{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND\nREDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 27, 2010--7:0 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Councilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to appoint Michael Krueger\n[paragraph no. 10-377 was continued; and the recommendation to authorize the Interim\nExecutive Director to sign a Letter of Agreement [paragraph no. 10-58 CIC and the\nrecommendation to approve an Agreement with the City of Inglewood [paragraph no.\n10-378 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the\nremainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*10-376 CC/ARRA/10- 57 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and\nCIC Meeting Held on July 7, 2010. Approved.\n(10-377 CC) Recommendation to Appoint Michael Krueger to the Oakland Chinatown\nAdvisory Committee. Not heard.\n(10-58 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Sign a\nLetter of Agreement in the Amount of $9,690 with the Greater Alameda Business\nAssociation for FY 10-11; to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $89,993 with the\nPark Street Business Association for FY 10-11; and to Enter into a Contract in the\nAmount of $81,676 with the West Alameda Business Association for FY 10-11.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated two of the business associates have contacted her\nregarding street maintenance and lighting; landscaping and lighting funds are in the\nbudget; inquired whether a decision has been made for street maintenance and if so,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 2, "text": "how things are working.\nThe Interim Executive Director responded the agreements are the same as in the past;\nstated this year, funds have been reduced by a nominal amount; the City did an\nRequest for Proposal (RFP) to see if some of the landscape and maintenance services\ncould be done at a reduced rate; the associations have had different views regarding\nwhether the amount of coverage in the RFP's were comprehensive; a vendor has\nagreed to work with the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) to bifurcate the\nbid so that the bid would work for WABA; the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)\nwill continue to do its own thing; the landscape and lighting agreement funds are\nsufficient to cover whatever WABA and PSBA choose to do.\nChair Johnson stated past discussions have addressed advertising at the Oakland\nAirport; that she thinks the idea is worth reviewing.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated Alameda is very close to the airport, but nothing is\nadvertised on the screen; advertising costs will be researched.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he recalls the matter being addressed with the\nChamber of Commerce.\nThe Economic Development Business Development Division Manager stated the City\nhas a Contract with the Chamber of Commerce for writing articles and public relations,\nnot airport advertising.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated the motion could include language regarding\nlooking into airport advertising.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation, with direction for\nthe Interim Executive Director to review advertising in the Oakland Airport.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(10-378 CC) Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with the City of Inglewood for\nCitation Processing and Collection Services.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the service is provided to other cities; inquired whether staff has\ncontacted other cities to get an idea of satisfaction.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded in the negative; stated\nthe City of Inglewood advised her that its track record for renewing Northern California\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 3, "text": "client contracts is good; in 2009, the City of Inglewood had 12 existing clients that\nrenewed contracts and new clients came onboard, the City of Berkeley has renewed its\ncontract.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she understands the efficiencies, but is having\ntrouble with contract costs versus what would be saved.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated currently, the parking citation\nprogram costs approximately $85-90,000 for staff, which does not track the Supervising\nAccountant time for managing the program; the Supervising Accountant's time is\ncharged elsewhere; the savings would be approximately $10,000 in terms of the\nprogram; an existing employee would be transferred as opposed to hiring a new\nemployee which would result in another $80,000 or so in savings.\nCouncilmember Tam stated staff looked at the City of Inglewood when performing its\ndue diligence regarding economies of scale; inquired why staff has not talked with the\nCity of Oakland or City of Berkeley regarding exploring partnering opportunities in terms\nof the Duncan Solutions program.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded both Berkeley and\nOakland contract out and use different vendors; Duncan and Inglewood are the industry\nstandard and have 65 clients in northern California.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not clear on the processing center location; the\nlocation does not seem to be centralized, but spread out.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Duncan Solutions is based\nout of Milwaukee; Inglewood sought partnership with Duncan Solutions since it is the\nlargest provided; handheld ticket writer support is provided from Carlsbad.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the $13,000 a year credit card processing costs\nwould be included in the $75,000 [annual agreement cost], or whether the cost would be\npart of the convenience fee that the person getting the ticket would have to pay.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the person getting the\nticket would pay the convenience fee as an added cost to the ticket.\nSpeaker: Richard Hausman, Alameda.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated developing a system would\nbe a time consuming process and would be quite costly; some money would be given\nup for the privilege of having someone else do collections; staff could bring the\ncollections issue back as a separate item in September so Council could choose\nwhether or not to pursue the issue.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n3\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the collection system would be used for tickets that\nare not paid, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the\ncollection system would be used for outstanding tickets that would go through the\nFranchise Tax Board.\nMayor Johnson inquired what process is used now.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded letters are sent out four\ntimes a year; people do not necessarily respond; eventually, something gets placed on\na person's DMV record, which prevents re-registering a car.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City has an integrated financial management\nsystem that does not have all the modules; having parking citations in an integrated\nledger is usually part of accounts receivable; the existing financial management\nsoftware system is more driven for school districts than for cities; the average cost for a\nnew module is between $85,000 to $120,000; the existing system has not been\nmaintained or serviced; the City would have to buy a separate parking citation module,\nprogram and integrate the module into the existing system, and find someone to\nmaintain the system; replacing the financial management system with integrated\nmodules would cost approximately $1.2 million; a maintenance and service fee would\nbe approximately $49,000 to $80,000 depending on the module.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the issue is more than just personnel but involves software\nand maintenance.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the most efficient way to handle the matter would be to\nstart peeling away at the various modules little by little and budget going toward a\nhosted system or outsourcing a system.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Interim City Manager is looking at looking at\noutsourcing some of the components.\nThe Interim City Manager responded different modules are being reviewed; stated the\nissue will be discussed under the budget item.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether any other services are available other than\nInglewood Citation Management Services (ICMS); further inquired what the City of\nOakland uses; stated that she is concerned with being tied to one system and having no\nrecourse other than not renewing the contract if there is a problem.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she does not know\nwhat the City of Oakland uses; stated if a problem develops, the City could contract with\nanother vendor once the existing Agreement expires.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n4\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 5, "text": "The Interim City Manager inquired whether the Agreement has a termination clause, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she would\nneed to check.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the software being used by the vendor is\nproprietary; further inquired whether the City would need to reprogram everything or get\na whole new system when terminating the Contract, or whether someone else would\nknow the system's functions.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the Agreement would be\na three-year term with optional renewal; stated either party could terminate the\nAgreement by providing 120 days written notice; everything would be hosted and would\nreside with ICMS, the City's data would be converted into the data files; the City could\nsever the relationship six months down the road if it chooses; that she does not know\nwhether the software is proprietary or not.\nThe Interim City Manager clarified that the City would get its data back in some format\nbut would not get the software.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated having an adversarial\nrelationship with another local agency would not be in the best interest of the City of\nInglewood.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether hard information going into the database\nwould be certified as being secure; whether data would be retrievable to ensure that\ndata would belong to the City at the termination of the Contract; and whether handheld\nvalidated information would go into the database.\nThe City Attorney confirmed security of information is included in the contract.\nThe Supervising Accountant explained the data validation process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated certification of validation, certification of secure\ndatabase, and certification that the City would get data in a format that could be used at\nthe end of the Contract is important.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how long the City of Inglewood has been doing citation\nprocessing and collection services, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative\nServices responded 20 years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that staff would not be considering hiring the City of\nInglewood if there were unhappy customers in the past.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n5\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation with Councilmember\nMatarrese's clarifying issues regarding certification requirements.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*10-379 CC) Resolution No. 14478, \"Authorizing the City of Alameda and the Alameda\nFire Department to Access Federal Level Summary Criminal History for Emergency\nMedical Technicians.' Adopted.\n(*10-380 CC) Ordinance No. 3020, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Subsection 8-7.11 (Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers) of\nSection 8-7 (Parking Prohibitions) of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and\nAlternative Transportation Modes). Finally passed.\n* *\n(10-381 CC/ARRA/10-59 CIC) Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that agenda items\nwould be taken out of order and provided the revised order.\n*\nAGENDA ITEM\n(10-382 CC) Recommendation to Approve Reimbursement Agreement with VF Outdoor\n(SRM Associates).\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation; and the Interim City\nManager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 7:48 p.m. and returned at 7:53 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she wants to be clear that VF Outdoor would be a\ngreat company to welcome to Alameda; inquired whether half of the subsidies would be\nrecovered by year four.\nThe Interim City Manager responded other property transfer taxes are not being\nprojected in future years phasing; stated the only number put in is the number that\nwould be reimbursed for that year; assumptions should have been made regarding the\nnext phases; as other phases are sold in future years there would be more property\ntransfer tax.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether concessions would be made for other phases, to\nwhich the Interim City Manager responded in the negative, only Phase 1.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n6\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated generating $3 million over twelve years is approximately\n$250,000 per year; Exhibit 3 shows a different estimate of net revenues to the General\nFund; inquired whether the recovery would seem to be more like eight years.\nThe Interim City Manager responded eight years seems about right; stated 50% of the\nproperty tax would be going into the special fund, not the General Fund.\nMayor Johnson inquired how VF Outdoor would compare to other businesses in\nAlameda.\nThe Business Development Manager responded the best comparison would be Abbott\nDiabetes Care; stated having 600 plus employees would be similar.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the next step down in terms of employees, to\nwhich the Business Development Manager responded Wind River.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many employees Wind River has, to which the Business\nDevelopment Manager responded 300 to 400.\nMayor Johnson stated that she wants to make the scale apparent to the public; VF\nOutdoor would be a significant business for Alameda.\nSpeakers: Steve Rendle, VF Outdoor; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; and Lorre\nZuppan, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated VF Outdoor would be a great\ncompany coming to Alameda; Alameda is a safe community; the proposed design\nmeets bay view requirements.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes the bay friendly landscaping plan; Peet's Coffee\nhas similar landscaping.\nVice Mayor deHaan commended SRM; stated five years ago, the City considered\nrelocating a warehouse in the area; that he cannot say enough about the evolution of\nthe Harbor Bay Business Park; supporting transportation is important.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked staff and SRM for all the hard work; stated that she is\nvery impressed with the campus design; putting parking in the rear adds a lot to the\nfront.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n7\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 8, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-383 CC) Correspondence to the United States Department of Transportation\nRequesting Denial of Alameda County's Proposal to Modify the Hours of Operation to\nEstuary Drawbridges.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated now is a good time to bring the issue before Council; that she is\nvery disappointed with the process the County and Supervisor Lai-Bitker have used;\npast discussions involved closing bridges for a few hours during the middle of the night;\nthe County did not have any public process before providing a proposal to lock bridges\ndown at 4:30 p.m.; encouraged Alameda residents to express concern and outrage to\nSupervisor Lai-Bitker; that she is offended that Alameda residents' interest have been\ndisregarded; the Coast Guard has confirmed its policy that economics is not a\njustification for shutting off waterways.\nSpeakers: Ed Payne, Alameda and Alameda Waterfront Homeowners Association; and\nTom Charron, Alameda.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:32 p.m. and returned at 8:34 p.m.\nFollowing Mr. Payne's comments, Mayor Johnson stated people need to be vocal\nregarding the issue and continue to send communications to the Coast Guard;\nconcurred that property values would be significantly affected because bridge closure\nwould turn a navigable waterway into a non-navigable waterway.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that the Public Works Director has spent a lot of time\nresearching the issue, particularly in terms of safety conditions; that she has not done\nall the work.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is very discouraged with the lack of transparency and\nmeaningful public input; encouraged yacht club members to write letters to the Coast\nGuard.\nThe Public Works Director stated the three options noted in the press release are to\nsend letters: 1) to the Federal E Rue Making Portal at www.regulations.gov; 2) via fax to\n(202) 493-2251, or 3) to the docket facility for the United States Department of\nTransportation in Washington, D.C.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n8\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff would be sending a letter to the Coast Guard.\nThe Public Works Director responded sending a letter to the Coast Guard is not one of\nthe options; stated letters sent to the Department of Transportation would eventually get\nto the Coast Guard.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Coast Guard is recommending such procedure, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated letters should be very strong in stating that the City does not\nsupport any change to current bridge operations since the County has not worked with\nthe City; the County has not used a good faith process; the City should oppose any\nchanges and force the County to work with the City.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she attended a forum at Aeolian Club on the issue;\ninquired what is the City's financial contribution to the bridges and whether the City has\nthe option to take over the bridges.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Park Street and Miller-Sweeney [Fruitvale]\nBridges are owned by the County; stated the City has no financial responsibility; County\nsales tax is earmarked for maintenance; the City has no responsibility to pay for bridge\nmaintenance; the County should have known that there would be on-going costs for\nmaintenance when it accepted ownership; the Coast Guard would not be interested in\nreducing services that would reduce maritime use.\nCaptain Payne stated the County collects money for bridge operation through road and\ngas taxes and is reimbursed for half of the Miller-Sweeney [Fruitvale] Bridge operation\nfrom the Federal government.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is interested in what Alameda contributes from its\nshare of the gas or sales tax; the situation is similar to when the City closed Fire Station\n5; economics and probability drove the closure; constructive solutions should be\nconsidered rather than criticisms.\nThe Public Works Director stated gas tax is based upon population and miles of roads\nfor the entire County; focus should not be on costs; the Coast Guard stated that costs\nshould not be addressed; the Coast Guard is concerned that maritime service not be\nunreasonably impacted; that he thinks maritime service would be impacted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not have a dispute with writing letters on\nbehalf of the community underscoring the need for the 24/7 operation; other options,\nother than operating at a loss, should be reviewed if the County and City do not have\nfunding.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n9\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 10, "text": "The Public Works Director stated the County needs to figure out funding.\nMayor Johnson stated that she attended two meetings; one meeting was with Coast\nGuard and County staff; the other meeting was with County staff; the first meeting was\nafter the newspaper noticed that the County was proposing to lock the bridges; the\nCounty did not answer economic questions regarding operations and maintenance; the\nCounty should have come back and worked with the community; the County will not\nmeet or discuss the matter with people who would be most impacted with the proposed\nchange; the County did not outreach to the City regarding the 4:30 p.m. closure; the\nCounty has not fulfilled its responsibility.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the Interim City Manager to\nsend a letter rejecting the County's proposal; stated a solution is out there somewhere;\nthere is a chance to reset the issue.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion\nincludes that the City does not support any changes to the current schedule, to which\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the community was willing explore other ways at an Aeolian\nClub meeting in February or March.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff met with the County and reviewed options with\nthe County Public Works Director; she was not interested; the solution would be her\nway or no way.\nMayor Johnson encouraged people to continue communicating with the Coast Guard\nand Supervisor Lai-Bitker; inquired whether proposed language regarding no changes\nto the current schedule is acceptable to Councilmember Tam, to which Councilmember\nTam responded, said language is what the letter currently states.\nMayor Johnson requested the language be made stronger.\nThe Interim City Manager stated language would be firmed up.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the letter can start with the City not wanting any\nchanges.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n10\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 11, "text": "(10-384 CC/ARRA/10-60 CIC) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda's Real\nEstate Asset Management Policy.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht.\nFollowing Mr. Spangler's comments, the Interim City Manager stated the policy is a\nCouncil policy; the Authorities and Responsibilities sections have citations in terms of\npolicy administration; the City Manager would make administrative decisions as to what\nthe policy means.\nCouncilmember Tam stated for clarity, language should be added stating: \"before\nrecommending to the City Council for final approval\".\nThe Interim City Manager inquired where the inserted language should go.\nCouncilmember Tam responded on Page 5 [of the Real Estate Asset Management\nPolicy] under Organizational Responsibilities X-1 where it states: \"the City Manager's\noffice is the ultimate decision maker with respect to administrative interpretation of this\nCity Council policy. All transactions under this policy must be approved by this office\";\nrecommended inserting \"before recommending to the City Council for final approval\"\nafter the word \"office\".\nIn response to Mr. Spangler's comment regarding the policy including the City's\ncommitment to making older City-owned buildings Leadership Energy and\nEnvironmental Design (LEED) certified or green buildings, the Interim City Manager\nstated the idea sounds good.\nFollowing Ms. Cameron's comments, Mayor Johnson stated that the City wants to\ncontinue to work with Bay Ship and Yacht and appreciates all the work that Bay Ship\nand Yacht has done.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Interim City Manager, businesses that provided\ninput, as well as staff; stated the policy is exactly what he hoped for when he put in the\nCouncil Referral; the earlier policy was not working; the new policy is comprehensive\nand dynamic; changes and adjustments might be needed; that he wants to stay focused\non a long-term approach; taking lease revenues up to the front end to the exclusion of\nothers is not the way to do things.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation; stated the policy\ncould be evaluated in six months or after \"x\" number of negotiated leases to ensure that\nthe City is on target or adjustments need to be made.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n11\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Tam seconded the motion with the modification to include additional\nlanguage she proposed [before recommending to the City Council for final approval].\nCouncilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether including efforts to become\ngreener would be included, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Tam concurred with amending the motion.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Council would approve the ultimate lease.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice - 5.\n(10-385 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Cooperation Agreement between\nthe City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the Alameda\nEast Bay Miracle League; and\n(10-385A CC) Resolution No. 14479, \"Supporting the Alameda East Bay Miracle\nLeague Efforts to Construct Miracle Park, Which Will Provide Special Needs Persons\nwith the Opportunity to Play Baseball as Team Members in a Formally Organized\nBaseball League in the City of Alameda.\" Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the resolution of support\nwould identify and commit the City to the site; further inquired whether the resolution\nwould be strong enough to state that there would be a site and money would be\nprovided.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff provided the Miracle\nLeague with the draft resolution for review; stated the Miracle League believes that the\nresolution is sufficient; staff coordinated with the Miracle League to ensure that needs\nwould be met.\nSpeakers: John Pecson, Alameda Soccer Club; Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League; and\nNino Borsoni, Miracle League.\nMayor/Chair Johnson thanked the Miracle League and staff for putting together a\nproject that would go forward in the foreseeable future, rather than at an unknown time\nin a certain phase of development fifteen years from now; congratulated everyone on\nputting things together.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n12\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 13, "text": "stated everyone's hard work and perseverance has paid off.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the commitment has always been there;\ntiming has been everything; site control is all-important with fundraising.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-386 CC) Resolution No. 14480, \"Authorizing the Sale of 2216 Lincoln Avenue,\nApproving a Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Alameda and\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and Authorizing the Interim City Manager to\nExecute the Agreement and Related Documents.\" Adopted; and\n(10-61 CIC) Resolution No. 10-169, \"Authorizing the Purchase of 2216 Lincoln Avenue,\nApproving a Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Alameda and\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and Authorizing the Interim executive Director to\nExecute the Agreement and Related Documents.\" Adopted.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the project is very positive for Alameda; affordable housing\nwould be a great use for the site and the location is good because it is near City\nfacilities and transportation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the location is great and the proposed use is\nsorely needed; the City would be selling the property to itself; inquired how staff arrived\nat the $735,000 purchase price.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager responded two appraisals were\nperformed and the difference was split.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the proposal would be to put 19 units on half\nan acre; inquired how Measure A or Article 26 of the City Charter would apply.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the Guyton exemption is\na settlement agreement that allows the Housing Authority to develop a number of\naffordable units exempt from Measure A as long as the Housing Authority is the owner;\nstated the project would be built pursuant to the Guyton exception and settlement\nagreement.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the process would include\nPlanning Board design review and site planning, and whether Council would have final\napproval.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n13\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 14, "text": "The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded absolutely; stated\nadditional outreach would be done because the community usually has questions\nregarding affordable housing.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired what would be the funding source, to\nwhich the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP) Affordable Housing Fund.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the fund balance, to which the\nHousing Development and Programs Manager responded the fund exceeds $3 million\nand may be closer to $4 million.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the site has been used for employee parking;\nthe parking structure is being used now.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated employees who were parking in the\nlot have been relocated to the top floor of the parking structure; approximately 100\nspaces have been earmarked for employee parking.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the proposed affordable housing\nsite would be the first move forward in the Civic Center vision plan, to which the Interim\nCity Manager/Executive Director responded absolutely.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the process for the proposed project has\nbeen rapid and well thought out; hopefully, the rest of the Civic Center plans do so as\nwell.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated identifying funding would\ncome next.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is impressed that plans have\nbeen implemented, appreciates leadership and direction, and hopes the project moves\nrapidly.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-387 CC/ARRA/10-62 CIC) Operational Budget Highlights\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n14\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 15, "text": "Speaker: Richard Hausman, Alameda.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the budget discussion would answer Mr.\nHausman's questions regarding the Alameda Free Library being almost $500,000 in the\nred at the end of Fiscal Year 2011; the Civic Center garage having $500,000 going out,\nleaving $6,000 at the end of Fiscal Year 2011; Section 227.1 appearing to be a\nduplication and being listed as Theater Parking structure with different figures; and the\nAlameda/Oakland Ferry Service being almost $1 million in the red at the end of Fiscal\nYear 2011, to which the Interim City Manger/Executive Director responded in the\naffirmative.\n(10-388 CC) Capital Budget Highlights\nThe City Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City still does street crack sealing, to which the\nCity Engineer responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Public Works stripes red curbs from the\ncorner; stated the paint wears off and people are out in traffic before making a left turn.\nThe City Engineer responded the City has one striping program for target areas and\nanother program for on-call; stated red curbs are refreshed if there is enough money left\nover in the target program; Pubic Works tries to add red curb painting to address the\nissue; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how closely traffic flow and signage improvements\nare integrated with other projects such as the Webster Street Planning Project; stated\npeople living on Eighth Street have been suffering with additional Webster Street traffic,\nwhich Webster Street wants, since Constitution Way went in twenty years ago; further\ninquired whether coordination has been performed.\nThe City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated staff has met with the West\nAlameda Business Association (WABA); the Congestion Management Authority (CMA)\nhas a signal interconnect program; deciding how to set signal controls is a balancing\nact.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City is spending money on attracting people to\nWebster Street; inquired how closely staff is working with WABA.\nThe City Engineer responded the Supervising Civil Engineer is working with WABA and\nCMA; stated everything depends upon signal timing.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n15\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the North Pump Station would fix the lake\nthat occurs next to the Tube every time there is a little rain.\nThe City Engineer responded last year, water started backing up from the Pump Station\nthroughout the entire West End; stated the lake next to the Tube is more localized; a\nCapital Improvement Project (CIP) could be done and would cost approximately\n$125,000; water hits the hump and never gets to the inlet; grinding down the hump\nwould not provide needed elevation to have a flow line; the whole area would need to\nbe ground out and the grade would need to be reestablish to match the inlet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there are no curbs on Grand Street between Buena\nVista Avenue, Eagle Avenue, and Clement Street; that he noticed a commercial truck\npulled up to the dirt where a sidewalk and curb should be; oil was spilling out of the\nbottom of the truck; inquired whether there are plans to have curbs and gutters\nthroughout the City.\nThe City Engineer responded development is conditioned to include curbs, landscape\nstrips, and sidewalks for new construction; stated gutters and curbs are part of the\nresurfacing program.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the site he is referencing seems as though there has\nnever been a curb; inquired whether the issue would be addressed.\nThe City Engineer responded curbs would be put in as the project comes forward\nthrough entitlement or resurfacing.\nThe Public Works Director stated the site that Council Matarrese is referencing was\nBeltline property now owned by the City; perhaps some of the lease revenue could be\nput into capital improvement projects as part of the asset management process.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City handles ponding on Otis Drive.\nThe City Engineer responded the matter would need to be sent to CalTrans; stated the\nCity does not work on any State highway segments.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff needs to notify CalTrans, particularly regarding the\nsituation above Broadway; that he is concerned about not having funding available for\ntrees along Appezzato Parkway; inquired how the matter would be addressed.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City has two types of capital improvement\nprojects; stated the City Engineer addressed the traditional capital improvement\nprogram, which includes extending the life of a public infrastructure; the other type is\nannual capital improvement projects, which tend to be maintenance functions; street\ntree planning falls under annual capital improvement projects; funds would be increased\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n16\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 17, "text": "by $10,000 if the proposed budget is approved; the amount could be increased more.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that staff has discussed having a tree nursery which is\nnot part of the budget adoption tonight; the matter could be presented at the first City\nCouncil meeting in October.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she needs help in reconciling the capital improvement\nprogram; expenditures have a huge variability; inquired whether the Krusi Park\nFeasibility Plan, court resurfacing, and Tillman Park improvements would absorb all of\nthe $2.1 million in the first year and no funding would be left over.\nThe City Engineer responded projects are based upon when funding is made available;\nstated staff did not know whether the City would have Measure WW funds when\npreparing the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget; hopefully, grants will be available for park\nimprovements next year.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the same applies to pedestrian/bicycle\nimprovements.\nThe City Engineer responded pedestrian/bicycle improvements are included in the Park\nStreet Streetscape federal funding and specifically earmarked for lights, sidewalk, and\ntree work.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested clarification of the Harbor Bay Parkway resurfacing.\nThe Public Works Director stated Harbor Bay Parkway is one of the Americans\nRecovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) federal funding projects; a second round of\nARRA funding became available; the City provided paperwork for Doolittle Drive to Ron\nCowan Parkway; the City was in the top ten [to receive federal funding] and then federal\nfunding stopped; the City should be eligible once funding is freed up.\nThe City Engineer stated rumor has it that some funding might be available in\nSeptember.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned with zero park funding for Fiscal Year\n2011-2012; inquired whether Measure WW is the only source available for parks, to\nwhich the City Engineer responded a new fund, Roberti-Z-Berg, has been established.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City is at the mercy of receiving periodic funds to keep\nparks together; inquired where funding would be generated if federal funding is not\navailable.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the base level would be parcel fees; stated the\nnext level would be State grants such as Roberti-Z-Berg or State bond initiatives; the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n17\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 18, "text": "majority of cities are able to contribute to park improvements from impact fees; the City\nis lucky to generate $10,000 to $50,000 in park impact fees; hence, the City should\nfocus on upgrading the development impact fee study; another option would be using\nproperty sale proceeds; a Capital Improvement Discretionary Fund has been\nestablished this year which is not a recurrent revenue source; the City has an\nopportunity to put $2 million to $4 million into the fund; the City has an unfunded liability\nin terms of capital improvements for streets, curbs, and gutters in addition to the park\nshortfall; impact fees are not going to be substantial for the City.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated parks and libraries will be severely impacted given the\nState's condition; the City will need to provide its own funding mechanism.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a recurrent revenue source would have to go to\ntaxpayers.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is bothered by a zero balance [for Fiscal Year 2010-\n2011].\nThe Interim City Manager stated cities are going to be forced to finance capital\nimprovements and do maintenance; discretionary State and federal dollars might not be\navailable.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated street funding has dropped from $3.5 million to $1 million.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City has to leverage opportunities to do joint\nventure with non-profits so that maintenance dollars can be redeployed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated things are not going to get better; that he is concerned about\nhow the mechanism might work.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is an update on the State budget.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the budget is at a\nstandstill; stated the Governor stated that he will not deal with the issue, but will let the\nnext governor deal with the issue; no one seems to be in a hurry.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the State deficit is at $19 billion and holding, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded $19 billion sounds\nright.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-389 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Establishing the Proposition 4 (Appropriations)\nLimit for fiscal year 2010-2011;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n18\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 19, "text": "(10-389A CC) Resolution No. 14481, \"Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year\n2010-2011. Adopted;\n(10-389B CC) Resolution No. 14482, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and\nCapital Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for Said Expenditures in Fiscal Year\n2010-2011.' Adopted;\n(10-63 CIC) Resolution No. 10-170, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital\nBudget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for Said Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2010-\n2011.' Adopted; and\n(ARRA) Resolution No. 48, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital Budget\nand Appropriating Certain Moneys for Said Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.\nAdopted.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on call provisions.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated call provisions are structured and\nindentured when bond holders are able to be paid off; sometimes call provisions are\nlimited and conditions are structured in a municipal debt as an incentive to the buyer of\nthe municipal debt because no one wants to take X amount of dollars if the bond will be\ncalled; the debt service term has not been expanded.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether doing that kind of debt made sense at the time;\nstated the 2000 AMP bonds that are being refinanced did not make sense even in 2000;\npolicies need to be in place to ensure that bad debt is not done.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated a lot of cities do dirt bonds\n[Community Facilities Districts]; the best ratio is $1 of debt for every $4 of land value;\nthe City needs more elaborate financial policies; municipal debt has variations.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue with the 2000 bonds is that the bonds were\ntaxable.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated in general, taxables have been at a\nhigher rate; nowadays, cities can get taxables that are less than a municipal rate\nbecause city tax credit is not as good as some taxables; government can no longer\nbudget for just a year.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the bond that Council did not like a couple of\nyears ago and sent back a number of times cannot be refunded.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the bond would be difficult to\nrefund in today's market; at the time, the bond probably made sense to relieve the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n19\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 20, "text": "pressure in the General Fund.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Council sent the bond back at least three times and then\nreluctantly agreed to move forward; Council would not have gone forward if the\nprovisions were know.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated refunding the bond over the time\nperiod left in the initial bond would result in higher debt service payments; payments\nwould spike by not extending the debt service term beyond what was initially done on\nthe debt.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated policies need to be development to avoid mistakes that\nhave happened in the past.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the City has very low debt ratio;\ndebt is in the future; standards and policies need to be in place before debt is issued.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the policy approach is\nthe same approach that is being taken with asset management; balancing the budget is\nnecessary; revenue needs to be generated to fill the budget gap and long term affect; a\nlong-term approach should be included as policies are developed.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she will come back before the\nholidays with a financial policy similar to the asset management policy.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/\nExecutive Director stated refinancing cannot be done and that the General Fund would\nbe needed; inquired how long the bleeding would last.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded there is no long-term funding\nout of the Library; General Fund dollars would be used on a recurring basis until 2014,\nunless another way is found.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $12.1\nmillion [General Fund balance] would drop.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $1.7 million transfer to the\nLibrary would go up to $2.1 million and $2.2 million; stated staff will work very hard to\nfind a solution; another part of the policy would be what would be financed with a thirty\nyear debt; that her first reaction would be to see if some of the bonds could be called to\nreduce debt service and lower the balance; however, she has not looked far enough in\nthe indenture; right now, her feeling is not to refund something unless money could be\nsaved because the cost of issuance would be too high.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n20\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is approximately a\n$10 million difference in Special Revenue Funds (SRF) from Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to\nFiscal Year 2011-2012; reduced revenues are expected; inquired what expenses would\nbe cut.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded a number of the SRF are\ngrants, bond proceeds, and CIP Funds, which will have draw downs; expenditure\nreductions need to be reviewed because revenues have been reduced, in terms of the\ngas tax and Measure B, which are coming down 10% - 20%; redevelopment funds are\nalso in the SRF.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the SRF drop\nis the result of what the State is doing to the City.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated\ninterest would go down; the State is taking redevelopment money and the City is\ndrawing down on capital improvement funds to pay bills and finish projects.\nCouncilmember//Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the drop\nincludes last year's regular property tax reassessments that will hit the tax roles this\nyear.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative for the\nredevelopment agency and General Fund.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry regarding\nFire and Police Department expenditures, the Interim City Manager/Executive Director\nresponded in Fiscal Year 2008-2009, the City did not fully fund all Police positions;\nnetting out salaries is not uncommon if a city knows there will be a large delay in\nvacancies; Fiscal Year 2008-2009 figures reflected the Reduction in Force (RIF) and did\nnot include fully funding the positions; in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, all positions were\nfunded in the Police Department; approximately $600,000 in Police personnel costs\nwere not fully funded in the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget; personnel sheets have been\nredone to ensure that positions are fully funded; in the year now closing, departments\nneed to absorb additional costs; medical insurance increases have been a common\ntheme across all departments; the Fire and Police Departments have 92 sworn\npersonnel, which will not change this year.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated one fire station closed which\nresulted in a 20% loss in activity; inquired how the loss is reflected.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded closing the Fire Station is\nparallel with the number of positions cut in the Fire Department; stated the assessment\nfor Police and Fire will be different and will be based on what makes sense; the goal is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n21\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 22, "text": "not to reduce staffing absent circumstances beyond control; that she does not know\nwhat the State will do with some of the issues; she thinks revenues are very solid and\nwill stay firm; the City is in a no growth period until 2014.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated federal government projections are 9.5% unemployment\nuntil 2014.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated California is at 14.6%\nunemployment; the Bay Area is particularly high; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated contingency plans need to be\nin place.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated finding ways to protect services is\nimportant; sometimes the easiest things to cut what some people believe are\nnonessential services that are quality of life services; staff is trying to come up with\nstrategic ways, such as working with consortiums to do non-profit, school opportunities,\nand outsourcing non-core services so that existing employees can be redeployed\nsomeplace else like filling a position in another department; the process is of managing\nresources is constant.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an item on tonight's\nagenda is a project that would bring revenue and jobs to the City; the leasing program\nat the former Naval base and the Alameda Point plan will help with the revenue stream\nso that the City can stay steady; the proposed budget looks good and reflects\nmaintaining a plan that is well thought out, is tight, and is very conservative; a way\nneeds to be found to strengthen the revenue stream so that the City can stay steady\nwhen the economic experiences deepens.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated new revenues are not included in\nthe projections, which are conservative; the City has projects coming forward that are\ngenerating jobs in the dead economy; staff has had to revisit some things because\ngenerating jobs and property tax makes sense right now; the situation is a give and\ntake.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Hausman had some questions [regarding the Civic\nCenter garage and theatre/parking structure].\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Special Revenue Funds that have a\n.1, .2, etc. following the fund number are sub funds; 224 is the Parking Meter Fund;\nfunds pay for the citation process; 224.1 is the Civic Center Garage Fund and contains\nall parking structure revenue, administration costs through out sourcing, paying for staff,\nand any debt with respect to the parking structure; a lot of capital is not kept in the fund\nto pay for debt service.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n22\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 23, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the fund also includes rental\nincome.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the fund also pays for a Housing\nand Urban Development (HUD) debt service loan; the fund will be closed when the HUD\nloan is paid off; the Council/Commission/Board Member's would then need to figure out\nwhat to do with the excess revenue.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated excess revenues could\nbe used for maintenance.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Fund 621.2 is the Alameda/Oakland\nFerry Service fund which has a negative projected cash fund balance; the service is\nbeing packaged up to send to WETA; the 600 series are Enterprise Funds; numbers are\nmerged assets and liabilities and are not necessarily negative cash but depreciation; in\nthe very near future, the City will only have two enterprise funds: sewer and golf.\n* *\n(10-390 CC/ARRA/10-64 CIC) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing\nthe meeting past 12:00 midnight.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous discussions\nhave involved surveying the Beltline property; that she has discussed the potential for\nhaving a fire station on one of the pieces or property with the Interim City\nManager/Executive Director; $400,000 has been set aside for soft costs for a fire\nstation; inquired whether the idea is still being pursued.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated a\ncorner piece of the Beltline property could be a good spot for relocation of Fire Station\n3; that she thinks looking at a complete site analysis and location would be warranted;\nusing existing City property for buildings is important because buying property and\nbuilding the structure costs too much; constructing a building on City-owned land could\neasily be done with some one-time monies in the CIP Fund; the CIP Discretionary Fund\ndoes not include dollars discussed earlier regarding the sale of the employee parking lot\nbut does include two hits of one-time revenues, which are AMP back payments in the\namount of $1.2 million and approximately $800,000 of administrative dollars that had\nnot been charged to the refinanced assessment districts for approximately ten years;\nthe CIP Discretionary Fund has approximately a $2 million projected balance; expenses\nhave not been projected; six to eight months ago, Public Works sold a small portion of\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n23\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 24, "text": "property which generated approximately $200,000; at the time, her recommendation\nwas to put the money into a facility maintenance reserve; the policy is to take one-time\nproperty sale revenues and put the money into an open space fund; a small amount\nwas used to pay for the final purchase of the Beltline property; the question is what to\ndo with the money when the City decides to liquidate property.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the $400,000 [set\naside for a fire station] is in the General Fund.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $400,000 is in a reserve\nfund in the General Fund and is not included in the $12 million General Fund balance.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City is paying a lot of\nrent to house fire fighters next to a fire station that is not earthquake safe; a lot of money\nwould be needed for expensive repairs in order to use the fire station; the City could\nspend money on something that could be constructed and City owned instead of putting\nmoney into something that the City does not own and would not use long term; that she\nis trying the nudge the process along.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated site location is not easy, especially\nbecause location impacts response time.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a letter has been\nreceived from SunCal regarding a development program; there have been\ndisagreements on how things have been charged; that she assumes staff would come\nback with explanations when discrepancies are reconciled.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she would review the accounts\nand ensure that everything is reconciled.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City needs to\nget some answers from SunCal also.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City would need to\nget information on eligible pre-development expenses; however, the point is moot now.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the budget\nas presented [adoption of the resolutions]; stated that he appreciates the clarity,\nsacrifices, and hard work of the entire workforce; he does not expect the budget to be\nstatic but moveable through quarterly updates.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n24\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 25, "text": "impressed with the work plan; staff has come a long way; the rainy day is not over; the\n$12 million [General Fund reserve] is in jeopardy the longer the economy stays as is.\nMayor/Chair Johnson complimented staff for continuing to refine the budget and make\nthe budget more transparent and understandable; stated the budget [format] gets better\nand better each year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether all of tonight's\nPower Points would be posted to the website; further inquired whether a hard copy\nwould be on file at the Library.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded a hard copy is already\nat the Library; stated staff is figuring out how to technologically break the budget into\nsmaller pieces.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated tonight's meeting has been\nthe most productive meeting in a long time.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated a year's worth of planning,\nconcepts, and drafted policies have culminated into something tangible; agendas should\nbe very active in the next year.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services requested that the Proposition 4\nlimit be adopted before the budget.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nOn the call for the question, the original motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-391 CC) Resolution No. 14483, \"Reappointing lan Couwenberg to the Housing\nCommission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(10-392 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Report on the Collection of Sewer\nService Charges on the Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n25\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-393 CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the\nCity of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a\nProposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Repealing Article XXVII on\nCompulsory Arbitration for Firefighters; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Not\nadopted;\n(10-393A CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the\nCity of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a\nProposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 3-20, 17-18 and\n21-2 regarding Budget Authority of the City Manager and City Council; and Proposing\nSaid Charter Amendments. Not adopted; and\n(10-393B CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the\nCity of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a\nProposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Section 3-18 to Allow the City Clerk\nto Reject All Legal Advertising Bids; by Amending Section 10-3 to Add a Member to the\nPublic Utilities Board and Convert the City Manager into a Nonvoting Member; By\nAmending Section 12-1(C) to Add Restrictions to Public Utilities Board Contracting; and\nBy Repealing Section 22-8 Regarding the Hours of City Offices; and Proposing Said\nCharter Amendments. Not adopted. (City Attorney)\nThe City Clerk and Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that when she was on the Charter Subcommittee, thirty-two\ndifferent amendments were on the 2008 election; one section relating to specified hours\nrelegated that Council could adopt a schedule.\nThe City Clerk stated there was a measure regarding the Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the measure also addressed to hours of operation because\nthe Planning Department opens at 7:00 a.m. and the Library is open on Saturdays;\nCouncil did not want to be prescriptive in City Hall's hours of operation.\nThe City Clerk stated that she would double check.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls the measure-included hours of\noperation; previous hours of operation did not meet what is in the Charter; discussions\nincluded departments having different hours of operation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n26\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 27, "text": "The Interim City Manager inquired whether the issue actually went on the ballot or was\njust discussed.\nMayor Johnson, Councilmember Tam, and Councilmember Gilmore stated the issue\nwent on the ballot.\nMayor Johnson stated all measures passed and perhaps the Charter has not reflected\nthe change yet.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, League of Women Voters; and\nDomenick Weaver, IAFF.\nThe City Clerk stated Section 22-8 was modified; the following language was struck: \"to\nincrease such hours for the necessary accommodations of the public\"; the section after\nthe 2008 election reads: \"All public offices except for otherwise provided by law shall be\nopen for business every day, except holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. subject to\nmodification by Council\".\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Subcommittee thought subject to modification by\nCouncil would mean Council could pass an ordinance to modify hours.\nThe Interim City Manager stated her interpretation is different; inquired whether the\nlanguage allows Council to amend hours by ordinance or resolution.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that she recalls that the section was\nmodified in 2008 because the way the Charter read, Council could only increase hours,\nnot decrease hours; what is being suggested now is to repeal the section entirely so\nthat Council would have more flexibility and hours could be set by resolution, ordinance,\nor policy; making a change now would require a Charter amendment.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's regarding repealing the section in 2008, the City\nAttorney stated the matter was not discussed.\nMayor Johnson requested the City Clerk to read the section again.\nThe City Clerk read the section again.\nMayor Johnson stated that it sounds as though Council can modify the schedule,\nincluding Saturdays and Sundays.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Subcommittee's intent was to enable Council to\nchange hours; the Subcommittee had discussions regarding departments having\ndifferent operating hours and did not want to have a Charter amendment every time\nCouncil wanted to change a department's hours; despite what the Charter said prior to\nthe amendment, some departments did not have the correct hours.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n27\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 28, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the Subcommittee process eight months; the\nSubcommittee consulted with all departments; the issues [proposed tonight] did not\ncome up; the proposed amendments have not gone through a fully transparent process\nand with a meaningful opportunity for public input; that she has not had a full briefing on\nthe implications of the Seal Beach issue [noted by Mr. Weaver].\nThe City Attorney stated that she could provide a briefing; in addition, Mr. Wiley, the\nCity's Labor Attorney, is also here to provide input.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the City Attorney's foresight in\nhaving Labor Counsel available for a briefing, which does not solve her biggest issue;\nthe Subcommittee went through an exhaustive process to the point of polling different\ndepartments to see if anything else should be added; that she does not think the issue\nshould be taken lightly; the public needs to have the opportunity to ask questions and\nbe educated; amending the Charter should not be rushed; 2008 was the first time that\nthe Charter was amended; amending the Charter without having the same process the\nfirst time around is not good public policy.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she addressed the proposed Public Utilities Board\n(PUB) amendment in the past.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see the proposed PUB\namendment go forward because of the inherent conflict of interest; people have time to\ndiscuss the issue between now and November; the PUB item is the simplest one.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she disagrees that the PUB issue is simple.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why the City Manager was put on the PUB; further\ninquired why the City Manager would be a PUB member if not a voting member.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the Alameda Municipal Power General Manager\nthought that having the City Manager be an ex-officio would be helpful; stated that she\nis not aware of any instance where the City Manager has voted; the Charter is a living,\nbreathing document; the opportunity to amend the Charter only comes around every\ncouple of years unless a special election is called, which would be pricey.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how long staff has been working on the amendments.\nThe City Attorney responded some of the proposed amendments have been in the\nworks for over a year; stated the language has not sprung up overnight; the language is\na product of concerted staff effort; unfortunately, the Charter Subcommittee declined to\nmeet this year; the General Election would be the cheapest opportunity to do any\nCharter amendments; the proposed amendments have been brought forth\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n28\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 29, "text": "administratively; tonight, no policy action would be taken on any of the resolutions;\nCouncil would be letting voters decide.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated not having the Subcommittee meet ahead of time\nshould not have prevented staff from coming forward with the ideas prior to the eleventh\nhour; staff is requesting Council to take an action tonight at the last possible minute to\nallow the matter to go forward on the November election; staff could have brought the\nmatter forward administratively a month or two ago; that she is not imputing any bad\nmotive by staff; however, from a public policy standpoint, the matter appears rushed\nand ill-considered to be brought up at the eleventh hour.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when would be the next window of opportunity [to address\nthe issues].\nThe City Clerk responded for a General Election, two years; stated the issues could be\nconsolidated with countywide elections.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the fire fighter initiative was relegated to\nNovember 2011.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the election would not be a General\nCity election.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether putting more issues on the ballot would help\ncost-wise.\nThe City Clerk responded costs would not be significantly more; stated the City would\nalready be bearing the cost of the election.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the only new resolution is regarding delaying the\neffective date of any ordinance that would require an expenditure of funds until funds\nare identified; the issue is something that the City should consider because initiatives\nspring up left and right.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the binding arbitration resolution is new to her; the issue\nwas not brought up when she served on the Charter Subcommittee.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the issue has been a major discussion as long as she\nhas been Interim City Manager; the City has an opportunity to move forward on\nsomething that would reflect the Fiscal Sustainability Committee's theme, which would\nallow voters to decide whether or not to have binding arbitration given today's economic\nreality; putting the measure on the ballot would involve a through public process; that\nshe does not think management should not be able recommend something that is vital\nto the City.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n29\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 30, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the basic concern is why there is binding arbitration for one\nunion and not others; inquired how existing negotiations would be affected if the\nproposed resolution went forward.\nJoe Wiley, Labor Negotiator, responded the ground rule would be predicated on the\nexistence of the Charter amendment; stated binding interest arbitration could be\nbargained if Council gave authority to do so; the issue would be a non-mandatory\nsubject of bargaining.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the issue has been done for any other unions, to\nwhich Mr. Wiley responded not to his knowledge.\nThe City Attorney stated parties could always elect to go to arbitration when there is a\ndispute; arbitration does not have to be mandatory or binding.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired why one bargaining unit would have something that others\nwould not.\nCouncilmember Tam responded fire fighters are precluded from striking.\nMr. Wiley stated that fire fighters and police officers are precluded from striking; the\nSeal Beach decision stated having a strike that would create an impact to public health\nand safety would be unlawful and would be subject to being enjoin; the Seal Beach\ncase does not apply to the City's circumstances; the Seal Beach case addressed a\nmandatory subject of bargaining in which an employee would be fired without review if\nengaged in the conduct [strike]; a mandatory subject of bargaining cannot be placed on\nthe ballot without first having a meet and confer; two decisions have been handed down\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n30\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 31, "text": "on whether binding interest arbitration is a mandatory, permissive subject of bargaining;\nboth the Public Employment Relations Board and District Court of Appeal found interest\narbitration is a permissive, non-mandatory subject of bargaining and expressly held that\nmeeting and conferring with the union first is not necessary prior to putting the matter on\nthe ballot.\nThe City Clerk restated Councilmember Tam's motion: to move approval to reconstitute\nthe Charter Subcommittee in preparation for the November 2011 election.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her motion includes beginning discussion in 2011.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a March election next year.\nThe City Clerk responded elections are held in March in odd numbered years and in\nJune and November every year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the three proposed amendments are critical and need\nto be put before the public because of serious budget implications and good\ngovernment.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her motion remains the same; in all fairness to the\nproposed fire fighter initiative, it should be juxtaposed against each other and should not\nseparately preempt the measure.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the matter would not be discussed until\nNovember.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her motion is to have discussions starting in 2011 in\npreparation for the November 2011 election and to reconstitute the Council Charter\nSubcommittee because the Subcommittee might change after the November 2010\nelection.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Subcommittee could start working on the matter\nbefore January, 2011; stated the start time should be flexible so that the current Council\nSubcommittee could start working on the matter sooner.\nCouncilmember Tam stated under the Mayor's advisement, the Subcommittee would\nhave the option to work on the matter sooner rather than later.\nMayor Johnson stated the Subcommittee should start earlier because more cleanup\nlanguage might be needed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the same process should be resurrected regarding\nasking Department Heads for suggestions; inquired whether the City Attorney's staff\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n31\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 32, "text": "could be utilized, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam modified her motion to\ninclude starting discussions earlier.\nCouncilmember Tam responded that she has not modified her original motion; under\nadvisement from the Mayor, the Subcommittee would have the option of starting\ndiscussions earlier than 2011 if schedules work out; that she thinks it would be very\nhard pressed for Councilmember Gilmore and her to find time to work with the\ndepartments because of going dark in August, having a full schedule in September,\nOctober being the election season, and the election is in November; however, every\neffort will made to do so.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-394 CC) Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that she was\npresent to wish the Council farewell.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-395 CC) Consider Directing the Interim City Manager to Prioritize an Alternative\nProcess and Plan for Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Pat Keliher, SSC Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated that the item is Councilmember Matarrese's referral, not\nsomething that comes from staff.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he always looks for alternatives; he submitted the\nCouncil Referral on July 21, 2010 as a proposal for where to go next; new elements\nhave arisen, particularly, taking a look at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment,\nwhich is a good place to start; the City would always work with the Navy, Veteran's\nAdministration, and State Tidelands Trust; that he wants a specific plan on how the City\nwill move forward post the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).\nMayor Johnson stated some items [on the Council Referral] have already been done;\nthat her preference would be to have staff come back with options; Council would need\nto talk about a process; a broader look needs to be taken before specific direction\nis\ngiven.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n32\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 33, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with a lot of the points made tonight;\nCouncil needs to take a deep breath; staff should look at a broad set of options and\nbring the matter back to Council for discussion so the public can come forward and\nprovide ideas; that she has heard several different ideas from the public; some of the\nideas do not include jobs or housing; Council should be very deliberate and listen to the\npublic; encouraged the public to contact Council or staff with preferred options.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore's and Mayor\nJohnson's comments; she feels that the wheel has been reinvented right after the wheel\nseemed not to be working; everything listed on Councilmember Matarrese's referral has\nbeen evaluated in the course of getting to a Master Plan; redeveloping Alameda Point is\nimportant, is a goal in the budget, but is not as important as developing a project that\ncan be supported by the community and is financially and environmentally sustainable;\nthe financial part is a big deal; the federal government does not think the world revolves\naround her and Alameda; having funding to get the project going is important; that she\nthinks providing direction is premature until the City can identify a funding source for\nconveyance of the property.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is appalled that people are accusing Council of\nhaving secret plans; Councilmember Matarrese's Council Referral is logical; local, non-\nprofit development corporations have been used; Councilmember Matarrese is\nsuggesting looking into the matter and nothing more than that; everyone has different\nthoughts; Councilmember Matarrese has set a baseline; a lot of caveats need to be\nincluded to provide leeway in order to put the issue in property context; Council and\nstaff are not starting at square one.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not want staff to be limited what options are\nbrought to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated limiting options is not the point; the first point would\nbe to focus on job creation and commercial development; the focus has always been\nhousing; that he is advocating local control; he wants to give direction on maximizing\nleases and building a commercial community which has always been lacking.\nMayor Johnson stated staff should come back to Council with a full range of options; the\nideas are fine to consider; consequences would not be known by giving specific\ndirection in a very narrow area; comprehensive options need to be brought back.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is proposing a comprehensive plan for job\ncreation and commercial development at Alameda Point, including, but not limited to,\npoints listed in the Council Referral.\nMayor Johnson suggested that staff come back with options in September regarding\nhow to proceed.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n33\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 34, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated staff should take a reasonable amount of time; that she\nwould like to see a full blown discussion on the full range of options and include the\npublic; she has heard options that include a public land trust which seems to be\ndiametrically opposed to things discussed tonight; that she does not want to give\nspecific direction to start down one path and limit options.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) and SunCal\nplans have had commonalities; the core is very common and could be developed; the\nmarketplace should be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her preference is to give direction on finding a funding\nstream and getting a project that is fundable as opposed to trying to decide the project\ndirection.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated funding streams are extremely important; developing large\nparcels could create funding streams; understanding the overall project is important.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City had a master developer, Alameda Point\nCommunity Partners, who lost financing; another developer has looked at a potential\nmaximum build out of over 4,000 units; staff came back with negative rates of return;\ninquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan thinks there is some magic fundable project, to\nwhich Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated Council couldn't provide specific direction tonight; options need\nto be reviewed; giving specific direction on component parts would be a mistake.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired whether the direction is to include Council Referral\nitems, but not limit the options, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated staff should consider the items and come back in\nSeptember or October.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not see anything revolutionary in the Council\nReferral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants the broadest possible point as long as\nthe Council Referral items are included.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated nobody wants financial analysis; that she looks forward\nto staff's insight on the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of incorporating everything discussed.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n34\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 35, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan noted transportation is missing.\nThe motion carried by consensus.\n(10-396 CC) Discuss/Take Action on the City Attorney Policy of Not Providing Legal\nOpinions to Councilmembers in Advance of Meetings.\nCouncilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what Section 8-2 of the Charter states.\nThe City Attorney responded the last phrase of the last sentence of Section 8-2 states\n\"The City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of and attorney and counsel for the City\nand for all officers and boards thereof in all matters relating to their official duties, and\nwhenever requested in writing by any of them, he shall give his or her legal advice in\nwriting\"; a legal opinion was given in writing; that she advised each individual\nCouncilmember that the legal opinion would be handed out in Closed Session which\nhas been done many times before; that she needs to have some discretion as to how\nbest to do her job to protect Council and the City; she made it clear that the opinion was\ngoing to be provided in Closed Session, but that any Councilmember could come to her\noffice to read the opinion in advance; the opinion was to be collected at the end of the\nClosed Session as has often been done which is not a violation of the City Attorney's\nduties under the Charter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the opinion was particularly lengthy as well as the staff\nreport; she went to the City Attorney's office to read the opinion within an hour before\nthe meeting started; the lengthy opinion was hard to digest; the City Attorney's\nprocedure assumes that she would only read the opinion once; the City Attorney made\nsome vague comments regarding concerns with leaks coming out of Closed Session;\nthat she has not been accused of a leak; she does not understand why she could not\nhave a copy of the opinion to read at her leisure; that she advised the City Attorney that\nshe had no problems with giving the opinion back; she has no interest in keeping\nconfidential materials; the City Attorney is making it hard for her to do her job; the\nCharter does not state that a Councilmember needs to go to the City Attorney's office to\nread an opinion.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore's intent is to put the matter on\nan agenda for discussion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter is hard to discuss at 1:45 a.m.; that she does not think\nthat the City Attorney has violated the terms of the Charter; perhaps Councilmember\nGilmore is looking for clarification on document handling.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n35\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants consensus to bring the matter back for a\nfull-blown discussion.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to bring the matter back rather than\ndiscussing the matter at 1:45 a.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is in concurrence.\nCouncilmember Tam moved that the matter be brought back.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated past practices have been to bring legal\nopinions to Closed Session.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated this time, she found out about the existence of the\nopinion beforehand.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a hard copy has never been provided to Council [to keep] in\nthe past.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Attorney has followed past practices; Councilmember\nGilmore wants to discuss the issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent would be to discuss the matter or\nprovide a policy for handling confidential documents.\nMayor Johnson stated the discussion and/or policy would need to be addressed when\nthe matter is heard.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter agendized for further\ndiscussion, and wants some sort of direction to come out of the discussion.\nMayor Johnson stated the process followed by the City Attorney has been consistent\nwith past practices.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council has not affirmed policy and direction.\nMayor Johnson stated a policy is nowhere to be found if there is one.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor\ndeHaan - 1.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n36\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 37, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-397 CC) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Public Utilities\nBoard.\nMayor Johnson nominated Madeline Deaton for appointment to the Public Utilities\nBoard.\n(10-398 CC) Councilmember Gilmore inquired why Council did not find out about the\ndocumentation given to the District Attorney on May 26, 2010 until six weeks later.\nThe City Attorney responded the District Attorney's office requested that the matter be\nkept confidential pending their investigation; stated it was only at the insistence of the\nattorneys for the City and Interim City Manager, given the fact that it was necessary to\nhold a Closed Session regarding SunCal, that precipitated the need to make the matter\npublic.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:47\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n37\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 38, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 27, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson announced that the City Council attempted to meet in Closed Session\ntonight; due to the pending investigation into the official conduct of Councilmember\nTam, which has been filed with the District Attorney, Councilmember Tam was asked to\nrecuse herself from the Closed Session; Councilmember Tam refused to do so; as a\nresult, the City Council did not meet in Closed Session, but continued the matter to a\nfuture date; the City was unable to transact its official business while the investigation is\npending before the District Attorney's Office and looks to the District Attorney and Grand\nJury to expedite a resolution of the investigation.\n(10-375) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:\nCollins V. City of Alameda (Boatworks). Not heard.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}