simply\nholding on to the land; that she is reluctant to consider the Estoppel Agreement if\nCatellus is asking for DDA amendments; that she would prefer to see everything come\nat the same time.\nChair Gilmore inquired what happens if Catellus does not meet the first mandatory\nmilestone.\nMr. Marshall responded the City would put Catellus on notice; stated one remedy would\nbe for the City to start marketing the property; Catellus would have a first position lien to\nrecover the money it advanced on the Stargell right-of-way.\nChair Gilmore inquired whether Catellus asking for consent to the transfer would allow\nthe City to impose any more stringent requirements to accelerate the timeline.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded the Commission has absolute discretion over\napproval; stated the Commission deciding to deny the transfer would trigger a sequence\nof events, including a meet and confer process; Catellus has remedies available under\nthe Contract; staff has recommended keeping DDA amendments separate from the\ntransfer; the Commission could discuss including conditional approval items.\nChair Gilmore questioned the point of withholding consent when Catellus has to meet\nthe 2012 deadline.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 20, "text": "Mr. Marshall noted that the City would be talking to ProLogis, not Catellus, if the transfer\nis not approved; stated everyone involved with the project is leaving as part of the TPG\ntransaction; that he understands the frustration with the lack of progress; however,\nprogress has been made with Stargell; the schedule is tight; the DDA amendments\nbeing contemplated are more technical in nature to accommodate the Target building;\nthe amount of square footage allowed south of Mitchell Avenue is limited; a lot [of the\namendments] are planning in nature; the issues have been discussed with Community\nDevelopment staff; staff has liked what Catellus has presented.\nChair Gilmore stated that she is not asking the questions because she does not want to\ngive consent; rather, she is letting Catellus know if consent is given and the 2012\ndeadline is not met, there probably would not be any second chances; Catellus is\nhearing the community's and Commission's frustration; the economy could not have\nbeen predicted, but is turning around; hopefully, the project is a centerpiece; the City\nexpects the project to be aggressively pursued; there will be a serious discussion if the\n2012 deadline is missed.\nMr. Marshall stated Catellus would do a better job of keeping the City informed.\nChair Gilmore stated that she appreciates the sentiment; updates would be helpful\ngoing forward.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she sees the transfer as a fresh start; the lag has been\ndue to the economy; Mr. Marshall has indicated the DDA amendments would be\ntechnical changes; the Deputy City Manager - Development Services has implied there\nwould be an adjustment and crediting of the fire that cost $2.2 million and the Stargell\nproject which came in at $9.2 million.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff could discuss the matter\nas part of the DDA amendments; the current DDA does not include anything regarding\nthe fire.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she recalls the DDA has a demolition requirement.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the DDA does not address\nanything regarding the City being reimbursed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the building had to be removed after the fire; the City did\nnot have a choice; Catellus did not step up to the plate.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated Catellus would have had to\npay for demolition as part of its costs.\nCommissioner Tam stated the City's costs exceeded the demolition cost.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 21, "text": "The Acting City Attorney stated there was urgency to do the clean up; in the [DDA] the\ndeveloper has the choice of whether or not to elect to do the next piece, which is why\nthe City took care of demolition without insisting that the developer pay, with the idea\nthat the matter would be revisited later on if the developer proceeds.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff could discuss\nreimbursement as part of the DDA discussions.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether Catellus is receptive.\nMr. Marshall responded Catellus understands how everything works; stated the topic is\nfamiliar; Catellus would put a plan together that would attempt to meet the schedule;\nwhatever can be done to not overly burden the initial phase would be helpful in\nimplementing the schedule; Catellus recognizes that it would have had to pay to\ndemolish the hospital after committing to the phase that includes that part of the\nproperty; unfortunately, the costs the City incurred were exponentially higher than what\nCatellus would have had to pay; Catellus understands the City will want to discuss the\nmatter.\nIn response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry about the size of the Emeryville Target,\nMr. Whiskeman responded approximately 138,000 square feet.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired whether Target is aware of the schedule and whether\nbeing slated to open [in Alameda] in 2013 is consistent with Target's plans, to which Mr.\nWhiskeman responded Target has a very specific process to open a store and the\nschedule fits.\nCommissioner Bonta stated there has been frustration with project delays; clearly, there\nhave been challenges; hopefully, Catellus gets the sense that the community really\nwants the project; that he is excited about the new energy, money and the project\nbecoming a higher priority [under TPG]; however, nothing will speak louder than action.\nCommissioner Johnson inquired whether Catellus would ask for any changes to the\nmilestones or schedule in the DDA amendments, to which Mr. Marshall responded\nCatellus has not contemplated doing so at this point.\nCommissioner Johnson urged Catellus not to do so.\nIn response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about when the DDA amendments\nwould come back, Mr. Marshall stated planning efforts have been shared with staff and\nthe process would continue at another meeting scheduled for March 20th; Catellus is\ndoing technical studies and background underwriting needed to press forward; Catellus\nshould be in a position to come back with the list of items [DDA amendments] in a\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n6\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 22, "text": "matter of months.\nCommissioner deHaan stated Catellus has been involved in the Emeryville and Fremont\nTarget stores; inquired where the other store mentioned would be located, to which Mr.\nMarshall responded New Jersey.\nIn response to Commissioner deHaan's comments regarding handling the DDA\nseparately, Mr. Marshall stated Catellus has a very limited timeline to meet the initial\nphase obligation; coming with a list of egregious DDA amendments would be foolish; a\nprotracted DDA negotiation is not in Catellus's schedule.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation, with stipulations\nthat the DDA amendments would be presented to the Commission in the next few\nmonths and concerns about the City's outstanding money [spent on the hospital fire and\nStargell improvements] would be part of the [DDA amendment] discussions.\nCommissioner Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n* *\nMayor Chair Gilmore called a recess to hold the regular meeting at 9:12 p.m. and\nreconvened the meeting at 11:24 p.m.\n***\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Gilmore announced that the Contract [paragraph no. 11-018 ARRA] was\nwithdrawn from the agenda.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the\nremainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*11-092 CC/11-017 ARRA/11-010 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,\nARRA, and CIC Meeting Held on January 25, 2011; and the Special Joint City Council,\nARRA, CIC, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting Held on February\n1,2011. Approved.\n(11-018 ARRA) Recommendation to Award Contract for the Alameda Point Resource\nTeam to Perkins + Will in the Amount of $200,000 for Land Use Planning Consulting\nServices. Not heard.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n7\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 23, "text": "AGENDA ITEM\n(11-093 CC/11-019 ARRA/11-011 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly\nFinancial Report Through December 31, 2010 and Approve the Mid-Year Budget\nAdjustments to the City's FY10-11 Budget.\nThe Controller gave brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether the $1.1 million for the Alameda Point Going\nForward Project is related to what was requested tonight under another item [Perkins +\nWill contract, paragraph no. 11-018 ARRA]\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Contract is included\nin the $1.1 million; stated staff is suggesting using $300,000 in bond money so that the\nnet would be $700,000, which includes $400,000 for water and $330,000 for the\nAlameda Point Going Forward Project.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether approving the funding would back ARRA into\napproving the contract.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the item would not go\nforward without the contract being approved by ARRA.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner\ndeHaan asked for an explanation regarding the General Fund balance.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated a memo would go out tomorrow.\nThe Controller stated the available reserves in the General Fund ranged from 14% to\n21% for Fiscal Year 2001-2002; the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 budget is at 21% and is\nsimilar to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and Fiscal Year 2003-2004; the main reason the\npercentage has gone up is that the Fleet Industrial Service Center (FISC) Special\nRevenue Fund has repaid the City $1 million from a loan; the City has had expenditure\nsavings on average of about 5% the last couple of years; unexpected vacancies result\nin savings; capital maintenance expenditures were approximately $600,000 for Fiscal\nYear 2004-2005; in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, $1.5 million was spent; $2 million has been\nbudged for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated departments have done a lot of belt\ntightening; one year, expenditures came in $5 million under budget.\nThe Controller stated Fiscal Year 2009-2010 had a positive variance and generated\nabout $3 million in savings; the percentage variance was only 2% for revenues in Fiscal\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n8\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 24, "text": "Year 2009-2010 and was in the norm for projections.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson's inquiry\nregarding the Community Development positions, the Deputy City Manager\n-\nDevelopment Services stated the Community Development Department is doing much\nbetter than in the last three years; currently, Community Development funds are\n$40,000 in the black; staff expects to break even by the end of the year even with\nbudget adjustments; permits have increased by 37% with a 70% increase in\nconstruction value; two code enforcement inspectors have been converted to permit\npositions; code enforcement generates over $260,000 in revenue and expenditures are\nat $179,000; a temporary, part-time counter planner has been doing a tremendous job;\nstaff would like to change the position to a full-time, permanent position.\nThe Building Official stated the part-time counter planner has provided consistency and\nimproved customer service.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated some of the revenue\nfrom the sale of the Alameda Towne Centre sale should be set aside for capital\nimprovements; the money is one-time revenue.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated most of what is in the General Fund\nare one-time expenses.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson inquired whether the $2.1 in\nproperty transfer tax [from the sale of the Alameda Towne Center] would be spent\nthrough June.\nThe Controller responded in the affirmative; stated some payments are required versus\ndiscretionary; the City cannot get out of the $860,000 EMS payment and $575,000 in\nlabor settlements; the cable studio upgrade expenditure is optional.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated cable studio upgrading\nneeds to be done; maintaining fiscal discipline in Internal Service Funds is important.\nThe Controller stated all funds are contributing to Internal Service Funds; staff wants to\nbring up the fund balance in the unemployment insurance fund.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated departments need to\nbuild the Unemployment Insurance Fund.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated some expenses need to be paid one\nway or another; requesting departments to eat a cost would result in being over budget.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the $2.1 million is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 25, "text": "artificial and should be used for mandatory one-time expenses.\n* *\n(11-094 CC/11-020 ARRA/11-012 CIC) Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner\ndeHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated departments would come in over budget at the end of the\nyear and look to the General Fund if the $2.1 million is not used for projected overages.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated departments would need\nto explain why they are over budget; some of the $2.1 million is being used for\nmandatory expenses; the discretionary portion of the $2.1 million is probably $500,000.\nThe Controller stated the discretionary portion is approximately $400,000.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Other Post Employment\nBenefits went up 11%; inquired whether the Police and Fire Departments are fine with\nthe projected overtime budget.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded that he is comfortable with the bottom line; stated\novertime has been projected; the Police Department has had more overtime than\nnormal due to injuries; the Superior Court closure has had an impact; a significant\nincident, such as a homicide, is out the Department's control.\nThe Acting Deputy Fire Chief responded the Fire Department anticipates overtime\nsavings because of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)\nhiring.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the overtime\nbudget for Police and Fire, to which the Controller responded overtime for Fire is\n$725,000 and Police is $400,000.\nThe Controller stated overtime [overage] would be covered with savings in other\ncategories.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated barring unforeseen major incidents,\nthe projected overtime is a worse case scenario.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she appreciates the heads up; the\nCouncil/Board/Commission would not have been happy hearing about projected\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n10\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 26, "text": "overtime for the first time in June.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report notes the CIC\nis losing $4.4 million in redevelopment funds because of Supplemental Educational\nRevenue Augmentation (SERAF) and has a potential loss of $900,000 to $1 million this\nyear; inquired whether Proposition 22 was suppose to help shelter the funds.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director responded the SERAF payments are a\nhold over from the budget a couple of years ago; stated the City is stuck with the\nsecond year SERAF payment regardless of Proposition 22.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City will never get the\nmoney back; inquired why projections at June 30, 2011 are approximately $55 million\nfor revenues and $69 million for expenditures.\nThe Controller responded the Special Revenue Funds are project oriented; stated funds\nget built up and are spent when there is enough money; reserves are being used [for\nprojects] this year; some years, Special Revenue Fund reserves go down.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether lumping the\nAlameda Point Going Forward Project with ARRA repairs would sacrifice one for the\nother; stated the ARRA fund balance is $7.5 million as of June 2010.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded $700,000 would be\ndrawn down on the ARRA fund balance leaving a $6.2 million fund balance at the end of\nthis fiscal year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Police and Fire\nDepartments have provided worst case scenarios; an unanticipated $2 million FISC fire\nrequired drawing down on ARRA reserves; ARRA was not previously charged for using\nwater consumption due to an opened bypass valve diverting water from East Bay\nMunicipal Utility District (EBMUD); there is a $407,000 charge; there are unpaid\nreimbursement costs associated with the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for maintenance\nof the Alameda Point water system between August 2005 and June 2009.\nThe Public Works Director stated a year ago, EBMUD advised the City that ARRA had\nnot been paying for water; a bypass valve had been opened which allowed water to go\nto Alameda Point without being metered; the City is on a payment plan for 18 months;\n2008 and 2009 water expenditures were significantly less; the JPA realized that some\nbills were not paid while negotiating JPA renewal; EBMUD could not verify whether the\ncharges were billed; the City is on an 18-month payment plan for said charges also.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether combined charges\ntotal $407,000.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n11\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 27, "text": "The Public Works Director responded $282,000 is for water, and $125,000 for is for\nJPA; stated the 18-month payment plan includes payments next year.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta stated burning through the $2.1 million\ntransfer tax in a short period of time is difficult; alternatives should be explored for the\ndiscretionary items; putting some of the money aside would be nice.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated every good budget has\ncontingencies; inquired why some items could not be taken care of with contingencies.\nThe Controller responded the City Manager contingency amount for Fiscal Year 2010-\n2011 is approximately $200,000; stated half has been used this year.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated the contingency would be used for\nthe City Manager recruitment and employee training; some contingencies exist because\ndepartments have been good at saving money; a lot of departments will come in under\nbudget.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how things would have\nbeen paid without the money from the Alameda Towne Centre sale, to which the\nController responded the General Fund reserve would have had to be drawn down.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the established threshold\nwould be broken; inquired whether there would be enough revenue generation next\nyear.\nThe Acting City Manager/Executive Director responded revenues will not have a\nspectacular growth; stated the real problem will be on the expenditure side; there will be\na $1.3 million hit for PERS, payments for miscellaneous employees and health care\ncosts will go up.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of accepting the Quarterly Financial Report.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nThe Controller inquired whether the motion includes approval of the budget\nadjustments.\nCouncilmembers Tam and Johnson agreed to amend the motion to include budget\nadjustments.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n12\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-02-15", "page": 28, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:25\na.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 Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n13\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2001", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf"}