2008-02-05 Packet;~ ~ ~
,p 0. ,1
4
r~~~#~-f~ ~/ ' CITY ~F ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
y
~. ` .
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 5, 2008 - - - 6:00 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
Agenda
I. Roll Call ~- City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone ~aishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider;
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organizations: All Public Safety Bargaining Units
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ~954957.67~
Agency Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese
Employee: City Attorney
3-C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM X54956.957
Claimant: John Cayanne
Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
~1
everly o n n, Mayor
~`~~ ~~~'
,~
~• ~'ti
~?~l ~a
~~~=~~~~~~~~~>;. CITY ~F ALAMEDA • ~ALIF~RNIA
~~
m ;~ .~
~~ c„ rr.i n~~
"':~~,,y~0,
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~HABOC~
TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 5, 200$ - - - 7;25 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council/Board on agenda items or
business introduced by the Council/Board may speak for a maximum of
3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the
Council/Board/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the
Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council, HABOC
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for
removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council/Board or a member of the public.
2-A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners meeting held
January 2, 2008. Housing Authority? [HABOC]
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3--A. Recommendation to authorize the City to submit a Notice of
Interest for a Public Benefit Conveyance of Estuary Park and
for the Housing Authority to submit a Notice of Interest for a
homeless accommodation at the north housing parcel. Housing
Authority? [City Council/HABOC]
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, HABOC
Beverly Joh so , Ma r
Chair, Hous ut rity Board of
Commissioners
~~; ,
~~
~~ °~ CITY ~F ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
~~ ti
4 ~ 1
~ ~ '' ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~~
h
R ~~'ll+~~'f~~ltw ~ (~O
~W11.7~
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
TUESDAY - - -- FEBRUARY 5, 2008 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Location; ~o~xn~il Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business
introduced by Board Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item,
1. ROLL CALL - Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
2. MINUTES
2-A. Minutes of the Annual APIC Meeting of February G, 2007. City
Clerk}
3. AGENDA ITEMS
None
4.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Public Comment}
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over
which the Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take
cognizance, that is not on the agenda
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS Communications from the Board}
6. ADJOURNMENT - Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
~~~ ~~~
o ~~,
~ ~+r h ,na~~r Q~i
~~':~.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
ZF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three ~3} minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA - - - - - - - -- - - - REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY -- - - - - - FEBRUARY 5, 2008 - -- -- - 7 : 30 P. M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Coun~i.l Ch,am~~~~., corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
G. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment}
7. Council Referrals
8. Communications Communications from Council}
9. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minute s
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda Closed Session}
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:25 P.M.
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M.
CORPORATION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1, ROLL CALL - City Council
2, AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Proclamation declaring the period of January 30 through April
4, 2DD8 as A Season for Nonviolence.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4-A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on January 15, 20D8. City Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. ~Finance7
4-D. Recommendation to authorize the purchase of three marked Dodge
Charger Police Vehicles through the State of California
Vehicle Bid Contract. Police}
4-E. Recommendation to accept the work of Republic Intelligent
Transportation Inc. for the In-pavement Crosswalk Lights at
Eighth Street and Taylor Avenue, No. P.W. 05-D5-04. Public
works }
4-F. Recommendation to accept the work of Republic Intelligent
Transportation, Inc. far the In-Pavement Crosswalk Lights at
various locations, No. P.W. 07-04-07. Public Works}
4-G. Recommendation to allocate $153,373 in Regional Measure 1-20
Grants and $75,627 in Measure B - Transbay Ferry Funds and
approve a First Amendment to the Contract in the amount of
$229,000, including contingencies, to Marine Express, Inc.,
for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project.
~ Public Works }
4-H. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney
for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District
84-2. Public Works
4-I. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney
for City of Alameda Maintenance District 01-1 Marina Cove}.
Public Works}
4-J. Recammendation to approve the Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement for the City Attorney. Human Resources?
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Adoption of Resolution Setting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal
of 25o Below the 2005 Baseline Level, Adopting the Local
Action Plan for Climate Protection, and Dissolving the Climate
Protection Task Force. Planning and Building?
5-B. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute an
Amended Contract with the National Golf Foundation to provide
Master Planning Services in an amount not to exceed $80,400.
Recreation and Park?
5-C. Recommendation to adopt the Legislative Program for 2008.
City Manager
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Public Comment?
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda
7. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted
upon or scheduled as a future agenda item
8. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
8-A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Housing Commission and Mayor's appointments to the Airport
Operations Committee and Rent Review Advisory Committee.
9. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
~**
• For usP in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e-mail to: lweisige@ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD
number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
Housing -
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 94501-2141 -TEL: X510) 747-4300 -FAX: X510) SZ2-7848 - TDD: X510) 522-8467
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING GF THE BGARD GF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY GF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2008
The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 1:30 p.m.
PLEDGE GF ALLEGIANCE
~. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair
Johnson
Absent: None
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Tam moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Torrey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk.
*2-A. Approving Budget Revision Number 4. The Board of Commissioners:
1. Approved the proposed budget revision; and
2, Adopted the resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low-Rent
Housing Program ~Esperanza},
*2-B. Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2001. The Board of Commissioners
accepted the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007.
3. AGENDA
None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
cciHA~aoc
Agenda Item #~-A
oz-o5-os
Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
January 2, 2008
Page 2
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Attest:
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Michael T, Pucci
Executive Director l Secretary
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Debra Kurita
City ManagerlChief Executive Officer
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Authorize Staff to Submit a Notice of Interest for a Homeless
Accommodation and Public Benefit Conveyance for a Park at the North
Housin Parcel
BACKGROUND
As required by the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance
Act of 1994, as amended, and its implementing regulations, the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority ~ARRA}, as the local redevelopment authority, is seeking
Notices of Interest ~NOIs} for approximately 42 acres of additional surplus property at
the Naval Air Station Alameda North Housing Parcel}. The property can be seen in the
attached map.
The Navy published a Notice of Surplus Property in the Federal Register on November
5, 2001. The surplus property includes the following buildings and other improvements:
282 individual housing units in multi-family structures built around 1969 and totaling
approximately 440,010 square feet; approximately eight acres of outdoor recreational
facilities; paved roads and other surface areas such as sidewalks and parking lots; and
utility facilities, including telephone, electric, storm drainage, water, and sewer.
NOIs for homeless accommodations and public benefit conveyances are due to the
ARRA on February 29, 2008. Housing Authority staff is seeking authorization to submit
a NOI for a homeless accommodation for a portion of the North Housing Parcel, while
City staff is seeking authorization to submit a NOI for a Public Benefit Conveyance of
Estuary Park.
DISCUSSION
NomeJess Accommodaf~on
Housing Authority staff is interested in submitting a NOI to the ARRA for some of the
Coast Guard housing units at the North Housing site. As part of preparing a NOI,
Housing Authority staff is exploring a partnership with the Alameda Paint Collaborative
~APC}and Building Futures for vVomen and Children, who are providers of housing and
services for homeless families and individuals.
CCIHABOC
Agenda Item #3-A
02-5.45
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
February 5, 2008
Page 2 of 3
Housing Authority staff wants to provide a "permanent housing program" for the
homeless; however, the Housing Authority does not have homeless programs or
provide supportive services for tenants.
In order to successfully return to a stable housing environment, the homeless
population usually requires supportive services, including various types of counseling
for emotional, financial and family problems. Therefore, the Housing Authority is
looking to contract or partner with anon-profits} which has experience in providing
those services and has grants in place or the ability to obtain grants for homeless
services. The Housing Authority would own and manage the units and determine
eligibility and the amount of rent the tenant would pay. Lease enforcement would be
done in conjunction with the non-profit service provider~s~. In addition, the project
needs to generate enough income from rents and rent subsidies to pay for normal
operating costs and for supportive services, should there be inadequate or no grant
funds available.
The Housing Authority currently provides Section 8 subsidies for 30 units at the Bessie
Coleman Court apartments and Shelter Plus Care subsidies far another 13 units at
Alameda Point. APC controls those units through a Legally Binding Agreement with
the ARRA and provides services for tenants occupying the units. The Housing
Authority is responsible for determining the homeless participant's eligibility for the
program and the size of rent subsidy.
Cn January 16, Zoos, the Housing Commission recommended that the Board of
Commissioners authorize the Chief Executive Officer to submit a NCI to ARRA far a
homeless accommodation for a portion of the units~property at North Housing as
described above, Pending such authorization, Housing Authority staff will work with
APC and Building Futures for women and Children to complete the NCI for submittal
by the February 29 due date.
Public Benefi# Conve once
The Recreation and Park Department is requesting City Council authorization to
submit a Notice of Interest for a Public Benefit Conveyance to utilize approximately
eight acres of open space at the North Housing Parcel commonly known as Estuary
Park. The site consists of a baseballlsoftball Feld and two large soccer fields. The
facility has had minimal maintenance over the past year and will require some
significant upgrades in arderto return it to a playable and safe condition.
Honorable Mayor and February 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
once improvements to the soccer fields are completed, the site will serve as a venue
for a variety of youth sports activities. The addition of this turf area to the City's
inventory would help ease the current shortage of playable field space. In addition,
the Miracle League has expressed an interest in renovating the existing ball field for
use as a facility for disabled youth at its expense. The PBC request will not include
the play area or parking lots since the Coast Guard will retain possession of those
parcels. Parking will be accommodated in a lot between the two fields and by existing
on-street parking.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to submit a NOI for a homeless accommodation
as described above at the North Housing Parcel.
Authorize the City Manager to submit a NOl for a Public Benefit Conveyance for a park
at the North Housing Parcel.
Respectfully submitted,
• ~L~
Michael T. Pucci, Executive Director ~~
Housing Authority
~~.~"~.
Dale Liliard, Director
Recreation and Parks Department
MTP:caw
Attachment: Map of area
J
W
U
Q
J
C~
Z
O
z
z
O
z
CCIHABOC
chment to
Item #3-A
oZ.o~-os
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -- FEBRUARY 6, 2007 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Board Member
Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
D7- 7 Minutes of the Annual APIC Meeting of February 7, 20D6.
Approved.
Board Member deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson -- 4. Abstentions: Board Member Tam -
1.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora weisiger, Secretary
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Alameda Public improvement Corporation
February 6, 2007
Proclamation
tiU~~R~~l$, the City of Alameda, the State of California and our Nation continue to
confront the challenges of violence in the form of hate crimes, brutality,
domestic abuse, and other forms of inhumanity; and
W}~~R~i4$, violence in actions, attitudes, and words is pervasive in our society; and
~U~{~~Z~~S, an awareness of nonviolent principles and practices is a powerful way to
. heal and transform our lives and communities, to recognize the dignity
and worth of every human being, and to promote peace and harmony
among all people regardless of race, color, culture, class, language, faith,
age, gender, sexual orientation, or other apparent difference; and
1~1~f ~R~~4S, the principles and practices of nonviolence were epitomized in the lives
and work of Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
w~~R~~{$, an international campaign has been organized as the Season for
Nonviolence, to extend from January 30 through Apri14 of each year,
the anniversaries of the assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. King
and began in 1998 with observances at the United Nations and in
hundreds of cities and locales around the world; and
u1fi~~R~~4$, during the 2008 Season for Nonviolence, groups throughout the world
will sponsor projects and programs to create greater awareness and
consciousness of the principles and practices of nonviolence; and
~U~{~~Z~~($, in Alameda we have a great opportunity to focus our hearts and minds
on nonviolence in recognition and celebration of the Season for
Nonviolence.
n101N, ~~R~~OR~, B~ IT R~SOLVf~, that I, Beverly j. Johnson, Mayor of the
City of Alameda, do hereby declare the period of January 30, 2008 to April 4, 2008 as
A SE,4SON FOR NONVIOL~NC~
and encourage ail citizens of Alameda to participate in a celebration of our community's cultural
and ethnic diversity by being nonviolent in actions and interactions with each other in our
homes, schools, and society, and to s ort programs and projects conducted in the spirit of
acceptance and nonviolence.
evenly j, Jc
Mayo
Clty Council
nda Item #3-A
02-o5-os
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 15, 2008 ~ - - 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL ~ Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed session to consider:
X08- } Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision fib} of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One
X08- } Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All Public Safety Bargaining Units.
(08- } Workers' Compensation Claim X54956.95}; Claimant: James
Ritchey; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Legal, Council received
a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a threat of litigation; no
action was taken; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from
its Labor Negotiators on the status of labor negotiations within
public safety; regarding Workers' Compensation, Council provided
settlement authority to resolve the claim.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 15, 20x8
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY -- - - - -- - JANUARY 15 , 2 0 0 8 - - - - 7 : 3 0 P . M .
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Vice Mayor Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
~D8- } Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment
[paragraph no. D8- ]would be addressed first.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
~D8- } Resolution No. 14174, "Appointing Lamont Carter as a Member
of the Youth Commission." Adopted;
X08- A} Resolution No. 14175, "Appointing Vincent Margado as a
Member of the Youth Commission." Adopted; and
X08- B} Resolution No. 14176, "Appointing Bhaani Singh as a Member
of the Youth Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Youth Commission Members.
~~*
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Community
Improvement Commission Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 8:08 p.m.
~~*
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None .
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2Q08
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 08- ],
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application to
Caltrans for $45,000 [paragraph no. 08- ], and Resolution
Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application to Caltrans for
$96,000 [paragraph no. 08~- ] were removed from the Consent
Calendar far discussion.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated
by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
X08-- } Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on January 2, 2008. Approved.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have a task summary
of the Golf Course action .
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was requesting
that staff bring back a summary of direction, to which Councilmember
deHaan responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimouse voice vote - 5.
~*08- } Ratified bills in the amount of $2,577,645.63.
~*08- } Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 6 to the Alameda
County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to Assign
the Rights and Obligations of Lawrence Livermore National Security,
LLC to the Alameda County Fire Department. Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter
into a Consultant Agreement in the amount of $200,000, including
contingencies, with ARUP for the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study.
Accepted.
~*08- } Recommendation to approve a Cooperative Agreement between
the City of Alameda and AC Transit for formalizing collaboration on
projects of mutual interest and authorize the City Manager to enter
into such an agreement. Accepted.
X08- } Resolution No. 14177, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Regular Meeting 2
Alameda City Council
January 7.5 , 2 a 0 S
Submit an Application to Caltrans for $45,000 in Transit Technical
Planning Assistance Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2005/2009 to Conduct
a Citywide Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand
Management Plan, Commit $5,H30 in Measure B Funds as the Local Match,
and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents to
Implement the Project." Adopted.
[Note: The item was addressed together with Resolution Authorizing
the City Manager to Submit an Application to Caltrans for $96,000
[paragraph no. OS- ].
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she supports securing the grants; stated
the Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand
Management ~TSM/TDM} addresses a concerted effort and identifies the
City's goal to reduce congestion and peak hour traffic through the
Posey Tube by reducing single occupancy vehicles; including the park-
and-ride concept would be ideal; inquired how the issue could be
pursued through the two grants.
The Public works Director responded the park-and ride lot and transit
hub, which would be discussed later, would fit in both categories,
has a clear connection between TSM and TDM, but would fit better with
the Long-Range Transit Plan; stated AC Transit looks for multiple
transit lines as well as intermodal plans for a true transit hub.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff is requesting Council to
authorize the City Manager to submit an application and would move
forward with a fairly aggressive community outreach plan if grants
were received; further inquired at which point Council would be in a
position to direct staff to look at the park-andWride project within
the Long-Range Transit Plan.
The Public Works Director responded hopefully the Lang-Range Transit
Plan would be completed by the end of 2009; stated funds could become
available late October 2008; the intent is to have public comment and
solicit input through public meetings and then through the
Transportation Commission; the final draft would come to Council.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council would have the ability to
direct that the project be added into the Long-Range Transit Plan at
some point, but not at this stage.
The Public Works Director responded staff would apply for the current
Congestion Management Agency ~CMA} and Metropolitan Transportation
Commission ~MTC} project; stated the first step is to see whether
there is support at the regional level so that regional funds could
be accessed; the next step would be to solicit public comment.
Regular Meeting 3
Alameda City Council
January l5, 2008
Mayor Johnson stated a transit hub has been discussed for the
Atlantic Avenue, Ralph Appezzato Parkway, and Webster Street area;
inquired whether said concept is in the Long-Range Transit Plan.
The Public Works Director responded discussions related to the
College of Alameda and may be in the Long-Range Transit Plan.
**~
Mayor Johnson called a recess at S:1S p.m. and reconvened the Regular
Council Meeting at 8:23 p.m.
~**
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of resolutions [Authorizing the City
Manager to Submit an Application to Caltrans for $45,00 [paragraph
no. 08- ] and Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application
to Caltrans for $6,000 [paragraph no. 08- ].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote ~ 5.
X08- } Resolution No. 14178, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Submit an Application to Caltrans for $96,000 in Community-Based
Transportation Planning Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2005-2009 to
Conduct an Update to the Long Range Transit Plan, Commit $24,000 in
Measure B Funds as the Local Match, and Authorize the City Manager to
Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the Project." Adopted.
[Note: See Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an
Application to Caltrans for $45,000 [paragraph no. OS- ] for
discussion and motion.]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
X08- } Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of a Certificate of Approval ~CA06-0031} of
demolition for 433 Taylor Avenue; and adoption of related resolution.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the appeal is coming to Council without an
application to rebuild.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant wants to have
assurance that the structure can be demolished before moving forward
with a design.
Regular Meeting 4
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2aa$
Mayor Johnson stated that she cannot imagine that rebuilding a porch,
changing windows, removing and restoring the brickwork, and replacing
the fireplace would cost $537,000.
The Planning Services Manager stated that the bid was a comprehensive
cost and included exterior and interior restoration.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether adding another 2,000 square feet would
make the home livable to current standards.
The Planning Services Manager responded that the Applicant would
remodel and arrange interior floor space to address current needs.
Mayor Jahnsan stated that she would like further information on the
$537,000 bid; a structure on Minturn Street was rebuilt after afire
and looks beautiful; there seems to be a significant difference
between what would be approved and what the owners would like to
build; she does not want to see another monster house in an area
where there are small homes; questioned why the Applicant would want
to demolish the structure if she is not willing to rebuild something
acceptable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that one issue is the determination by
the Historical Advisory Board ~HAB~ that the pause should not be
demolished; the second issue is what the house would be replaced with
if demolished; old does not mean historical; he does not want to have
a vacant lot because what can be built there cannot be decided.
Councilmember deHaan stated the existing structure could be livable
Wlth a few modifications; the situation has three different
scenarios.
The Planning Services Manager stated the HAB is faced with
determining whether or not the structure is one that should be
demolished because it lacks historical integrity and does not have
any relationship to past persons or events; Council can make the
decision to grant the appeal if Council cannot find that the
structure can return a financial value; the structure needs to tie
into the neighborhood.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the City
Attorney interpret whether or not Council makes decisions based on
guaranteeing someone a financial return; he is not sure whether said
criteria is applied when looking at historic significance.
The City Attorney stated the HAB considers two things when
considering whether a structure with some historic benefit should be
Regular Meeting 5
Alameda City Council
January l5, 2008
demolished: 1} whether the structure has historic value, and 2}
whether refusing to grant the demolition permit versus restoring the
structure would provide economic return to the property owner;
Council would make the same findings; suggested that Council seek
further information from the Applicant for determination.
Councilmember deHaan stated the HAB had no problem with demolishing
the structure as long as the new structure had some redeeming value
that would be conducive to the rest of the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the structure was determined to be
historical.
The Planning Services Manager responded no redeeming architectural
qualities or historical relationship to a historic event or person
were found.
Mayor Johnson stated the HAB denied the demolition permit; she does
not think there is enough information to make a finding tonight; she
does not think reconstruction costs are clear; inquired whether the
Planning Department has information on how many square feet would be
reconstructed.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Department has
the same information that is included in the packet.
Mayor Johnson stated that doubling the size of the structure is not
restoring the structure.
The Applicant stated the main roof beam is 1" x 4"; the entire roof
has to be removed to bring the roof up to code; the walls and
foundation need to support the new roof; demolition costs would be
less; working with the existing structure is expensive.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would not get an
economic return by demolishing and reconstructing the house.
The Applicant responded the structure needs to be torn down to bring
the structure up to code; stated a demolition permit would be needed
one way or another.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage on the last
application.
The Applicant responded the existing house is approximately 1,600
square feet.
Regular Meeting 6
Alameda City Council.
January 15, 2008
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 1,600 square feet includes the
garage.
The Applicant responded in the negative; stated the updated plans are
approximately 3,200 square feet.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the lot percentage.
The Applicant responded the lot percentage is within the 400 lot
coverage.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the house does not resemble a 1906
structure; a lot of change has taken place; homes are
disproportionate in size near Lincoln School; efforts have been made
to keep scale in neighborhoods.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the demolition permit can be
coupled to major design review, to which the City Attorney responded
in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is not enough information to make a
decision; the bid needs to be clearer.
The City Attorney stated that in order for the Applicant to support
her assertion that there would not be an economic return on the
property she would need to show that the cost of remodeling the
existing house, bringing the house up to code, making alternations to
bring the house back to the original historical value, and putting
the house on the market would exceed the value of the lot with the
refurbished house.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said scenario is assuming
that the house is historical.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the HAB could
have refused to grant the request if the structure had historical
value; stated the HAB could grant the request to demolish the
structure if the Applicant was able to show an insufficient
economical return on the investment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the HAB findings note that "Even
though the residence does not show identifying marks, it should be
saved because it completes the cultural fabric of the neighborhood.
Houses that are eclectic surround the residence and they are
historic. This house has retained some historical characteristics and
could be remodeled and returned to is original Colonial Revival
style"; the same logic can apply to any place in the City; the house
Regular Meeting 7
Alameda City Council
January 15, 20Q8
is nondescript because of alterations; the finding does not point to
historic significance for the house; he cannot see how the appeal
cannot be overturned.
Councilmember deHaan stated certain design requirements would be
necessary; inquired whether compatibility with the rest of the
neighborhood would be required.
The City Attorney responded there would be an opportunity later on to
pass on the design review should the Applicant come forward with a
design to rebuild the house; stated the matter cannot be conditioned
tonight.
Mayor Johnson stated the Applicant should not assume that she can
rebuild to the desired size if the appeal is overturned; size and
scale within the neighborhood is very important; bad mistakes should
not be repeated.
The Applicant questioned why she would be denied when similar
structures are being built.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the Applicant provide a list of said
structures.
The Applicant stated that she is not exceeding the height of the
existing structure; the footprint is not much bigger than the
existing house; there do not seem to be any direct guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated design guidelines include criteria of
compatibility with the neighborhood and size and scale.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a process is in place that has a set
of defined code requirements for setbacks, height, and design
guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated guidelines have not been appropriately applied
in the past.
Councilmember deHaan cautioned staff to ensure that proper guidelines
are applied; stated the area is zoned for duplexes.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the demolition permit cannot be tied to
what or what may not be built on the lot; the HAB finding is too
broad and there would be no demolition if applied across the board;
the structure does not qualify as a historical structure based upon
the finding and pictorial evidence.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2008
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution allowing the
Applicant to proceed with demotion.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Mataresse directed the Applicant and
staff to go through the guidelines so that Council would not need to
hear a design review appeal.
on the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
SOS- } Recommendation to accept report on the Government
Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45 on accounting for other
post employment benefits.
John Bartel with Bartel Associates, LLC gave a Power Point
presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why numbers are
presented when CalPERS will not project out more than two years.
Mr. Bartel stated that an actuarial evaluation requires that he make
a best guess on healthcare costs.
Mayor Johnson stated that 7.75n does not seem like a realistic
number.
Mr. Bartel inquired whether the percentage seems too high, to which
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the return has been over the last ten
years, to which Mr. Bartel responded 9~.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the returns have been over the last three
years.
Mr. Bartel responded 12o to 130; stated returns were 18o at the end
of 2007; the short history is extremely goad; the 7.750 is treated
with conservatism; he believes 7.750 is an appropriate assumption.
Mayor Johnson stated that everyone hopes that the federal government
will do something about medical inflation; inquired what would be the
result on the calculations by assuming a 4.5o medical inflation rate
after 10 years.
Mr. Bartel responded healthcare becomes 1000 of the Gross Domestic
Regular Meeting 9
Alameda City Council
January ~. 5, 2 ~ Q 8
Product GDP} if healthcare continues to grow in the high single or
low double digits and general inflation is 30; the scenario of doing
nothing means having natural market forces controlling healthcare
costs which results in private sector entities dropping healthcare
coverage; the end result would be 50a of the population uninsured;
something would need to be done; the actuarial accrued liability
might be 30o higher if the grade is increased from 4.5~ to 60;
accounting standards suggest that an evaluation every two years for
agencies that have more than 200 participants.
Mayor Johnson stated a two-year evaluation is fine, but the chart
should not go out as far as it does based on a 4.5o medical inflation
number; assuming that the federal government will adopt a national
healthcare plan is very optimistic.
Mr. Bartel stated that he is reluctant to project beyond a ten year
period in terms of actual dollars; he cannot predict what will happen
ten years from now.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Pay-As-You-Go could be much more
expensive than pre-funding with a fund that starts having a return
from investments.
Mr. Bartel stated Pay-As-You--Go is similar to how social security is
funded today; a check is written when the payment is due; social
security has a trust fund; the trust fund will run out in
approximately 15 years; tax dollars will not be sufficient to pay for
expected benefits; social security is funded by a quasi pre-funding;
CalPERS and private sector retirement systems require that money be
set aside s o that there i s money in a trust and the money wi 11 be
there as people retire; the City has entered into a contract with
CalPERS to prefund benefits.
Councilmember deHaan stated many municipalities have addressed the
,~
Issue.
Mr. Bartel stated that he has performed approximately 150
evaluations; he predicted that four out of five of his clients would
not do any pre-funding four or five years ago; he was wrong; the
majority of his clients do not have the budget ability to pay the
full Annual Required Contribution ~ARC7immediately; he is convinced
that most of his clients will either phase into paying the full ARC
or adopt a standard of putting something aside so that money can be
set aside if the budget turns around.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether phasing-in will be the most
likely method.
Regular Meeting 1 O
Alameda CiCy Council
January 15, 2008
Mr. Bartel responded very few agencies pay the ARC right away; stated
a few agencies started setting money aside, allocating internal
service funds, and transferring money into an irrevocable trust; the
majority of agencies will either phase into paying the full ARC or
intend to phase into the full ARC over a five or ten year period; new
strategies include Pay-As-You-Go plus normal costs; normal costs are
the value of benefits being earned during the year by active
employees.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bond rating might become the
real factor in pushing municipalities.
Mr. Bartel responded that he is not a bond rating expert; stated he
had two clients that set money aside in an internal service fund;
both were going through a bond rating for a capital improvement
project; both expressed a strong interest in pre-funding, paying the
full ARC, and moving the money into a irrevocable trust; both
agencies had an upgrade in bond rating because they were addressing
the unfounded liability; a bond rating might not change but may be
downgraded if not addressed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether anyone has ever borrowed to
pay.
Mr. Bartel responded two agencies in the State have done so; stated
Peralta College is one; Ca1PERS premiums can be 50Q one year and 50
the next; volatility in actuarial liability is created if changes
happen when an evaluation is done; he is reluctant to advise agencies
to bond for the entire amount; he would be cautious about paying off
the entire unfunded liability.
Mayor Johnson stated that it is important for people to look at the
charts on page 3 and 5 of the report; the cheapest option is Pay-As-
You-Go; the ten year payout projections increase from $1,861 million
for 2007-2008 to $4,342 million for 2016-1017; the better options are
more expensive; the cost comes out of the General Fund.
The City Manager stated that the cost comes out of the General Fund
for the most part.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the General Fund for the current
year,. to which the City Manager responded $85 million.
Mayor Johnson stated healthcare benefits are only one part of
pension costs; it is important for people to know how costs impact
the General Fund and City services.
Regular Meeting 1 1
Alameda City Council
January 15, 200$
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City Manager and Finance
Director will come back with recommendations to which the City
Manager responded recommendations will be presented during budget
discussions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether guidelines are requested from
Council at this time, to which the City Manager responded not at
this time.
Mayor Johnson requested that the report and Power Point presentation
be posted on the website.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that all options should be presented
during discussions
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the discretionary portion of the
General Fund, to which the Finance Director responded she does not
have the number.
The Finance Director stated that $5$ million pays for salaries,
benefits, and pensions.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that pension and retiree benefits need
to be discussed; knowing the overall number would be useful.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Bartel for the clear
presentation; stated that the charts depict where the impacts are
and the seriousness of the situation.
Mayor Johnson requested that the charts on Page 13 and 14 be changed
so as to not assume a 4.5o medical inflation after ten years.
Mr. Bartel stated the logic of going beyond ten years is not to
attach precision to the numbers.
Mayor Johnson stated that numbers should be provided for both the
miracle case and worst case.
Mr. Bartel stated that the worst case could be double digit
inflation in the Ca1PERS premimums for the next thirty years; other
things might happen before then; he would like to talk with staff
regarding different scenarios.
~08~- } Recommendation to approve the proposed New Bus Stop
Locations and the proposed future rerouting of the AC Transit Bus
Line 63 within the City of Alameda.
Regular Meeting 1 2
Alameda City Council
January 15, 20Q8
The Supervising Civil Engineer introducted AC Transit representatives
and Transportation Commission members.
The Program Specialist II gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated the bus line goes to Oakland at two
different spots; inquired what is the overall run time for the route.
Tony Bruzzone, AC Transit Manager of Service and Operation Planning,
respanded fifty minutes each way; stated the bus line goes past the
12th Street BART Station and terminates at 11th Street and Martin
Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many minutes the bus line is in
Alameda, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded thirty-seven minutes.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where is the vast majority of
ridership, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded ridership is all in
Alameda.
Vice Mayor Tam noted for the record that Council received an email
from Claudia Davidson; stated Ms. Davidson was advocating for
alternative bus stops on Willow Street closer to the medical
facilities; stated that she respanded to Ms. Davidson and noted that
Council's desire is to implement its transit policies with minimal
interference with the neighborhood and it is important to balance the
desires of the residents who want to park directly in front on their
homes with those that need to take the bus and walk further;
encouraged Ms. Davidson to clarify her alternative.
Opponents Not in favor of the staff recommendations}: Liz Cleves,
Alameda, submitted handout}; Diane Voss, Alameda; Jack Boeger,
Alameda; Ed Gersich, Alameda; Claudia Davison, Alameda, submitted
handout}; George Wales, Alameda; Chris Placencia, Alameda.
Proponents ~In favor of the staff recommendations}: Ursula Apel,
Alameda, Susan Decker}, will Matievich, Alameda; Susan Decker,
Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much time would be saved if the
bus looped around at the first possible moment after 12th Street and
Broadway.
Mr. Bruzzone responded said scenarios cannot be done; stated parking
the bus is a problem in downtown Oakland; the current route is the
best for now.
Regular Meeting 1 3
Alameda City Council
January Z5, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not suggesting parking
the bus at the end of the line; the end of the line could become
the middle where the bus could be parked [at the ferry terminal].
Mr. Bruzzone stated that passengers would sit through a ten minute
break.
Councilmember Matarrese stated passengers have to sit through a ten
minute break somewhere.
Mr. Bruzzone stated that passengers get off the bus in oakland; the
passenger experience is different.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the idea be considered;
stated that he would like to review the option of taking the bus
down to Shoreline Drive between willow and Grand Streets; inquired
how much more time would be added, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded
two minutes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that adding an additional bus would
be another suggestion; inquired whether the request is realistic.
Mr. Bruzzone responded the matter could be considered; stated an
additional bus would cost approximately $350,000 per year; AC
Transit is running out of buses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Line 63 serves Alameda the most
and serves intra-City traffic better than any other line; enhancing
the line should be reviewed; a bus should be allocated on Shoreline
Drive between Grand and Willow Streets, even if temporarily; the
cost could be offset with increased ridership and would resolve the
otis Drive issue; reducing speed and managing traffic around Lum
School is imporant; most of the problems at the crosswalk are
caused by cars; a bus stop would further complicate automobile
issues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the purpose of turning off
Shoreline Drive onto Grand Street'.
Mr. Bruzzone responded December 2003 had extreme cutbacks; stated
there was a $20 million deficit; Alameda had four cross island
buses; Alameda had to give up one of the lines; residents desired
to have a route that went across the entire Island; AC Transit is
not so desperate now; that matter can be reviewed.
Counc~ilmember deHaan inquired whether the Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting 1 4
Alameda City Council
January 15, 20Q8
recommended other places.
Mr. Bruzzone responded the Transportation Commission thought the
bus could be used better someplace else; stated a huge schedule
analysis was done on the 51 bus line; two afternoon buses were
added to the schedule; a run time analysis showed that the buses
were running early; two buses were wasted.
Councilmember deHaan stated multiple devises have been installed at
the Lum School crossing and getting across is still a chore; adding
to the confusion does not make sense; buses travel at approximately
35 miles per hour with children present; safety needs to be first
and ridership second; two light controlled intersections would be
lost by going down Shoreline Drive to Eighth Street; Wood School
students are the vast majority of Grand Street and Gtis Drive bus
riders; Whitehall Place is almost the same distance to the hospital
as a secondary stop proposed in front of Willow Street; more
traffic congestion would be created; run time was not addressed
before, only adding two stops; Alameda Point is concerning.
The Program Specialist II stated currently Encinal Avenue does not
have a route; Santa Clara Avenue would be the nearest parallel
route if the route extended along Shoreline Drive to Westline
Drive.
Councilmember deHaan stated 500 people signed a petition not to
have a bus stop at Grand Street and Otis Drive; the rule is to go
to density.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the scenario would work if the
bus stop dropped at Shoreline Drive and traveled up Grand Street,
ran by Encinal High School during school hours and cut out the
Monarch Street end.
The Program Specialist II responded staff estimated that the
Encinal High School and Alameda Point adjustments would total four
minutes and bring the bus back on schedule; adding the Shoreline
Drive component would put the schedule two minutes behind.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many minutes would be saved by
ending the line at the Alameda Ferry Terminal.
Mr. Bruzzone responded he would not recommend said scenario; stated
people would be waiting on the bus during a layover; the idea is
not practical.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the bus runs in a circle; one
Regular Meeting 1 5
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2008
of the defined ends is the Fruitvale Bart Station.
Mr. Bruzonne stated that no one is on the bus; people hate being
delayed in route; drivers would have an issue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is willing to give up the
two minutes to get down to Shoreline Drive and look into adding
another bus to fill the gap.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether notice has been provided to
Shoreline Drive residents, to which the Program Specialist II
responded barricades were posted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the proposed route changes take four
minutes off the current run time and brings the route back on
schedule; two minutes would be added by going down Shoreline Drive
and making the other changes.
Mr. Bruzzone stated that the matter could come back if proposed
changes do not work.
The Program Specialist II stated the Transportation Commission
recommended improving the Shoreline Drive bus stops before moving
to Shoreline Drive; said bus stops are on sand.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $162,000 needed for bus
stop improvements along Shoreline Drive and is not in the budget,
to which the Program Specialist II responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much money was budgeted for otis
Drive, to which the Program Specialist II responded $50,000.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money for the bus stop
concrete pads could be taken from different congestion management
funds.
Mayor Johnson responded staff could explore said idea.
Councilmember Gilmore stated perhaps the Transportation Commission
did not push for the Shoreline Drive stop because the City did not
have $162,00 for improvements; AC Transit is willing to explore
rerouting the bus stop down Shoreline Drive; resources need to be
found to fix the bus stop pads; rerouting the bus stops is not fair
until said resources are found.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of 17 changing the route at
Monarch Street; 2~ making the recommended changes associated with
Regular Meeting 1
Alameda City Council
January 15, 20Q8
Encinal High School; and 37 making the change that routes the bus
down Shoreline Drive pending the availability of funds for required
bus stop upgrades along Shoreline Drive on the beach side of the
street.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired where the bus stop would be on
Willow Avenue, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded the bus
stop would stay where it is.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Whitehall Place bus stop needs to
be modified somehow; inquired whether the W line generates more
ridership, to which Mr. Bruzonne responded that he did not know.
Mayor Johnson stated that real efforts have been made to make bus
stops accessible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see the bus line
rerouted down Shoreline Drive and later look at alternatives to go
down Westline Drive; he would not like to modify Alameda Point but
allow the modification on Pacific Avenue to go forward jagging at
key periods of time to pick up Encinal High School students; he
would like to leave Alameda Point the way it is.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion
includes keeping schedules the same all the time or is there a
change depending on Encinal High School.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the motion includes the Encinal
High School change.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated the Transportation Commission
struggled with the four minute issue and recommended that the
matter be reviewed as an interim measure.
Cauncilmember Matarrese stated that he is willing to keep Alameda
Paint the way it is but wants to drop down to Shoreline Drive
because of the apartments and taking the Lum School bus stop issue
out of the equation.
vice Mayor Tam stated that everything that has been said tonight
revolves around trying to improve and locate bus stops in the most
optimum position so that there is a viable public transit system;
ridership would improve and become a success if AC Transit is able
to improve run times; the Transportation Commission has gone
through an exhaustive process.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of staff recommendations 1 through 6
Regular Meeting 1 7
Alameda Ca.ty Council
January 15, 2008
and added direction for staff to look at reducing the number of
lanes from four to three on otis Drive; the matter could be part of
a long-term study to look at opportunities to reduce congestion on
otis Drive by having more transit choices whether the choices be
bicycles, cars, or a more viable transit system.
The motion was rescinded because a preceding motion was
outstanding.
Councilmember deHaan seconded Councilmember Matarrese's motion with
modifications.
Mayor Johnson stated that AC Transit is working with the City on
reviewing routes; the Transportation Commission did not have said
opportunity.
Robb Ratto, Transportation Commission Member, stated the
Transportation Commission was dealing with the reality of the
budget; the Transportation Commission's desire was to move the bus
line to Shoreline Drive; staff advised the Commission that there
was no budget to improve the Shoreline Drive bus stop pads;
everyone agreed to cut the Monarch Street loop; six riders per day
does not make for an affective transit program, especially when two
minutes is taken out of the schedule; an additional bus could be
used elsewhere for more transit riders.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bus could run on time if the
Monarch Street loop is not cut, to which Mr. Bruzonne responded in
the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated route times were not previously
discussed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not in support of
approving recommendations 1 through 6 because #4 is a reluctant
recommendation; the Transportation Commission really wants #5; one
scenario is to leave Monarch Street and make all the other changes
including #5; making the service more reliable would necessitate
moving Monarch Street to Lexington Street.
Mayor Johnson stated that it is more important to have reliable
service than to have the Monarch Street portion; the bus service
needs to be on time.
Councilmember deHaan stated the bus line brings retail segments
together.
Reguiar Meeting 1 S
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to move approval of
recommendations, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Matarrese directed staff to find the
balance of money needed to satisfy Shoreline Drive bus stops that
are on sand.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmernber Matarrese wanted to
include addressing the issue that the Transportation Commission
raised regarding traffic calming speed reduction.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said issue could be a separate
motion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the motion is to have AC Transit
reroute from Monarch Street to Lexington Street, provide service at
Encinal High School during peak periods; does not include #4, which
is implementing new bus stops on Otis Drive, the bus will run down
Otis Drive as usual; staff is directed to find money for Shoreline
Drive bus stop improvements; the Whitehall Place and willow Street
bus stops will continue to be a priority.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the matter still has to go to AC
Transit for evaluation, regardless of Council's decision.
Mr. Bruzzone responded the evaluation would be a formality; stated
the earliest date for a possible route change is June.
On eht call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the proposal is not fiscally
responsible.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that staff has been directed to find
the money for bus stop improvements; Council may not like any of
the proposals; the bus would not run along Shoreline Drive if
improvements cannot be made; a decision would need to be made to
revisit the Otis Drive bus stop.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated staff
would bring the matter back to Council; options need to be weighed.
Councilmember deHaan noted $50,000 is available for bus stop
Regular Meeting ~ 9
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2aaa
improvements]
The City Manager stated a different appropriation would be needed
for additional funds; other projects would be impacted.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff would be able to apply
for bus stop improvement grants, to which the Supervising Civil
Engineer responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the bus line is Alameda's line and
is a priority; Council acted responsibly tonight; an unfunded
mandate was not given; issues were resolved regarding better run
times; a policy decision has been made to forestall stops on Otis
Drive; concerns have been voiced regarding traffic conditions at
Lum School; Otis Drive is a very fast area and is unsafe to cross;
he hopes that Council can give direction to take the next step at
looking at the intersection, particularly at Lum School; other
projects can be reviewed on a priority basis.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated that staff is going through a
Transportation Master Plan review process and is developing a
Cityiwide commuter model that will help give some idea of the
impacts.
Mayor Johnson thanked AC Transit representatives for attending the
meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the time and
effort expended by AC Transit.
**~
~08-~ } Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
**~
~O8-~ } Resolution No. 14150, "Authorizing Implementation of
Parking Restrictions at Bus Stops on State Route 61 to Provide
Curbside Access for Buses." Adopted.
The Supervising Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an obligation to
notify and post in the area.
Regular Meeting 2 O
Alameda Ca.ty Council
January l5, 2aa8
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that everyone within 300
feet of the bus stop was notified; stated notices were posted on
barricades.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback has been
received.
The Program Specialist II responded feedback was received from two
residents near the intersection of Central Avenue and Bay Street;
both residents were concerned about on~street parking availability;
17 to 23 on-street parking spaces are available within half a
block.
Councilmember deHaan stated evening parking is not impacted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated people can get ticketed if they are
not gone by 7:00 a.m.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Encinal Avenue and Park Avenue
bus stop is included, to which the Program Specialist II responded
in the negative.
David Edwards, Alameda, stated a bus stop is located at the weber
Street bi-section and Ninth Street through Central Avenue; there is
a fire plug at the Weber Street bus stop; the proposed metered
parking space is in front of his house; having a red zone that is
two car lengths or more would be an the advantage of having a bus
stop at the intersection of Ninth Street and Central Avenue;
westbound traffic would be easier to see [at the intersection]; the
next best spot would be across the intersection which has a
driveway on either side.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Transportation Commission
reviewed the matter, to which the Program Specialist II responded
in the negative.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated restrictions should be placed
at all bus stops.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore
[regarding the 7:DD a.m. matter]; stated that he does not know how
to get around the issue.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether people park at the bus stops
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded feedback did not indicate
Regular Meeting ~ 1
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2008
any substantial concern other than the previously mentioned Bay
Street location; stated review showed ample on-street parking.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on Mr. Edward's
situation.
The Program Specialist II stated plans are to relocate the bus
stop; the bus stop would be moved up 50 feet.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff explore the matter with Mr.
Edwards.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
NoN-AGENDA
(OS-~ } Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated that the property owner
adjacent to his home is in default of deed restrictions for a
landscape installation and maintenance agreement.
CQUNCIL REFERRALS
(OS- ~ Consideration of developing a transit hub on the land
between Marina Village Drive and the entrance to the Posey Tube in
order to address congestion in the Tubes.
The Supervising Engineer gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $1.3 million estimate would be
for the parking lot, to which the Supervising engineer responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed area is the only
available land for a park-and-ride on the Vest End; he would like
to have the matter moved up on the priority list; $1.3 is a flea
bite of money considering all of the congestion management money
spent to do freeway repair and maintenance that does not relieve
congestion on I-$S0 and I-580; one way to reduce tube congestion is
to get people out of single occupancy vehicles.
The Supervising Engineer stated that funding could be pursued once
the project becomes part of the 2035 Transportation Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to start working
Regular Meeting 2 2
Alameda Ca.ty Council
January 15, 208
with the State to deed the land to the City for nothing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she recalls a transit hub may not be the
best place for a park-and-ride.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that nothing prevents having
multiple hubs; the West End does not have other places for a ride
share lot.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the staff report notes that the
development of a sewer master plan and design to upgrade existing
drainage improvements would need to be deferred.
The Supervising Engineer stated staff time would be impacted; the
bicycle master plan update could be delayed also.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that said delays are not trade--offs.
The City Manager stated applying for grant funding can be done now.
Mayor Johnson stated that transit hub locations need to be
reviewed; the proposed area may be okay for a park-and-ride but not
a transit hub; staff can apply for a park-and-ride grant and review
the transit hub issue.
The Supervising Engineer stated that staff is reviewing the idea of
adding a queue jump lane at Webster Street as part of the Tinker
Avenue Extension Project; the park-and-ride lot could tie into the
Posey Tube entrance.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that staff provided drawings that
show configuration and aerial views.
The City Manager stated that staff will update Council on the grant
application.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
X08- } Mayor Johnson stated the information that she requested
under item 5-C be posted to the website and should clarify should
clarify that the General Fund non-contracted portion is used to pay
for all General Fund department expenses; the General Fund does not
have extra money; General Fund department expenses will be cut to
pay for increasing pension and retirement costs; the question is
where cuts will be made.
X08- } Mayor Johnson stated that some public entities are
Regular Meeting 2 3
Alameda City Council
January 15, 2QQ$
distributing agenda packs via flash drives; inquired whether the
option should be considered for Boards and Commissions; stated the
CMA is thinking about using flash drives; she would get more
infarmation on the matter.
X08- } Councilmember deHaan inquired when the budget review
process will start.
The City Manager responded internally, the internal process has
started; stated a timeline will be provided to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether feedback has been provided
regarding the reserve.
The City Manager responded information will be provided.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff has any idea regarding
projected cuts at the State level.
The City Manager responded an analysis has been done by the Finance
Director; stated impacts are more immediate for the School District
than the City.
X08- } Councilmember deHaan requested interpretation of the
Charter provision regarding the use of recreation land owned by the
City that was raised during the Golf Course discussion at the
January 2, 2008 City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:26 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting 2 4
Alameda City Council
January 15, 200$
January 31, 2008
Honorable Mayvr and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
205942 - 20fi520 $3,451,040.42
EFT 463 $58,563.80
EFT 464 $39,263.75
EFT 465 $17,161.00
EFT 466 $35,113,21
EFT 467 $11,244.50
EFT 468 $56,993.50
EFT 469 $259,672.18
EFT 470 ~ $28,835.72
EFT 471 $108,258.35
EFT 472 $259,521.52
EFT 473 $502,587'.10
EFT 474 $556,559.79
EFT 475 $298,316.03
EFT 476 $61,839.98
EFT 477 $33,146.23
EFT 478 $814,055.73
EFT 479 $593,091.01
EFT 480 $244,050.04
EFT 481 $44,191.14
EFT 482 $47, 449.69
EFT 483 $31,804.00
EFT 484 $33,342.72
Void Checks:
205627 x$200.00}
205265 x$57.00}
205638 x$531.00}
205680 x$84.82}
205708 x$111.41 }
206307 ~$8,D74.00}
245625 $724.00}
GRAND TOTAL $7,576,315.14
Respectfully submitted,
C~~~Gl,~q
Pamela J. Sibley
BILLS #4-B
Council U1larrants 02/05/08 2/5/2008
CITY 4 F ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: A rove the Cit of Alameda Investment Polic
BACKGROUND
The State of California Government Code Section 53646 requires the City Treasurer to submit
to the City Council, at a public meeting, an Investment Policy for approval by the local
governing authority.
DISCUSSION
The City's Investment Policy affirms the fiduciary responsibility to insure establishment of
adequate reserves, safeguard public assets, and identify opportunities for a systematic
investment process. Priority is placed first on insuring safety of principal and the liquidity
needs for payroll and other City obligations, then on yield on the investment.
The City's Investment Policy is reviewed annually and is included with this report. Investment
reports are provided at the close of each calendar quarter and include the market value of
securities, sources} of market valuation, and a statement confirming that current liquidity is
adequate to meet expenditures for the next six months.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The Investment Policy controls the type and duration of potential investments. During Fisca!
Year 2006-01, $~ .9 million was earned in interest on investments.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Investment Policy as presented.
Respectfully submitted,
elle-Ann Boyer
Chief Financial officer
City Council
JB;dI
Attachment Agenda Item #4-C
OZ-05-DS
INVESTMENT POLICY
1. STATEMENT ~F PURPOSE
It shall be the investment policy of the City of Alameda that all funds not required for immediate
budgeted expenditures be invested in compliance with this statement as well as applicable
federal and state legislation.
Safeguards will be set into place to insure that adequate reserves are established and
maintained to provide that cash in sufficient amounts will be available for those immediate
expenditures as authorized by the City's budget. Funds so maintained will be deposited in a
manner best serving the City.
It will be further recognized that the City has a responsibility to insure the security of its assets
and always maintain a level of qualityso thatthe publicatlargewill havethe highestconfidence
that its best interests are being served.
The purpose of this document is to identify various policies and procedures that enhance
opportunities for a systematic investment process. The initial step toward a prudent investment
policy is to organize and formalize investment related activities. Related activities, which
comprise good cash management, includeaccuratecashprojection, theexpeditious collection of
revenue, the control of disbursements, cost effective banking relations, and ashort-term
borrowing program which coordinates working capital requirements and investment opportunity.
In concert with these requirements are the many facets of an appropriate and secure short-term
investment program.
II. SCOPE
It is intended that this policy cover all short-term operating funds and investment activities under
the direct authority of the City. These funds are described in the most current annual financial
report and include:
General Fund
Capital Projects Fund
Special Revenue Fund
Enterprise Fund
[nternal Service Funds
Fiduciary Funds
Redevelopment Agency Funds
This investment policy applies to all transactions involving the financial assets and related
activities of the foregoing funds.
City Council
Attachment to
Agenda Item #4-C
02-05.08
III. OBJECTIVES
A. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City, followed by liquidity and
yield. Each investment transaction shall seek to first insure that capital losses are
avoided, whether they are from securities default or erosion of market value.
investment decisions should not incur unreasonable investment risks in order to obtain
current investment income.
B. Liquidity: The City's investment pottfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to
meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. This need for
investment liquidity may be tempered to the extent that the City is able to issue short-term
notes to meet its operating requirements. Emphasis will be on marketable securities with
low sensitivity to market risk.
C. Yield: The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market average rate of return
throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's risk constraints,
the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio, and state and local laws, ordinances or
resolutions that restricts the placement of short term funds.
D. The investment porffolio shall be diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and
avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institution.
E. The City shall adhere to the guidance provided by the "prudent investor rule", which
obligates a fiduciary to insure that:
".,.investment shall be made with the exercise of that degree of judgment and care, under
circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence
exercise in the management of their own affairs, nat for speculation but for investment
considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be
derived."
F. All participants in the investment process shall act reasonably as custodians of the public
trust. Investment officials shall recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public
scrutiny and evaluation. The overall program shall be designed and managed with a
degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. Nevertheless, in a diversified
portfolio, it must be recognized that occasional measured losses are inevitable, and must
be considered within the context of the overall portfolio investment return, provided that
adequate diversification has been implemented.
G. Investments areto be madethatwill bearin mind the responsibilityof citygovernmentto
its citizens. Investments which encourage the betterment of the human condition will be
sought. Alternative investments which enhance the quality of life will be given full
consideration. Investments which serve to only enrich a few to the detriment of the
people will be strictly avoided.
H. No investment is to be made in a company that receives more than ~ 5°/° of gross
revenues from the production or manufacture of cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling
products.
2
IV. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Article V of the Charter of the City of Alameda places sale custody of the City's funds with the
Treasurer. Further, Section 53636 of the Government Code of the State of California provides
that money on deposit is deemed to be in the treasury of the City.
Although the responsibility for conducting the City's investment program resides with the
Treasurer, the day to day investment function is hereby delegated to the Finance Director who
shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program, consistent with
this investment policy. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority for all
investment activities.
This procedure is attached hereto and marked as Attachment "A".
V. INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
An [nvestment Advisory Committee has been formed for the purpose of overseeing the
implementation of the City's investment program and assuring it is consistent with the investment
policy as approved by the City Council. The advisory committee shall consist of the City
Treasurer, Finance Director has representative of the City Manager} and the Investment Officer.
The Investment Advisory Committee will meet as needed or as market or economic condition
changes to determine general strategies and to monitor results. The committee shall include in
its deliberations such topics as: economic outlook, portfolio diversification and maturity structure,
potential risks to the City's funds, approval of authorized financial institutions, and the target rate
of return on investment porgyolio. The written investment procedures shall be approved by the
investment advisory committee on an annual basis.
Quarterly: The Finance Director with the concurrence of the Treasurer shall submit a quarterly
investment report to the City Council. This report will describe ail investment
transactions during the quarter, compute average yield and average life of the portfolio as well as
all required elements of the quarterly report as prescribed by Government Code Section 53646.
VI. INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
Investment instruments authorized for purchase include:
A. United States treasury bills or certificate of indebtedness or those for which the faith and
credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest.
B. Insured or collateralized certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state chartered
bank yr state or federal association. In accordance with California statutes, City deposits
including collateralized certificates of deposit shall not exceed the total paid-up capital Ito
include capital notes and indentures and surplus of anydepositorybank, orthetotal of
the net worth of any savings and loan association.
C. Prime bankers acceptances with maturities less than one hundred eighty days, which are
eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System, and are issued by the top fifty
3
banks in the world, or any qualified depository in the State of California. Purchases from
any one bank may not exceed thirty percent of the City's investment porgyolio.
D. Securities of government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Farm
Credit and Federal National Mortgage Association, a maximum of 25% per issuer, and a
maximum of 75% in total.
E. Prime commercial paper with AIIPI rating as provided for by a nationally recognized
statistical-rating organization ~NRSRa}. Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed
2l0 days maturity and no more than 25% of the City of Alameda's portfolio.
F. Medium term corporate notes with a maximum maturity of five years issued by
corporation doing business in the Untied States which are rated "A" or its equivalent or
better by one or more of the following national rating: Moody's, Standard and Poor's,
Fitch's or Keefe's. Investment in medium term corporate notes shall not exceed 30°/° of
the City of Alameda's portfolio.
G. State of California Local Agency [nvestment Fund.
H. County Agency Investment Funds, a maximum of 15%.
I. Repurchase Agreements.
J. Domestic money market mutual funds registered with the Federal Securities and
Exchange Commission SEC} and which are rated in the highest rating category by a
nationally recognized rating service or which only invest in:
a} U.S. Government or federal agency securities and repurchase agreement,
b} other investment instruments specifically included in the local investment policy,
or
c} tax exempt obligations.
K. ether instruments as authorized under Section 53601 and 53634 of the Government
Code.
L. California Asset Management Program (CAMP).
M. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, a maximum of 30%.
VII. INVESTMENT TERMS AND CCNDITI4NS
A. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the use of repurchase agreements;
~ . Securities purchased under the repurchase agreement shall be limited to the
securities and qualifiications listed above.
4
2. Securities shall bemarked-to-market, and shall be maintained at a value equal to
or greater than the cash investment.
3. The market value of the securities that underlay a repurchase agreement shall be
valued at 1o2%.
4. All securities under a repurchase agreement shall be held by a third party
custodian or safekeeping agent. Transfer of underlying securities to a
counterparty bank's customer book entry account may be used for book entry
delivery, and a counterparty bank's trust department or safekeeping department
may also be used for physical delivery of the underlying security,
5. The seller of repurchase securities shall not be entitled to substitute securities,
except as authorized by the City. New or substitute securities should be
reasonably identical to the original securities in terms of maturity, yield, quality
and liquidity.
6. As soon as possible, a master purchase agreement will be executed between the
City and all trading partners.
B. The following terms and conditions shall appiyto the use of commercial paper:
1. Maturities shall be limited to two hundred seventy days or less.
2. Purchase must be of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided for by
Moody's or Standard and Poor's or Fitch Financial Services, Inc.
3. Purchases must be limited to corporations organized and operating within the
United States, and as a practical matter generally only those corporations
operating within the State of California, having total assets in excess of five
hundred million dollars, and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's
debentures, other than commercial paper has-provided by Moody's or Standard
and Poor's rating services}.
4. Purchase may not represent more than ten percent of the outstanding paper of an
issuing corporation.
C. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the use of negotiable certificates of
deposit:
1. Certificates with maturities greater than six months through one year have an "A"
rating or its equivalent or better as provided for by one of the four following
national rating services: Moody's, Standard and Poor's, Fitch's or Keefe's.
2. Certificates with maturities greater than one year and through four years shall
have an "AA" or its equivalent, or higher rating from one or more of the four
following national rating services: Moody's, Standard and Poor's, Fitch's or
Keefe's.
5
D. The following terms and conditions shall applyto the use of medium term corporate notes:
If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either Moody's or S&P to a level below the
quality required by this Investment Policy, itshall be the Agency's policyto reviewthecredit
situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities in the
porgyolio.
a, !f a security is downgraded two grades below the level required by the City, the
security shall be sold immediately.
b. If a security is downgraded one grade below the level required by this policy and
matures within 6 months, the security will be held to maturity. The City Treasurer may
determine to sell the security if it is determined that there is a probability of default
prior to maturity.
c. If a decision is made to retain a downgraded security in the portfolio, its presence in
the po~folio will be monitored and reported monthly to the City Council.
Vlll. PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used by investment officers shall be the "prudent person rule",
and shall be applied in the contextof managing an overall portfolio. Investmentofficersacting in
accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence will be relieved of personal
liability for an individual security credit risk or market price changes, provided that deviations from
expectations are reported on a timely fashion, and appropriate action is taken to control adverse
developments.
IX. INTERNAL C~NTR4LS
The City Auditor will establish a system of internal controls, which shall be documented in writing.
The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee
error, misrepresentation bythird parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets or imprudent
actions byemployees and officers of the City. Controls deemed mostimportantinclude:control of
collusion, segregation of duties, separating transaction authority from accounting and
recordkeeping, custodial safekeeping, clear delegation of authority, specific limitations regarding
securities losses and remedial action, written confirmation of telephone transactions, minimizing
the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies and
code of ethical standards.
X. BANKS AND SECURITIES DEALERS
In selecting financial institutions for the deposit or investment of City funds, the Treasurer will
consider the credit rating of the institutions. The Treasurer will continue to monitor financial
institutions' credit characteristics and financial history throughout the period in which City funds
are deposited or invested.
The Treasurer shall approve all financial institutions from whom securities are purchased.
6
XI . MATURITY
The City will not invest in instruments whose maturities exceed five years at the time of purchase.
It is the intent that investments shall be managed in such a way that any market price losses
resulting from interest-rate volatility would be offset by coupon income and current income
received from the overall portfolio during a twelve month period.
XII. DIVERSIFICATION
It is the policy of this City to diversify the investment portfolio in order to reduce the risk of loss
resulting from over concentration of assets in a specific maturity, a specific issuer or a specific
class of securities. The following strategies and constraints shall apply:
A, Portfolio maturities will be staggered in a waythatavvids undue concentration of assets
in specific maturity sector. Maturities shall be selected which provide for stability of
income and reasonable liquidity,
B. Concern for liquidity shall be insured through practices that include covering the next
vendor disbursement date and payroll date through maturing investments or United
States Treasury bills.
C. Risks of market price volatility shall be controlled through maturity and issuer
diversification.
XIII. RISK TOLERANCE
The City recognizes that investment risks can result from issuer defaults, market price changes
arvarious technical complications leading to temporary illiquidity.
A. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be
mitigated by investing in high grade securities and by diversification,
B. Market risk, defined as market value fluctuations due to averall changes in market price
and rate, shall be mitigated by eliminating the need to sell securities prior to maturity and
avoiding the purchase of long term security far the sole purpose of short term
speculation.
XIV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. All transactions will be executed on a delivery versus payment basis.
B. Wire Transfers: Whenever possible pre-formatted wire transfers will be used to transfer
funds topre-authorized accounts.
C. The City will not enter into reverse repurchase agreements, nor trade in options or future
contracts. However, the Investment Advisory Committee will review and make
recommendations regarding the future use and application of these instruments.
l
D. From time to time a competitive bid process, utilizing a minimum of three financial
institutions deemed eligible by the Treasurer, will be used to place investment purchases.
The City shall transact business only with banks, savings and loans, and with
brokersldealers approved by the Investment Advisory Committee.
E. In the event of an absence or replacement of the City's Investment Officer, the authority
to invest in all maturities beyond six months shall be regulated by controls and restraining
requirements and documented in written investment procedures.
In order to assist in identifying "qualified financial institutions" the Treasurerwill forward
copies of the City's Investment Policy to those financial institutions with which the City is
interested in doing business and require written receipt of the policy.
F. Safekeeping and Custody
Securities purchased from brokersldealers shall be held in a third party custodian
account, which the City has established for safekeeping. Said securities are to be held in
the name of the City with the trustee executing investment transactions as directed by the
appropriate City official.
Collateral for time deposit in savings and loans is to beheld by the Federal Home Loan
Bank. Collateral for time deposits in banks is to be held in the City's name in the bank
trust department or by the Federal Reserve Bank.
G. Confirmation
Receipts for confirmation of purchase of authorized securities must include trade date,
pay value, maturity, rate, price, yield, settlement date, description of securities, purchased,
agency's name, and third party custodian information.
H, Preference
Where all other factors are equal, as a final consideration the following preference will be
given in order:
a. Institutions principally located in the City
b. Institutions principally located in the County
c. Institutions principally located in the State
d. Institutions principally located in the
United States
8
1. Trust Agreements
The City shall direct the investment activities of trustees. Such direction shall be in
keeping with the terms and condition of its trust agreements, applicable law and policies
set forth in the Investment Policy. In addition to the acceptable investment instruments
listed in Section Vl, A thru K, bonds proceeds maybe invested in:
a. Shares in a trust established pursuant to the Government code, Title 1, Division 7 and
Chapter 5, investing in securities permitted under Section 53635;
b. Other investment instruments allowed by State law which comply with
requirements imposed by bond insurance and rating agencies.
Certifiied by:
Kevin Kennedy
City Treasurer
Attachment
ATTACHMENT A
Matrix of Recommended Segregation of
Responsibilities of the Treasury Functions
Func~"ron Res onsibilities
1, Authorization of investment transactions:
• Format Investment Policy should be Tr
easurer
re ared b
• Submitted to Governing Body
• Reviewed investment transactions
Treasurer
a roved at the end of each uarter
2~ Treasurer delegates to Chief Financial
officer and Supervising Accountant
Execution of Investment transactions~'~~ Revenues
3.
Timel recordin of investment transactions:
• Recording of investment transactions in Investment Officers
the Treasurer's records Supervising Accountant -Revenues}
• Recording of investment transactions in
the accountin records
Supervising Accountant General Ledger}
4. Verification of investment, i.e, match broker Treasurer or Supervising Accountant
confirmation to treasurer's records Revenues}
5. Safe uardin of Assets and Records:
• Reconciliation of Treasurer's records to
the Accountin Records .. ~*
Supervising Accountant General Ledger}
• Reconciliation of Treasurer's Records to
bank statements and safekee in records *~
Supervising Accounting General Ledger}
• Review of ~a}financial institution's
financial condition, ~b}safety, liquidity, and
potential yields of investment instruments, Treasurer
and ~c} reputation and financial conditions
of investment brokers
• Treasurer's Vault Treasurer
• Periodic review of collateral should be
Treasurer
erformed
6. Management's periodic review of the investment
portfolio as prepared by the Treasurer -key
areas that should be reviewed are investment
types, purchase price, market values, maturity
dates and investment fields as well as
y
Independently assigned reviewing
conformance to stated investment olic .All
P Y authori .*~~
~
transactions, excluding purchases of certificates
of deposits, are on delivery versus payment basis
to a th i rd a
With input from Chief Financial Officer via consu ltation
** This individual may be an Assistant Finance Director or Supervising Accountant
*~` Personnel assigned to this task should have the capabilities commensurate with the
responsibilities. This position requires knowledge of investments and familiarity with the
formal Investment Policy.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Authorize the Purchase of Three Marked Dodge Charger Police Vehicles
Through the State of California Vehicle Bid Contract at a Cost Not to
Exceed $96,000
BAC KG RO U N D
The Public works Department is responsible far the Managed Vehicle and Equipment
fleet} Replacement Program. On May 2, 2906, the City Council adopted Resolution
13951 establishing guiding principles for the management of the City's fleet vehicles
and equipment. The replacement program is based on the City's fleet replacement
criteria, which consider the useful life of vehicles and equipment in terms of age,
mileage for hours}, and usage. Vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement are
also reviewed and analyzed for safety history and operating performance to determine if
it is appropriate to replace a vehicle of piece of equipment at a later date. In addition,
vehicles and equipment are viewed to determine if the minimum use guidelines have
been met. As part of the Managed Replacement Program, the Public Works
Department has determined that three marked Police vehicles should be replaced.
DISCUSSION
On June 5, 2007, the City Council adopted specifications and authorized the Call for
Bids for two Dodge Charger marked police vehicles. This particular model is somewhat
new to the California police market for marked police vehicles. It has tested weft in
overall responsiveness and safety crash test performance. Staff reviewed the functional
requirements of a marked police vehicle and determined that utilizing an alternative fuel
vehicle does not meet the Department's needs. However, procuring amid-sized V-6
should reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions. Additionally, this particular model
is not available with an electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel option.
The Police Department purchased the two Dodge Charger marked police vehicles
through the State of California Vehicle Contract. The State had already gone through
the bid process to obtain this contract.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-D
OZ-DS-OS
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
February 5, 2008
Page 2 of 2
The Police Department's Fiscal Year 200708 budget includes the replacement of three
additional police vehicles at a cost not to exceed $96,000. Since the Dodge Charger
police vehicle best meets the Police Department's needs, the Department ordered the
new Dodge Chargers #hrough the State of California Vehicle Contract. The proposed
action would adopt the attached specifications and authorize the purchase of the three
marked Dodge Charger police vehicles.
The replaced vehicles will be taken out of the fleet inventory and sold at auction. The
revenues raised will be returned to the fleet replacement fund in accordance with
Resolution No.1395~.
BUDGET C~NSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
~~
The cost for three vehicles, $77,470, is included in the FY 2007-08 managed vehicle
replacement program fund. Whenever possible, existing safety equipment will be
recycled.
MUNICIPAL C4DEIP~LICY DGCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECGMMENDATInN
Authorize the purchase of three marked Dodge Charger police vehicles through the
State of California Vehicle Contract at a cost not to exceed $77,410.
Respectfully submitted,
l~~ ~~-
Walter B. Tibbet
Chief of Police
DKIWBT: mcn
Attachment: Specifications for Police vehicle purchase
SPECIFICAT[4NS FAR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE
The City of Alameda is seeking proposals for the purchase of three new 2008 Dodge
Charger Police Package ~21A}including all standard equipment and the following
options:
Basics Descri tion
Sus ension Front: Inde endent SLA1Rear: 5 Link inde endent
Break T e Rear Disc Anti-Iocklvented
Break T e Front Disc Anti-Iocklvented
Vehicle T e Mid-Ran a Premium
Steerin Rack & Pinion with h draulic assist
Doors 4
Tire Diameter 18 inches
Overall Hei ht 58.2
wheelbase 12D.0 inches
Overal! Len th 200.1 inches
Overall width 14.5 inches
Ca acit 5 Passen er
Base wei ht 3221
Fuel Tank 19.0 allvn
Transmission AutomaticlAda tive electronic control
En ine Size 3.5 Liter, Hi h out ut SOHC 24-Valve V-6
Engine Valve
Confi uration SOHC 24 Valve, h draulic, center- ivot roller rocker arms
En ine Power 250 bh
Alternator 160 am
Color Black and whitelPaint Scheme "B"
Standard
Vehicle
Packa a #1 Includin Pre Packa a for Electrical S stem
Air ba s Side curtain airba s
S are tire Full sizes are tire
City Council
Attachment to
Agenda item #4-D
02-45-08
EXTENDED 1NARRANTY
The Dodge Charger Police Package comes with a standard 3 year, 36 month warranty,
with a $50.0o deductible, to begin when the vehicle is placed into service Dealer will
be responsible for registering the vehicle as an Exempt vehicle with the Department of
Motor Vehicles and have the plates sent or delivered directly to the Police Department.
VENDOR DELIVERY DATE:
Vehicles must be delivered within thirty days of award of contract.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Accept the Work of Republic Intelligent Transportation Inc., for In-Pavement
Crosswalk Li hts at Ei hth Street and Ta for Avenue No. P.W. 05-05-04
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2007, the City awarded a contract in the amount of $82,400, includin
. g
contingencies, to RepublEC Intell~gentTransportation, Inc., form-pavement crosswalklfights
at Eighth Street and Taylor Avenue. The project installed in-pavement lights, si na e, and
g g
truncated domes at the curb returns to improve pedestrian access at Washington School.
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. The
final project cost is $14,112.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
This project is funded under CIP# 90-41, with $55,440 available from the Safe Routes to
School grant and $15,612 available from Measure B funds.
MUNICIPAL CODEIP4LICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the work of Republic Intelligent Transportation Inc., for in-pavement crosswalk lights
at Eighth Street and Taylor Avenue, No. P.W. 05-05-04.
Res ly ub fitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Wali Waziri
Associate Civil n ineer
MTN:VVW;gc
City Council
Agenda item #4-E
0~-o5-os
C1TY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2005
Re: Accept the Work of Republic Intelligent Transportation, Inc., for the In-
PavementCrosswalk Li hts at Various Locations No. P.W. 07-04-07
BACKGRGUND
Gn April 3, 2001, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $231,000, including
contingencies, to Republic IntelligentTransportation, lnc., farin-pavementcrosswalklights
at various locations, No. P.W. 07-04-07. The project installed solar-operated in-pavement
crosswalk lights at four unsignalized intersections in the Park Street and Webster Street
Business Districts and a new wheelchair ramp at Pacific AvenuelPark Street.
DISCUSSIGN
The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department. The final project cost is $194,710.
BUDGET C4NSIDERATIQNIFlNANCIAL IMPACT
This project is funded under CIP# 90-35, with $158,400 available from a Hazard
Elimination Safety Grant fund and $36,310 available from Measure B funds.
MUNICIPAL CGDElP4LICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Accept the work of Republic IntelligentTransportation, lnc., forthe in-pavementcrosswalk
lights at various locations, -No. P.W. 07-04-07.
Res sub itte
r
~.
M e T. Naclerio Wali Waziri
Public Works Director Associate Civi Engineer
MTN:vVVU;gc
City Council
Agenda Item #4-F
~2-D5-D8
CITY OF ALAI~EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Allocate $153,313 in Regional Measure 1-2°/° Grant Funds and $75,621 in
Measure B - Transbay Ferry Funds, and Approve a First Amendment to
the Contract in the Amount of $229,000, to Marine Express, Inc., for the
Main Street Fer Terminal Bar a Maintenance Pro'ect
BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2406, the City Council awarded a competitively bid, professional
services contract in the amount of $331,000 to Marine Express, Inc., for the Main Street
Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance project. The project as originally envisioned would
remove, dry-dock, repair, and reinstall the existing barge used for docking the ferry
vessels during the boarding and alighting of passengers. To ensure continued ferry
service operations, the project included renting and installing a temporary barge. The
existing barge was removed and the temporary barge installed in February 2001. After
the existing barge was dry-docked, it was determined that significant, costly repairs
would be required and it was doubtful the barge could safely and reliably be placed
back in service. Shortly thereafter, staff investigated the availability of grant funds to
permanently replace the existing barge.
On June 5, 2007, the City Council approved a grant application requesting $153,313 in
Regional Measure 1-2% funds to complete the barge project. A local match of
$311,621 was included for a total grant application amount of $411,000. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ~MTC~ approved the grant in the summer of
2007.
DISCUSSION
Currently, the City has aone-year, no-fee lease with the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority ~ARRA~ for the use of an ARRA-owned barge. However, that
barge is not yet in service at the ferry terminal. Because of the ARRA barge's condition,
staff estimates that the cost to replace the existing barge with the ARRA-owned barge
will require an additional $229,000, not the $411,000 originally estimated when the
Regional Measure 1-2°/o grant application was approved. The cost of replacing the
existing barge with a newly built or reconditioned barge is estimated to be well over $1
City Council
Agenda Item #4-G
0~-o5-os
Honorable Mayor and February 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
million. The major cost components of the replacement of the existing barge with the
ARRA awned barge are:
• Repairs to ARRA-owned barge: The ARRA-owned barge is a construction
barge. Before it can be used for ferry landing operations, the barge will need
structural reinforcements installed, deck fixtures removed, gangway and docking
fixtures added, internal compartment repairs made, general cleaning,
sandblasting, and painting performed. This work is estimated at $99,000.
• Temporary barge costs: The temporary barge required minor modifications
before it could be used for ferry docking and will need to be returned to its pre-
lease condition. This .is estimated to cost $100,000.
• Disposal of the existing barge: The cast to dispose of the existing barge is
estimated to be $30,000.
City Council approval of the contract amendment will enable Marine Express to modify
the ARRA owned barge, install it at the Main Street Ferry Terminal, and accept return of
the temporary barge. A copy of the amended contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFiNANCIALlMPACT
The Barge Maintenance Project is budgeted under CIP #'s 90-723, 90-453, 90-561, and
90-615. Funding consists of $153,3?3 from MTC's Regional Measure 1-2°/o Bridge Toll
program. The original grant application anticipated using Tidelands Trust Funds;
however, staff has determined that Measure B - Transbay Ferry funds are available for
this work and proposes these funds be used instead of the Tidelands funds. There is
no impact to the General Fund associated with AlamedalOakland Ferry Service
operations.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.f.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
February 5, 2008
Page3of3
Allocate $153,313 in Regional Measure 1-2% grant funds and $15,627 in Measure B ~-
Transbay Ferry funds, and approve a first amendment to the contract in the amount of
$229,000 to Marine Express, Inc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal barge
maintenance project.
Respec submitted,
;~~~r~"~ Matthew T. Naclerio
Publicvllorks Director
JvV~ C
By: Ernest Sanchez
Ferry Manager
MTN:ES:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City
Landsca inq and Li htinq District 84-2 ,.
,.
BACKGROUND
Gn June 1, 1984, the City Council established the Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2. The purpose of this assessment district is to provide enhanced
maintenance in certain business or neighborhood districts throughoutthe City.
DISCUSSIGN
There are currently seven zones in the assessment district see attached zone maps}.
Zone 1: Lincoln Avenue between Sherman Street and St. Charles Street.
Zone 2: vlJebster Street between Central Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Zone 3: Webster Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway.
Zone 4: Park Street between Blanding Avenue and San Jose Avenue, and Santa
Clara Avenue and Central Avenue between Gak Street and Broadway.
Zone 5: Harbor Bay Parkway between Doolittle Drive and the west end of the
roadway, including North Loop Road and South Loop Road.
Zone 6: Alameda Marina Village
Zone 7: Bay Street between San Antonio Avenue and the Lagoon.
!t is necessary to appoint an Engineer-of-Work for preparation of the assessment
diagram and the assessment amount, by parcel, within the zones of the assessment
district. It is also necessary to appoint an Attorney-of-Record for the District to perform
the legal services required in the conduct of these proceedings. Consistent with the
current practice, it is recommended that the City Engineer be appointed as the
Engineer-of Work and thatthe CityAttorney be appointed as Attorney farthe District.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNlF1NANCIALlMPACT
The staff costs associated with this work are payable by the Assessment District, and
apportioned to each zone, based on the individual zones' percentage of the total
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda item #4-H
42-05.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
February 5, 2005
Page 2 of 2
Assessment District budget. Only the direct costs for services are charged to the
Assessment District. It is estimated that the cost for this work is $2,000 for attorney
fees and $8,640 for the engineering, advertising and mailing fees, associated with
property owner bailating, for a total of $10,600. The Assessment District will pay these
costs with no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution appointing an Engineer-of-Ullork and an Attorney-of-Record for Island
City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.
Respectfu y submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~~~~~C~JI~ ~ l~ ~7
By: Margaret McLean
Public Works Coordinat r~
MTN:MAM:gc
Attachment:
1. Zone Maps
• ~ ~
a ~ c y~~r ~~ ~ ~ ~,,~~ ~
'y u ~ 'y 5 ~y 4 w;~ ~ ~~ s,f x~ 1
r - ~ t ,} t 0 0 4 ~ ° ~ xIi7I t
. ,' • - 6' ~~ ~ ~~ ~-4 4a. ~ ~ ~ `ate I' I f q
~1 at~`rra S w y w a~ ;~ ~ ti ~ w ~ > '''~ t ~ w ~ z
/V ti
' • one C!C GG-rua ~ v ~ ~ , ~ 4 ti Y
• h ao-fnn Of ,~
u
o0-fla _ oC- Ada 1 • ~ ~ 4 y ~ 4 ~ - .
'v C ~ a ~ ~
o
v ~ ov 00 ~ ~ 1 , ~~~ ~ '
• - ao-1o0 ~ ~ Gl ~ ~ ~ ~ t S 4 d • ' '
1~-9117 ~~ ry ~~ ` t t `~ ^L~ - ~ i
• ~ ~ V
. ,.,. `~ o ~•. , ~
0 4~ ~ . N ~ t ~,~ ~
V • ~~ o
- 1
~i ,
• ~
. _ ,, •
- - -
~ •
I -•. ~ y
i
~ B o a a pia o c~ ~ ~ o C a
h .'', ~ n : ' a` ~
~ ~, Q c o o• a~"aiol.q o o a ~ 0 v a n
..
~~ , . ~ ~ ~~
'~ C c' a ~~ R a '0 q-~ M. C
~ °o 0 o n a a a ~ ~ ~, o g o
~~ 7 ~ a
Q a° ~ a a a 4 ° q a °a °0 5 o c n a q a. ~
`~ ~ .•~ ~ 4
4 ~ - Q __~_.._____ ~
' V d ~ ` •3c~-rtD ,q ~~-rC1 `1 ~ ?7rp-r~J ~, ~• , '
• ~ ~ ~ ~ City Council
• •_ Attachment to
Report Re:
.._._._..............,, ..._...... _ . . , ..... .. ... .... --- -- • . _ _ ....... ... _. ,_.....__.-. Agenda rtem #4-H Y
0~-05.08
. - ' ~ 't-•
' ~ 'EQ
.~ ' ~ f ~
.~
y: _ ~ ~
.. ~,~.
t Q ~E
-~ r ~ ~
. ,` ` ` ~ «
o~ ~ „' ~~ .tip a ~ ~ I 1 I It
of .. ~ ~~~~l.p '~ r1 ^' ~ 71 Y ~~ ~ ; Ly Z ~~` ..
a( Yi= ~r-t+v~r 3'8'x), ro - ~ z~ oo- ~Q ~1~~xi•arr ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~
. s0•~PD ~ Q ~ A ti ~ ~ ` c
_ l~ 4
~_ n~ , - ~ ~ Iq-tr0 V l c l ti ~~ ~ C ~ ~ ~
n~ ~ ^i1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ I ~ ~ i
- 01 •` y , y ,91 ,
~C`s•P~ WLD
. ~ _.
i ~ '
,~' ~ V E
-.~.x~ ~ OI ~ -
. ri1 '~
N ~ ao-raa o~v-CO+v ~!
~- CC-SvD '
• ~. ay goo-~-• - .
''V
zti'a-coo cvrat ~ ~~
.~
-a+rca
~+ - vo-rva ~ - q 1~
~ _ ~ _ ~ - - -
' ~E d4-SOD 41 ~ ~ '
. rn-rfo ~ .
' I ~_ -
}I7N~~1 r ~I:r,: r~ ~ ~ ,
. I ~~
~, rn
e ! . N~~~ ;,,, -rod II ~]I
~ ~ i. .~ ,
zE ~a- eao p ~, j~ ~E I
dr `~ oo-fro. ~~ ..
r ~ ~ ' ~I ~ •
a + aE
rv-5oa ~ t,j oo-~ro
J ,
~rw ~- -
~J ~ r '
': =,~ri.
- ~
+'
- ~ ~' -
' i~~
.~
• ' • ~ '
' ~ ' . lr s Y
. .~
. r
~ ~ C11 M
~ 1~ ~I AI V
' ~ :~IK}'
• ~ I ~ K~tl ~I.11~
` }~
• „ oo-~zo Jo-era p o ~ R a~~„ ~ .
. siY.=
~ ~ ~ ~~~I~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s Q'~tT
. ~ ~ ,,,
• war ~.
I I ~ ~= t- ~
~a-~~ ~ I
• ~ ,~ ~
{tea ` ' ~ ~
' 1 ° "' M
t oo-arp ~ ~-ua I I I I: = ~ ~
~ o
- a co•srv ~ ~ '
~ }ti .0
' oo-rro I
r
^ '
QC•r00
~' ~•+~ ~
rp-{va ~ "~~ - 1
J - ro-arQ of
' ~ ov-rro CO•~rp ~, .. .
4~ i
• •7l0 ~
~ Od Y
.u -
- ~ ~n ~~ ~
-ro-pro ~ q
to-rte ~S 0=
. ~ ~ ~ r
. .. {~- ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 Sirs Y~1-~ !i ~ . -
J\4 o0.O10 _• `
q ~'
. _ y OdrC10 I 417' Fi"d
~' • j
... ~ 01
'.
• Q ; y a( - I
' I ~ ~' , i
' I va• eoa , ' ~`~
• ,GAD -I.CO ~ I l oI
}ti •~ cp-rCD • , f ~ 'v ~ '
~ o •T a
~ ~ a ~~~ i I i * ~ o ~ a ~ o ~ ~
~ `• ` ~ a ~ ~ ° s.. .
~~ ' a j I
• ' ' ~ o on-7~a ~ oo-zra ~ a o~ a s ~ .
h ~
E;ar:~i~~' ~ ~ i ~cov ~oa~+zc l ~b:n OLD •
z w~ox~,~
~ a 1
??ZtJ••I~t1 .i ~~ ~a?rN
1 ~ ~ ! ; ,.
~ ~,.: 7 .vQ C~R~.+ j hr7JI
' 14 J . Kj
_ _ I
h . I.
- r~r
' • - 1
• ~•'~'yr t . •i~~. •~I '. 1 ,•,1-1, .. ~. .1 .. ~1'i • • ~ . ~i•~ . ~ "V • . ' L^ i T' :~ •n 1 ' .4~ r'1.~ i~ ~ `•'S• 1 a:
••r•,• 1 ..,1'i i ••'•.. T~• 1• f' .•.a~ , ..1.i• :.+5~ •Y• 11•: ~ 1:•~ "S•, LI ~~...~.•-... ~~
~- ~
,• ~ ~ ~
' ~ _~ ~ ~.~
<«,
• ~ •~
' (r ::Jxs rtia v3rrx-~lYO7) '^ a w y~~•-~
• w ~ r.lwtol
f~ L n ~y /~ J ~1~ L -7 ~ry ~ K pE Ol cl •
r~O~Y p 41~ V - V;l • , V I ~I - y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~t K~ ~•
as-po ' , ~ ~~,~~..,... '• ~ ~ ~` at=:
.. .off ~:
an•.+c 3 Y7 /V ~ A ~ a 9 3,ru u ~ ztdi
ao•f-A j ~ ~iai
co- oo•d-a ~ j .I ~iwt
I ~ ~
oo-ua ao-Gov ~ 1 I 'I IS
t 0 C -~H7 ~ ~ ~ ~ R y ~ , t'7 ~ 9 , ~ 3 i p ry ,+ o
tn~ S5 f I ~ I
" n C a C o ao Od•SGt7 w a C• f~ a -.~ I!~ ~_
y ~ ~ C c ,~ v q p w w vtr k ~ h r, r~ ~: ti ~ ~~ i, ? '•~
~~~ a p o o ~~~ Oo-r-G 4 a p C C 1 9 4 a L G C! ~~~ ~ s~ ++ 11
.{. ~ ~ f
7RN~^ ~ tr~!'r7J ~~! ruts t f
1 ~ '
a •, '! a ,~! oI~,, , i I I Ir ~~
~ C oaS~p ~ '~ ~ a` a E a •a a~.ra~i~ OI~IGt'~ q o
p ~ ~ "I i ~ ~ ~ ~ CI ~ '^ ~ r.~~ o
'3 a l I a s ato,a a
n ,~ i ~ ~ ..
t ~ gat ~ ~ ~. ~~
aa•toa ac-t-nt ~ k .
~t zc-tea ~ ~ ' -. i ~ x
d~ aa•~.cv ,~ Ip-OL~J L91r?-r~10 ~ D[ta -17~~`G -
- t ~y ~ ~
~i ~~ 71Q I ~ ~+
• ~'• k
l of r', ~
I r
Ica-c-o ~ ~ ~ ~ w y `~ I
t oo--ra ,~ ~ ~ S ~ f ,
I E
' I
~~ ~ x
w ~ .a
' o C a +~ k! `~ ~ '
.a
h I ^ 4 ~ ~ ~ z
i ~ ~ ~v C~ 4 ~~ ~ a I o ~ ~ t
i '~ ~ t a a 4 a o i ~ ~ ~ ~ ?env - ~~ ~ .,w',~ ,
~•,,:~,
i - oA;~CO ti~~ ..,
y` , rp• r0 ., ,
V~l
~vt on•a+o oo•~a
~' ~
' ~[ ~ ~ ~ -
•- •, ~~~-~d~~d7~ I ro-Pro ~ ~• ~ ,
rv~roo ~ ~ tit ` F ~~ ~ .. •
M 1
• ~ ao•saal - Ot ~ .
~~ as-ova h~ .
~I ! rvtro ~3
_ ~ ,.
~i oa•.aa I , ~ .
. D~•r[0 ~
~a-a-n ~ t
. o ~ ~ .
' `7v••~aa I ~ ~ •
r---~•
~~'ro ~ f
• 'l1 ~ ~ . i
~~ J' p.plpt ~«~-eL~ - r
. ! ' _ ~ vr~~r'.~ tip. }
oa-+1p t ~ ~ •:1 I
' rood 1:~•~r0 ~ ~ i
n.i i
:,a-Faa :0.,70 4:!
,,,
• ,t, DO ,
~~~ JD•rn pO-~-C E
'~' ~ JO•~Odl ~ ',I
J ^ ~ i{• ,4
~~~ ov-r-o _ .
I y .: S',3 ~' ~Y G'~ .
• : -~
_ - I '
~~~ t ~ r
~ :.,,,
:S =
' ~'
~'~~~~ ~~
_ .. ~ ,m
:-
'' ~; ~ ~ w
• ~ .. „J 4 .ZjK~~1
j ~ ~ KI~fQ~
~ ,
_ a
d ~ C ~ h ~ ai~~'F.i
~ ` ' al~~
~ ~ ~i~l
i ,
l o '' .. I~.iff p.
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
w~~r ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 4 ~ ~
IOW" ~ '~ ~ ~
~ `~
1 Y
a1' ry
~ 'n ~ ~ J
' ^ . ! 4 y I
~ ~ w~ • ~ -
~ ! ~ _.
•' ~ ~ R
l ~ n` i ~ y x
f
~i
",. ~ h,
~ ~ ~ i ~, i
q ~ ~ ~~ :x
' .~ , ~ ~1 `
` I yyw
f y
l-y, + ~ ~
' ~~' • • a
j
' • ~ }
. ~;'
~ •1
• ~ • ~ , / l~
• ~ ~ ~ '
~' T
~~ n
. .' t
~. ` t
~ a
~ r
~ ~
y~' ~
s
m
~,
. ~
.,
i~
i.'~~~~~
' i
:: ~
~~ a ~~ K1 !
~. ~
. ~ = 1 ~I
a~.~
x ^
... ~~,~,
~ II M ~, ~,~~~~
` ~ !1 ~ 14: r' ~
a x ~ ~,u,~
~ r
~:
_ ~ o' ~'~
• ~ ~~
- ~ ~' ~
1 ~ 5 • ' d
[III=!~•~
•
n r S
• ~ [ ~ I ~~ ^; ~ xl
. . 0 ~i
d ~ .
~ ~
. ~ ? u
A x
0 a x
~ 0
~ ~ ~ i
r. ~ 0
~ ~
4 4
¢ ~ a ~ -
~, y ,~ -
x
~ ~ ~ Q i
C ;
~• ~ 4
0 S ~ ;
p ~ Q i •~ '
a ~
~ • ' ~ 1 ~ L' ti„''.
1 ~
~ ti ,~
• 1~ ... ~ ~
,,
•
v j
• a .~M
- ~~ ~ ~ ~ • ti ~ V ~
/ 4+ ~ ~ f ~ \ `~I
~
~ •
,~ ~
~~
N°'
~ ,
~ ,~~~ti.A.~
I r
a ~~~ti
~ •
~ ~
"~
4
~
~ 1
w ~
C~''
•
ri.
,7
~
~ ~
.' `
r ~~l~~I
~~Vl~~s~L
k.~~G:.,n~
•~
~ ~
~ ~ a•e ~ `r ~
. a ~
~ ~~~
~
ti
' ti an ~
`
r
k~4 ` r~ I
• ~ ~ l
I
r
I .., , , ..` ,
~ y ~'Y
~ 3
q
~
~ ~t
~
~
' •. ~ ti~ ~ ~
•
•
•
~
~ ~ ~1 :! r
4.~ .M
, .
' ~ r
~
~~~' ~ ~~~
• _~, ~r ~. t i m
~.
u ~!.
w
,y ~ I
G :
W =
~ ~
h
' ~. i b
f ~~ = ~
A~
` ' ~
~ +~ ~ V Y ~'
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
~
~
` _ n
`
l~•~+1
~ I ~ 1~
•~
M
~r
4
~a
-
~ 4C
~ ~ ~
~
' ~ • ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
• M
x
f~,
~~
I~~~ ~
~
• ~
~ , ,
t ,
~ ~
. 1 '
l K
^
t
~
o
. ` 4
~
~
' }
T
~
Q ~
a 1.
E .-tip
; ~!.
` . ~' `~
r ,~
}
f
r
.~ y `~ ,J
`
~ ~.
..
.
~..
` ~ _'
I
i
~ .,
~ _
./
.. ,~'r
r
ti~
r`r
~,~
~~~~ +
,:
~,
. rat, ,~ : .
. ~. ~ ~
' ~ E"
~ a
. .. ~ ~ ~
>~ ~
:~~ ~ ~
~ ~ j#~
- ~ i m -
~.
. ,
vi~~
~#
9C1
rcrl- •
~" • ~i Y;
• ~j.al
' ~~~~
. ..
..~.~
. ..~• ,~
~~ -f ~ y
~ ' K
' r -
~ r M ~ ~'
F t • ~ DO-SZC ~ oD•7~9 ; ~ -
.. , .. .~
- Y , ~ ~~ .
,~ r ~
. `~ ca-~~a +-
~ yy ~.
r Q7'4L~ y ~ ~
1 - ,`~ ~ ~ 00-1t'~ ' f
' OD-C6G OD-fOa ~ ~ ~
' 00•~ xp y + a` x .
• ~ r _ a
M w ~ ;
.- _ ~ Iw'YjZ ~ k
' - ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
'~^ ~ .} ~ ~
` ~ ~.
~ ~.,j w ,K
a ~~ ~ •~ '4 arr ~ I
r
~ e f r ~ ~. Z
MIS ~_ ' ~U~ r' -. # ~ ~ r
t'
~ ~ •
~{ ' -
[`~ _ ~
1 ~~ ~~~ ^ 4v ~,
K ~ .~rJ !; '~A ~r~7 r ~,
r ~~
S "'; .
S . *(~I~ ~ x~.Y , .
J S * r '~
~ + ~{ ~.
f" IT} ~' 1.w ~ 3 t~ Z
,u +r +~ ~ ~ t '+ "' ~ "~
o ~ w
t ~
R ~,~ `
:~ ~ ~
i .'. - f~ ~ - ~ -
-.
'-~ ~
~ Vie; 1
~ ~ ~~
...r'• •~
~ ~ ry 1.~ .+ 4 w. ~-. . r
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~9
~~
'». ,~,
- r ~ f '+~ ~ y r r`
. ~..a #~"~ = ~ _ 3r. :ice
f ~ `
. ~~, a•Yr~~ : k~;ti'~ mil'.
. , i~
.~
- ~.
~~j1~~C
.y~~,
ti a1 ~ t~ x ~ ~
~- ~
- ~
o:..~
r.
x .t
A y ~I~rl
' fM r ~ ~ i7 i
. '` x i al+~~~i . ,
t ~ xlN.
+4 ~~ 3~+ct~1
•-Oiii\044i~~Z~S ~ rCl~la~
wwr' ' y ,r ~ r ~yti•
' ,rrtirrrrrrr rrrrr.rrr ~ ~'~;
~ a1v~~..
~ ~ a x,
~~ ~ =~di
'1 ~i~.r~
a aa.~a ra~s~a~s^a ~ E ~ ~ ~~ d
CE +rr~rrrtiar..rrrLtirrr ~ ~ ~ I~ •
• ~ rrrr rr r.rrrr rrr-rrr 1
_ ~
,~,-i,pOr+Raq
a 3\Ar1y iw~plalA~ ~ ~ ^
Q + ~A\ n~-ti~ ~
+ - ~i fs~~
w ti
C nI , .
{~ r
' ~' ti r
~: ~ ~ q '
ra..a•.a ..5w] -
~ ~ rww+KV+irtlrr '
ry.rngnwwlyr~~41
V rr•r+rrr^r++r •
r
S a
m'~ ~ pir.~ggaa9CelrJ r•
0 ~+1r.t~~ r .. r '
+r.lf^;7 ai ..wrtiw~t,rnrM ~
~19h~C6~ a^\a4O4Agq~Q
M _A~
~~ y i rrrr`,' aCbgC•S'!/ ~ Ir~r r ~ ~
•. r r ~ ~ .ar ++
~ :C,y C r 11 ~~ r ••' r r
'1 q C ~ 7n ~~ w r .
•+ »M ~ w + .air
• ryi}~ ~ + a r ~?"~ 1a ~ . d }~ wqr nnrw~'RfrJ ~
~ ~ ~O ~ ~ti 4 ~ rrr.rl.wrrwr
- ~ ~+ ~ ~
~ v
•~ ; ~; ~ ~ •~ a~ r'pr.~wr.lwrrd y
~ „ rM~ r ayv V'aV Yyyh p _
• ~ ~~, ~~
r ~ +
y ~ \ ~ ~ ~. ~
~ '' a ..
ti ~ a ~ ~ ~ 13.1'J.{.~rl r~
~ , ~ ~ QrJ1A*4Yw
p~} ~ aa~~r-r+rrrr
\i V ~~ ~ a71 ; ~ M wr+rrrryrrrti
w ti
r r, `~ • r ~ • ~ b
~ ~ 7r ~ d .r ~ ~rys\a•waw.i
r
r r C• ~ ~x Ga+1a-goagoro
r t~ •.
M~ i ~
~ \ rr ..~
• V' +~ ~ C ~rxr3y~
V ti • ''1 r;r3"~
r. Jq ~ w Crw+hr4i
a +r r M Jr 1 1d 4"M'~gVr4da~
r Yti• 2 V rrrr+`+r~~r.^
~~ .r f~ ~ ;* rr •8p• a r ~ . ~
~ 4 ~ ~ ~r tiwnwwwww..r+ryi.~Y
r a~ raYaOarV+gYgOVbO
' s 4 ~ 7 ti w~. a
~ q v. ~ ~ ~
o. •
i wr. ~ ~Z ~ '~~ 1 . r ~. ~ - •rl r V -
~ ~
.~
n w an ~ ^ ~ rrw~w..•r,,r,...rrlrn4
A ~~r 9111
,~ ~ .~~.~
tM pr1 ~ j ~~ ~~ ~ zr~4^a~abgrlo4aoop~eaovti a~ago~~.av
,~+ ~.,-'~ ~ .~~' r, o.,a9•s~azti• i,agogoaaao+a~a~r0
~y ~ ~ r: . , ~~ti r~.Irmr^^^~•a-rrar...w....wr~..~rrwar~..i.r
! - ... MhrrM•arr ww+r'++.~L~..~ tr ~ rrti ~yr..~r r
1 LL,f 'A ~ ~ +~ ~i ~7pyp40pQg9R•40or9000adGp94a4RaRi0Op4R - .
41~Y' ~} a
~f! 1~r v N ~ , y ~ r.
i ~
r ~ O 'V t ti ~r
rl ~ „ ~
~ ' • + r ,
~' ' -~171 ~ 0 r ~ ~ r
.~ ~ z p
~ r '. ' a
q ^ ~ Q 1 ti r V+ ~~ y~ rir;ri ,~ ~ ,rrr a riri riy+..~+iya
l+ ~ r,~a _r ~ • ~a ~ 7r~rti~4+rllr rq~vwrwlr M+y~rvw~^7+w+rti wrw
r `~ 4 ~ r y ~ yyr~~Vvrrr+1'+rwgrrr r~
sl
~ =
-, ?
'!p a• 44 raidaA++garb pOLw•+o3aq--
. r C ~~ xR w q 4A v4 ~ i •r1 q
ti r~ ~ g9ry~•.y9ry~a9r\~Rq+a4a+Y1rO\rq\1949+\7r+Yap
~ir,r'.~r~.lr~rpw~w^\r4 ~
,' rwrw~nl~~r~!•+'r0 +~r
i r r ~ w^ryvr~rr yrrw~n. w~ 40q rr
f Irru M`ti M• ti rOgOgnqoa•747rgrTrrrp6+q~0OValRlgrrrrOOgVL+ .
~1~
a ~t r ,
-
• ..
. - - 3r R{ y; .}r.i .a,.~ ,a..+l .a,:~• _arat .a
~ ~{l r.y~±r ~w~..,+~ .IwMr.rr yw~+y lrr
1 •tiwrry rrr}.(r~wa~~ ~i.ww~+.wMw.+~ww..yr`
' `~ . r '
A
~ ~
.. I
~~• Y r ~1Q
;~
~. ~ ~
'S:`~~ r, 0 ` C'11 ~
' 7.1 w ~ ~I
a 11 F
r nrYMM ~~~ 0~~1(31
.. ~ ,
t ~
ti+~ ~D i:. y ~ 1 r• f~ o~
,~ , ~.
w3ww~ ~ M~,pt ~r'~~7,'~ ..
_ ~ ~ ,, ! wr
~ ~ y~• O~r
a
-----._-•-~~ a ~ ~ •
n :ti+e r~ • w
+~ ~ r
r ~ .34 r
x
`~-'1 ~ y . ~ ~ ~ ~ 'ter ~ • ~ w
- + ~~ ~ _
_ ~ ~ ` ~ ` x
• ~ '0 ~
a V - ••~
rr~
~. y
~ V 0 f w ~ y .~ ~ -
•
--~ ' - ' h4~0 h ~ ~ 4 `wrrw .
~Vi l ~ ,
it w w D ~ w
I L~/'~rf ~R~ ~ ~ ~
- ~ r ;y
'~+ tiq ~ w .rte 4_ ~ ~ ~
~ _~ y
'~~ ~ a a ` ~ 6 r ~ ~
' ~ a aT ~ ~ .`L ~ ~ _ r Y
..
. J~ ~ ~,
a ~ .: ~
,~~
• ~
~, . ~ : •
• ~ .;X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nit t I .
y 3
. 1 y~4~ •1a :1 ~ f. r
wig' ~ ~ ^ ~'+~~ _ `( ~ +t
,, , , a' _~~,""~
' .. ~ ~ '~ / ~ v h I ~ ,pry ~7
ti ~ ~ ` „~ 1+ 4 --II
~~ ;~ err ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ;~ , ~~~ ' ~ ~ h ~ ~ y ~t J , .
• •~ ~- ~ 7 `~1 ~ ~ 7, D `~./ a .r ~ t
.v M h~y Y ~ M1 ~ '~ 1 ~, ~~ '
~.~ ~ , . w . • ' S V i~t M
• +~ r
1 • `~
z .,
~~ C
' .•-r
• l,!
1 ~'
..-~.~.. 'r't'e .'; r:~r •~.17i •~.e. ~ ... ~~ .,. .~~ .~ r_. •a. .. ..~. .f.~r•. .. ~'~ ~ ,.~~'•: '.• ,•t~ :~:. ~.~ .-~ .r -i~....~, C'• --. .. ~.•r i~~..u „a•.~.~ ~. ~ ..gyp ..~• ..
~~:.~. .;.r
.... .~.. ..~ _. _. _..r. __... ~ .... ._~_.. ~ ~.-.... ...._.. ..--. ~~. ... .. .-- -• ...-.-.~ .~ ~...~...~...~~-~~-~.~~ ~ .. .. ~._ ..~.. .. - .. .~.... r...~.ra. ~• .
. r' ~ . ..
r. :S m { ~
• ' ~ tl Mi.
'_'-` . ~ ~ , , 4~ Yom,
V ~y
~ ti~~'1 v a~T.
' ~ ~ 3 x~a
• ~ ~i --
~ ~ ~ J~rl
• a !nl K
' ~ ~
ti v
• .. ' -~~ I ~ It a
~~:.
~ -T`
.. I ~? V ~ w
_ •~4
.a • I I ~ I= a ~ ~_ •
~ ~w4
4'
•_ ,
• _ ~ ~ ~~ ! _
. _ ~~ ~! ~ .
- .I -vi . _ , ~ K
. ~
• + 1
• ~ err.: t r ~1;: ,; ~ v ~' .>> .,: •
-~'
Y
• fti1 ~ ~' 1 iy~
o~~E............_._. •
.. .~
A•%V~r '', ~~ y ••
h'~r,~
~ - ~, ,
- • R.
~ iii
• .:'7r it
.` ~v
~''~~r -
.;
• • ~ •:...
• av-~~rc j ~
- - - .. ~7- ar7~
- ~_..
;.
w~r~ r.=
•~' ~~~
• \I •R•~ ~~ • •
• w 1 ti./ r ~ ~ I ~ _ ~
M
' ~ .
' ' .:`~~Q
i
~r
• ~ -rr 1 •~J I _ •
• _ ~ y
. ....'~ r ~.r err
• '~ . ' ~J
' :: -.::
. r,,
...
• r '~
~ w
~ 1
• ~ r.
.
~- ~ fi,.y
,~
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING AN ENGINEER AND AN ATTORNEY FOR ISLAND CITY
LANDSCAPINGAND LIGHTINGASSESSMENT DISTRICT 84-2
E
L
0
~a
a
L
Q
~.
a
,~
.~
.~
~~
~~
WHEREAS, on June 7,1984, by Resolution No.1g353, the Council of the
City of Alameda ordered the formation of and levied the firstassessmentwithin the
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 thereinafter the "District"}
pursuantta the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Actof 1912 Highways
Cade thereinafter the "Act"}; and
WHEREAS, Sections 22628, et seq., of the Act provide for the levy of
annual maintenance assessments afterformation of the District; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said assessments is to provide for enhanced
maintenance in businessdistrictZones 1 through 6 and residentialZone7located
throughout the City and described in proceedings in and for said District heretofore
approved by this Council and herein incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience will be served by
appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for assessment and legal services; and
WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City to continue with the
services of the City Engineerasthe Engineer-of work and theGityAttorneyasthe
Attorney for said District;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the City Engineer for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as
Engineer for preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount
by parcel within the zones of the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-
2; and
BE !T FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney forthe City of Alameda
is hereby appointed as Attorney to perform the legal services required in the
conduct of said proceedings.
*~~*~*
Resolution #4-H CC
D2-Q5-08
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the 5th day of February 2008, by the following vote to wit;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
ABSTENTIONS:
IN v111TNESS,INHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this th day of February 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Maintenance
Assessment District 01-1 Marina Cove
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2002, the City Council established Maintenance Assessment District 01-1. The
purpose of this assessment district is to provide maintenance in the Marina Cove
development see attached map}.
DISCUSSIGN
It is necessary to appoint an Engineer-of-Work for annual preparation of the assessment
diagram and the assessment amount, by parcel, for the Maintenance Assessment District.
It is also necessary toappoint anAttorney-of-Record to perform the legal services required
in the conduct of these annual proceedings. Consistent with the current practice, it is
recommended that the City Engineer be appointed as the Engineer-of-Work and thatthe
City Attorney be appointed as attorney for the District.
BUDGET CCNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIALlMPACT
The staff costs associated with this work are payable by the Assessment District. Qnly the
direct costs for services are charged to the Maintenance Assessment District. It is
estimated that the cost for this work is $2,000 for attorney fees and $2,600 for the
engineering, advertising and mailing fees, for a total of $4,600. The Maintenance
Assessment District will pay these casts with no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #~-I
OZ-05.0
Honorable Mayor and
Members ofthe City Council
RECOMMENDATION
February 5, 2008
Page2of2
Adopt a resolution appointing an Engineer-of-Work and an Attorney-of-Record for
Maintenance Assessment District 01-01, Marina Cove.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~ c~~
By: Margaret McLean 10.x.. ~
Public Works Coordinator
MTN:MAM:gc
Attachment
1. Maintenance Assessment District Map
~ ' ~ C
i
y
c
*,
e
v ~~
~ ~~
q ~ .
~.
.~
~ '
~~
~~
dv
- ~ ~
J
W ,r` {~~
•
D
~ H
~ y
~~ ~N~~
•w a
ff~~
~ ~f
~ ~~
. ~ ~ ~ ~~
Q ~~
-~ ~` ~ ~
' ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~
3dt
^ !~-
•'#
[~
~~
~'
U
0
~ I
d ~
M j
~ ~
~ d
Q
• r+rrer .
..
~' r
. ~ i
1`,
. n
II s~
T~ f
t .N ~
a
~+ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
r,
.~_ ~
~ i~~ ~ ~
- ~x4 • ~ F. ~ •~
r ~ S~;a~ cs~~~,:l~ . , ~ ~~~ ~~81H
} a ~ _~_ nf~, a ~ r, i ti ~ ~ ~ n ~ r. i r. e.,
L ~ ~ r I ~ i
~ 1..... ~ . .....~ ~ .....; ,.~,~ J... _. .~., . _ .. .3y, .. ~
~ - ~;
~ SV SM [V ° r r ~ ~~ ~7,~,
r •~ :r
~ ~ ! I ff r~ E S s ~ 3 ~
r
~ ~ ~ rev r~ ~ n ~~a {'av ~ t. w ~ ~rs,`~ l~ ~ ~j ~
. '~ 7
~ ~ .~ . ,~~.w-
.~ ti
.4 ~
N m
~ '
~ O
~,
k
I ,1
^•+
„ 1 ~
' ,
~
~
~
~
1~
~~ ~ -
~;
r ' ,
Y~ . ~
~ t7
~ ~ ~ r
~i'
~i~i
~ ~
~+~ u
~~~
Y' Q r
~ y-
~ -
l
~
~~~ ~!
~
~ l ~
~.
r ~ W
~~ ~ Y'
f " f ~-
~ ~ ~ ~ '
~
~
~
~
~• ~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~~
~ ~ ,
,
City Council
W ~~
~~ ~
~
~~ , .
~ ~
~ ~ ° ~
~ Attachment to
Report Re:
~~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ Agenda Item #41
02-05.0$
a
r
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
a
a
0
c~
APPOINTING AN ENGINEER AND AN ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF ALAMEDA
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01-1 (MARINA COVE)
WHEREAS, by its previous proceedings, the Council of the City ofAlameda
determined to undertake the formation ofthe first maintenance assessment district
within the City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment District o7 -~ thereinafter the
"District"} pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda
Municipal Code the City ofAlameda Maintenance Procedure Code} thereinafter
the "Cade"}, which also incorporates the procedural requirements of the
Landscape and Lighting Act of X912 thereinafter the "Act"}; and
WHEREAS, the formation of a Maintenance Assessment District, Sections
22520, et seq., of the Code provide for the levy of annual maintenance
assessments after formation of the District; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said assessments is to provide far enhanced
maintenance in the district established via the Code located throughout the City
and described in proceedings in and for said District heretofore approved by this
Council and herein incorporated by this reference; and
~111HEREAS, the public interest and convenience will be served by
appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for assessment and legal services; and
WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City to continue with the
services of the City Engineer as the Engineer-of-Work and the City Attorney as the
Attorney for said District;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the City Engineer for the City of Alameda~is hereby appointed as
Engineer forpreparation ofthe assessmentdiagram and the assessmentamount
by parcel within the zones of the City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment
District 01-1; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney for the City of Alameda
is hereby appointed as Attorney to perform the legal services required in the
conduct of said proceedings.
*****~
Resolution #4-I CC
02-05-0$
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the 5th day of February 2008, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this th day of February 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY GF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Approve Amended and Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement
BACKGROUND
The City Attorney position serves at the will of the City Council. The City Council
approved the initial Employment Agreement for City Attorney Teresa Highsmith in June
2006 and may periodically consider amendments tv the existing Employment
Agreement.
DISCUSSION
A copy of the Amended and Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement between
the City Council and Teresa Highsmith, as City Attorney, will be held on file in the City
Clerk's office. This Amended and Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement
replaces the existing compensation structure which anticipated a 2°/o adjustment in
May 2008} with a CPl-based adjustment with a minimum of 2°/° and a maximum 4°/° for
May 2008, comparable to the City's Executive Management team. The Amended and
Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement also includes new terms negotiated by
a City Council sub-committee, including an additional three years added to the term of
employment and an additional ~ 5 days notice to be provided by the City Attorney to the
City in the event of her decision to separate from City employment.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
At the maximum CPI-based increase of 4°/a, the contract provides a modest increase
over existing compensation terms of approximately $3,700, the difference between 2°/°
and the maximum CPI-based increase of 4°/0.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4J
D2-45-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
REC~MMENDATI4N
February 5, 208
Page 2 of 2
Approve the Amended and Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement with Teresa
Highsmith.
Respectfully submitted,
. ~~~~~~
Kare illis
Human Resources Director
CITY GF ALAI~EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution to Set a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal of 25%
Below the 2005 Baseline Level; Adopt the Local Action Plan for Climate
Protection; and Dissolve the Climate Protection Task Force
BACKGROUND ,
At its regular meeting of July 18, 2006, the City Council adopted a resolution to
participate in the International Council for Locai Environmental Initiatives ~ICLEI} Cities
for Climate Protection Campaign in partnership with the Alameda County Waste
Management Authority & Recycling Board and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. By
participating in the Climate Protection Campaign, the City pledged to take a leadership
role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change,
and to accomplish five milestones that were designed by ICLEI to reduce greenhouse
gases and air pollution emissions throughout the community. The scope of the program
included implementing the five milestones to assess emissions; setting targets to
reduce air pollution emissions and greenhouse gas emissions; adopting a Local Action
Plan; and monitoring progress in future years. The resolution also included the Council's
intent to create a task force to guide the development of the City's Local Action Plan.
At the City Council meeting of September 19, 2006, the Mayor nominated individuals to
serve on a Climate Protection Task Force. In November 2006, the City Council
approved the creation of the Climate Protection Task Force, which consisted of one
member each of the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission,
Transportation Commission, Public Utilities Board and Alameda County Industries, and
four public members. The group was charged with:
~} Publicizing the project and engaging the community at large;
2} Evaluating and providing prioritized recommendations to the City Council on
actions that can be taken on the output of the assessment;
3} Providing recommendations for monitoring of activities, and;
4} Providing recommendations on how to proceed, including but not limited to,
establishing a standing commission.
The Climate Protection Task Force is comprised of the following members:
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #5-A
Q2-05-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Planning Board Representative:
Economic Development Commission Representative:
Transportation Commission Representative:
Public Utilities Board Representative:
Alameda County Industries Representative:
Resident for Public} Representative:
Resident Representative:
Resident Representative:
Resident Representative:
DISCUSSIGN
February 5, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Andrew Cunningham
Art Autorino
Michael Krueger
Ann McCormick
Louie Peilegrini
David Burton
Stanley Schiffman
Rvn Silberstein
Lizette Weiss
Beginning in January 2001, the Task Force held numerous public meetings, including a
community forum, to ensure that there were opportunities for the community to provide
input regarding the Local Action Plan. Ideas for greenhouse gas emission reduction
measures were generated by the Task Force and the community, and grouped into four
main issue areas:
~ } Transportation and Land Use;
2} Energy;
3} Waste and Recycling; and
4} Gutreach and Education.
The reduction measures were refined to create 1l recommended initiatives, which the
Task Force ranked as either Tier ~ or Tier 2, based on group consensus. Each initiative
was modeled to evaluate its potential to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
ICLEI then prepared a baseline inventory of City and community-wide emissions, using
a software program that was specifically designed to conduct this type of inventory.
2005 was chosen as the baseline year because sufficient data was available in a broad
range of categories to develop the baseline data inventory. At its January 7, 2008,
meeting, after a year of work, the Task Force recommended setting a greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goal of at least 25°/o below 2005 levels, and providing prioritized
recommendations to the City Council in the Local Action Plan. A copy of the proposed
Final Draft of the Plan is available for public review in the City Clerk's office.
Emissions Reduction Goal
The Climate Protection Task Force developed initiatives and measures that, if fully
implemented, could reduce local greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 25°/° from
the 2005 baseline inventory. Reaching that goal will require a significant effort by the
City of Alameda and the local community. other cities in the nation that have pledged to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions generally have recommended a reduction goal in the
range of 20°/o to 25°/0 over their baseline emissions inventories. Alameda's adoption of
25°/o is consistent with California Assembly Bill 32, which passed in September 2006
Honorable Mayor and February 5, 2008
Members of the City Cauncil Page 3 of 6
required a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, essentially a
25°/o reduction.
Local Action Plan
As a member of the Alameda County Climate Protection Project, Alameda pledged to
develop a Local Action Plan as the third milestone of the Five Milestone ICLEI process,
which states:
"Through amulti-stakeholder process, the city develops a Local Action Plan that
describes the policies and measures that the local government will take to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its emissions reduction target. Most plans
include a timeline, a description of financing mechanisms, and an assignment of
responsibility to departments and staff. In addition to direct greenhouse gas
reduction measures, most plans also incorporate public awareness and education
efforts."
As stated in the Message to the City Council from the Climate Protection Task Force at
the beginning of the Local Action Plan:
"The City of Alameda is recognized nationally as having the lowest greenhouse gas
emission rate per capita in Alameda County. Additionally, a large percentage of the
energy utilized within the City is from carbon-free resources. Despite these
significant achievements, there is still more that can be accomplished....we
recommend that the City Council pledge to further reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions by at least an additional 25 percent by the year 2020."
~f the 1l initiatives outlined in the Local Action Plan, the fve listed below were
identified as the most critical and of highest priority for implementation. By implementing
these measures, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to be 1,725
Ibs per person in 2020.
1 } Adopt "Zero Vllaste Strategy" programs and ordinances.
2} Develop amulti-faceted community outreach program to increase public
awareness and participation in greenhouse gas reductions.
3} Amend the Alameda Municipal Code to include sustainable design and green
building standards for all new, substantially expanded, and remodeled buildings.
4} Encourage the Alameda Public Utilities Board to require that Alameda Power &
Telecom maintain and expand its source mix to 100°/4 carbon-free.
5} Develop and fund alternative transportation strategies in the City's budget.
The Task Force designated this subset as Tier 1 priority initiatives. The remaining 12
initiatives were designated as Tier 2 and include the following:
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
February 5, 2008
Page 4 of 6
• Require that all new major developments' short and long-term transportation
emissions impacts are reduced by 10%.
• Provide transit and shuttles with signal priority lanes and queue jumpers to make
transit a more attractive alternative to the automobile.
• Continue to convert the City's fleet to alternative fuel vehicles, such as biodiesel,
electric, and other alternative fuels.
• Encourage Alameda employers to provide opportunities for "flex hours,"
compressed workweek and telecommuting schedules to reduce vehicle miles
traveled, and reintroduce transportation reduction programs.
• Expand the geographic area of the WorklLive ordinance to provide greater
opportunities for reduced work-related commutes.
• Encourage alternative fuel "Car Share" programs.
• Develop park-and-ride lots and expand ridesharing opportunities in large-scale
developments at major transportation access nodes.
• Require that all recommended City Council actions include an analysis or
evaluation of whether the action supports or is consistent with Alameda's Local
Action Plan Initiatives and furthers progress toward the Greenhouse Gases
Reduction Target.
• Provide technical assistance for energy efficiency and track progress through
recognition programs. If feasible, develop financial incentives to educate and
encourage Alameda residents and businesses to be energy efficient.
• Develop a program to reduce the use of 2-cycle combustion engines, including
the enforcement of existing ordinances. Encourage the establishment of trade-in
programs.
• Develop awood-burning prohibition ordinance to reduce air pollution for new
residential construction.
• Encourage the development of the biodiesel industry in Alameda, including local
collection of used animal fats and vegetable oils for rendering into biodiesel. In
addition, the City should develop policies that encourage the location of biodiesel
and compressed natural gas ~CNG} facilities in Alameda through implementation
of required Municipal Code revisions.
Future of the Task Force
As part of monitoring the implementation of the Local Action Plan, the Climate
Protection Task Force recommended establishment of a Sustainability Commission of
at least fve members to monitor the implementation and progress of the Local Action
Plan on a quarterly basis; publicize and engage the community at large on issues of
sustainability; review the quarterly reports prepared by staff; host biannual public forums
to discuss and evaluate implementation of the Local Action Plan; advise boards and
commissions on implementation of the Plan; and make recommendations to the City
Counci! regarding revisions to the Plan or the citywide greenhouse gas reduction goal.
The Task Force proposed that the new commission be advisory to other boards and
commissions and the City Council.
Honorable Mayor and February 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 5 of 6
The Climate Protection Task Force consists of members from existing boards and
commissions, which precludes these members from serving on another standing
commission. The departments that would be most involved in implementing the
recommendations of the Local Action Plan are Alameda Power & Telecom, Public
Vllorks, and Planning & Building. Due to the interdepartmental aspect of the Local Action
Plan, staff recommends posting the quarterly reports on the City's website. Staff also
recommends that prior to the beginning of the City's biannual budgeting cycle, that
public forums be held to evaluate the Local Action Plan implementation and provide an
opportunity for the public to recommend new priorities andlor new initiatives for City
Council consideration.
Creating a new Sustainability Commission would require staff to return with information
regarding its potential duties and responsibilities in order to prevent overlap with other
boards and commission as well as alternatives for staffing a new commission. However,
at this time, the present Task Force should be dissolved, pursuant to the Brown Act, as
the members have completed their assigned duties.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATi4NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The implementation of the Local Action Plan commits the City to expending financial
resources towards reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This plan includes
development of new ordinances and policies, and dictates purchases of energy,
vehicles, and other items in furtherance of the Local Action Plan. As implementation
progresses, staff will create detailed requests as part of the budget process.
Should the Council decide to create a Sustainability Commission, staff will return with
the financial information associated with staffing.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
None
ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEUV
The project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308 -Actions by
Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. The Lacal Actian Plan is
intended to guide the City in the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, thus protecting
the environment.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Adopt a resolution to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction goal of 25°/0; adopt the Local
Action Plan For Climate Protection; and dissolve the Climate Protection Task Force.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy oodbury
Planning and Building Director
ti
~~ V
By: this Eliason
Supervising Planner
CE:ce
February 5, 2008
Page6of6
cc: Members, Climate Protection Task Force
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
SETTING A GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION GOAL GF 25% BELOW THE
2005 BASELINE LEVEL, ADOPTING THE LOCAL ACTION PLAN FOR
CLIMATE PROTECTION, AND DISSOLVING THE CLIMATE PROTECTION
TASK FORCE
~~
~°, V1lHEREAS, scientific consensus has developed that carbon dioxide
~CO2} and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere have a
~ ~ profound effect on the Earth's climate; and
~ ~
d ~ ,
o ~ VIJHEREAS, the 200 Third Assessment Report from the
a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2000 U.S. Global Change
~ Research Program's First National Assessment indicate that global warmin
g
has begun; and
1lVHEREAS, energy consumption, specifically the burning of fossil fuels,
accounts for more than 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; and
VIJHEREAS, local governments influence communities' emissions by
exercising key powers over land use, transportation, construction, waste
management, and energy management; and
VIlHEREAS, in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
stated that coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressed by
climate change impacts interacting with development and pollution; and
VIrHEREAS, local government actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and increase energy efficiency provide multiple local benefits by
decreasing air pollution, creating fobs, reducing energy expenditures, and
saving money for the local government, its businesses and its residents; and
1NHEREAS, in November 2006 the City Council pledged to participate in
the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives ~ICLEI} Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign's Five-Milestone Process to reduce both
greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions throughout the community; and
VIIHEREAS, in November 2006 the City created the Climate Protection
Task Force to develop a Local Action Plan and greenhouse gas emission
reduction goal; and
VI~HEREAS, in January 2DD7, the City conducted a baseline inventory
based on 2005 data that summarized Alameda's greenhouse gas emissions;
and
Resolution 5-A
42-45-Q8
V1IHEREAS, the baseline shows #hat the City has significant programs
already in place to reduce greenhouse gases, and that Alameda Power and
Telecom provides power that is already 85°/° carbon-free, and that the City of
Alameda has the lowest per capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions in
Alameda County and has the second lowest greenhouse gas emissions per
residential household in Alameda County; and
1JIJHEREAS, the Climate Protection Task Force has developed initiatives
and measures within the draft Local Action Plan that, if fully implemented, could
reduce local greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 25°/° from the 2005
baseline inventory; and
V1IHEREAS, at the meeting of January 1, 2Q~8, the Climate Protection
Task Force recommended a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of at
least 25°/o and adoption of the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection, as
amended, and
V1IHEREAS, the Clima#e Protection Task Force has met its obligations
pursuant to Resolution No. 'i4g0~,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthatthe City Council of the City of
Alameda determines that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA,
Guidelines, Section ~ 5308 -Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of
the Environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts a greenhouse
gas emissions reduction goal of25°/°.
BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Local
Action Plan for Climate Protection.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Council dissolves the Climate
Protection Task Force.
*****
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adapted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 5th day of February, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
1N vVITNESS, UVHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this day of February, 2008.
Lara vlleisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2008
Re: Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amended Contract with the
National Golf Foundation to Provide Master Planning Services in an
Amount Not to Exceed $80,000
BACKGROUND
In early 2007, the City retained a consultant to conduct a comprehensive operations
review of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex in order to protect, preserve, and enhance
this community asset and ensure its economic viability. The National Golf Foundation
(NGF} began its review in the spring, and the final repork was submitted in early
September 2041. Representatives from NGF presented their report to the City Council
on January 2, 2008. After reviewing the report and hearing extensive public input, the
City Council adopted motions to:
~ . Allocate funding to complete a master planning process for the facility with the
assistance of NGF.
2. Direct staff to work with NGF to investigate the cost-saving and revenue-raising
options recommended by the Golf Commission.
3. Request that staff explore options for identifying cost savings for Fiscal Year
2007-08.
4. Direct staff to work with NGF to develop a Request for Proposals to explore all
options forfuture operation of the Golf Complex.
DISCUSSIGN
Staff has received a proposal from NGF in the amount of $80,400 to prepare a format
Master Plan far improvements and business operations of the Chuck Corica Golf
Complex. The proposal includes the following elements:
• Preparation of a business and marketing plan designed to maximize revenues as
well as the number of rounds played.
• Consideration of alternative sources of funds to increase revenue, including
potential advertising and lease options as recommended by the Golf
Commission.
• A detailed review by a golf course architect. Cit Council
Y
Agenda Item #5-B
02-o5-oa
Honorable Mayor and Februa 5 2008
. rY ,
Members of the City Council Pa e 2 of 2
g
• Analysis of master planning options, including reconfiguration of the existin
. 9
course layouts.
• An estimation of projected costs for options identified through the master
planning process.
The first step in implementing the Council's direction would be to authorize the Cit
. y
Manager to enter into an agreement with NGF to provide master planning services. It is
estimated that the planning process will be completed in six to eight weeks. Staff is
reviewing the current operations in order to identify and implement cost savin s for the
. g
remainder of the 2001-OS fiscal year and will work with NGF and the Golf Commission
to analyze the Commission's recommendations. Staff will also work with NGF to
develop an RFP to explore all options for the future operation of the golf com lex. The
p
amended contract as on file in the City Clerk s Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
As detailed in the NGF Operational Review, the number of rounds and revenue is
projected to continue to decline for the remainder of Fiscal Year 200108. As of the end
of December, there had been 8,349 fewer rounds played when compared to the same
period a year ago. As a result, during the first six months of this fiscal ear, the olf
. Y g
complex enterprise experienced a loss of approximately $323,000. This loss is
reflected in the golf enterprise reserve, which contains approximately $1.9 million as of
December 3~ , 2007. The $80,000 cost to complete the Master Plan will also be funded
by the reserve, thereby further reducing the balance.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execut
Foundation to provide master planning
an amount not to exceed $80,000.
e an amended contract with the National Golf
services for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex in
Respectfully submitted,
C'~V
By: Dale Lillard, Director
Alameda Recreation, Parks & Golf Operations
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 5, 2005
Re: Ado t the Le islative Pro ram for 2008
BACKGROUND
Many cities and counties adopt a legislative program each year to guide the agency's
legislative advocacy efforts during the year. Adoption of such a program enables both
Council and staff to react quickly to most legislative issues as they arise and ensures
that there is a formal City position on a variety of legislative matters.
DlscussloN
As part of the development of a comprehensive legislative agenda, staff has drafted a
legislative program to guide Council and staff advocacy efforts. This program, once
approved by the City Council, will be shared with the City's legislators in order to ensure
that they know the City's position on a broad range of important matters. The issues
included in the program are primarily those that the League of California Cities is
tracking, but they also include other matters that have arisen in the Legislature and
Congress in the recent past and can be expected to resurface in the future. Issues that
arise mid-year that are not covered by the legislative program will be brought back for
Council consideration as needed.
In order to provide staff with the flexibility to respond quickly to legislative alerts from the
League of California Cities and other local government advocates, the recommended
legislative program contains an overarching statement of support for local control as
well as positions on broad government-related issues.
Legislative Program:
General Principle:
The City of Alameda opposes any legislation or regulations that preempt
local authority, negatively affect the City's budget, or impose unfunded
mandates on the City. The City supports the use of incentives to encourage
local government action, rather than the imposition of mandates.
City Council
Agenda Item #5-C
02.05-48
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Revenue and Taxation:
February 5, 2008
Page 2 of l
Fiscal Reform: Since 1991, the State has drained more than $30 billion of local
property taxes from cities, counties and special districts, costing cities alone more than
$l billion over the last 12 years. Even in years of budget surpluses, the State has used
local funds to finance its constitutional funding obligation to public education, allowing it
to increase State general fund spending for other programs at the expense of vital local
services.
The passage of Proposition 1 A on the November 2004 ballot guaranteed the City some
measure of protection against future State raids. Under the terms of Proposition 1 A,
however, the State can declare a fiscal emergency and once again "borrow" local
revenues, twice within aten-year period and providing prior loans have been repaid.
Local government cannot continue to subsidize the State. Every time Sacramento looks
to local coffers to help balance its budget, cities and counties must cut critical local
services like public safety and maintenance. The City opposes State efforts to "borrow"
additional local revenues and encourages the State to find other ways to balance its
budget.
Lower tl~reshol~f for local special taxes: Local governments cannot easily raise
revenues. Taxes to fund specific, important services, such as park and street
maintenance, public safety, and library hours must be approved by atwo-thirds majority
of the voters. This high vote requirement makes it extremely difficult for many cities to
raise needed monies. The City therefore supports a constitutional amendment to lower
the threshold for approval of local taxes to either 55%~ the same requirement schools
now face} or to a simple majority,
E-commerce: Sales of goods and products over the Internet pose a serious threat to
the City's overall sales tax revenue base. At a minimum, the Legislature should enact
legislation to close the loophole in current law that allows corporations with a physical
presence, or nexus, in California to evade their sales and use tax obligations by setting
up related web-based businesses based outside California.
Homeland Security and Public Safety:
Reimbursement: Since the events of September 1 ~ , cities have had to assume
additional staffing and equipment costs for emergency preparedness and public safety.
Although local governments are usually the first to respond in cases of natural disasters
and acts of terrorism, they receive little financial and technical assistance from the State
and federal governments. The City supports legislation to provide resources for
emergency planning, training, exercises, and equipment for emergency workers.
COPS Funding: The City supports funding for the Citizens' option for Public Safety
~C~PS} program, which helps pay for police officer salaries and benefits at levels
sufficient to enhance current services.
Honorable Mayor and February 5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 7
Fr're Service Funding: The City supports funding for disaster preparedness and
training, particularly the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response SAFER}
program, which helps pay for firefighter salaries and benefits.
!n#eroperabili#y: The City is a member of the East Bay Regional Communications
System, a Joint Powers Authority established to build and operate a coordinated public
safety communications system in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The City
supports legislation to provide funding for such systems to ensure that public safety
agencies can communicate with each other during an emergency.
Spay/Neu#er Laws: The City supports legislation to encourage spaying and neutering
of domestic cats and dogs in order to reduce overpopulation in animal shelters. A bill
currently pending in the Legislature would prohibit a person from owning a cat or dog
that is over six months old unless the animal has been spayed or neutered or the
person has a permit to own an intact animal. The bill exempts from the spaylneuter
requirement dogs used by law enforcement, fire agencies, and working dog
organizations; pets owned by licensed breeders; show animals; pets whose owners
provide a veterinarian's letter stating that it is unsafe to spay or neuter the pet because
of health risks; dogs used for herding or guarding livestock; and guide dogs. The bill
also allows households to receive an intact permit so that the family dog can have a
single litter.
Transportation and Infrastructure
Lower #hreshold for approval of #ranspor#a#ion sales #axes: The City supports a
constitutional amendment to lower the threshold for approval of sales and use taxes for
transportation purposes. Currently, such taxes must be approved by two-thirds of the
voters, The City supports lowering the requirement to either 55°/Q the same requirement
schools now face} or to a simple majority in order to provide much~needed funding for
transit and transportation infrastructure.
Ferries: Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation to
create the Water Emergency Transportation Authority ~INETA}, which is charged with
operating a comprehensive regional water transit system and coordinating the
emergency activities of all water transportation and related facilities within the Bay Area.
The legislation creating INETA requires Vallejo and Alameda to transfer their ferry
services, including boats, ferry terminals, and related facilities, to WETA. "Clean-up"
legislation is expected in 2008 that will clarify some provisions of the new law.
The City supports including the following principles in the new legislation:
• Current service levels are maintained for at least seven years;
• Future fare increases are consistent with historical trends for Alameda ferry
services;
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
February 5, 2008
Page4ofl
• The City is reimbursed far all investment assets associated with ferry service at
fair market value;
• The City of Alameda receives a seat on the new WETA Board;
• WETA conducts quarterly rider satisfaction surveys, prepares an analysis of the
on-time performance of the ferries during the quarter, and presents periodic
reports to the Alameda City Council on the ferry services;
• WETA holds public meetings in Alameda for any proposed fare or schedule
changes in order to provide an opportunity for our residents and business
community members to voice their opinion on such changes;
• WETA works with the City's Master Developer for Alameda Point to ensure that
the developer's proposal for modification to the ferry terminal will be
accommodated;
• Existing represented City employees working exclusively on the City's ferry
services are hired as employees of the WETA;
• WETA actively involves the City of Alameda staff and residents in the
development of the management plan for emergency response.
Fuel tax increase: The voters last increased the State fuel tax in June 1990 when
Proposition 111 passed. This measure doubled the State fuel tax to 18 cents a gallon.
Since then, California's fuel tax ra#e has lost much of its buying power. The City
supports fuel tax indexing or an increase to ensure funding for local street projects and
maintenance.
~reserva#ion of eminent domain for infrastructure and economic development:
The negative public reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case threatens
traditional uses of eminent domain for acquisition of property needed for public
infrastructure projects and for economic development and blight removal actions
traditionally undertaken by Redevelopment agencies. A reform proposal that recently
qualified for the June 2008 California Ballot would limit the use and increase the costs to
acquire property, thereby having a direct negative impact on the public. The measure
would prohibit acquisition via eminent domain of commercial and non-owner occupied
residential property for private purposes and could stop projects required to meet
community economic development goals as well as those needed for safety and
capacity, such as street widening, water storage and delivery, open space, and parks.
The preservation of this core use of condemnation authority is critical.
Land Use:
Preservation of local !anal use authorr'~y: The City opposes legislation that would
remove or limit local government land use authority.
Housing elements: The City opposes legislation that penalizes local governments for
noncompliance with their housing element requirements. Proposed penalties have
included loss of gas tax funds and court-ordered penalties for noncompliance.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Employee Rela#ions:
February 5, 2008
Page 5 of 7
Mandated employee and retiree benefits: Decisions about health and retirement
benefits should be made at the local level, through the collective bargaining process,
not mandated by the State. Therefore, the City opposes legislation mandating new or
enhanced local employee and retiree benefits because such benefits can impose
financial costs and administrative burdens on local governments.
4854 benefits: Under current law Labor Code Section 4850}, public safety employees
who are totally temporarily disabled by injury or illness on the job are entitled to a leave
of absence at full salary, tax free, for up to one year. The City opposes legislation to
extend that timef rame.
Workers' compensation: The City opposes any new or additional workers'
compensation benefits and supports legislation to further reform the system and lower
employer costs,
Second tier PERS benefits: Existing law allows a CaIPERS local contracting agency to
amend its contract with CaiPERS in order to create a second tier of benefits, subject to
certain restrictions. The second tier can only apply to employees who are hired after the
contract effective date or who change membership classification after the contract
amendment date. Existing law also prohibits local agencies from amending their
contracts with CaIPERS to reduce employee benefits for existing employees. However,
a second tier, which applies to prospective employees only, may provide a lesser or
different level of optional benefits than exists for employees in the first tier. The City
opposes legislation to eliminate a local contracting agency's ability to reduce or modify
benefits for new employees of the agency.
Pension reform: Employer costs for the State's defined benefit retirement system
~CaIPERS} have increased significantly in recent years. The Governor and the
Legislature are exploring various means of achieving cost control and budget certainty.
The City supports pension reform, provided that it achieves savings without imposing
additional costs.
Retiree medical: As a result of a Governmental Accounting Standards Board change,
local agencies are now required to account for their liability for retiree medical benefits,
also known as tither Post-Employment Benefits GPEB}. Instead of accounting for
these benefi#s on apay-as-you-go basis, which is what many local governments do
now, agencies will be required to report their annual GPEB casts and their unfunded
actuarial liabilities for past service costs. The new GASB regulations are intended to
improve transparency in government accounts by making it easier to know what the
future liability for GPEB expenses will be for a given government and to assess whether
the government has a strategy for meeting these requirements. The California Public
Employees Retirement System is offering local agencies a program to pre-fund their
GPEB obligations. While the City may choose to par#icipate in such a program in the
future, the City oppases any legislation that would make such participation mandatory.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Environment:
February 5, 2008
Page 6 of 7
Recycling; The City supports continuation of existing Source Reduction & Recycling
Act CAB 939} waste diversion requirements. The City also supports diversion
measurement and reporting improvements that do not adversely impact the assessment
of compliance efforts made by local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions should be
considered in compliance with AB 939 goals if they have met the waste diversion goals
or if they are making a good faith effort to implement applicable Source Reduction and
Recycling Element ~SRRE} programs.
Climate protection: The City supports legislation and policies that assist local
government in reducing global warming pollution levels. These efforts may include
reducing dependence on fossil fuels, developing alternative energy resources and fuel-
efficient technologies, and implementing sustainable development practices such as
transit-friendly development.
Polystyrene Foam: The City of Alameda supports legislation to ban the use of
polystyrene foam disposable food service containers, similar to the recently enacted
City ordinance. Such containers have already been banned in over ~ 00 cities
nationwide, including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Millbrae.
Local autonomy; The City opposes legislation that preempts local planning decisions
regarding solid waste facility siting, preempts local solid waste and AB 939 fee-setting
authority, or imposes taxes or fees on local solid waste programs to fund State
programs not directly related to solid waste management.
Litter control and abatement: The City supports legislation to address litter control
and abatement problems in California, including measures to expand the enforcement
authority of the California Highway Patrol to include enforcement measures for any
vehicle generating litter on public roads; provide for effective enforcement of antilitter
laws; implement a strong statewide anti-litter outreach campaign; and provide for
cleanup of littered areas.
Producer responsibility: The City supports legislation to require manufacturers to
assume financial andlor physical responsibility for the costs of collecting, processing,
recycling, or disposing of products at end-of-life, especially products that create
significant economic burdens on local government for end-of-life management because
high volumes of the material exist in the waste stream, or because the nature of the
product makes it difficult to manage in the current integrated waste management
system; including computer, electronic and other products that incorporate hazardous
materials requiring special handling.
Recycled product market development: The City supports legislation encouraging
manufacturers to include post-consumer recycled material in their products, and
encouraging state and local government agencies and school districts to purchase
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
February 5, 2008
Page 7 of l
products made with post-consumer recycled material, that reduce waste, and that
reduce toxicity of materials that may be discarded or disposed in the future.
Stormwater program funding: The City supports legislation that would make it easier
for cities to fund and comply with new and increasingly stringent storm water quali
permit requirements, including addEng fees for storm water management programs to
those voter approved exemptions already included in Proposition 2~5.
BUDGET C~NSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the Legislative Program for 2005 will have no impact on the City's budget.
REC~MMENDATI~N
Adopt the Legislative Program for 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING CaMMISSIGN
ONE VACANCY
(PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2009)
Anthony Forrette
Ching~Ching Ganley
Michael Meyer
Re: Agenda Item #8-A
2.5.08
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
AIRPORT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
TWO VACANCIES
(ONE MEMBER-AT-LARGE SEAT and ONE PILOT SEAT)
Edward C. Downing, Pilot
Janice L. Payne, Member-at-large
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
RENT REVIE'L~ ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TENANT SEAT
Anthony Mitchell
Mary Nolan
David Perry