{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER - 17, 2013--600 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:06 p.m. and Councilmember\nTam left the meeting at 7:00 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-397) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name:\nUSA/Baykeeper V. City of Alameda, et al.; United States District Court, Northern District\nof California; Case No. CV 09 05684 RS\n(13-398) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Position Evaluated: City Clerk - Lara Weisiger\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, direction was given to staff\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:47 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Performance Evaluation, direction was given to the\nsubcommittee.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCITY OF ALAMEDA FINANCING AUTHORITY (CAFA), AND\nALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION (APIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 17, 2013- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 10:29 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Authority Members Chen, Daysog,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(13-417 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14862, \"Approving the Form\nand Authorizing the Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents in Connection\nwith the Offering And Sale of Certificates of Participation Relating Thereto to Refund the\nCity's Outstanding 2002 Certificates of Participation (City Hall Refinancing Project) and\nto Finance the Costs of Construction of a New City Emergency Operations Center and\nAssociated Expenses and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect\nThereto.\" Adopted;\n(13-03 CAFA) Resolution No. 13-03, \"Approving the Form and Authorizing the\nExecution of Certain Lease Financing Documents in Connection with the Offering and\nSale of Certificates of Participation Relating Thereto to Refund the City of Alameda's\nOutstanding 2002 Certificates of Participation (City Hall Refinancing Project) and to\nFinance the Costs of Construction of a New City Emergency Operations Center and\nAssociated Expenses, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect\nThereto.\" Adopted; and\n(13-03 APIC) Resolution No. 13-12, \"Resolution Approving The Form and Authorizing\nthe Execution Of a Termination Agreement in Connection with the Refunding by the City\nof Alameda of its 2002 Certificates of Participation (City Hall Refinancing Project) and\nAuthorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto.\" Adopted.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether the agenda language was\nlegally required and whether the language could have been written to be more easily\nunderstood as required by the Sunshine Ordinance.\nThe Finance Director responded the language on the agenda was legally required;\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, City of Alameda Financing\n1\nAuthority and Alameda Public Improvement Corporation\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 3, "text": "stated Certificates of Participation (COPs) are more complex than general obligation\nbonds because the action is actually leasing; going forward, staff will include a clear\nsummary sentence explaining the action.\nThe City Attorney stated the formatting will be improved; a blogger mentioned the\nEmergency Operations Center (EOC), which is in the title; the language is not hard to\nread and understand even though the title is long; listing the actual action is legally\nrequired and particularly important in bond deals; bond counsel has to issue legal\nopinions as to whether the action was duly authorized and issued; going forward, a\ncaption will be added at the top of the title; however, the caption has to be neutral and\nfair, without editorial comments; the title is in compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance,\nbut the title is long and staff will work to ensure language is as easy to understand as\npossible.\nThe Finance Director noted timing is important; stated the City wants to proceed to take\nadvantage of lower interest rates.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member Ezzy Ashrcraft stated the title is lengthy; however, the\nlegislation language is very clear; everything is posted on the website.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she understands the legal requirements; the public\nscans agendas to issue spot items which are of interest.\nThe City Clerk stated the new agenda system allows the public to receive notifications\nwhen a matter of interest is on a meeting; the website includes instructions on how to\nset up notifications.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam stated the Sunshine Ordinance directs being\nclear to the average 8th grader.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Chen inquired what is the estimate to build the EOC.\nThe City Manager responded $3 million will pay for the EOC, but does not pay for Fire\nStation 3.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the EOC estimate is $2.8 million, which does not\ninclude any contingency.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Chen inquired whether adopting the resolution\ntonight means an EOC will be built.\nThe City Manager responded staff would like to start construction in spring 2014.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated a design contract would be presented at an\nupcoming Council meeting.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, City of Alameda Financing\n2\nAuthority and Alameda Public Improvement Corporation\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor/Authority Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Authority Members Chen, Daysog, Ezzy\nAshcraft and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 4. Abstention: Councilmember/Authority Member\nTam - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:43\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, City of Alameda Financing\n3\nAuthority and Alameda Public Improvement Corporation\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 17, 2013--6:59 P.M.\nChair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:17 p.m. Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCommissioners Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Commissioners Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Chair Gilmore - 4. Abstention:\nCommission Tam - 1. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(13-017) Recommendation to Approve a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with\nKeyser Marston Associates, Inc. for Financial Services through June 30, 2014, and\nAdding $60,000, for a Total Budget Amount of $149,000. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nSuccessor Agency to the Community\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 6, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 17, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:19 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-399) Sarah Cadwallader, BART, urged the City's BART representative be contacted\nto prevent a strike.\n(13-400) Cozette Ratliff, Alameda Free Library, made an announcement regarding the\nBanned Books Week Reading Marathon event.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she attended the event last year and encouraged everyone\nto attend.\n(13-401) Deborah Sullivan, Alameda resident and BART employee, urged the City's\nBART representative be contacted to prevent a strike.\n(13-402) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated not enough has been done to implement the\nsmoking ordinance in the past 18 months; urged the City to take real implementation\nsteps even if funds need to come from reserve.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-403) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 23,\n2013. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 7, "text": "(*13-404) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,945,821.36.\n(*13-405) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ended June\n30, 2013. Accepted.\n(*13-406) Recommendation to Award Contracts in the Amount of up to $70,000 each to\nWRA Environmental Consultants, Tetra Tech, and Huffman Broadway Group, Inc. for\nOn Call Environmental Consulting Services, and Permit an Annual Extension of each\nContract On a Year to Year Basis, for up to Three Additional Years, and Up to $280,000\nTotal Compensation for each Contract, at the Sole Discretion of the Public Works\nDirector, Based Upon Satisfactory Performance of all Aspects of the Contract.\nAccepted.\n(*13-407) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $567,415 to Rosas\nBrothers Construction for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb,\nGutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, FY13 14, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-13-15\nand Allocate $85,115 in Contingencies. Accepted.\n(*13-408) Resolution No. 14856, \"Formally Establishing a Monthly Mileage Allowance\nfor City Council Members.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-409) Resolution No. 14857, \"Appointing Beverly Blatt as a Member of the Golf\nCommission. Adopted;\n(13-409 A) Resolution No. 14858, \"Appointing Malia (Mary) Vella as a Member of the\nHistorical Advisory Board.\" Adopted; and\n(13-409 B) Resolution No. 14859, \"Appointing Gregory Morgado as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of\nAppointment to Ms. Blatt, Ms. Vella and Mr. Morgado.\n(13-410) Resolution No. 14860, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate the Terms\nof a $1.15 Million Loan to the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) for the Encinal\nSwim Center Renovation.\" Adopted; and\n(13-410 A) Recommendation to Extend the Current Joint Use Operating Agreement with\nAUSD for the Operation of the District Swimming Pools to October 21, 2013.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 8, "text": "September 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would accept the School District\nestablishing a financing source other than the City, to which the Recreation Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding School District project\nrequirements, the Recreation Director stated any project on School District property or\nfunded by the School District must be approved by the Department of State Architects\n(DSA); the requirement was previously known as the Field Act, which is specific to\nearthquake readiness; DSA standards require a longer, more extensive review period;\nthe higher construction standards might increase costs.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a lot of work has been done during the last 6 months;\ncommend staff for reaching agreement on the design, compliance and cost; stated that\nshe has fundamental questions about the best and highest use of City funds; the City\njust refinanced bonds to pursue saving $3 million to pay for an Emergency Operations\nCenter (EOC); the proposal is to loan $1.15 million to the School District; the funds\nwould come out of the City's equipment replacement fund; the City has been discussing\nFire Station 3, which is in need of a seismic retrofit; inquired whether equipment funds\ncould be used for said facility.\nThe Finance Director responded the equipment replacement fund year-end balance is\napproximately $3 million; the EOC would have wiped out the whole balance; staff\nsearched for a fund that is technically unrestricted and would not impact the General\nFund; the fund would lower by $1 million, but over $2 million would remain in the fund\nafter the loan.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Council approved the purchase of replacement Police\nDepartment vehicles; the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant was\nused since there was not enough in the equipment replacement fund; the COPS grant\ncould have been used for other Police programs; inquired whether the $1.15 million\ncould have been used instead of the COPS grant.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated cities typically use the COPS\ngrant for one time purchases.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the COPS grant could have been used for the license plate\nreaders; stated the City has had many budget discussions; a speaker tonight discussed\nthe need for additional funds to implement the smoking ordinance; inquired why staff\nbelieves the pool is the best and highest use of the funds.\nThe Finance Director responded the School District has three options: a bond issuance,\na private loan or the City loan.\nThe City Manager stated after two years of discussion, the School District has indicated\na project amount has finally been determined; in June 2012, the Council directed staff to\ncontinue the Joint Use Agreement for only one more year; this June, the Agreement\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 10, "text": "was extended for approximately three months to accommodate City swim programs; the\nEncinal pool pricing has been discussed for six months; however, what to do about the\npools has been discussed for over two years; the City does not want to make a loan to\nthe School District; at the last subcommittee meeting, the School District indicated it\ncould not afford to do the project unless the City could provide a loan; discussed the\nterms of the loan; noted the City needs security.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated swimming is a public good; the City should engage with\nthe School District; the terms are fair; the funds would not be used for highest and best\nuse; however, the City provides services that are not always the highest and best use.\nCouncilmember Chen acknowledged the work of staff and the subcommittee; inquired\nwhether the 30 day extension of the Joint Use Agreement would allow enough time.\nMayor Gilmore responded there are two issues: a 30 day extension of the Joint Use\nAgreement to accommodate the swim groups and the loan to repair the Encinal facility;\nstated that she is not convinced the two are combined.\nCouncilmember Chen stated his question is what will happen after the 30 day extension\nexpires.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded Mayor Gilmore is correct; stated there\nare two separate issues; currently, Recreation only has a limited number of programs\nusing the pools; the extension shows good faith to keep the pools open while the loan\nterms are being negotiated; 30 days is also the term for negotiating the loan, which is a\ntight timeframe; the Superintendent is presenting the matter to the School Board next\nweek.\nCouncilmember Chen stated both swim centers are in need of repair; questioned what\nwould happen if Emma Hood closed; inquired whether there is a backup plan.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the School Board would have the option\nto keep the pools open for the community swim teams.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether any agreement requires the City to pay for\nrepairs, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated\nthe Joint Use Agreement specifically says the City does not have to pay any capital\ncosts.\nCouncilmember Chen noted the School District is working on a master facility plan; if\nsuccessful, hopefully the City would be repaid.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the loan would only be paid back if the District\nplaces a bond measure on the November 2014 ballot and the measure passes.\nThe City Manager noted if a measure passed, the District probably would not pay back\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 11, "text": "the loan because the interest rate would most likely be lower than the bond.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the loan would impact the District's bond rating,\nto which the Finance Director responded it should not; provided information on interest\nrates.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he is very comfortable with the interest rate, which is\nvery good; securing the loan with collateral should not be a problem; the collateral\nwould not be touched if the School District pays the City back.\nThe Finance Director stated the City has never issued any lease or bonds without\ncollateral; auditors might consider the amount an expenditure if a loan is not done.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired when staff was provided with the letter from the School\nDistrict, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded today at 3:15 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the need for a pool; discussing the\nbest and highest use is prioritizing; the City is resource constrained and has to decide\nwhat will not be funded if the loan is made; requested staff to elaborate on the option to\npursue an aquatic facility at Alameda Point if the School District does not accept the\nterms by October 18th\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated staff tentatively explored an indoor pool\nadjacent to the Navy gym; the site would require complete renovation and the existing\npool would have to be taken out; work needs to be done to establish an accurate cost\nestimate; negotiations will cease in 30 days if resolution is not reached and staff would\nmove forward with finding a way to build a City pool.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the project differs from the Alameda Point Sports\nComplex, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the Sports Complex\nMaster Plan includes the pool at the same Alameda Point location; the building shell\nwould be used; noted cost recovery for an indoor pool is much higher.\nMayor Gilmore stated the funds would not automatically be shifted to an Alameda Point\npool if the School District does not accept the loan offer; there is $750,000 which could\nbe used to complete designs; however, the project funds would have to be\nappropriated; a lack of security when granting funds would be a deal breaker for her.\nUrged the Council to approve the staff recommendation to allow the deal to be\ncompleted by October 18th: Kevin Gorham, Alameda.\nUrged greater cooperation and that the resolution be rewritten and brought back:\nDonald Krause, Alameda Island Aquatics.\nMayor Gilmore noted the two meetings referenced by the Recreation and Parks Director\nwere the Council/School Board subcommittee meetings and did not include the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 12, "text": "numerous staff meetings.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the School District was informed of the\nproposed terms prior to the staff report being published, to which the Recreation and\nParks Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether District staff expressed concern over the\nterms, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe same concerns outlined in the letter were expressed, including not being able to do\na security interest, impacts to the District's bond rating and the interest rate.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the School District discussed other options\nto acquire the $1.15 million, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in\nthe affirmative; stated the District has a funding option which would have a 1.5% to 2%\ninterest rate, but does not want to pursue the option because it would impact bonding\ncapacity.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the pools need help; the City has financial issues and\nhas to be a good steward of public funds; the proposal makes the best of a tough\nsituation; the City cannot offer the loan for less than 4%; during the month time, the\nSchool District can look into the other funding source; that she supports moving forward\nwith both actions; the District asked the City for the loan.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the pools would close if the Joint Use\nAgreement is not extended, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the\nAgreement expires September 21st.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the pools would close.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the City would no longer be maintaining\nthe pools and the School District would have to decide whether or not to keep the pools\nopen.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the School District would have to backfill the loss of City\nfunds or decide to do something else.\nThe City Manager stated 16 months ago, the City Council directed that the Agreement\nnot continue to be extended and a permanent solution be sought.\nMayor Gilmore stated everyone agrees the pools are in disrepair; experts have\nindicated the pools will not be able to be fixed at some point.\nCouncilmember Chen stated this is the last ditch effort; the City has put in an honest\neffort and has contributed ongoing funding; the City has a fiduciary duty to ensure funds\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 13, "text": "are allocated appropriately; that he is comfortable with the terms; collateral is a must;\nthat he is confident an agreement can be reached.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the motion could be bifurcated into two parts: 1)\nauthorizing negotiation of the loan and 2) extending the Joint Use Agreement.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry whether Council could take two\nseparate votes on the resolution, the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about which portion was being addressed\nfirst, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read the portion of the resolution pertaining to the\nloan, which is the first motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore stated the Council has clearly indicated a desire to\nrequire some kind of security; inquired whether said term would be included.\nThe City Attorney responded resolution Exhibit 1 includes the key terms; collateral\nsecurity is one of the key terms.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the portion of the resolution pertaining to\nextending the terms of the Joint Use Agreement.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-411) Presentation on Draft Master Infrastructure Plan and Conceptual Financing Plan\nfor Alameda Point.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:36 p.m. and returned at 8:39 p.m.\n*\nAngelo Obertello, Carlson, Barbee, and Gibson, and James Edison, Willdan Financial\nServices, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the $566.6 million total cost estimate is based\non the Reuse Plan scenario; stated the City might decide to do more; questioned\nwhether unused capacity could be built in and whether the high density scenario would\nbe covered under the $566.6 million.\nMr. Obertello responded the draft Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) and costs are based\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 14, "text": "on the Reuse Plan; stated a chapter called MIP flexibility was included to address the\ninfrastructure needs of different land use intensities, both less and more; the\nconclusions depict the Reuse Plan systems have inherent capacity; pipe size for water\nflow would not change if additional housing units are added; minimum sizes have\nexcess capacity; however, areas which would need a larger pipe are identified in the\nMIP.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he likes the Reuse Plan scenario; having\ninformation on the difference between the Reuse Plan and higher use would be great.\nMr. Obertello stated the draft is partially there; noted the project footprint remains the\nsame, which makes flood protection measures similar; the update to the draft will\naddress transit, which would have additional costs associated with higher intensities.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City is discussing phasing and responding to the market;\ninquired who would be responsible for ensuring the different segments of the backbone\ninfrastructure will connect; what it would look like and how much it would cost; noted\nthat she does not need answers to her questions tonight, but would like answers prior to\napproving the MIP.\nMr. Obertello responded the MIP serves as the database of the infrastructure plans for\nall of the parcels and shows how it all comes together; stated the information is\npresented to prevent something from going into the ground that is not sized or located\nproperly; the information is there; procedures to ensure proper implementation would go\ninto the City's established, normal permitting process.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would need additional staff and whether\nadditional staff would be funded by a fee charged to developers.\nMr. Obertello responded in the affirmative; stated the amounts were included in costs\npresented tonight; plan check, review and inspection fees associated with the backbone\ninfrastructure were included to ensure the costs were characterized; the City could use\noutside plan checking resources.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff will have to determine whether\nto hire consultants and if and when additional staff should be hired.\nThe Acting Public Works Director stated the development fee is being revised and will\ninclude a specific development fee for Alameda Point; the fee will cover additional staff\nor consultant costs.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City has discussed fiscal neutrality; building the infrastructure\nhas to be done in a fiscally neutral way and the City also needs to know how the\ninfrastructure will be maintained for its lifetime in a fiscally neutral way; currently, the\nCity has infrastructure without any mechanism to fund maintenance; inquired whether\nfees and infrastructure districts would address maintaining the infrastructure over time;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 15, "text": "how the City would phase funding maintenance; and whether requiring a payment to\nmaintain infrastructure after 10 to 15 years would be fair if a business has already paid\na premium upfront.\nMr. Edison responded that he considers the infrastructure in three segments: 1) putting\nit in the ground; 2) maintenance and other municipal services costs; outlined possible\nmitigations; 3) lifecycle replacement; stated the City's current sewer and water rates\ntake care of costs over a longer term.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she looks forward to seeing figures.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated a number of fiscal impact analyses\nhave been done; Mr. Edison is reviewing prior studies and will update the amounts.\nThe City Manager stated another public session should be schedule prior to adoption of\nthe MIP and Council should submit questions in writing to allow responses to be\nincluded in the report.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would strive to bring the matter\nback in November and would provide the draft fiscal impact analyses at said time.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested annual maintenance costs and lifecycle replacement\nissues be included in the MIP, rather than in a separate report; requested information on\nsea level rise projections, including annual fees and timelines; stated that preventing\ncannibalism of existing buildings and businesses should also be discussed, but could be\ndone outside the MIP.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed sea level rise; requested the final report address\nwhether sufficient assumptions are being made beyond the next 30 years; stated that\nshe likes the concept of complete streets and connecting to existing grid, but wants to\nensure connectivity among developments; provided an example of different\ndevelopment not connecting in Harbor Bay; inquired whether the public would have an\nopportunity to submit questions.\nThe City Manager responded staff would like to answer the public's questions, which\nmust be reasonable.\nCouncilmember Chen discussed the reuse area; stated that he would like to convey the\nmessage that tenants are valued; language about improving the infrastructure is too\nbroad and should be revised; discussed cleanup; inquired how planning and\ninfrastructure can be scheduled without knowing when cleanup will be complete.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the sites will be cleaned up;\nreviewed the conveyance scheduled; stated planning takes into consideration any\npossible restrictions; the environmental consultant has good estimates.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Obertello reviewed how environmental issues would be addressed.\nCouncilmember Chen questioned how the timeline would be impacted since remedies\nare not yet known; stated the Council should be kept informed as remediation\nprogresses.\nThe City Manager responded the issue of what remains to be mediated is one reason\nthe property transfer took several months; stated the City has been careful to create\nparcels in a way that makes sense; the City will move forward with parcels which are\nready to go; discussed how the market impacts development.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed revenues; stated that he would like revenue\nalternatives to be reviewed, such as community benefits.\nMr. Edison stated the incremental approach allows the City to negotiate higher\ncommunity benefits when there is greater demand in the future; the City has to remain\nopen and flexible.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to see an open framework; the City\ncould consider a special, higher electric rate or sewer rate.\nExpressed concern regarding transit and sea level rise: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Plan, including it being market driven; offered suggestions,\nsuch as the budget including a 10% contingency and reducing risk by having staff\nmanage consultants: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nThe City Manager made brief comments on infrastructure funding and marketing.\n(13-412) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14861, \"Authorizing the Issuance\nand Sale of City Of Alameda 2013 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.\" Adopted.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-413) The City Manager announced that the City received its first grant for the Jean\nSweeney Open Space Park; noted the City hired a lobbyist to assist with pursuing\ngrants; discussed the Alameda Point Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and\nencouraged everyone to comment now and attend the September 25th Joint City\nCouncil and Planning Board meeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 17, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(13-414) Consider Providing Direction to Staff Regarding a Resolution in Support of\nComprehensive Immigration Reform.\nCouncilmember Chen gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the resolution provided was adopted by the Alameda\nCounty Board of Supervisors; the City can adopt the resolution or customize it for\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned about staff time and would favor\nadopting the County's resolution.\n*\n(13-415) Councilmember Chen moved approval of considering additional items after\n10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nNoes: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter could be sent to Social Service Human\nRelations Board for review.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would be in favor of either adopting the County resolution\nor sending a letter of support.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the County resolution could be used and presented at the\nnext Council meeting.\nMayor Gilmore stated the motion should be to have staff bring the resolution back as\nsoon as feasible.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of directing staff to bring the matter back at the\nnext possible meeting.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-17", "page": 18, "text": "(13-416) Councilmember Tam stated that she and Councilmember Daysog attended a\nneighborhood watch meeting at Bayport; residents are impressed with the Police\nDepartment; reviewed crime statistics; commended the Police Department.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 17, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-17.pdf"}