{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCITY OF ALAMEDA FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JULY 29, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember/Authority\nMember Chen led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Authority Members Chen, Daysog,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-332 CC) Presentation by the Tomorrow Youth Repertory: Shrek - The Musical.\nTyler Null and Amy Marie Haven, Tomorrow Youth Reparatory, gave a brief\npresentation; invited everyone to attend the performance; presented the City Council\nwith tickets and a magnet.\n(14-333 CC) Alameda Free Library Teen Mural Project.\nThe Teen Librarian and Devon Yee gave a Power Point presentation.\n(14-334 CC) Proclamation Declaring August 7, 2014, as Muscular Dystrophy\nAssociation Fill the Boot Day in Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Firefighters Eric LeBlanc and\nAxel Araquistain.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-335 CC) Maria Dominguez, Friends of Crown Beach, discussed the City Manager\naddressing speakers at the July 15, 2014 meeting.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed his support for the City Manager.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted that they would vote\nagainst the item on the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 2, "text": "Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nDaysog and Ezzy Ashcraft - 2. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*14-336 CC) Ordinance No. 3103, \"Alameda Open Space Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance Pertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda General Plan\nIncluding the 2007 2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to Classify\nApproximately 3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to McKay Avenue to Open Space.' Finally\npassed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-337 CC) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA)\nbetween the City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for the Bachelors\nEnlisted Quarters (BEQ).\n[Note: The ENA for the 5.5 acre site on the taxiway [paragraph no. 14-306 was\ndiscussed as part of this agenda item.]\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore requested staff to explain what would be done during the initial 30 day\nperiod to determine whether the developer is qualified.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded what staff would be looking for\nis included in the Statement of Qualification (SOQ) requirements; listed the\nrequirements.\nMayor Gilmore noted that she requested the explanation to inform the public.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether developers going through the Request for\nProposals (RFQ) process would face the same requirements, to which the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the SOQ\nrequirements would be the same.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether 30 days would be enough time to submit\nqualification information.\nThe Chief Operating Officer responded developers responding to the RFQ had six\nweeks; stated 30 days is less time, which is more restrictive; a competitive process has\nnot been used; that she is comfortable with the amount of time; the developer has been\naware of the requirements for some time and could have already started.\nThe City Manager stated the situation is different because it is not the result of an RFQ\nprocess and needs to be handled more promptly in the event the property needs to be\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 3, "text": "restored back into the market place.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired about the condition of the three BEQ buildings; stated\nthat he was informed a waiver must be signed to enter parts of the buildings.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded one wing was restored and\nused for office space; stated the rest is in very bad shape and in need of significant\ninvestment.\nCouncilmember Chen stated a $250,000 deposit is being requested for each ENA;\ninquired whether senior and student housing would be subject to the 25% affordable\nhousing requirement, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded\nstaff would have to review the proposed housing; stated assisted living is typically\nconsidered a commercial use since there is not a full kitchen.\nThe City Manager stated said issues are precisely what would be worked out during the\nENA process.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the six month ENA period is a two way street; the\ndeveloper would be investigating the sites liabilities and challenges as the City does its\ndue diligence; the project is not a done deal; the development plan has to go through a\npublic process involving the Planning Board and Council; a Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA) would also have to be vetted through boards and\nCouncil; inquired whether said process is correct.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated there\nis a public process; the DDA would be a Council-oriented process with staff checking in\nwith Council in closed sessions and the final DDA being approved by the City Council;\nthe development plan is a more Planning Board-oriented process; Council is ultimately\napproving the project because the DDA is the business transaction that does so; the\nPlanning Board would approve the development plan before staff would bring the DDA\nto Council; the process would include numerous hearings; the Historical Advisory Board\n(HAB) would also be involved since BEQ is a historic structure.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is interested in the juxtaposition of the\nproposed uses for the BEQ; there is a huge need for assisted and independent senior\nhousing; that she would like affordable senior housing to be constructed in Alameda;\ninquired whether the student housing would be overflow for somewhere else, such as\nBerkeley or Peralta schools, or if it would include a campus.\nMayor Gilmore stated the development plan has to go to the Planning Board for\napproval; inquired whether staff indicated the DDA would not come to Council until the\ndevelopment plan has been approved, to which the Chief Operating Officer Alameda -\nPoint responded in the affirmative; stated staff would keep everyone informed if the\nprocess changes during negotiations.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the entire process for the taxiway has to be completed within six\nmonths; the BEQ process could be completed in six months unless the two\nadministrative extensions are exercised by the City Manager; the timeframe to\ndetermine whether the project has legs is very tight.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Salvatore Caruso, Alameda United\nCommercial (AUC), stated that he worked with AUC for several years; one of the main\nthings AUC does is set up international schools; having an international school as part\nof the BEQ is desired; the idea is to create a community environment.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what grade levels are proposed, to which Mr. Caruso\nresponded pre-school through high school and, potentially, college level; stated that he\nhas worked on projects which were solely assisted senior living and has paired students\nfrom nearby high schools and colleges with seniors.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding precedent, Mr. Caruso\nstated that he has done the pairing within the same distance, but not on the same\nproperty.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the location of said project, to which Mr.\nCaruso responded San Jose.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the name of the project, Mr.\nCaruso agreed to provide the information to staff.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the school would be a boarding school, to\nwhich Mr. Caruso responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether office uses are also proposed for the site, to\nwhich Mr. Caruso responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a 250 hotel room and 250 condominiums\nare proposed for the sea plane lagoon, to which Mr. Caruso responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry whether separate entities would\noperate the facilities, Mr. Caruso stated the project would be split into four buildings as\nrequired by the Town Center plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter comes down to staff review of the SOQ for\nthe BEQ; assisted living requires an understanding of regulatory issues; that he looks to\nstaff to fully vet any developer; inquired whether staff would will keep Council informed\non whether SOQ benchmarks are being met.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 5, "text": "The City Manager responded the matter falls under real estate negotiations; stated staff\nwould return to Council in closed session at some point during the negotiations.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the evaluation criteria that would be\nused to evaluate the submittal have been included in the meeting materials to inform\nAUC and the public; there are going to be numerous opportunities for staff to return to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the sea plane lagoon project presupposes the City will\ngo above the housing cap; that he is not ready to go above the cap at this point in time.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many times the matter would be before the\nPlanning Board and whether one or more workshops would be held, to which the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know how many\nmeetings would be held; stated more than one Planning Board meeting has been held\nfor all past Alameda Point issues; a Planning Board subcommittee was formed to work\non the Town Center Plan; the plan being approved in one night would be highly unlikely;\nthe BEQ would also have to go to the HAB.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ENA provides the City Manager a 30 day review\nperiod; inquired whether there would be an opportunity to cure and additional time\nwould be given if needed.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the idea was not contemplated;\nstated the ENA would have to be reviewed; that she believes the ENA requires the City\nto provide an insufficiency notice within 30 days; staff would try to conduct the review to\naddress concerns before the 30 day period ends.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the development team has seen the criteria and has\nhad time; inquired whether a determination about whether the development plan is\nconsistent with the Town Center Plan would be made when the matter goes to the\nPlanning Board, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry about wildlife concerns on the\ntaxiway, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the biological opinion\napplies to all projects and would be reviewed; each Alameda Point area has its own\nrestrictions; that she believes the area has fewer restrictions than other areas closer to\nthe least terns.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the price includes infrastructure.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the amount is strictly land\nprice; the development impact fee is separate and would be in addition to the land price.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AUC has any prior experience with former\nbase redevelopment, to which Mr. Caruso responded that his experience is\npredominantly with the standard of the State Architect; stated AUC has worked on\nnumerous historic landmarks over the last 26 years, including the headquarters of the\nAmerican Institute of Architects, the Hicks Mansion, and the Saint Claire Hotel.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AUC does not have specific experience with\nclosed military bases, to which Mr. Caruso responded AUC does not have direct\nexperience with military bases, but does have experience with sites with environmental\nand biological sensitivities; stated AUC constructed a master planned resort in Napa on\na former garbage dump, which involved Indian archeological remains, the Army Corps\nof Engineers, a superfund site, and relocation of historical structures.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, Mr. Caruso stated the\nproperty is across the river from the Copia Center; the project was purchased by the\nRitz Carlton after the entitlement process was complete; however, the purchaser\npassed away and the project is tied up in estate issues.\nMayor Gilmore stated if both proposals proceed down the line, the two projects will be\nvery different and will have two different teams working on them; qualifications should\naddress how AUC can handle two very different large projects at the same time.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the ENA between the City AUC for the BEQ.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the opportunity\nto hear from Mr. Caruso; the ENA is the first being entered into for Alameda Point and\nsets a standard; there is no competition because there was not an RFQ; she is\nconcerned because very little information has been provided on the development team;\nthat she would like more information before going forward with proposals that did not go\nthrough a competitive process; if the City goes forward with very little prior knowledge\nabout the team, it would have to do so with every successive developer; the RFQ for\ntwo other sites has required developers to jump through many hoops; although there\nhas not been prior interest in the BEQ, the real estate market is heating up; she is less\npersuaded with the 5 acre parcels site because any number of developers could do\nsomething with the site; she has not seen enough to be comfortable with having the\ndeveloper do two projects at the same time.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the City tried to give the BEQ to the Veterans\nAdministration (VA) a couple of years ago; now, the City has a developer willing to pay\na deposit and spend millions of dollars; the action tonight is the beginning of an arduous\nprocess; Mr. Caruso, as an experienced architect, should understand Alameda is very\nconcerned about impacts; the project will be vetted; the City Manager has to determine\nwhether the developer is qualified; that he welcomes the investment.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he is open to working with staff to carefully review\nthe developer's qualifications; the bar is extremely high; the City has worked with major\ndevelopers in the past and has received RFQ responses from major developers who\nhave known projects; that he is interested in how staff will score the developer's\nqualifications; the City should welcome anyone interested in the BEQ; however, that\ndoes not mean the City will let down its guard on who it works with; noted four votes are\nneeded for the project to work.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 1.\n(14-338 CC) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement\nbetween the City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for an Approximate\n5.5 Acre Site on the Taxiways along the Seaplane Lagoon.\n[Note: Refer to the ENA for BEQ [paragraph no. 14-305 for the discussion.]\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the ENA between the City and AUC for an\napproximately 5.5 acre site on the taxiways along the Seaplane Lagoon.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with how close\nthe site is to the Waterfront/Town Center for which the City has started an RFQ process;\nhe wants developers to set the tone for the area; he does not know how the proposal\nwould work with the RFQ projects; he made a commitment to stick to the 1,425 housing\nunit cap; the proposal assumes the cap will be exceeded; he is not prepared to exceed\nthe cap at this point and cannot support a residential project.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned with the way the development is\nplaying out; the City is talking to potential developers who responded to the RFQ; she\nwould like to see what comes back from the RFQs; she wants an overall plan with how\nAlameda Point will be developed and does not want piecemeal development; the\ndevelopment of the 5.5 acre site does not need to be rushed; the site is more of a blank\nslate; the Council approved moving forward with the BEQ, which gives the developer an\nopportunity; she will vote against the ENA.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not believe the proposal pushes against the\nresidential unit cap; the value of moving forward with the six month ENA is the\ninformation the City will get, particularly pertaining to land value; negotiating land value\nwith the School District and Housing Authority was difficult; the amount offered in the\ntransaction often defines the property value; the process will help the City provide more\ndefinition on the land value.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated that he concurs with Councilmember Tam; the proximity of\nthe taxiways site to the RFQ site is critical to establishing a base rate for the rest of the\nland at Alameda Point; moving forward to set the tone is imperative; the City wants to\nknow how much to ask future developers; the City is not encroaching on the residential\nunit cap; there will be close to 1,000 units between the RFQ site and this project;\ndiscussed density; stated the community will weigh in on the project; the ENA is the first\nstep; questioned what message is being sent to developers if the City does not move\nforward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Carlsbad issued an RFQ for hotel developers; that he is\nnot convinced the developer has built a hotel; the developer might want to get the\nentitlement and then sell the land; the cap would be reached from 800 units at the Town\nCenter and 600 units in the historic district; eliminating 200 units at the Town Center\nand/or historic district is not being discussed; the $50,000 fee for units above the cap is\nbeing added, which indicates the cap is being exceeded; there are issues with\nqualifications and scale.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are also 200 homes at the Alameda Point\nCollaborative, which should not be forgotten; stated that she is concerned about issuing\nan RFQ at some sites, while the developer found the City for this site; other developers\nmight be interested in the site.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Tam; the exercise is\nvaluable for setting the land value; that she is not convinced about Councilmember\nDaysog's comments about the housing cap; the ENA is a process; staff will return to\nCouncil in closed session to discuss negotiations; the number of housing units can be\naddressed in negotiations; hotel proprietors have informed her that they plan on building\nhotels at the Harbor Bay Business Park; having hotels at Alameda Point would be an\namenity to support the rest of the development and would be useful; the ENA is the\nbeginning of the process; the Council could decide not to move forward with a DDA.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the land sale requiring four\naffirmative votes and requirements for the Planning Board's vote on the entitlements,\nthe City Attorney stated a land sale requires a supermajority vote of the City Council;\nthe ENA only requires three votes; the DDA would require four votes; entitlements done\nat the Planning Board level do not require a Council vote.\nOn the call for question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog\nand Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.\n(14-339 CC/14-01 CAFA) SUMMARY: Approve External and Internal Financing Not to\nExceed $5 Million for the Construction of a New Fire Station 3\nRecommendation to Approve External Financing Not to Exceed $3 Million for the\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 9, "text": "Construction of a New Fire Station 3 and Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to\nNegotiate and Execute All Related Financial Documents on Behalf of the City\nConsistent with the Terms Described in the Staff Report with I Bank or Another\nFinancial Institution;\n(14-339 A CC) Resolution No. 14958, \"Authorizing the Submission of the Application to\nthe California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I Bank) for Financing of\nthe Construction of Fire Station 3, Declaration of Official Intent to Reimburse Certain\nExpenditures from Proceeds of Obligation, and Approving Certain Other Matters in\nConnection Therewith, Including the Authorization for the City Manager or His Designee\nto Execute All Related Financial Documents on Behalf of the City.\" Adopted;\n(14-02 A CAFA) Resolution No. 14-04, \"Authorizing the Commencement of Proceedings\nin Connection with the External Lease Financing of a New Fire Station 3 and\nAuthorizing the Executive Director to Negotiate, Execute and Deliver All Appropriate\nFinancing Documents within Specified Parameters.\" Adopted;\n(14-339 B CC) Resolution No. 14959, \"Authorizing the Commencement of Proceedings\nin Connection with the External Lease Financing of a New Fire Station 3 and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Negotiate, Execute and Deliver All Appropriate\nFinancing Documents within Specified Parameters.\" Adopted;\n(14-339 C CC) Approve an Interfund Loan for the Financing of a New Fire Station 3;\n(14-339 D CC) Authorize the Sale of the Property at 1703 Grand Street (Existing Fire\nStation 3); and\n(14-339 E CC) Appropriate $400,000 from City Funds for the Financing of a New Fire\nStation 3.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\n***\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam left the dais at 8:23 p.m. and returned at 8:25\np.m.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether there would not be any penalty for early payment\nof the external financing, to which the Finance Director responded that staff would\ninclude no penalty for early payment when the documents are executed; stated\ntypically, a blend is done for bonds; for example, full payment might be allowed after ten\nyears because it makes selling the bonds easier; if the City is able to use I Bank, it\ndiffers; I Bank is more competitive and offers incentives to cities; Alameda benefits from\nhaving a lower per capita income; 4.5% is the current rate in the private market and I\nBank would be lower.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether four votes are needed since the Council would\njust be approving the concept of selling property.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 10, "text": "The City Attorney responded staff would have to come back to Council to actually\nauthorize the sale of the property; stated the action tonight authorizes staff to look for a\npotential buyer; noted all actions are City Council actions, except the CAFA resolution.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of\na\nlease/leaseback and what would be put up for collateral.\nThe Finance Director responded a bond requires voter approval; stated a lease does\nnot require a vote; Certificates of Participation (COPs) are leases; CAFA leases the\nfacility back to the City; the City would be entering into a lease with I Bank; any\navailable assets could be considered collateral and the City would identify another Fire\nStation as collateral.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam stated the need for a seismically safe fire\nstation has been discussed for years; great effort has been made to seek funding,\ninclude a sales tax measure that needed a supermajority vote and did not pass, and\ngrant funding; inquired why the City was not successful in in obtaining grant funding.\nThe Fire Chief responded there are no construction grants available for this type of\nproject; seismic remodeling grants were available in the past, but no longer exist.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether the same is true for the\nEmergency Operation Center (EOC), to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether State grants were no longer\navailable because of the recession, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative;\nstated State and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants dried up\naround 2010.\nStated Station 3 protects some of Alameda's most expensive real estate and responds\nto every structure fire and full response in the City; the engine is not used only for the\nsafety of citizens, but is also used for the safety of the Firefighters; response time is\ndelayed compared to other stations; urged approval: Jeff DelBono, Alameda\nFirefighters.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated all citizens are seen as equal; that\nshe was hoping the sale price of the existing station would have been higher; a new\nstation is a necessity.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Daysog stated the residents of Alameda deserve a\nmodern fire station; that he supports the project.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Chen stated that he is prepared to make a motion.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether the actions should be done separately, to which\nthe City Attorney responded separate actions would make the record clear; one action\ncould be taken for the CAFA resolution and one action for the Council items.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam inquired whether all City Council items would be\ndone separately from the CAFA resolution, to which Mayor/Chair Gilmore responded in\nthe affirmative.\nThe Finance Director read the title of the CAFA resolution.\nAuthority Member Tam moved adoption of CAFA the resolution.\nAuthority Member Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the balance of staff recommendation,\nincluding adoption of the Council resolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-340 CC) Recommendation to Authorize the Fire Department's Participation in a\nState of California Community Paramedicine Pilot Project Funded by Alameda County\nby Delegating Authority to the City Manager to Negotiate and Enter, Upon Terms\nAcceptable to the City Attorney, into a Funding Agreement with the County of Alameda,\nand Upon Receipt of Funds for the Pilot Project; Add an Additional Division Chief and\nTwo Community Paramedic Firefighter Positions; and to Backfill Regular Fire Staff,\nincluding the Hiring of Three Limited Term Firefighters.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how the County would measure outcomes.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded the City would be responsible for generating, collating\nand analyzing data, and looking for a decrease in hospital readmissions.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether there is an established baseline for frequent callers\nand patients being readmitted, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative; stated the Fire Department has frequent caller data and Alameda Hospital\nwould provide information to the Fire Department when patients are released; a lot of\nthe training the paramedics would receive would be social services; provided an\nexample scenario.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the intent of the program is good; inquired how the City\nwould fund the new hires after County funding is gone.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 12, "text": "however, preventing Emergency Room (ER) clogging might be beyond the scope of\npublic safety services.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded it is a pilot program; stated Alameda County is paying\nfor everything.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be interested in the funding stream\ngoing forward.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the training would be diverting patients from the\nER, not increasing the scope of practice, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the\nFirefighter's scope of practice would remain the same; liability would not be increased;\nadditional training would most be in social services; follow up care with discharged\npatients would include how to recognize symptoms; training would include working in\npreventive care clinics.\nCouncilmember Chen stated having paramedics with increased ability to diagnose\npatients is a win-win.\nCouncilmember Tam stated participating in the pilot program is ideal for the City of\nAlameda; that she is glad the City was chosen; she actively advocated for Alameda to\nbe selected; ER treatment is the most expensive care; addressing issues early on will\nbe a cost savings for the health care system; commended the Fire Department.\nMayor Gilmore stated the process was competitive; many departments wanted to be\nselected.\nStated people who do not necessarily need to go to the ER are taken to the ER;\nprovided an example; stated other States receive pass down money from hospitals;\nhopefully, insurance companies and hospitals will partner in the program; the\nnationwide International Association of Firefighters supports the program: Jeff DelBono,\nAlameda Firefighters.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-29", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-341 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14960, \"Amending Master Fee\nResolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees.\" Adopted.\nThe Finance Director provided a handout and gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she voted against the\ndevelopment impact fee because she would have liked more notice; however, she will\nvote for the entire fee schedule.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-342 CC) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she and Councilmember Tam\nattended the Splashdown 45 Celebration on the USS Hornet.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:07\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CAFA\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and City of Alameda\nFinancing Authority\nJuly 29, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-29.pdf"}