{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-561) Park Street Business Association Proclamation.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Lars Hansson.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Hansson for planting daffodils.\nMr. Hansson thanked Council for the proclamation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many bulbs were planted.\nMr. Hansson responded 2,000 bulbs were purchased i stated\napproximately 1,000 bulbs were planted on Park Street.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07-562],\nthe recommendation to accept the Annual Review of Public Art\nOrdinance [paragraph no. 07-564], the recommendation to accept\nAffordable Housing Ordinance Annual Review [paragraph no.07-566],\nand Resolution Amending Resolution No. 12121 [paragraph no.07-569]\nwere removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]\n(07-562) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings held on\nNovember 13, 2007 and November 19, 2007. and the Special and\nRegular Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 2, "text": "Regular City Council Meetings held on November 20, 2007. Approved.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that clarification be made on Page\n5 of the November 20, 2007 Regular City Council minutes; stated the\ncontext was that the Museum Board needs to have a discussion\nregarding educational goals versus fund raising goals and strike a\nbalance between the two.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Minutes with additional\nlanguage on Page 5 of the Regular Minutes.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*07-563) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,603,461.02\n(07-564) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of Public Art\nOrdinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Council received an Off Agenda\nReport that described various projects; Council inquired whether\nthere are funds in the Public Arts Fund; Council did not set a\n$50,000 benchmark; Council requested that the matter be brought\nback to make a determination on funding sources Council needs to\nreview details on how art funds would be applied; requested\nclarification of the $50,000.\nThe City Manager stated art fund allocations were reviewed;\napproximately $13,000 could be spent on the Public Arts Grant\nProgram; staff would come back to Council regarding funding sources\nafter the program is established and the criteria are developed.\nmoney could come out of reserves; Council would need to take action\non the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that funds would need to come out of\nreserves or some other funding if Council decided on a total grant\nprogram of $50,000.\nThe City Manager stated the amount could increase; staff would\ncontinue to provide updates.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Council would receive a\nreport on the Grant Program, to which the City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 3, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *07-565) - Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report for Police\nand Fire Services. Accepted.\n(07-566) - Recommendation to accept Affordable Housing Ordinance\nAnnual Review.\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated Affordable\nHousing discussions always address money and building; lower income\nneighborhood preservation is never discussed; emphasis should be\ngiven to preservation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether former Councilmember Kerr was\ntalking about existing neighborhoods and issues such as home\nadditions.\nFormer Councilmember Kerr responded huge planned projects could be\na possible intrusion in her neighborhood; a Planning Board Member\nsuggested moving the Wang Project west of Sherman Street another\nPlanning Board Member suggested running all the streets northward\nto the Beltline; traffic protection was discarded.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*07-567) Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of the\nCitywide Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center\n(FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee. Accepted.\n(*07-568) Recommendation to appropriate $17,676 in Measure B\nBicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Funds as the required local\nmatch for accepting a Bicycle Facility Program Grant from the Bay\nArea Quality Management District. Accepted.\n(07-569) - Resolution No. 14161, \"Amending Resolution No. 12121\nSetting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council\nMeetings. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated currently any Councilmember can place\nany subject matter on the agenda; the proposal would eliminate said\nprocessi that he does not have a problem with Councilmembers\nidentifying what they want to place on the agenda one of the\nactions [outlined in the staff report] is no action; after a matter\ngets to Council Referral, the Council can decide that it does not\nwant to hear the matter and the issue would never get placed on the\nRegular Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 4, "text": "the only situation voted upon, which came from the community\nitself.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council acts via consensus.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot recall ever going to\nthe City Manager and requesting a matter be placed on the agenda;\nwhat happens is Councilmembers have brought up items under Council\nCommunications and the Council as a body has directed the City\nManager to place the matter on the agenda; this [the proposal]\nformalizes the process.\nMayor Johnson stated that she sees the matter as formalizing what\nhas been done.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated former Councilmember Daysog has done it\n[placed matters on the agenda] quite a few times; a few times\nformer Councilmember Daysog would say that he wanted a matter to be\npart of the agenda.\nMayor Johnson stated not that she was aware of ; that she served on\nthe Council with former Councilmember Daysog and she does not\nrecall that [Councilmember Daysog putting matters on the agenda] .\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that she recalls\nRegular Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 5, "text": "going to the City Manager and requesting that matters be placed on\nthe agenda the workshop when the matter was discussed did not have\npublic input; when she was the City's representative to League of\nCalifornia Cities (LCC) Councilmembers from the few cities with\nsaid provision indicated it worked out to be a gag order; if the\nmajority of Council prevents a Councilmember from putting something\non the agenda, it would disenfranchise the people who elected that\nperson; furthermore, people interested in the issue would have to\ncome to two Council meetings one to discuss placing the matter on\nthe agenda and one to address the matter on the agenda.\nVice Mayor Tam stated as the LCC representative, she learned from\nother cities, such as Palo Alto and Fremont, that the process\nhelped increase public awareness and transparency about why certain\nthings get on the agenda and others do not; having the formalized\nprocess helps provide fuller Council discussion of issue and helps\nguide and direct priorities.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Councilmembers would have to\ncomplete a referral form if interested in a topic raised by a\nmember of the public at a Council meeting; questioned what the\nproposal does to the Council's on the fly consensual process.\nThe City Manager responded the process allows staff to provide cost\ninformation and whether the item would change priorities or work\nplans.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the process does not have anything\nto do with cost and addresses whether or not a matter would be\nplaced on an agenda; Councilmember Gilmore's point was if a speaker\nraises an issue and there is Council consensus, the matter would be\nplaced on an agenda at a future time; it [the proposal] puts in\nwriting what is now handled under Council Communications the\nCouncil makes the formalized vote on placing the matter on the\nagenda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she sees two distinct processes\nthe [referral form would be used if a Councilmember has an idea to\nbe researched; however, asking a member of the public to go through\nthe same hoops that Councilmembers go through is not fair; former\nCouncilmember Kerr's point is well taken; it takes a lot to get\npeople to come to City Hall or call, whereas, Councilmembers are\nhere and have contact with staff.\nMayor Johnson stated Council can make it clear that Council is\nintending to do so; if a speaker conveys a great idea and the\nmajority of Council requests follow up, the matter could be brought\nback.\nRegular Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 6, "text": "The City Manager stated that she was addressing when individual\nCouncilmembers make a request.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many times individual\nCouncilmembers have brought forward an agenda item in the last\nyear; that he does not believe Council has done so.\nMayor Johnson stated Council has done so a number of times, by\nconsensus, under Council Communications\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it [requesting a matter be placed on an\nagenda] has been done within Council Communications. with Council\nReferrals, Councilmembers would be prohibited from talking about\nmatters under Council Communications.\nMayor Johnson stated matters cannot be discussed under Council\nCommunications.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated in the past one individual\nCouncilmember was able to put a matter on the agenda.\nVice Mayor Tam stated there are provisions to do so [place a matter\non the agenda] in the City's Municipal Code, provided that the\nmatter is provided one week in advance.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated said provision is no problem; that he\ndoes not think Council wants to stifle it [the provision] by\nbringing a matter to a vote initially to see if Council wants to\ndiscuss the issue; it [the proposal] is not fair and not in the\nbest interest of anyone.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposal affects\nCouncil's ability to call for review any decision of a board or\ncommission.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City of\nFremont's model was designed to place a matter on the agenda that\nmight require a change in work plans or a change in direction; the\nmatter would be placed under Council Referral, rather than having\nCouncilmembers raise the issue under Council Communications the\nformal structure would allow Councilmembers to place an item on the\nagenda so that staff could respond and provide information; when\nstaff puts the item on the agenda, Council would have the\ninformation to determine whether it wants to move the item forward\non the agenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it is no different if Councilmembers go\nRegular Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 7, "text": "to the City Manager and request the matter be placed on the agenda.\nMayor Johnson stated the problem with that [individual\nCouncilmembers directing placing items on the agenda] is that it\ngets into the area of one Councilmember directing staff.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Councilmembers are not doing SO.\nMayor Johnson stated agenda items have staff reports; one\nCouncilmember directing staff to do necessary work, create a staff\nreport and place the matter on an agenda is in violation of the\nCharter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated said situation has not occurred on the\ncurrent Council's watch.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot remember said event\nhappening that he has never gone to the City Manager and requested\na matter be placed on the agenda; that he brings up the issue under\nCouncil Communications to get the consensus to agree to place the\nmatter on the agenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated big box is an example; there was not a\nfull vote by the Council, however, bringing up and discussing the\nissue was still a healthy thing; that he wants to put matters on\nthe agenda to hear more about the issue, costing staff hours is a\ndifferent thing.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has not gone to the City Manager and\nrequested something be placed on the agenda; it sounds like\nCouncilmembers have not done so; that she views the proposal as\nformalizing what is done now; the Council has always been very\ngenerous in complying with requests [to place matters on the\nagenda].\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there have not been problems in the\npast; that he does not foresee future problems questioned whether\nthis [the proposal] is Mayor Johnson's recommendation\nMayor Johnson responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who put the matter on the agenda.\nMayor Johnson responded it was part of the workshop.\nThe City Manager stated it was an outcome of the workshop ; part of\nthe task to staff was to develop the form; due to the way the\nsystem is set up, a resolution is required to put a new section on\nRegular Meeting\n7\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 8, "text": "the agenda.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with Council\ncommunicating with staff that she was on the Council when Council\nvoted to get rid of the Council-staff communication rules\nestablished by a prior City Manager the Council has to be careful\nwith individual Councilmembers directing staff; that she does not\nsee how a matter can be placed on the agenda without numerous staff\nhours being spent.\nThe City Attorney stated Council cannot legally take a consensus\naction regarding items raised under Council Communications because\nthere has not been a description on the agenda and the public does\nnot know what may be brought up; the purpose of the formalized rule\nis to provide an opportunity to get the public involved in the\ndiscussion; if the matter is submitted ahead of time, it can be\nplaced on the agenda under the new section with a sufficient\ndescription; there will not be a staff report yet so staff\nresources will not have been expended; however, the title can be a\nsufficient description so that the public understands what will be\nconsidered, Council can take an action that night, there could be\nno action taken, or Council could request a formal staff report and\nmore information at a future meeting; the purpose is to permit a\nlegal action to be taken and allow public participation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said explanation clarifies the\nmatter and removes the chance of it becoming a gag rule; the matter\ncan be discussed and a vote can be taken, which cannot occur under\nCouncil Communications the proposal enhances the ability to get\nsomething from a single Councilmember heard in a fashion noticed to\nthe public without running into the legal problem of providing\ndirection, even by consensus, on a matter that was not on the\nagenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated what the Council is doing today is\nbringing the matter as an agenda item; questioned why a separate\nagenda section is needed to do it.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council has never violated the Brown\nAct during Council Communications because a vote has never been\ncalled for; the City Manager has voluntarily placed a matter on the\nagenda or provided information upon seeing an interest from one or\nmore Councilmembers; the process is being formalized to provide\ngreater public participation; the matter is a follow up of the\nissue addressed at the workshop.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he pulled the February 6, 2006\nminutes regarding the war resolution and there was an official\nRegular Meeting\n8\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 9, "text": "vote; requested the record be reviewed.\nThe City Attorney stated there can be a vote if the matter is\nplaced on the agenda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the matter was raised by the public.\nMayor Johnson stated that the matter was on the agenda.\nThe City Manager stated a title was placed on the agenda under\nCouncil Communications; Council Referral would be the proper place\nfor such an item.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how one Councilmember directing\nthe City Manager to place an item on an agenda tests against the\nCharter's provision that the Council provides direction to the City\nManager.\nThe City Attorney stated under the Charter, the City Manager is\nresponsible for operations and implementing the policy decisions of\nthe majority of Council: a majority of Council is required to\ndirect the City Manager to take an implementing action or to\nimplement anything within the realm of operations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether that includes putting the\nagenda together.\nThe City Attorney responded putting the agenda together is part of\noperations; the City Manager controls the agenda.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether one Councilmember directing a matter\nbe placed on the agenda is a Charter violation.\nThe City Attorney responded making a request is not a Charter\nviolation; it is up to the City Manager to put something on the\nagenda if she determines that it is an operational matter that\ncomes under her authority under the Charter; it does not matter\nthat one Councilmember may have suggested it; however, no\nCouncilmember individually has the authority to direct the City\nManager to do a certain thing a certain way if it is under\noperations; a cleaner way is to try to find a way to seek\nconsensus.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she cannot recall a Councilmember\nraising something under Council Communications that he or she\nwanted placed on the agenda and there not being a consensus or that\nthe matter did not come up later as an agenda item; Councilmembers\nare very generous with each other and pretty much put everything on\nRegular Meeting\n9\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 10, "text": "the agenda for discussion; with said history for background, she\nwould suggest that [staff report item] b state: \"The City Council\nafter discussing the item may do any of the following;\" she would\ntake out number 1) [take no action] because, by and large, the\nCouncil does take an action, the issue is discussed, the matter\nmight be deferred, which is even taking an action; she wants to\nmake sure whatever the item, that the matter gets discussed;\nputting the matter on the agenda ensures that the matter is\ndiscussed; numbers 2 and 3 can be left as is; she would suggest\nthat the practice be implemented and, six months after adoption,\nthe issue be placed on an agenda to discuss whether Council likes\nthe practice and hear what the public thinks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether said suggestion was a\nmotion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the City Attorney\nindicated that the City Manager has the authority [over the\nagenda]; inquired how an item is placed on the agenda under the\njurisdiction of the City Attorney or City Clerk.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant\nClosed Session items, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in\nthe negative.\nThe City Attorney stated the only things that she has the power to\nput on the closed session agendas are certain attorney-client\nprivileged communications within the Brown Act she can put said\nmatters on the agenda because she needs to be able to talk to the\nCouncil since she works directly for the Council; however, she does\nnot have any authority to go to the City Manager and request that a\nmatter be placed on the agenda she has no such power under the\nCharter; she is not a policy maker and is not involved in\noperations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there would be an upcoming discussion\non Charter amendments, which do not come under the City Manager.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter comes under the voters.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a majority of the Council gave\ndirection to place Charter review on the agenda; this [the\nproposal] puts the items into public view; when an individual\nCounci wants something on the agenda, which the City Manager\ndoes not have time for, the item can get on the agenda for\nRegular Meeting\n10\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 11, "text": "discussion and a potential action from the entire Council with full\npublic notification, in full public view with a published version\nof what is going to be discussed; inquired whether he understands\ncorrectly.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if anything\nthe proposal is a way of ensuring that matters of interest to\nindividual Councilmembers get on the agenda because Council would\nnot be dealing with just City Manager discretion.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Vice Mayor Tam has\ninformation about other cities practices.\nVice Mayor Tam responded the City of Palo Alto adopted a similar\nprotocol as one way to address openness and public transparency\nregarding discussions between an individual Councilmember and the\nCity Manager.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City's current procedure brings it\nout in the open.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the procedure allows Council to formalize it\n[ the procedure]\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote Ayes Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.\nCouncilmember Gilmore noted that the matter would return in six\nmonths and [staff report] item 1 was deleted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-570) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending June 30, 2007.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the next report could provide the\nsales tax percentage in other cities budgets, to which the Finance\nDirector responded possibly.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that Page 2 notes that construction sales\nposted the largest increase related to building materials and\nwholesale. Alameda does not have a Home Depot.\nThe Finance Director stated Alameda has other businesses in town\nthat are classified as being part of the construction and wholesale\nRegular Meeting\n11\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 12, "text": "category.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the business that fabricates windows\non Oak Street would be classified in said category; the report is\ngood; a two-year budget will be adopted next June; the revenue\nstream is flat; auto dealerships will be on the decline; requested\nthat the report be posted to the website for public review.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether taxes would be impacted by\napproximately one third because of a decline in auto sales tax.\nThe Finance Director responded there are a variety of auto dealers\nsuch as used auto dealers and yacht sales.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated yacht sales have declined because a\nportion of a Marina was closed down for housing development ; used\ncar dealerships will be lost when the new car dealership moves out.\nThe Finance Director stated there are independent used car lots.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the report is timely because a local\nnewspaper editorial exhorted residents to spend money locally; the\nCity needs to promote businesses on the Island.\nThe Finance Director stated the referenced editorial noted that\nevery penny of the sales tax comes to Alameda, which is not true;\nAlameda only receives three-quarters of one percent.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the Alameda Towne Center has been\nundergoing construction in the last two years; inquired whether the\nnew stores would offer hope for some minor recovery to offset the\nauto dealership.\nThe Finance Director responded that she is not sure that there will\nbe a total offset stated some improvement has been made; more\nimprovement is anticipated as newer stores finish construction and\ncome on line; the impacts from Old Navy and TJ Max are not known\nbecause the report only covers the period ending June 30.\nMayor Johnson stated that Park Street sales tax generation north\nand south of Lincoln Avenue is over $500,000 for the second quarter\nof 2007; inquired what the City of Albany has that makes sales tax\ngeneration higher than Alameda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded the City of Albany has a Target.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that people need to pay attention to\nthe chart that shows General Fund distribution. the impact will be\nRegular Meeting\n12\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 13, "text": "on the General Fund when shortages occur, particularly for Police\nand Fire.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-571) Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson appointed Jerome Harrison.\n(07-572) - Councilmember deHaan noted that he would place the matter\nof campaign reform on the agenda using the Council Referral\nprocess; he would like to see limits on the amount from individual\ndonors and the total amount spent for a campaign he hopes to get\nsupport in moving the matter forward.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 8:56 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\n13\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2007 - -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(07-560) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations:\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing on\nthe status of negotiations.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 4, 2007- - -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize\nthe use of up to $50,000 [paragraph no. 07-051CIC], and the\nrecommendation to approve a $300,000 loan [paragraph no. 07-052\nCIC] were removed for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of\nthe remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. ]\n(*07-050 CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting of November 20, 2007. Approved.\n(07-051 CIC) Recommendation to authorize the use of up to $50,000\nin interest earnings to complete the enclosure of the Historic\nAlameda Theater Balcony Access Corridor and related improvements.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that the Commission discussed bringing\nback value engineering items if money became available; inquired\nwhether other worthy items should be considered.\nThe Development Services Director responded the CIC would not be\nrequired to make other significant, hard construction improvements\nto the Historic Theater in the future; stated decorative or\nrestoration items could be considered; the mezzanine balcony\nrehabilitation and restoration is the last hard construction item\nleft unfinished; the Historic Theater is required to have certain\nfire and life safety exiting paths as well as American with\nDisabilities (ADA) access; the proposed platform is part of the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 16, "text": "existing path for fire safety as well as ADA access. ADA access\nwould be provided using an elevator system in the new theater; the\nsecond floor was always assumed to be part of the second phase; the\nbalance of the second story improvements are the responsibility of\nthe developer.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated that he\nsupports the staff recommendation; he is concerned with safety\nissues; PSBA urges Council to accept the staff recommendation.\nChair Johnson stated the enclosure should be done now since money\nis available.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether a canopy would be used or a\nfull enclosure, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded a full enclosure.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated the enclosure should be done now\nbecause the contractors are on site and there would be minimal\ndisruptions.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that staff and the developer did an\nexcellent job; he supports the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-052 CIC) Recommendation to approve a $300,000 loan to Alameda\nEntertainment Associates, L. P. for rehabilitation and restoration\nof the mezzanine balcony in the Historic Alameda Theater and for\naugmentation of the Cineplex construction contingency budget.\nThe Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Tam stated that the use of $691,000 Merged Area Bond\nis fairly restricted.\nThe Development Services Manager stated that the 2003 Merged Area\nBond anticipated financing a number of projects; $4 million was\nunspecified; using the Bond for the Library was not anticipate; $2\nmillion was pledged to the Library to finish construction; State\nfunding for the library is closed out; the unused money was\nintended to come back to the CIC for other projects.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 17, "text": "Commissioner Tam stated the remainder of the fund cannot be used\nfor branch libraries because said libraries are not in\nredevelopment areas.\nThe Development Services Manager stated typically funds have to be\nused in redevelopment project areas or benefit redevelopment\nproject areas.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the West End library would fall well\nwithin said criteria because the library is the only library in the\narea; he is concerned with 738 seats; inquired whether there is a\nmarket for 738 seats.\nThe Development Services Director responded she called a number of\ntheaters; stated three or four shows can be sold out in a row on an\nopening day or the day before.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that previous discussions addressed\nutilizing the balcony differently; 254 seats were never anticipated\nin previous discussions.\nKyle Connor, Developer, stated theater strategy is to double track;\na lot of auditoriums are needed to double track; capacity is needed\nto meet demand; 1,300 people attended a silent film festival at the\nCastro Theater in San Francisco.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is the next largest theater other\nthan the main theater.\nMr. Connor responded three theaters have approximately 200 seats.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that the Castro Theater film festival\nwas a special event.\nMr. Connor stated that hopefully Alameda will have film festivals;\nfilms pay off in approximately 2.7 weeks; 90% of business is done\nwithin the first three weeks; facilitating capacity is important.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how the other portion [of the balcony\nwould be closed, to which Mr. Connor responded drapery would be\nused.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, urged approval of the staff recommendation;\nstated the community wants the balcony open.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the $2 million was not designated for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n3\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 18, "text": "the Library inquired whether the $2 million was redevelopment\nmoney that was held in case Library costs escalated, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated there is still Measure O money that\nis supposed to go for branch upgrades a report is needed on the\nmatter at some point; he would rather open the mezzanine balcony\nnow; people saw the potential for the theater  he thinks the loan\nshould be given to complete the job; twelve public days might\ndemand 800 seats.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Gilmore requested a run down on\nrestoration that has been accomplished.\nThe Development Services Director stated the project has gone very\nwell: major, significant repairs and alterations were made to the\nceiling; all the trim molding was painted; original light fixtures\nwere installed; fabric workers restored the original curtain;\nartisans did all of the leaf work; the original art work was put\nback in place; the detail is phenomenal; some of the original\nfurniture might be recovered.\nChair Johnson stated the marquee sign is beautiful.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that the Historic Alameda Theater is one\nof the better restorations; separating the upper balconies into\ntheaters would be a shame. inquired how many seats will be gained,\nto which the Development Services Director responded 150.\nCommissioner deHaan requested a breakdown of efforts made for the\ntransition into the Cineplex.\nThe Development Services Director stated some of the original\ncarpeting will be put back into the Historic Theater; the Cineplex\nwill have similar carpeting and upholstery; similar icons and\nimages have been carried through the Cineplex.\nCommissioner Gilmore requested staff to update the website photos.\nCommissioner Tam stated that the schedule shows a March opening\n;\nall contingencies are being used; inquired whether the CIC would be\nrequesting another loan in the next four months.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n4\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 19, "text": "The Development Services Director responded there is approximately\n$106,000 left in contingency.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether staff is requesting $200,000 on\ntop of the loan, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the negative.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $300,000 loan is coming\nfrom undesignated bond money, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*07-053 CIC) Recommendation to accept the Annual Report and\nauthorize transmittal to the State Controller's Office and the City\nCouncil. Accepted.\n(*07-573 CC/*07-054 CIC) Recommendation to accept transmittal of\nthe: 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal\nYear ended June 30, 2007; 2) Auditor's Agreed Upon Procedures\nReport on compliance with Vehicle Code Section 40200. 3 Parking\nCitation Processing; 3) Agreed Upon Procedures Report on compliance\nwith the Proposition 111 21005-06 Appropriations Limit Increment;\n4) Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092\nAudit Report for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2007; 5) Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements for\nYear ended June 30, 2007; 6) Community Improvement Commission Basic\nComponent Unit Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30,\n2007; and 7) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Basic\nComponent Unit Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30,\n2007. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(07-574CC/07-055CIC) Public Hearing to consider approval of a first\naddendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed-use Development Project\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the\nDevelopment Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to\nmodify the Public Waterfront Promenade;\n07-574A CC) Resolution No. 14162, \"Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of an Amendment of the Disposition and Development\nAgreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation. Adopted and\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n5\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 20, "text": "(07-055A CIC) Resolution 07-151, \"Approving a First Addendum to the\nAlameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Final Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Executive Director\nto Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing\nMixed Use Project) with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. \" Adopted ;\nand\n(07-574B CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development\nAgreement Amendment DA-06-0003 to the Development Agreement\n(Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) By and Between the\nCity of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated January\n16, 2007. Introduced.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a Power\nPoint presentation.\nDan Bucko with SMWM provided a brief presentation on wharf\nredesign.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief\nsummary of the proposed modifications to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA)\n.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether utility lines\nwould be above ground going to Clif Bar and restaurants.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nexisting 115 kV line would be relocated into the Mitchell Avenue\nright-of-way; stated Catellus would perform the trenching and\ninstall the conduit necessary for the ultimate undergrounding; the\n115kV line starts at the High Street Bridge, runs the entire length\nof the City's waterfront, and terminates at Pacific Avenue and Main\nStreet adjacent to Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the estimated\ninsurance cost.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the cost\nhas not been calculated; stated the idea is to obtain insurance if\navailable at commercially reasonable rates.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be a\ncommercially reasonable rate, to which the Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Manager responded that she would provide the\ninformation\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Alameda Landing tax\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n6\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 21, "text": "increment would be parceled off; Merged Improvement Areas would be\npaid back first with tax increment from other areas; requested\nclarification on the matter and whether Alameda Point would be\naffected.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Alameda\nPoint is in the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP)\nredevelopment area and would not be affected the Merged Area is\nthe West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) ; the Merged Area Bonds were\nissued in 2003 and were an existing condition when the DDA was\napproved with Catellus in 2006; the bond was sized and assumed a\nzero tax increment from Alameda Landing because the property is not\non the tax roll; all of the tax increment in the entire project\narea is pledged to the repayment of the debt; typically\nunderwriters have a debt to loan value ratio when debt is issued\ntechnically, the Alameda Landing tax increment is already pledged\nto the repayment of the existing obligation; the Bond was sized\nwhen there was no tax increment at Alameda Landing; the project\narea should have no trouble making the bond payment without Alameda\nLanding tax increment eventually, property taxes will be on the\nrolls for Alameda Landing.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that some of the proposed\nDevelopment Agreement (DA) amendments spread the cost and shift\nsome of the liabilities; the staff report notes that the City's\nfinancial obligations do not increase but overall project costs\nincrease and references just the acquisition of the property;\ninquired whether that is the only additional cost.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is\na one time cost for fencing the wharf and acquisition of the\nproperty insurance; stated the 115kV obligation would not be\ntriggered until the DA is amended to remove the project obligation;\nthe process is sequential.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan requested elaboration on the\nutility assessment district; inquired whether an assessment for the\nwharf is required.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded a\nMunicipal Utility District is anticipated which would pay for\nmaintenance and operations of the public open spaces such as the\nwharf; the undergrounding district would be just like the Rule 20A\nUndergrounding District where there is an assessment.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n7\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the district would\ncover.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\ndistrict would be comprised of the properties from Alameda Landing\nto Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be\nan assessment fund to maintain the wharf.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nassessment fund would be from the Municipal Utilities District,\ncovers more than the wharf, and includes other City services.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nGeorge Phillips, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, urged approval and\nexpedition.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda, encouraged the developer to keep both\nwarehouses.\nRoberta Rockwell, Alameda East Bay Miracle League, stated that she\nsupports the Alameda Landing Project.\nRichard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated he thought that the May 29 plan\nwas great; he was distressed when the September amendment came\nbefore the Planning Board and the western portion of the wharf and\na major structure were removed; he thinks that there may be ways of\nsaving and repairing the pier over time.\nMario Mariani, Alameda, stated he supports the changes.\nDon Lindsey, Alameda, encouraged moving forward with the project.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the buildings\nwould be demolished or deconstructed and reused.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nbuildings would be a combination of deconstruction and potential\ndemolition; stated the existing DDA does not obligate the developer\nto maintain the warehouses the Planning Board added a Condition of\nApproval which states that prior to making a decision about the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n8\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 23, "text": "disposition of the second warehouse, the developer will go back to\nthe Planning Board and make a presentation regarding the\nfeasibility of retaining the warehouse; the May and September plans\ndo not contemplate the retention of the second warehouse;\ncurrently, the Plan calls for the retention of the first warehouse\nfor Clif Bar; several other warehouses south of the wharf will be\npartially deconstructed and made into parking sheds; the developer\nis committed to recycle and reuse elements if the second warehouse\nis not used.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the office space\nsquare footage for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse and Community\nDevelopment Manager responded approximately 100,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the\nremaining square footage of the building, to which the Base Reuse\nand Community Development Manager responded approximately 300,000\nsquare feet.\nCouncilmember/CommissionerdeHaan inquired whether three to five\nstory buildings are still contemplated on the wharf.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nMaster Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the\nheight limit was reduced to 85 feet last year.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the waterfront\nwould have five-story buildings, to which the Base Reuse and\nCommunity Development Manager responded possibly.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the issue would\nbe contrary to the planning principles of having more open, step\ndown designs to the waterfront.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nMaster Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the new\nbuildings would be set back from the waterfront; there would be\nwaterfront access and open space more than 100 feet from the water ;\nthe Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requires a\nminimum 100 foot setback from the water.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost\nestimate for retrofitting the wharf.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded between\n$30 million and $35 million; stated San Francisco waterfront\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n9\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 24, "text": "improvements are estimated at $1 billion; the Cruise Terminal did\nnot go forward because of a $144 million bill to retrofit the piers\nat the Cruise Terminal San Francisco's challenge is much bigger\nthan Alameda Landing but is similar to the challenges of upgrading\nthe wharf to current seismic conditions and Uniform Building Code\nas well as geotechnical issues.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the anticipated\ncost would be.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the cost\nwould be approximately $15 million in order to accommodate Clif\nBar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said cost was\nnew compared to the original estimate, to which the Base Reuse and\nCommunity Development Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the original\nestimate.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that she\nwould need to check; stated an additional $30 million to $35 was\noriginally budgeted to retrofit the wharf and is cut back to $15\nmillion to preserve the warehouse for Clif Bar; the developer\nstates that it is infeasible to spend an additional $15 million to\n$20 million to preserve the remainder of the wharf; the developer\nbelieves that the redesign maintains a lot of the public amenities\nand benefits and is a better plan in some ways in that the entire\nwaterfront experience is not seven feet above the water; there is\nthe ability to step down and access the water at the water level.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the\nhistory construction costs escalate; costs for preserving the\nwarehouse and rest of the wharf are not worth holding up the\nproject everything should be done to recycle materials if a couple\nof buildings are lost; historic significance can be preserved in\nphotos and videos; the buildings are warehouses on a dock; he likes\nthe idea of getting closer to the water's edge and getting millions\nof dollars in sales tax which helps to have a safe City and good\nparks; everything should be done to underground the 115kV line,\nincluding pursuing Homeland Security money; keeping the project on\ntrack is important.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she concurs with\nCouncilmember/Commissione: Matarrese; there has been a six-month\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n10\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 25, "text": "delay in trying to get Clif Bar onto the site; conditions will\nchange ; seventy-five percent of the piers are compromised. the\nrecommended amendments accommodate changed conditions in a way that\ndoes not expose the City to additional financial obligations.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolutions\nand introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated that\nshe assumes that a future feasibility study would take into account\nthe condition of the warehouse and piers and would be part of the\nquestion of whether or not the pier can be saved.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated new technology might be available in five years\nthat would make pier replacement more cost effective; stated the\nfeasibility study would address requirements to retain the building\nas well as the requirement to do what needs to be done to the pier.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is time to move the project\nforward; the delay was unfortunate; opening up the waterfront and\nshoreline is great BCDC would not approve building a pier over the\nwater today; exposing more of the shoreline is good; inquired\nwhether there is a timeframe for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse\nand Community Development Manager responded fall of 2009.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the phase is not\ngoing to be completely designed out within the next two to three\nyears; his concern is how the waterfront office buildings are\ntreated; he would be discouraged to see a five-story building flush\non the shoreline; he hopes that the developer will look at other\nalternatives in the interim; the waterfront was always questionable\nand never thought to be something that could be saved; he is\nconcerned with the amount of money that could be deferred from the\nproject; he would like to see the money used in a better way to\nsupport the project and community.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-575 CC/07-056 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal\nYear 2007 First Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.\nThe Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n11\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that\nProposition 1A did not provide any protection for the City's\nredevelopment fund; requested clarification on the issue.\nThe Finance Director stated the last Educational Revenue\nAugmentation funds (ERAF) were $711,000 out of $5 million of\nproperty tax in the past years; the construction of a takeaway\nformula is unknown; redevelopment agencies are the most vulnerable.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Council\ndid not intend to use reserves for Beltline litigation costs;\ninquired what will be done in the future to prevent reoccurrence.\nThe Finance Director responded any direction for use of funds needs\nto come from the City Manager to the Finance Department and needs\nto have discussions on funding.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated all money needs to be budgeted with\napproval of Council.\nThe Finance Director stated that she understands that the money was\napproved for payment from the Risk Management Fund.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\naudit practices and protocols are sufficient to catch any in the\nFinance Director's opinion; stated that authorization happened over\na year agoi audits have been performed since that time; the matter\nis just coming to light now; inquired whether audit practices and\nprotocols are sufficient.\nThe Finance Director stated the only way that an auditor would be\naware of the issue was if substantial information was available\nabout the fact that the litigation was directed by Council; the\ndirection would be in the form of information from the City Manager\nand the City Attorney to Finance.\nCouncilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired how the\nissue was discovered.\nThe Finance Director responded by review of the Risk Management\nFund when the balance became a deficit.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nthe auditors look for deficits.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n12\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 27, "text": "The Finance Director responded the auditors pointed out that it was\na deficit this year but the issue was already determined.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Power\nPoint presentation should be posted to the website and Council\nshould receive a copyi the national economic environment affects\nCalifornia and will affect the City; thanked the Finance Director\nfor doing a good job on the presentation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam echoed Commissioner\nMatarrese's appreciation for the presentation; inquired how the\nCity deals with replenishing or drawing down on the reserves from\nthe 20% to 25% range.\nThe Finance Director responded the draw down was purposeful and\nwell thought out by Council in terms of trying to meet unmet\ninfrastructure needs.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether reserves\nare replenished also.\nThe Finance Director responded reserves are replenished only by\nhaving revenues exceed expenditures; stated the expenditure budget\nis $85.7 million; typically, not all money is spent and will go\nback into the fund balance; an absolute commitment cannot be made\nat this time.\nCouncilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a\ndraw down on the reserves because of needed infrastructure; the\ndraw down was supposed to be 25% to 23% and is now 21%; 18% is left\nand will leave approximately $12 million; a lot of the $12 million\nis obligated.\nThe Finance Director stated 18% leaves approximately $15.5 million\nthe $400,000 reserve designated for Fire Station 3 replacement is\nexcluded; approximately $6 million is loaned to other funds.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the\n$6 million could be called back.\nThe Finance Director responded the $6 million could be called back,\nbut the disaster would be pushed off to another area.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what loans\nare in the $6 million.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n13\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 28, "text": "The Finance Director responded $2.2 million is from Alameda Power &\nTelecom (AP&T) and is scheduled to be repaid in 2009; the remainder\nis all redevelopment agency loans.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Public Safety\nequates to approximately 60% of the budget and 30% of the staffing;\nthe out years obligation is concerning; Public Safety retirement\nfunds are escalating.\nThe Finance Director stated the actuarial evaluation was received\nin October from the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) ; the\nCity's contribution rate for Public Safety is remaining very close\nto 30% and is not increasing or decreasing significantly.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the dollar amount increases because of\nsalary increases.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether\nimmediate action is necessary to the extent of hiring freezes, etc.\nThe Finance Director responded department heads have been requested\nto restrain spending; stated discretionary spending should be\npostponed.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated department heads have\nbeen advised that a minimum of 1.5% needs to be saved; the budget\nis reviewed at weekly meetings; more changes may be necessary mid-\nyear.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that out\nyears are a real concern; different plans will need to be\ndeveloped; requested elaboration on Proposition 1A.\nThe Finance Director stated the report includes an excellent\ndescription of Proposition 1A; the Governor has to declare that\nthere is a severe State fiscal hardship the State can temporarily\nsuspend Proposition 1A basic protection of property tax; the\nLegislature has to agree by a two-thirds vote; a separate statute\nmust be adopted that requires the State to repay local governments\nin three years and can be done only twice in ten years.\nCouncilmember/Boar\u00f3 Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he has heard\nabout a 25% cut a 10% cut would be disastrous at a State level.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated one way to\nbuild up the General Fund reserves is by having revenues exceed\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n14\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 29, "text": "expenses the other way is to not fund infrastructure, as was done\nin the past; Council decided that the City could no longer do that\n[not fund infrastructurel; tough choices will need to be made.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is\nnot overly concerned with replenishing the reserves; the reserve\nwas built partially on the PERS bonanza that occurred in the\ndot. . com boom.\nThe Finance Director stated two years had a zero percent\ncontribution; the money was allowed to flow back into the fund\nbalance rather than setting the money aside to be used in the\nfuture for payments.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his\nbiggest concern is balancing the budget and delivering essential\nservices; the big difference between 2002 and today is that there\nwas not $10 billion a month of tax dollars flowing out of the\neconomy at the federal level; tonight's discussion sets the stage\nfor what will be a very tough fiscal environment for the\nforeseeable future; it is important to put on the brakes now.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how department heads cut budgets when\nthere are already built in increases.\nThe Finance Department responded salary and benefits are\ncontracted; a position can be left vacant.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated department heads are being asked to cut\nbudgets by 1.5%; however, budgets are increasing more than 1. .5%\nbecause of fixed increases.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Contracts\nare tied to salaries; the salaries are paid to people; the blunt\nend is either not filling the position or lay offs.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long\nthe City had the 25% reserve.\nThe Finance Director responded Council was presented with a policy\nfor adoption in late 1997 or early 1998.\nCouncilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Matarrese requested a copy\nof said policy.\nVice Mayor/Board  Member/Commissioner Tam stated Alameda is one of\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n15\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 30, "text": "the few cities that has a reserve many cities are being hit hard;\nthe League of California Cities cautioned all cities regarding\nProposition 1A; it is easier for the Legislature to raid local\ngovernment than it is to go up against the educational lobbyists.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Oakland was audited; $3\nmillion is questionable on payrolli inquired whether an operational\nreview or audit would be beneficial to Alameda.\nThe Finance Director responded an operational review never hurts;\nthere is a great deal of coordination between Human Resources and\nthe Finance Department a review could be scheduled later in the\nfiscal year and there has been some practice with the conversion of\nthe new payroll system.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated operational reviews were performed with\nsignificant findings for AP&T and the golf course.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the City of\nOakland did a performance audit; inquired what would be the cost\nfor such an audit.\nThe Finance Director responded a Request for Proposal (RFP) would\nneed to be done.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated AP&T and the golf course\nare enterprise funds and are different.\nThe Finance Director stated a RFP could be issued in the spring.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated expenditures are 23% to 25% generally;\nsome are lower; inquired whether some categories are over budgeted,\nsuch as Police Contract overtime, abandoned vehicle abatement, and\nadvance life support.\nThe Finance Director responded the Police Contract overtime does\nnot follow a straight line and is based upon the need of outside\npersons to contract with the Police Department for overtime, such\nas for school dances.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is enough in the budget\nfor additional animal shelter staffing and improvements.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded a grant fund could be\nused; stated funding impacts would need to be identified.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n16\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 31, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the golf course had more of a shortfall\nthan was anticipated; inquired how much is left in the golf course\nfund, to which the Finance Director responded $1.9 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the golf course fund is burning through\napproximately $60,000 per month.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the $15.5\nmillion [reserve] is pretty well obligated; he believes that staff\nhas the skills in getting requirements in order; having an outside\nreview process would be a shame; actions have to be weighed; AP&T\nand the golf course are other concerns.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a 1.5% reduction is aggressive\nenough for the next six or seven months.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director responded the 1.5% reduction is\na beginning; stated the matter will be monitored; she believes that\nthe reduction fits at this point; direction can be changed if\nnecessary.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Council needs to consider how cuts are\nmade.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated the matter would be\nbrought back to Council mid year.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the\nfirst quarter financial report and requested recommended\nappropriations.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 11:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n17\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-12-04", "page": 32, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n18\nand Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nDecember 4, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf"}