2008-07-15 Packet~----
fp ~ ,
~,.~ ti ~~
4
?Ir -..- fi ? __ ;.L
.u , ~.
~~ f~ :-4 (ti' CITY ~F ALAI~IEDA ~ ~ALIF~RNIA
1 ~
~, ~p~ L j` ~t,~
L~ jr~. ~ , qt ~1~1
lV Jn~~~l~~~r
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - JULY 15, 2008 - - - 6:20 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, ~:20 p.m.
Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, career
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
I"'f Q Y'1 f~'I ~ i
1. Roll Call -City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Council an agenda items anly,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Clased Session to consider:
3-A. CONFERENCE wITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION X54956.97
Name of Case:
Hart v. City of Alameda
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment -City Council
~----
fp ~ ,
~,.~ ti ~~
4
?Ir -..- fi ? __ ;.L
.u , ~.
~~ f~ :-4 (ti' CITY ~F ALAI~IEDA ~ ~ALIF~RNIA
1 ~
~, ~p~ L j` ~t,~
L~ jr~. ~ , qt ~1~1
lV Jn~~~l~~~r
REVISED
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD PUB}
TUESDAY - - - JULY 15, X008 - - - 6:45 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, ~:45 p.m.
Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, career
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak street.
1. Roll Call -City Council, PUB
[Note: Board Member Hamm gill be present via teleconference
from Royal Meridien Hotel, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East,
Mumbai, 4ooa99, India]
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Council/Board on agenda items
only, may speak far a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Clased Session to consider:
3-A, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION X54956,9}
Name of Case:
~ectren Communications services,
Inc. v. City of Alameda
4, Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5 . Adjournment -City Council, ~ PUB }
Revised 7/14/08, 9:00 a.m.
~~'~ ~~~
~~
r
~~
~ ~ .L ~
4 1
~ ~ti
r ~~.
p ~~~ k IP~µn~~5 ~.`y
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF 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 - - - - - -- JULY 15, 2008 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Cou,n~i~ ~a~~~s, 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, Nan-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 minutes
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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:45 P.M.
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda Closed Session}
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:31 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL -- City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Introduction of Fiscal Sustainability Committee Members.
3-B. Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the
2 4 ~~' Annua 1 Art and Wine Faire .
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 Joint City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held
on June 17, 2008. City Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for traffic striping, Phase G, No. P.W. 10-07-
31. Public Works}
4-D Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit
Two Grant Applications to CalTrans for the Federal Safe Routes
to School Program for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, and to Execute
All Necessary Documents to Implement the Project. Public
Works ?
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Adoption of Resolution Commending Alameda Chief Financial
Officer Juelle-Ann Boyer for Her Many Contributions to the
City of Alameda. City Manager}
5-B. Recommendation to adopt the City's Americans with Disabilities
Act Transition Plan update. City Attorney}
5-C. Adoption of Resolution Submitting to the Electors at the
Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on
November 4, 2008, a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda
Municipal Code to Increase the Real Property Transfer Tax.
City Manager}
5-D. Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the
Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the
City of Alameda Charter by Amending Sections 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 3-
7 ~A}' 3-7 ~B}' 3-7 ~C} ~ 3-7 ~F} - 3-7 ~I} - 3-15- 9-1 ~E} - 12-3 ~D}
17-10, 22-4, and 28-6 ~A} Thereof; by Deleting Sections 3-7 ~E} ,
3-15.1, 17-11, 23-4, 23-5, Art. XXV, and 25-6 ~B} Thereof; and
by Adding Section 2-16 Thereto, to Delete Obsolete and Unclear
Language and Conform to General Law and Other Sections of the
Charter; and Proposing Said Charter Amendments;
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Requiring the Auditor
to Have a Certified Public Accountant License or a Related
Degree, and Eliminating the Bond Requirement; and Propasing
Said Charter Amendment;
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Requiring the
Treasurer to be Licensed and Revising the Duties of the
Office; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment;
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Eliminating
Transportation from the Jurisdiction of the Public
Utilities Board; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment;
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Requiring Contracts to
be in Writing and the City is not Bound by a Contract that
Does not Comply with the Charter; and Proposing Said
Charter Amendment;
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Deleting Reasons for
Removal of Historical Advisory Board Members; and Proposing
Said Charter Amendment; and
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Authorizing Council to
Determine when City Offices are to be Open for Business;
and Propasing Said Charter Amendment; and
• Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal
Election in the City of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to
Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Allowing the City
Manager or Designee to Exceed Sum Provided by General Law
and Forego Competitive Bid for Public Work or Improvement
or Purchase of Materials or Supplies in an Emergency; and
Proposing Said Charter Amendment. City Attorney}
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 nat 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
7-A. ICLEI update with specific auto use and congestion issues
highlighted. ~Councilmember Matarrese}
8. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Communications from Council}
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
$-A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Commission on
Disability Issues and the Economic Development Commission.
9. ADJOURNMENT ~- City Council
~*~
~ Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public
inspection in the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, Room 380, during
normal business hours
• 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
/.~~ ~ ,',
:~
°-r
~u~
~~~, ~,.,,..~ AMEDA CALIFORNIA
~ e _ 4
\ `(~I1~~
~`nF~'r X5,1 ~~'~.I 4 \ ~1~ ~RtiY9'
~: --
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - JULY 15, 2008 - - - 7;31 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda,
1. ROLL CALL - Community Improvement Commission
2. MINUTES
2-A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held
on June 17, 2008. City Clerk}
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Public Hearing to consider the Periodic Review of the City of
Alameda's Alameda Point Improvement Project Five-Year
Implementation Plan. Development Services}
3-B. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter
into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association and
the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2008-
2009. Development Services}
4. ADJOURNMENT -- Community
Improvement Commission
+ry
Beverly J n air
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA} AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~~ARRA} MEETING; AND
ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 17, 2008- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint City Council, APFA
and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC Meeting at 8:53 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /
Board Members /
Gilmore, Matarrese,
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MT11TT1T~'~
Autharity Members /
Commissioners deHaan,
Tam, and Mayor/ Chair
X08- CC/08- APFA/08- CIC} Minutes of the Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 3, 2008; and the
Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on
June 4, 2008. Approved.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese
moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
X08- CC/08- APFA} Public Hearing and related actions regarding
the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget:
X08- ACC} Resolution No. 14222, "Authorizing and Directing the
Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents,
Authorizing the Preparation and Distribution of a Preliminary
Official Statement in Connection with the offering and Sale of
Certificates of Participation Relating Thereto, and Authorizing and
Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted; and
X08- A APFA} Resolution No. 08-17, "Approving, Authorizing and
Directing Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council Alameda Public 1
Financing Autharity, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
Documents and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with
Respect Thereto." Adopted.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the new interest rate.
Bill Reynolds, Gardner Underwood & Bacon Financial Advisor,
responded rates are excepted to produce present value savings in
excess of 40; stated the exact rate would not be known until the
sale date; the assumption is that the rate would be in the mid 4%
range.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Reynolds is confident with
the assumption.
Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated the upgraded
rating makes the process very competitive; refinancing would not
move forward without a good rate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was opposed to refinancing
before; now she is happy to see that the term would not be extended
and there would be a lower interest rate.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the first
year would not have interest or principal payments and the second
year would have interest payments only.
The City Manager responded interest payments would be made in the
first year.
Councilmember/Authority deHaan inquired whether the cost of the
loan would be amortized, to which Mr. Reynolds responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the estimated savings,
to which the City Manager responded $317,600.
Mr. Reynolds stated market data would be available on the date of
pricing to show comparables.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what percentage
would be the breaking point.
The City Manager responded 5.5o is set in the resolution.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the old and new interest rate
for each issuance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 2
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
The City Manager responded the original issue rates ranging from
5.8o to 7.250 would mature in 2015; $2.77 million was issued for
the Police facility; stated Library and Golf issues in the amount
of $4.9 million have rates of 3.9 o to 5.75 a .
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that a maximum should be set for each
issuance.
The City Manager stated 5.5o is a blended rate; refinancing would
not go forward if expected savings are not realized.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated the 2022 date
should not be exceeded; the previous proposal did not go forward
because there was no savings, the term was extended, and debt would
be pushed back; now, debt would not be pushed back and the term
would not be extended.
Mr. Reynolds stated the interest rate and savings are two different
numbers; a $317,600 savings is the underwriter's best guess based
on current market conditions; 5.5o would produce less than $317,600
in savings.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the savings goal should be approximately
$317,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that anything over
$300,000 in savings works.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he would like the
first two-year savings to be at least $400,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferring debt payments is not the
best way to do budgeting.
Mr. Reynolds stated that bond counsel drafted the resolution with
the idea that a limit would be placed on the average interest rate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the most important issue is savings;
management's goal is to defer payments to limit budget cuts; that
she does not want to pay more and save less due to deferring.
Mr. Reynolds stated an interest only payment would be made; savings
would be limited in the first two years; the present value savings
would change slightly with annual savings versus up front savings.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 3
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2QQ8
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of
resolutions as long as the duration of the bond would be the same
and the savings threshold would not be less than $300,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion with the
caveat that principle would be pushed out.
Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated refinancing makes
sense because the interest rate would be lower and over $300,000
would be saved.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
X08- B CC} Public Hearing to consider Resolution Na. 14223,
"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191." Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the prior fire inspection
fee.
Mayor Johnson stated a chart showing fee comparisons would have
helped.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Fire Marshall
stated fire inspection fees are based on an hourly rate and do not
have 1000 cost recovery; currently, a business fire inspection fee
is $7?.50; full cost recovery would be approximately $148.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether Building staff should perform
inspections instead of firefighters; stated business owners have
complained about inspection fees; the proposed increase would
result in more complaints.
The Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department uses civilian
inspectors, which lowers the expense.
Mayor Johnson questioned what the cast would be if Building staff
performed inspections.
The Fire Marshall stated Fire Department civilian inspectors have
the same salary as the Building Inspectors.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Building inspectors are busy already;
new personnel would need to be added.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 4
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
The Fire Marshall stated that fire and storm water inspectors are
very specialized and require additional training.
Councilmember Matarrese stated an 80~ increase is stiff; inquired
whether building fees could be raised by a very small amount over
inflation in order to subsidize fire inspection fees.
The Assistant City Manager responded fees cannot be over 100fl cost
recovery for any service.
Councilmember deHaan stated many inspections are a one hour minimum
and cost $215; inquired how often inspections occur, to which the
Fire Marshall responded annually.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association ~PSBA}, stated
increased inspection fees would put an undue burden on small
businesses.
Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association ~ACEA}, stated ACEA
feels that Council should not pass a blanket resolution for a no
fee increase for the Golf Course.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the collection rate on ambulance
service.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the report notes the collection
rate was 51o in 2007 and excludes Medicare and Medi-Cal write offs.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the last time ambulance
fees were raised.
The City Manager responded rates were restructured by the County
last year.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to know the cost recovery for
ambulance service.
The Fire Chief stated the collection rate is approximately 85o if
Medicare and Medi-Cal are taken out as non-collectibles; new
revenue anticipates a 50o collection rate.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the cost to provide ambulance
service and haw much revenue is received, to which the City Manager
responded Information would be provided.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 5
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community zmpravement Commission
June 17, 2008
Vice Mayor Tam stated Page 8 shows that $1,297 is the base rate for
the ambulance fee; inquired whether said fee is a significant
portion of the City's cost for providing the service.
The Fire Chief responded the fee is close to the cost.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City charges above what
insurance pays.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated generally,
insurance pays approximately 800; the patient is billed the
remaining 200.
Mayor Jorlnson inquired what is the recovery rate for private
ambulances, to which the Fire Chief responded that he did not know.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much of the $300,000 would be
accountable to inspection fees.
The Fire Chief responded the EMS portion is approximately $280,000;
stated inspection fees are estimated at approximately $65,000.
The City Manager stated $20,000 would be related to the new fees.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would be a $15,000
shortage, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see raising fees 80Q.
The Fire Chief stated false alarm fees were not included and are
estimated at $20,000; $300,000 could be achieved in new revenue if
false alarm fees were included.
Mayor Johnson stated false alarm fees should be included; inquired
what is sent out for a fire alarm, to which the Fire Chief
responded three engines, one truck, and a Chief Officer.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether one free false alarm is allowed per
quarter, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated one free false alarm should be allowed every
six months, not every quarter.
The City Manager stated that the Fire Department responded to 454
false alarms in 2007.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 6
Financing Authority Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 20x8
Mayor Johnson stated second false alarms fees should be raised to
$125; $200 should be charged for the third false alarm, and $250
for the fourth false alarm.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether businesses have different
fees, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated commercial businesses should be allowed one
free false alarm per year.
The Fire Chief stated fire alarms might be disconnected if
restrictions are too severe.
Mayor Johnson stated commercial false alarm rates should be $125
for the second alarm; $250 for the third; and $375 for the fourth.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the first free false alarm should
cover a period of six months.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager
stated the Golf Commission has not recommended golf fee increases
at this point.
Mayor Johnson stated said increases could come back.
The City Manager stated the last golf fee increase was not in
conjunction with the annual Master Fee resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the
following revisions to the Master Fee Schedule: 1} the false fire
alarm schedule for residential be $125 for the second alarm, $200
for the third alarm and $250 for the fourth alarm; 2 } the false
fire alarm for commercial be $125 for the second alarm, $250 for
the third alarm and $375 for the fourth alarm; 3} that the period
for false fire alarms be changed from quarterly to every six
months; and 4} the rest of the fees be increase by CPI.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much less revenue would be
raised with the proposed revisions.
Mayor Johnson responded the amount is not known now; stated the
matter can be brought back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands that $280,000 of
the $300,000 comes from the ambulance fee increase; an additional
$65,000 would have come from increased fire inspection fees;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 7
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June I7, 2Q08
revenue would drop from $65,000 to $15,000 by using the CPI.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants ambulance collection fees
brought back because collection should be improved.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that information be brought back
on how much the uncollected [ambulance] fees represents in dollars.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda goes to
Oakland 273 times versus Oakland coming to Alameda 23 times; the
recovery rate could change if determinations are made later.
Mayor Johnson stated the Contract should state that mutual aid
should be proportionate.
Councilmember deHaan stated revenue generation would be impacted if
the City does not provided services to Oakland.
The City Manager stated the issue would be monitored and
adjustments would be made in the quarterly report if necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reports need to be provided more
than quarterly; some issues need to be monitored continually and
constantly.
Mayor Johnson requested monthly reports.
On the 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.
~O8- C CC} Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit
Appropriation Limit} for Fiscal Year 2008-2009; and Resolution No.
14224, "Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2008-09."
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated data is based on the amount
of City or County population growth and CPI; Alameda's population
growth is smaller than other cities in the County; inquired where
is the demand for services and commensurate need for increased
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
costs if population growth has not increased.
Mayor Johnson responded services are decreasing, but costs are
increasing.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that complete cost recovery is recommended
for some areas, but no others; there seems to be some disparity in
which services are more valuable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated small businesses provide sales tax;
CPI is recommended instead of cost recovery because small
businesses are taking on the extra burden of property tax;
businesses need to be kept alive.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is in support of giving small
businesses a break; the City seems to be subsidizing the Golf
Course.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council had previous discussions
regarding only being able to raise fees so high and get same number
of players.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is not subsidizing the Golf Course
now; raising golf fees would result in less revenue; golf fees
would not be frozen.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Golf Commission would be
discussing the Golf Master Plan soon; looking at golf fees today
would be premature.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated a policy is needed regarding not having the
General Fund subsidize the Golf Course.
~ARRA} Resolution No. 42, "Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures
Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09." Adopted;
X08- CIC} Resolution No. 08-157, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09." Adopted;
(08- D CC} Resolution No. 14225, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Capital Improvements and Appropriating Certain
Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09 and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Publa.c 9
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
Establishing an other Post Employment Benefit ~oPEB} Plan."
Adopted;
X08- E CC} Resolution No. 14226, "Establishing Guidelines for
Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business
Travel." Adopted.
The City Manager/Executive Director provided a handout on issue bin
items from previous workshops and gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the cost for a Park Director,
to which the City Manager responded $25,000 per year.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $25,000 would fully restore
Park Directors at sites without reducing hours, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction should be given to not reduce
Park Director hours; inquired how much it would cost to light
tennis courts, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded
$7,500.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to find money to
light the two tennis courts.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long
it would take to go through the $300,000 restored to the Fire
Department overtime budget.
The Fire Chief responded the current overtime usage is averaging
four people per day which costs $6,000 per day for a twenty-four
hour shift.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long
it would take to implement rotating a truck out of service.
The Fire Chief responded early July; stated operationally, the Fire
Department could be ready within four to six weeks; the meet and
confer process would take longer.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated adding
$300, 000 would still leave a $520, o0o shortage; inquired how the
$520,000 would be absorbed in the budget.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded overtime would still
need to be managed; stated the $520,000 would not be restored back
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 Q
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June l7, 2DD6
into the budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated an engine replacement plan should be
reviewed; the vehicle replacement policy may need adjustments.
The Fire Chief stated deferring purchases would build a huge,
future liability; another truck is scheduled to be replaced next
year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would
be the total price.
The Fire Chief responded an engine would cost between $400,000 to
$425,000 and would have a ten to twelve-year lease.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the
compliment of Fire Department staff.
The Fire Chief responded nine firefighters have been hired due to
retirement vacancies; currently, eight positions are unfunded; new
hires will be necessary as retirements occur; otherwise, additional
overtime would be created.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much
overtime would be reduced with new hires].
The Fire Chief responded average overtime covers four positions;
stated adding two to three positions per shift would be beneficial;
money would be saved in the long run.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how said
scenario is equated into percentage of overtime.
The Fire Chief responded that he guesses that 60o to 700 of
overtime would be saved.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would
be the total compliment.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded 110 funded positions
are assumed for 20082009; stated 102 positions are for sworn
officers, 8 are non-sworn.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
overtime would still exist with total staff compliment, to which
the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 1
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community 2mprovement Commission
June 17, 20Q6
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
overtime costs would be with total compliment, to which the Fire
Chief responded $200,000 to $300,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that numbers are needed regarding hiring
seven firefighters versus overtime; overtime should be reduced
since nine new firefighters were hired; specific numbers are
needed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated replacement
vehicles could be deferred; additional replacements will be needed
next year; inquired whether take home vehicle costs have been
discussed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the vehicle replacement policy needs to
come back for discussion.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the vehicle replacement
policy was changed; only a limited number of safety related
vehicles were identified for replacement.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being proposed for vehicle
replacement next year.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded $717,750, which
includes some vehicles carried forward from the current fiscal
year.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that vehicles should not be replaced
until the matter is brought back to Council; shortfalls could be
covered by taking less out of department budgets.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions
are needed regarding deferring an engine or command vehicle
replacement; a fall back position is needed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated $200,000 is proposed to be spent in one
year for a Fire Department command vehicle, Division Chiefs' and
Deputy Chief vehicles.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated said vehicles met the
criteria last year.
The Fire Chief stated delivering
people, good tools, and training.
service in the streets takes
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 2
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2Q06
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the issue
will be revisited many times for many reasons; mechanical
assessments are needed; repair costs need to be evaluated versus
replacement costs.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicle use needs to be identified; fuel
efficiency needs to be reviewed if a vehicle travels a lot of
miles.
The Fire Chief stated the proposal is to replace Fire Department
sedans with hybrid vehicles.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
vehicles would be replaced with the Toyota Prius.
The Fire Chief responded vehicles would be replaced with Ford
Escapes.
Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned whether the command vehicle needs to
be replaced next year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated annual fuel
costs need to be reviewed for take home vehicles; decisions need to
be made regarding reassigning vehicles and reduction of the overall
inventory.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the proposed
budget reflects a certain level of trade offs; $300,000 would be
generated through the proposed fee structure and would offset the
$820,000 in mandatory [Fire Department] overtime costs; there still
would be $520,000 in mandatory overtime cost expenditures that
would be controlled through rotating the closing of afire truck;
inquired what differs other than postponement.
The Fire Chief responded hopefully some other revenues enhancements
will occur in the fall; stated the additional $300,000 would be
counted on to delay the immediate closure [of afire truck].
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that additional funds could be generated
by not replacing vehicles.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated said savings is not
on-going.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated continued discussions are needed
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 3
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2006
regarding long-term issues.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated increased Police
Department grant and fee revenues would be allocated to the
Crossing Guard program; the proposed rescheduling results in
approximately 40o cost reduction; inquired whether the $93,000 is
expected to offset the reduction.
The Police Chief responded $93,000 would help to recover the
additional cost not budgeted for the next fiscal year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would
be the reporting procedure for Fire Department overtime.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the Fire Department
would be monitoring the issue on a daily basis; stated monthly or
quarterly reports could be presented to Council.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the
Public Works Capital Improvement Program CIP} would be addressed.
The Public Works Director responded the CIP would be adopted with
the budget.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the
deferred maintenance; stated the report shows medium priority
projects total $66.5 million.
The Public Works Director responded the deferred maintenance report
will be coming to Council in approximately four weeks; Council will
see the Pedestrian Plan later in the year; high, medium, and low
priority projects were identified for the Pedestrian Plan;
appropriations will be reviewed this coming year; the only
Pedestrian Project included in the next two year CIP is for access
across the Estuary.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the concern is that $4 million was spent
from the General Fund to catch up on some of the deferred
maintenance and this year $1.5 million will be deferred.
The Public Works Director stated all Measure B funds are being
used; staff was successful in receiving Proposition 1B funds.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a funding
stream has not been identified for other post employee benefits;
the proposed General Fund budget totals $75.4 million for the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 4
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
fiscal year; the accrued liability for post employment benefits was
$75.4 million as of January 2007.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferred costs are between $75
million and $107 million for health and safety post employment
benefits.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that some
of the fund balance could be used to seed the trust fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Speakers: Carol quintal, Crossing Guard; Janet Crandall, Citizen
Emergency Response Team ~CERT} ; David Baker, Alameda; Fred Blass,
Alameda; Christine Novosel, Crossing Guard; Christopher Buckley,
Alameda; Rich Bennett, Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter;
Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Steve Floyd, Local 689; Tim
McNeil, Retired Fire Chief; Diane Coler--Dark, Alameda; Chuck
Millar, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; Kathy Moehring, WABA.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the hearing.
*~*
X08- } Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner
Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00
midnight.
Mayor/Chair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
*~~
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City will not be spending money
on the Met'er's House; Greater Alameda Business Area ~GABA} funding
should not be approved until information is brought back; $50,000
is allocated to the EcoPass program.
The Public Works Director stated the total program is approximately
$36,000; $14,040 is from the General Fund; the AC Transit General
Manager is allowed to reduce the passes by 15o.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a better to way to
encourage people to take public transit, such as discount tickets
for BART or other forms of public transportation; suggesting
performing an employee survey.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 5
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 208
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that open
dialogue should be initiated regarding the Met'er's House;
additional funding might become available.
The Recreation and Park Director stated Trust representatives have
not indicated that any additional funding would be available but
are willing to review how current funds are invested.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the community gets more per dollar for
funding Park Directors than the Met'er's House.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much
the Fun Fair costs.
The Recreation and Park Director respanded the Fun Fair is funded
through fees charged to participants; stated funding is also
received through recycling grants; costs are a wash.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the proposal regarding the Art
in the Park.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the proposal is to
use money from the Pubic Art fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Art in the Park should be self-
sustaining.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated major issues still
exist regarding keeping current public safety levels; Council and
the community want to have a safe community; she would rather buy
more time for the Fire Department than the Golf Complex.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a gap would
still exist if revenue raising options are placed on the November
ballot and revenues start coming in January.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated overtime needs to be monitored; the
vehicle replacement policy also needs to be reviewed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the vehicle
replacement policy is a mechanism to buy time.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue would be understood better
when the vehicle replacement policy comes back; keeping vehicles
longer might be possible.
Special point Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 6
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
dune 17, 2008
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a lot of
phone calls and emails have been received regarding not cutting
public safety and increasing staffing levels; maintaining current
levels is difficult, let alone adding additional staff; contractual
agreements cannot be made unless there is revenue in hand.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
hiring people is a contractual obligation; stated people can be
layed off; the Fire Chief mentioned that two to three positions per
shift should be added; more information i~s needed; enough direction
has been given to the City Manager/Executive Director to approve
numbers provided tonight; trees need to be addressed so that
further liability is not incurred; plenty of notice needs to be
given before spending down the $300,000 of overtime; some matching
fund capability needs to be left to provide an incentive to the
Museum; information has been requested regarding setting up a trust
this year for unfunded post employment benefits.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
agreement has been arrived at regarding trees.
The Public Works Director responded Zone 4 will commence July 1;
Mr. Buckley suggested not pruning specific species at all, which
does not make sense; structural pruning will be performed; left
over money will be applied to new street tree planning.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the
process would equate to manpower.
The Public Works Director responded the tree crew would be reduced
by a Maintenance Worker I and a Team Leader; stated $50,000 has
been added to the Consultant Contract.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of the
work would be outsourced.
The Public Works Director stated all mature tree pruning is done by
an outside contractor; currently, emergency response to down limbs,
some new tree planting, and young tree pruning is done in house;
emergency removal of down limbs and young tree pruning is being
proposed to be done by existing contractor.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated time would
be provided if the Golf Return on Investment ~RO17 and surcharge
were not rebated and put into the General Fund; the money would be
able to fund Fire Department overtime and not take a truck out of
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 7
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Fmprovement Commission
June 17, 20Q6
service.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the projected Golf Course deficit is
approximately $700,000; the Golf Course cash reserve is $1.1
million; the Golf Course would still be able to cover the shortfall
for this year without the rebate.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the 20D4-2005
RQI for the Golf Course and AP&T was to be for a short period of
time.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the proposal is to rebate both
the RoI and surcharge, to which the City Manager/Executive Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is the surcharge.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded $171,960; stated
$99,040 is the RoI revenue.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the surcharge has been in
place, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded since
1991.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated intending to
fund Fire Department overtime needs to be done with the realization
of buying more time in hopes that revenue enhancement ideas pass in
the fall; another plan needs to be in place if the revenues do not
pass.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he
would support additional time being gained on the back of Golf.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that
everything is being put on a fast track; the top priority is public
safety.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the $300,400 is not
going to buy enough time past the fall; having the extra $271,000
would provide the comfort needed not to rotate afire truck out of
service.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated $271,000 revenues would
be taken from the Golf Course and added to the General Fund.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that three
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
years ago he stated that the Golf Course was on a death spiral;
Alameda Point is placing the City in another situation of eroding
the General Fund; lease revenues needs to be increased as much as
possible; the crises is here.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public is starting to understand the
challenges.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of
the resolutions with direction provided tonight; stated that he
would not reiterate all points, but summarized the following
direction: 17 supplement the $300,000 [from fees] in Fire
Department overtime funds with the [reinstatement of the] Golf ROI
and surcharge; 27 require matching funds [of $3, 800] for the Museum
subsidy [and reduce the allocation by $7,500]; 37 use grants or
savings to re-adjust the Tree Maintenance Program so that young
trees are pruned and trees are replaced; 4~ bring back information
for putting aside a seed amount for the Trust Fund for Other Post
Employment Benefits ~OPEB7; 5} bring back operational plans for
sustaining services long-term; 67 look for funding to light the
tennis court [proposed to be turned off]; 7~ bring back the Vehicle
Replacement Plan, including potential reduction in the fleet; 8}
bring back an analysis of increasing fire staff by two to three per
shift; stated the motion includes approving the numbers presented
to Council [including changes outlined in the staff report:
allocation of $93,340 to the Police Department for crossing guards;
use of $25,000 in Meyers Housing funding for a Recreation Leader]
and adoption of resolution Establishing Guidelines for
Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business
Travel.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint City Council, APFA and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC
Meeting at 12:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger, City Clerk
APFA and CIC Secretary
The agenda for meeting this was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 9
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2006
July 10, 20D8
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
211297-211515 $1,219,182.51
EFT552 $11,244.50
EFT553 $24, 528, 88
EFT554 $65,158.83
EFT555 $21,50D.00
EFT55fi $27,493.5D
Void Checks:
124572
x$9.95}
125595 ~$18D.OD}
126254 x$212.23}
121825 x$64.00}
130247 ~$82.fiZ}
131518 x$108.75 }
1495
60 x$5.00}
209080 x$295.65}
210623 x$200.00}
2112fi8 x$93.38}
EFT555 ~$2l, 50D.OD}
GRAND TOTAL $1,346,956.fi4
Respectfully submitted,
r
Pamela J. Sible
BILLS #4-B
Council Warrants 071151D8 111512008
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July 15, 2008
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for Traffic
Stri in Phase 6 No. P.W.10-O1-31.
BACKGROUND
The Cityof Alameda's existing street pavement markings provideguidance and information
for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These street pavementmarkingsrequire regular
maintenance in order to effectively convey traffic regulations, guidance, or warnings.
Maintenance of the existing street pavement markings is performed though an annual
maintenance contract.
DlscussloN
The proposed projectwill restripetheexisting street pavementstripingand markingswithin
the City. They include, but are not limited to: centerlines, bike lanes, crosswalks, stop bar
and legends, and turn lanes. A copy of the plans and specifications is on file in the City
Clerk's office.
BUDGET C4NSIDERATIONIFINANGIALANALYSlS
The project is budgeted in the capital Improvement Program Project No.43044901},with
monies allocated from Measure B.
MUNICIPAL CoDE1POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~c}, Existing Facilities.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-C
Ol-'15-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECaMMENDATION
July ~5, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Adopt plans and specifications and authorise a call for bids fortraffic striping, phase 6, No.
P.~II. ~ 0-07-3 ~ .
Respectfully submitted,
,~
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
s
n
By: Philip Lee
Assistant Engineer
MTN:PL:gc
cc: Vtilatchdog Committee
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July 15, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit Two Grant
Applications to Caltrans for the Federal Safe Routes to School Program
for Fiscal Year 200812049, and to Execute all Necessary Documents to
Implement the Projects
SACKGRGUND
Caltrans is currently soliciting applications for fiscal year 240812049 for its Safe Routes
to School ~SRTS} grant program, which focuses on construction projects to increase
bicycling and walking to school. There is $46 million available forfiscal year 240812049,
with no local match required. Staff has prepared two applications: 1} pedestrian
infrastructure improvements near Lum Elementary School Lum} and Wood Middle
School Wood}; and 2} City-wide SRTS education, encouragement, and enforcement
program.
DISCUSSION
Priority One: Pedestrian Improvements near Lum and Wood Schools -Lum and
Wood Schools are located between the South Shore lagoons and Shoreline Drive. Due
to the presence of the lagoons, mast students use Grand Street, Otis Drive, and the
adjacent public walkways to access the schools. During the past year, staff has
conducted outreach regarding potential pedestrian improvements, and based on the
feedback has developed an infrastructure improvement plan to improve access to these
schools. The $662,000 funding request will provide the following:
1. Curb bulb-outs at Grand Street and San Jose Avenue.
2. Four curb ramps at Lum drop-offlpick-up island.
3. Lighted crosswalk at mid-block crossing on Grand Street to connect public
walkway with Wood entrance and Lum access.
4. Public walkway improvements for three adjacent public walkways tv Lum and
Wood.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4-D
D1-15-08
Honorable Mayor and July ~5, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
~. Update school area signs for Lum and Wood.
Priority Two: Citywide SRTS Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement
Program - Staff proposes developing a comprehensive SRTS Education,
Encouragement, and Enforcement program. The Public Works Department works
closely with the Alameda Unified School District ~AUSD} in developing and reviewing
safe routes to school maps, implementing improvements to enhance traffic circulation,
pedestrian access near schools, and by holding regular meetings to ensure coordination
on projects of mutual concern. The City also supports several related activities, such as
the Fire and Police Departments' annual Safety Town program, and the Walk and Roll
to School Day. I n 2001, 2,700 elementary and middle school students participated in
Walk to School Day, and nearly 800 parents indicated in a survey that they would be
interested in participating in a walking school bus activity.
The City's $500,000 funding request wifl provide each elementary and middle school
with two years of assistance in developing its activities, with the primary program goal
being to develop a framework and materials for an ongoing program once the grant
period is over. To be successful in this regard, the program will have to develop and
rely on a strong commitment from parents and schools, as well as coordination with City
staff. The Alameda Police Department will incorporate the program into their pedestrian
decoy enforcement operations.
The project is proposed to include the following:
~ . Program Coordinator -The City will enter into a contract with apart-time
program coordinator to implement the program by working closely with school
personnel, parents, and City staff. The program coordinator will be under the
management of the Public Works staff.
2. Activities -The program coordinator will organize "walking school buses" at each
participating elementary school, to enable students to walk to school as part of a
group and with supervision. ether activities could include offering contests and
incentives for students to bicycle and walk to school,
3. Bicycle safety training -Provide training primarily to middle school students
regarding how to properly operate a bicycle in on- and off-road environments.
Training will also be made available for families and teachers so that students
and parents may learn together.
Honorable Mayor and July 15, 2005
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
This would continue the City's efforts to implement infrastructure improvement projects
to encourage more students to bicycle and walk to school. Grace the enhanced
infrastructure is in place, the City could then continue to seek funding for the education
and encouragement program to maximize the use of those facilities.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGN1FiNANCIAL IMPACT
The estimated total cost for the two SRTS programs is $1,1 fi2,000. These programs
would be 100°/a funded by the federal SRTS grant monies, with no local match required.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
The proposed projects support the following General Plan policies:
• Guiding Policy 4.4.c -Identify potential conflicts between bicyclists and
pedestrians and develop projects to minimize such conflicts such as the Bay
Farm Island Bike Bridge and the shoreline paths.
• Guiding Policy4.5.a - Provide a system of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes
that will encourage both commute and recreational cycling.
RECGMMENDATIGN
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit two grant applications to
Caltrans for the Federal Safe Routes to School Program for fiscal year 200812009, and
to execute all necessary documents to implement the projects.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~t~'mC~~
By: Barry Bergman
Transportation Co rd~ for
By. Payne ~ ~
Transportation Coordinator
MTN:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0.
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT TvvO GRANT
APPLICATIONS TO CALTRANS FOR THE FEDERAL SAFE ROUTES
TO SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 200812049, AND TO
EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROJECTS
UvHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation ~Caltrans} has
allocated federal Safe Routes to School SRTS} funds for pedestrian and
bicycle facilities for fiscal year 200812009; and
VvHEREAS, the City of Alameda is committed to encouraging students to
bicycle and walk to school, and to provide facilities and programs that will
encourage this behavior; and
UvHEREAS, the City of Alameda wishes to apply to Caltrans for ~1 }
$662,000 for Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements near Lum Elementary
School and vllood Middle School and ~2} $500,000 for Citywide SRTS
Education, Encouragement and Enforcement Program; and
match,
VvHEREAS, federal SRTS funding guidelines do not require a local
NOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda authorizes the filing of two applications with Caltrans for fiscal year
2008/2009 for the allocation of federal SRTS funds for the projects described
above, and authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to
implement the projects.
~~**~*
Resolution #4-D CC
01.15.08
1, 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 15th day of July, 2008, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN UvITNESS, VvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 16th day of July, 2008.
Lara 1Neisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
COMMENDING ALAMEDA CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER JUELLE-ANN BGYER
FOR HER MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
E
0
0
y
a~
~.
V1IHEREAS, Juelle-Ann Boyer began her career in local government in
1973 as a Principal Account Clerk with the City of Petaluma, where she later
,~ served as an Accounting Supervisor, Controller, Finance OfficerlTreasurer, and
,, Auditor; and
~ UVHEREAS Ms. Bo er's career with the Cit of Alameda be '
~ Y y gan in 1981
.~ when she was appointed Assistant General Manager-Business and Finance at
the Bureau of Electrici ~ and
tY~
~~ VIJHEREAS, Ms. Boyer also served as the Assistant General Manager-
Administration, the Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager, and the
Acting General Manager for the Bureau of Electricity; and
VIIHEREAS, Ms. Boyer was appointed the Chief Financial Officer for the
City of Alameda in July 2004; and
~111HEREAS, under Ms. Boyer's leadership, the City of Alameda's budget
and financial reports have won numerous awards from the California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers and the Government Finance Officers Association;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Boyer has also been an active volunteer in the Alameda
community, serving as Board President of Xanthos, Inc., now known as Alameda
Family Services, from 1998 to 2001, and aDirector-at-Large of Girls Inc. of the
Island City; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Boyer serves as the Parliamentarian for the Isle City of
Alameda Business and Professional Women, which awarded her their LENA
Leadership, Education, Networking Achievement} award in 2005 and is also
active in the League of Vllomen Voters of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Boyer is retiring from the City of Alameda on August 1,
200$, and will be enjoying her much-deserved retirement with her husband Ford.
NOIlV THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Alameda does hereby extend its heartfelt thanks to Ms. Boyerfor her many years
of faithful service and extends its best wishes to her upon her retirement.
*~*~**
Resolution #5-Q
D7.5.08
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 a
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of July, 2008, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 16t~ day of July, X008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Teresa L. Highsmith
City Attorney
Date. July 15, 2DD8
Re: Adopt City's Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Update
BACKGRGUND
4n April ~ 7, 2DD7, the City Council awarded a contract to Sally Swanson Architects, a
consultant with expertise in Americans with Disabilities Act DADA} compliance, to update
the City's Transition Plan. Pursuant to the ADA, every City must have on file a plan
identifying physical obstacles limiting access to municipal services by persons with
disabilities. The plan is to indicate how to achieve accessibility, and if the plan is longer
than one year, as most are, steps are to be identifiied that will be taken during the course of
the transition period. The Council assigned this project to the City Attorney's Gffice, Risk
Management Division, during the budget process offiscal year 200612oD7.
I n ~ 992, the City retained a consultant to prepare documentation required by the ADA. To
bring the documentation current, and to identify costs and a schedule for implementing any
needed modifications, the update was undertaken. A copy of the draft ADA Transition
Plan Update is on file in the City Clerk's office.
DISCUSSION
Under the management of the City ADA Coordinator, and with the cooperation of City staff,
the consultant conducted field inspections of various City facilities, identified accessibility
issues, analyzed the City's documents, and drafted an update of the City's Transition Plan.
The ADA Transition Plan Update contains the following:
~ } A list of the physical barriers in City facilities that limit accessibility of its programs,
activities or services to individuals with disabilities;
2} An evaluation of program accessibility or equivalent facilitation to all users;
3} An evaluation of the policies and procedures to determine if they promote equal access
to persons with disabilities;
Clty Counci~
Agenda Item #5-B
~1-15-0$
Honorable Mayor and July 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
4} A detailed outline of the methods to be used to remove architectural barriers and make
the facilities and programs accessible; and
5} An initial two-year project schedule; the projects are included in the Capital
Improvement Program CIP}for 2008-2010.
The Public vllorks Department received the ADA Transition Plan Update and, as managers
of the City's CIP, included numerous high-priority projects in the 2008-2010 program.
Facilities were chosen on a use basis. For example, the buildings that have the highest
public use and services were selected for the first round of CIP improvements ~FY 08109
cycle}. The balance of projects listed in the Update have been included in the Unfunded
Projects List for prioritization, where budgeting and implementation will occur in future
years as funding is made available.
The Transition Plan Update was reviewed and accepted by the Commission on Disability
Issues in conjunction with the community meeting on May 2l, 2005.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIALlMPACT
The highest priority projects identified in this Update have been included in the 2008/2010
CIP. The remaining projects are included in the Unfunded Projects List and will be
prioritized as funding is made available.
REC4MMENDATI~N
Adopt City's Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Update.
Respectfully Su mitted,
~!~ `~~~~
Teresa L. Highsmith
City Attorney
~~~~~
Lucretia Akil
ADA Coordinator
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: July ~ 5, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City
of Alameda on November 4, 2008, for the Purpose of Submitting to the
Electors a Rea! Property Transfer Tax, Direct the City Attorney to
Prepare an Impartial Analysis, and Designate a Council Subcommittee
to Write the Ballot Ar ument and Rebuttal
BACKGROUND
The downturn in the economy has had a significant and lasting effect on the City's
finances. In February 2008, the City reduced its FY 2007-2008 budget by $4 million to
close the gap between revenues and expenditures for that year. Unfortunately, many of
the City's largest revenue sources are projected to decline or stay relatively flat next
year, while the cost of providing City services is expected to rise. For that reason, the
FY 2008-2049 budget that the City Council adopted on June 17 included significant
spending reductions throughout the organization. In addition, the City Council adapted
a number of fee increases and new fees in order to forestall some of the budget
reductions and directed City staff to explore potential voter-approved tax measures.
DISCUSSION
Since expenditures are only one side of the budget equation, an interdepartmental team
of staff members met throughout the spring to explore a variety of revenue-raising
options. The team analyzed three types of revenue-generating mechanisms: tax
measures, which require a vote of at least some segments of the residents of the City;
fees, which are generated by increasing or imposing charges for the use of City facilities
or utilization of City services; and entrepreneurial activities such as selling advertising
on City facilities or City logo merchandise. Since the entrepreneurial activities generally
required an initial investment of City resources with an uncertain return on that
investment, staff did not analyze them in depth, However, staff continues to evaluate
entrepreneurial opportunities as they arise.
Staff presented the options at the June 5 budget workshop and received the City
Council's comments regarding both fees and tax measures. on June 17, the Ci#y
Council adopted the new and increased fees through its approval of the Master Fee
Schedule for FY 2008-2009. These new and increased fees became effective July 1,
Zoos.
City Council
Agenda Item #5-C
01-15-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Voter Survey
July 15, Zoos
Page 2 of 4
Subsequent to the City Council's revenue-enhancement discussion on June 5, staff
engaged the services of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates FMM&A~, a
professional polling firm that has conducted surveys for the League of California Cities
and a large number of state, regional, and local governments. FMM&A was tasked with
exploring the community's willingness to tax itself to pay for City services. The survey
of 400 local voters, which was conducted in late June, tested three tax mechanisms: a
parcel tax for public safety services, a real property transfer tax for general City
services, and a maintenance assessment district that could be used to maintain and
improve City infrastructure such as parks, streets, sidewalks, medians, and pedestrian
and bike paths.
The survey results, which are described in greater detail in the attached memo from
FMM&A, showed that Alameda voters are "unwilling to support a parcel tax dedicated to
public safety services or the creation of a maintenance assessment district." Only 41 °/°
of voters support a public safety parcel tax, which is far below the two-thirds majority
required to pass a special tax. Similarly, only 2l°/° of voting property owners support a
maintenance assessment district.
A real property transfer tax, on the other hand, shows more promise. According to
FMM&A, "a slim majority of voters are willing to support an increase in the real estate
transfer tax rate to fund general City services." Based on the survey results, staff
recommends that the City Council consider placing an increase in the real property
transfer tax on the November ballot.
Real Property Transfer Tax
The real property transfer tax, also known as a property transfer tax, is a tax levied
when there is a change of ownership on properties in Alameda. The amount of the tax
is based on the value of consideration, or the amount paid for the sale or transfer of the
property being transferred. Unlike parcel taxes, property owners do not pay a real
property transfer tax on an ongoing basis. Rather, it is a one-time payment made at the
time of sale out of escrow funds and is often split by the sellers and buyers of property.
In those cities that levy a real property transfer tax, the tax is typically a general tax,
which means that the revenues are pledged to general government purposes rather
than to specific programs or departments. General taxes require a simple majority of
50°/° plus 1 to pass. By City Charter, which refers to State election law, a vote to levy or
increase such a tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election of
City Council members. In Alameda, a vote of the people to increase the City's real
property transfer tax can only occur in November of even-numbered years.
The current real property transfer tax rate in Alameda is $5.40 per $1,000 of the value of
consideration; the taxis estimated to raise $4.1 million for the General Fund in FY 2008-
2000. While general law cities are prohibited from levying a real property transfer tax,
Honorable Mayor and July 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4
charter cities face no such restrictions. In Alameda County, the rates range from $4.50
per $1,000 in Hayward to $15.00 per $1,000 in both Berkeley and Gakland. Both
Berkeley and Oakland have a rebate program for seismic improvements that is
generally funded by $.50 of the $15.00 transfer tax. The Albany City Council voted on
July 7 to place a measure on the November ballot to increase its rate from $11.50 per
$1,000 to $14.50 per $1,000. Although the City of Albany initially considered raising the
tax to $15.00 and including a similar $.50 rebate program in the measure, staff
determined the inclusion of the rebate program would establish the measure as a
special tax, requiring atwo-thirds majority vote.
A $9.10 increase in the real property transfer tax in Alameda, for a total tax of $14.50
per $1,000, could raise approximately $fi.~ million more per year for the City's General
Fund. The actual amount raised is dependent on the number of property sales and the
amount paid for those properties. Although the real property transfer tax is sensitive to
downturns in the housing market, the yield from the tax will increase over time as
properties increase in value. In addition, because the tax is charged on residential,
commercial, and industrial property transfers, the number of properties subject to the
tax will increase once sales occur at the Grand Marina, Alameda Landing, and Alameda
Point developments.
Election Details
Gn July 1, 2008, the City Council adopted a resolution calling for a General Municipal
Election to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election on Tuesday, November
4, 2008. In order to place the proposed real property transfer tax increase on the ballot
for the November 2008 election, there are several additional issues that require the City
Council's attention: approve the language for the ballot question, determine the process
for submission of an argument in favor of the measure, and direct the City Attorney to
submit an impartial analysis of the measure to the City Clerk.
State election law provides for the inclusion in the ballot pamphlet of a ballot question of
no more than 75 words. The City Council must approve the exact wording for the
question that will appear on the ballot. The recommended language for the real
property transfer tax is:
To maintain essential City services such as keeping existing fire stations open;
maintaining neighborhood policing programs; improving traffic flow and
pedestrian and bicycle safety; preventing recreation program cutbacks; and
restoring previously reduced library hours; shall the City of Alameda increase
the City real property transfer tax, charged when a property is sald, from $5.40
to $14.50 per $1,000 of value, limited to 20 years and subject to audits? YES
N4
State election law also allows the City Council to determine its interest in authoring an
argument in favor of the ballot measure for the real property transfer tax, The law
provides for arguments to be filed with the City Clerk as the Elections official.
Arguments of no more than 300 words each for and against any ballot measure will then
Honorable Mayor and Jul 15, 2008
Y
Members of the City Council Pa e 4 of 4
g
be included in the sample ballot. Ballot arguments for and against the real ro e
p p tty
transfer tax are due in the City Clerk's Office by July 29, 2008. Rebuttal ar uments
g
cannot exceed 254 words and are due in the City Clerk's Office by August 5.
The City Council has several options regarding the preparation of ballot ar uments.
. g
The City Council may draft an argument in favor of the measure as a whole bod in
. v
open session; authorize up to two Councilmembers to meet as a subcommittee of the
City Council to draft the argument and authorize the remaining Councilmembers to si n
. 9
the argument; or authorize up to two Councilmembers to draft and sign the ar ument
.. g
and have three other el~g~ble voters who are proponents sign. In order to meet the
ballot argument deadline established by the City Clerk's Office, staff recommends that
the City Council designate a Council subcommittee to draft the ballot ar ument and
g
submit ,t to the City Clerk s Office by July 29, 2008. Staff also recommends that the Ci
tY
Council determine whether all five members of the City Council will si n the ballot
g
argument or whether other members of the community will be invited to sign the
argument. This determination must be made during the July 15 meeting in order to
submit the argument, with signatures, to the City Clerk's Office in time.
The final step the City Council must take is to direct the City Attorney to pre are an
p
impartial analysis for the measure. That ~mpart~al analysis will be included ~n the voter
pamphlet.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of translating, typesetting, and printing the ballot measure depends on the
number of pages needed for the ballot question, the impartial analysis, and any ballot
arguments for or against the measure. Staff estimates the cost for this ballot measure
will be approximately $3,000 per page, which will be paid from the General Fund.
RECQMMENDATIQN
Adopt a resolution calling a consolidated municipal election in the City of Alameda on
November 4, 2008, for the purpose of submitting to the electors a real prope transfer
tty
tax; direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis; and designate a Council
subcommittee to write the ballot argument and rebuttal.
Respectfully submitted,
a~
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Memo from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
~'a~~~l~~~~alc,
cus~lz~z,
1VI~~ull~~~
e
~)~~rll~c~tt ~~c~.~~c~c~rYc~]1 ~~:~.
~''1~1.~jlc~ ~'vlr~~~~ ~~~1f1r.11~~,5~1s
T~; Debra Kurita, City Manager
City of Alameda
FRnM: David Metz and Curtis Below
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
RE: Results of Recent City of Alameda Voter Survey
DATE: July 10, 2005
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates ~FMM&A} recently completed a citywide voter
survey in Alameda, designed to assess public attitudes toward the community's quality of
life and to gauge public preferences for strategies to address the City's budget shortfall, i
The survey results show that voters have a very positive feeling about overall community
conditions in Alameda, perceive there to be relatively few urgent problems facing the
community, and are resistant to cuts in the current level of City services. The results also
suggest that a slim majority of voters in the City of Alameda would support a ballot
measure increasing the real estate transfer tax to support general City services.
The balance of this memo explores these and other key specific findings from the survey
in more detail.
~ Voters have very positive opinions of the City of Alameda and their own
neighborhoads. As shown in Figure 1, three in five voters X61 °/a}believe that things
are generally headed in the right direction in the City of Alameda. Additionally,
nearly three-quarters X74°/a} of voters believe that things are headed in the right
direction in their own neighborhoods. In each case, fewer than one in four believe
things are "off on the wrong track." These numbers compare very favorably to other
communities in California where opinions have become more mixed over the course
of 2005.
Methodolog,~ From June 25-29, 2008 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin &. Associates ~FMM&A} conducted a
poll of 400 City of Alameda registered voters likely to cast a ballot in the November 2008 election, The
margin of error for the full sample is +I- 4.9 percent; the margin of error for subgroups within the sample
will be higher.
2425 Colorado Ave. Suite 180 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1290
Santa Monica, CA 90404 Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (310) 828-1183 Phone: (510} 451-9521
Fax: (31 D) 453-6562 Fax: (510) 451-0384 •
City Counc~i
Attachment to
Agenda Item #5-C
07-15-08
Page 2
Right direction
Wrong track
MixedIDKINA
FIGURE 1;
Perceptions of the Overall Direction of the Community
The City of Alameda Your l~eighborhood
s1 aio'
I
1 I I I
I I I
I I I
2~%~ ,'
1
1 1 I f
I f I I
Iy i 1 i
II 7% I t
I I } I
I I f I
~~Q~a
I
1 I I I
I I I I
I i I I
~o
1 /e
~ ~
f I I I
I I I I
I I I I
~~/p
I I I t
I I I I
0% 2D% 40% fil0% 8Q% 100% 0% 20% 40°/0 60% 80% 100%
• Voters see few significant problems facing the City of Alameda. Survey
respondents were presented with a list of potential problems facing the City of
Alameda and asked to indicate how serious of a problem they believe each issue to
be. A good indicator of concern about a particular issue is how many respondents
would describe it as an "extremely" or "very serious" problem, and thus conveying an
significant level of urgency. As shown in Figure 2 below, only three issues were
characterized as "extremely" or "very serious" problems by a majority of voters in
Alameda: state budget cuts that reduce the money available for local City services,
the cost of healthcare, and the cost of housing. Interestingly, these are all issues
where the City itself has little influence and are more national or regional in nature.
FIGURE Z;
Voter Opinions of the Most Serious Problems Facing Alameda
ExtremelylVery Somewhat Not too
Problem
Serious
Serious
Serious a Don't
Problem Problem Problem mow
State budget cuts that reduce the money
available or local ci services
f tY 72°
~ o
20~ 0
5 ~ 0
3 /o
The cost of healthcare 57% 24% 12% 7%
The cost o housin 55~ 30r 13` 2%
City budget deficits 4~% 27% 7% 17%
The condition of the local econom 44% 33% 17% b%
Waste and inefficiency in local
overnment
g 43°
/0 o
28 /0 0
18 /0 0
10 /o
~~'rrtt~i~rf~r~d,
.~~~c~,4~firr,
:~ lrrcrr'~r-~ ~~~
gage 3
ExtremelylVery Somewhat Not too
Problem
Serious
Serious
Serious a ,
Don t
Problem Problem Problem ~0W
The amount eo le ay in city taxes 32% 24% 33% 12%
Creme 28°/a 33% 38% 1%
Traffic and congestion on local streets
and roads °
27 /° °
35 /0 °
37 /0 o
1 /o
A lack of parking in commercial
districts °
23 /° °
29 /0 o
46 /0 °
2 /o
Growth and develo ment 23% 2$% 4b% 3%
Gangs and youth violence 21 % 34% 43% 3%
A lack of arks and o ens ace 12% 21 % 65% 2%
• Vaters are unenthusiastic about making significant cuts in services to balance
the Alameda City budget. Respondents were informed that the City of Alameda
currently has a budget shortfall of $5 million, and if additional revenues are not found
cuts may have to be made in existing City services. They were then presented with a
list of City services and asked if they believe that cuts should be made to each
particular service in order to balance the City budget. For the vast majority of
services, voters were only willing to consider minor cuts Figure 3}, suggesting that
they are not only generally pleased with the services, but value them and do not wish
to see them diminished significantly. The one obvious exception was the Chuck
Corica Golf Course where 43 percent of voters believed it was acceptable for the City
to make "large cuts" in its maintenance.
FIGURE 3:
Voter Upinions on which Services Could be Cut to Balance the City Budget
Service Lar a Cuts
g Some Cuts No Cuts Don't
Know
Chuck Corica Golf Course maintenance 43% 3$% Z4% 5%
Maintenance of public landscape areas, such
as median stn son local streets °
17 /° 0
54 /0 0
27 /0 0
1 /o
Youth services and after-school rograms 12% 34% 54% Q%
Traffic enforcement and safet $% 51 % 39% ~ %
Recreation ro ams 7% 5$% 31% 4%
Maintenance of public parks and athletic
fields o
6 /0 °
65 /0 °
2$ /0 o
1 /o
Paramedic services 6% 22% 70% 2%
Senior services 6% 3$°/0 54% 2%
Police and fire salaries and benefits 6% 32% 52% 9%
Police rograms in local schools 6% 42% 46% 6%
Police atrols 5% _ 24°/0 70% 1
Libr hours 5% 47% 45% 3%
Street maintenance and othole re air 5% 46% 47% 2%
Fire rotection services 1% 21% 75% 3%
~'~r~r!'I~i; fry-.
:~?~ir.~lr~r,
:~e~l:`~fi~flt a~
Page 4
• Voters are unwilling to support a parcel tax dedicated to public safety services
or the creation of a maintenance assessment district. As an alternative to making
cuts in City services, respondents were asked how they would vote on an annual $120
parcel tax to support public safety services in the City of Alameda. only 41 percent
of voters indicated that they would support such a measure, far below the two-thirds
threshold needed to pass a dedicated parcel tax. The measure was also tested at lower
dollar amounts x$100, $SO and $b0}, though support only rose to 45 percent at the
lowest dollar amount tested.
Property owners within the survey sample were also asked if they would support a
measure creating a maintenance assessment district assessing $120 annually to
maintain and improve City parks, streets, sidewalks, medians, and pedestrian and bike
paths. only 27 percent of voting property owners indicated that they would support
such a measure. Even though other segments of local property owners who were not
included in the survey sample including non-resident property owners and those who
own commercial or industrial properties) would have the opportunity to vote on the
formation of an assessment district, levels of support amang residential property
owners are low enough that support firom other property owner segments is not likely
to make a major difference in the measure's prospects for approval.
In each case, current levels of voters support are too low to give either potential
measure a reasonable possibility of winning approval.
• A slim majority of voters are willing to support an increase in the real estate
transfer tax rate to fund general City services. when presented with a potential
ballot measure to increase the real estate transfer tax from $5.40 to $15 per $1,000 of
assessed value to support general City services, a majority of voters palled indicated
that they would vote "yes" see Figure 4 on the following page}.~ The language of
the draft. ballot question offered to survey respondents is shown below:
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA VITAL CITY SERVICES MEASURE. To
maintain essential City services such as keeping existing fire stations open;
maintaining neighborhood policing programs; improving traff c flow, and
pedestrian and bicycle safety; preventing recreation program cutbacks; and
restoring previous reduced library hours; shall the City of Alameda increase the
City real estate transfer tax, charged when a property is sold, from five dollars
and forty cents to fifteen dollars per one thousand dollars of assessed value,
limited to 20 years and subject to audits?
~ 4ne-half of the survey respondents were asked about the public safety parcel tax measure first and the real
estate transfer tax rate increase second. One-half were asked the measures in the opposite order. Given the
reactions to the parcel tax measure and the likelihood that they would negatively impact responses to
subsequent ballot measures, this memo focuses on the respondents that were asked the real estate transfer
tax rate increase first.
,~1«~~ I~r"~r ~~4
~;~ if `'.'!P1 ~'.ti'
Page 5
FYGURE 4:
Voter Support for an Increase in the Real Estate Transfer Tax
(Sprit Sample
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
This suggests that passing a finance measure to increase the real estate transfer tax
rate is feasible in the City of Alameda. However, several caveats should be noted.
First, a relatively high 3 0 percent of respondents indicated that they were undecided
when initially asked, and 17 percent still remained undecided when asked if they were
leaning a particular direction, Second, the numbers of respondents indicating that
they would "definitely" support or "definitely" oppose such a measure are essentially
the same, suggesting that the intensity of support and opposition is roughly equal.
Third, 32 percent of respondents fall into the category of "soft" support -those who
said they would "probably" vote "yes" or were initially undecided but were leaning
towards supporting the measure. All of this suggests that while a majority of voters
support the proposed measure, their support is not particularly firm.
Support for the proposed tax increase remained relatively consistent after survey
respondents were offered arguments for and against the measure, with 52 percent in
support and 3 S percent opposed. Additionally, support for a smaller real estate
transfer tax increase - to $12 instead of $15 -was slightly higher at 56 percent.
However, it should be noted that some of this increased support may come from the
fact that survey respondents were f rst asked about a larger amount, making the
smaller increase relatively mare appealing than if it were the first amount offered.
• Voters prioritize spending funds generated from ballot measures an public
safety services. Respondents were presented with a list of potential ways in which
funds generated by ballot measures could be spent, and were asked to indicate how
important they believe each one to be. once again, a good indicator of the
importance of a pro ject is how many respondents would describe it as an "extremely"
~~~c~rr•f3rrfr -,
:~~rt w~f~rr,
~~r~r~~~ir~ c
~% 20% AO%
Page 6
or "very" important project to fund. As shown in Figure 5y the most important
projects to voters all relate to public safety services -both police and fire -with
keeping existing f re stations open, and maintaining existing emergency medical and
ambulance transportation services topping the list. At the same time, none of the
services tested were dismissed by respondents as entirely unimportant; no service was
rated "not important" by more than 34 percent of respondents.
FIGURE 5:
Voter Priorities for the Use of Funds From a Ballot Measure
(Sprit Sampred}
S endin Area
A g ExtremelylVery Somewhat Not Don't
Im octant Im octant Im octant Know
Kee in existin rre stations o en 78% 17% 4% 0%
Maintaining existing emergency medical and
ambulance trans ortation services 75Q
~ o
~ 7~ 0
7~ 0
~
Avoiding rotating f re station closures b4% 26% 8% 3%
Funding programs that prevent the spread of
gang and drug-related violent crimes from 58% 3.1 % 1 ~ % .1
nei hborin communities
Maintaining existing neighborhood policing
o
58/0 0
28/0 0
9/0 0
5/0
ro rams
Funding programs that prevent the spread of
theft and burglary from neighboring 50% 32% 12% 5%
cornmunitz'es
Restorin reviousl reduced libr hours 44% 30% 22% 4%
Maintaining City streets, sidewalks and
medians 44°
/0 °
42 /0 °
12 /a °
2 /a
Upgrading city streets and intersections to
im rove traffic flow °
40 /0 °
35 /° °
23 /0 °
2 /o
Expanding police traffic patrols to improve
edestrian safet °
39 /0 °
34 /0 °
30 /0 °
1 /o
Expanding police traff C patrols to improve
edestrian and bic cle safet °
38 /0 °
37 /0 o
26 /0 0
0 /o
Putting a portion of the real estate transfer tax
fees into a fund residents may access to pay 37% 29% 29°/a 4%
for seismic renovations to their homes
Addressing more nuisance crimes, including
vandalism, neighborhood blight, and noise 37% 45% 16% 1
com laints
Expanding police traff c patrols to prevent °
34 /0 °
32 /0 °
30 /0 °
3 /°
s eedin and im rove traffic flow
g
Improving maintenance of youth sports fields,
includin baseball diamonds and soccer fields
g °
32 /° 0
39 /0 0
27 /0 0
1 /o
Replacing outdated ark a uipment 23% 45% 29% 3%
~'c~rr-frrr:ll~,
;~Icr^~~rra,
,~~i~~rlf~r~ d~
Page 7
C4NCLUSI4N
The survey results show that voters in the City of Alameda are generally very happy and
do not see many significant problems facing Alameda that are directly under the control
of the City. This, coupled with the lack of willingness to significantly cut existing
services to balance the City budget, suggests that voters are also pleased with the current
service levels provided by the City and find those services valuable.
Voters' positive opinions about living in Alameda and their general concerns about
macro level cost-of living issues ~e.g. health care and housing costs} may contribute to
their reluctance to support some local tax measures to fund City services. For example,
voters do not currently appear willing to support a measure creating a parcel tax
dedicated to public safety services or a measure to establish a maintenance assessment
district.
However, a slim majority of voters do appear willing to support a ballot measure
increasing the real estate transfer tax from $5.40 to $15 per $1,000 of assessed value to
support general City services. This result should be viewed with some caution, though,
as relatively few voters are definitive in their support for such a measure. In order for a
measure like this one to pass, a very active citizen-run committee would likely have to
emerge to champion the measure and mount an aggressive campaign.
~='u~~~r';rrrrl~,
.~~cr.rlirr,
.~ ~~r r~ll~rr ~~
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
_____
E
`v
~a
SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS AT THE CONSOLIDATED
MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON
NOVEMBER 4, 2008, A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE REAL
PROPERTYTRANSFER TAX
UVHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 14215, the City Council of the
City of Alameda has called a Consolidated Municipal Election to be held on
November 4, 2008; and
VIJHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters at said election a measure to increase the real property
transfer tax imposed under § 3-58.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code; and
NO~IU, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
1. At the Consolidated Municipal Election to be held on November
4, 2008, there shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the City of Alameda
an ordinance amending § 3-55.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code.
2, The text of the measure, labeled as Measure YYY, which may
be redesignated by the County Clerk, is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
3, The procedures for voting for and against said question shall be
those established by Alameda County and the question shall be printed in
substantially the following form:
MEASURE YYY. CITY OF ALAMEDA REAL YES
PROPERTY TRANSACTION TAX MEASURE,
To maintain essential City services such as NO
keeping existing fire stations open; maintaining
neighborhood policing programs; improving
traffic flow and pedestrian and bicycle safety;
preventing recreation program cutbacks; and
restoring previously reduced library hours; shall
the City of Alameda increase the City real
property transfer tax, charged when a property is
sold, from $5.40 to $14.50 per $1, 000, 00 of
value, limited to 20 years and subject to audits?
Resolution #5-C
07.15-08
4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against Measure YYY.
5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the City
Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the
City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing !aw and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten ~~ D} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the
County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ba I lot.
1. The measure proposes a general tax and shall be approved if a
majority of those voting on the measure approve it.
****~*
EXHIBIT A
MEASURE YYY-TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
CITY OFALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO,
New Series
AMENDING SECTION 3-55 OF DIVISION I OF ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 111
GF THEALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE, THE REAL PROPERTY
TRANSACTION TAX
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITYOFALAMEDA D4 ORDAIN AS
FOLLO~111S:
Section ~. Code Amendment, Subsection 3-55,2 of the Alameda
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3-58.2 Imposition, of Tax.
A tax is hereby imposed on each transfer, by deed, instrument or writing,
by which any lands, tenements or other real property-s~Id; located in the City;
are or is granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in,
a purchaser thereof, or any other person at or by the direction of the purchaser,
when the value of the consideration exceeds one hundred x$100,00} dollars, the
tax to be dollars and #ycents ~~} for each one thousand
x$11000.00} dollars or fractional part of one thousand ~$1~000.00} dollars of the
value ofthe consideration.
As used herein, value of the consideration shall mean the total
consideration, valued in money of the United States, paid or delivered or
contracted to be paid or delivered in return for the transfer of real property,
including the amount of any indebtedness, existing immediately prior to the
transfer which is secured by a lien, deed or trust or other encumbrance on the
property conveyed and which continues to be secured by such lien, deed of
trust or encumbrance after the transfer, and also including the amount of any
indebtedness which is secured by a lien, deed or trust or encumbrance given or
placed upon the property in connection with the transfer to secure the payment
of the purchase price or any part thereofwhich remains unpaid at the time of
the transfer. Value of the consideration also includes the amount of any special
assessment levied or imposed upon the property by a public body, district or
agency, where the special assessment is a lien or encumbrance on the property
and the purchaser or transferee agrees to pay such special assessment. The
value of any lien or encumbrance of a type other than those which are
hereinabove specifically included, existing immediately prior to the transfer and
remaining after said transfer, shall not be included in determining the value of
the consideration. If the value of the consideration cannot be definitely
determined, or is left open to' be fixed by future contingencies, value of
consideration shall mean the fair market value of the proper#y at the time of
transfer afterdeducting the amount of any lien or encumbrance if any, of a type
which would be excluded in determining the value of the consideration pursuant
to above provisions of this subsection."
Section Z. Code Amendment. Subsection 3-58.4 of the Alameda
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows;
3-58.4 Exemption.
The tax im osed ursuant to section 3-SS.~ shall not a 1 to an
transaction that is exempt from taxation purs„want to Chapter 3._of Part 5 7 of
Division ~ of the California Revenue and Taxation Code as it now reads or ma
hereafter be amended.
1 I.. IAA. .. ..F ....~, r el.l L. ... h'.. I I
e.~l .. 1M r .. 4.• ^. ..f ~ ., f f .. y
in ~~+r}~hir~ nr nFhonA~ico if•
TTY-'~ rrr~-vr-vtr~~vr~c~ -rr.
En~arn~I.~,~Gv., i ~a f
T
e r~.~~ sue, ..
Nn~~ H
a o
v
V ,.s ;h ~ .,.. , ~.~-^~'',^,e,~3 ^r
h 4.
. ..~
.. ..~mcrc wa-v
V J
'
f... 4~. :
~..~
o
~ti~ ~~ /.~~..I
..
i ~L. ..I
F..
~r~cnvr
..\ III r ~.1I r I.n .J H {.
i r r
.,
n
Section 3. Re~eeal. Subsection 3-58.5 of the Alameda Municipal Code
is hereby repealed, but transfers in lieu of foreclosure shall remain exempt from
tax as provided in subsection 3-58.4 of that Code.
Section 4. Code Amendment. Subsection 3-58.6 of the Alameda
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3-58.6 Administration of Tax,
The
Count Recorder shall collect the tax imposed under t-h+s section 3-
58.~ and shall otherwise administert~+s~+e~such tax in conformit with the
provisions_of Part 6.7 of Divisian_ ~ of the California Revenue and Taxation
Code and the revisions of an count ordinance ado ted ursuantthereto .
#e~eNatwithstand,inq the preceding sentence_~_,,~,he, City Tax Collector may
make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with subsection 3-58.~
as helshe may deem reasonably necessary or desirable to administer- the
tax im osed under that section. In the administration of ~ ~ such tax,
the Cit~Tax Collector shall interpret its provisions consistently with those
Documentary Stamp Tax Regulations adopted by the Internal Revenue Service
of the United States Treasury Department which relate to the Tax on
Conveyances except that for the purposes of this section:
a. Realty= as used in the regulations, shall mean real property as such
term is defined by and under the laws of the State of California.
b. Those provisions of the regulations providing for deduction of the
value of any lien or encumbrance existing before the sale and not removed
thereby shall not apply.
c. Those provisions of the regulations relating to the rate of the tax shall
not apply.
d. Those provisions of the regulations which conflict with the provisions
of this section shall not apply."
Section 5. Amendment of Ordinance. The tax imposed under
Alameda Municipal Code § 3-58.2, as amended by this ordinance, maybe
repealed or amended by the City Council without a vote of the people except as
follows: as required by Proposition 218, any amendment that increases the
amount or rate of tax beyond the levels authorized by this Ordinance may not
take effect unless approved by a vote of the people. The City Council may
impose the tax in any amount or rate which does not exceed the rate approved
by the voters of the City.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions of this ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and
effect. The people of the City of Alameda hereby declare that they would have
adopted each section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance,
irrespective of the fact that any one ar more sections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable and,
to that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
Section 7. Ma'orit A roval~ Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be
effective only if approved by a majority of the voters voting thereon and shall go
into effect ten ~10~ days after the vote is declared by the City Council.
ATTEST;
Presiding Officer of the Council
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed b the Council of the City of Alameda in
. ~ .
regular meeting assembled on the 15t day of July, 2008, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN vUITNESS, WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the said City this 16t~ day of July, 2005.
Lora Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Donna Mooney
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Date: J u Iy 15, 2008
Re: Select Charter Amendments for the November 2008 Ballot
BACKGROUND
The City Charter Subcommittee was formed in 2007 to review the Charter and
recommend amendments. The Subcommittee now seeks a decision by Council on
which items to submit to the voters in the November election.
DISCUSSION
Since the April 15, 2008, meeting of the City Council, the Charter Subcommittee
hosted a public workshop to discuss the proposed amendments. There are now
eight resolutions for Council consideration. The first combines more than 20 non-
substantive changes as a "cleanup" measure. The remaining seven present
separate substantive issues. The Subcommittee is basing its recommendation on
the feedback received from the Council and from members of the public who
attended the June 11, 2008, workshop. The Subcommittee noted that a
comprehensive discussion on the form of city government that Alameda citizens
desire will be needed to address proposals not included on the list below, such as
compensation of Mayor and Councilmembers, authority of Counci! over appointments
of department heads, and the role of Council in appointments to boards and
commissions.
The Subcommittee recommends all or some of the following Charter measures for
the November 2008 ballot, taking into consideration all other measures voters will be
expected to decide:
1. Cleanup. This measure is a collection of nonsubstantive items, such as
eliminating the list of outdated salary minimums for the City Clerk, City
Manager, and City Attorney, adding a provision to change all single-gender
references of "his" to the inclusive "his or her," and providing flexibility for
scheduling Council meetings, among others.
City Cvu~ci!
Agenda item #5-D
07-'15-08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 15, 2008
Page2of3
2. Article IV Auditor. An additional qualification of a Certified Public Accountant
license has been inserted, and a reference to the obsolete practice of holding
a bond has been deleted.
3. Article V Treasurer. An additional qualification of a license as a Chartered
Financial Analyst or Certified Financial Planner has been included. The duties
have been modernized: to recommend, monitor and report rather than simply
having custody of City money.
4. City owned public utilities established for the purpose of providing
transportation are within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board, under
Article Xll Sec.1~A}. The word "transportation" is eliminated in this measure.
5. New Article XXII Sec.13 requires a written contract when the City must pay an
amount equal or greater than an amount that would be set by Council
ordinance, and declares the City is not bound by any contract unless it
complies with the requirements of the Charter.
6. Article XXVIII Sec. 5 provides that members of the Historical Advisory Board
may be removed for three causes. These are being eliminated to achieve
consistency among ail boards.
1. Article XXII Sec. 8 is rewritten to allow Council to modify the business hours of
City offices.
8. Article Ill Sec. 15 has additional language to facilitate expeditious City
response in the event of an emergency: In the event of a sudden, unexpected
occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate
action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or
essential public services, the City Manager or designee may exceed the sum
provided by general iaw and forego competitive bid, subject to ratifcation by
Council as soon as practicable.
Ballot measures to revise the City Charter must be forwarded to the Registrar of
Voters by resolution of the City Council no later than August 1, 2008, to qualify for the
November consolidated election. Should the City Council choose to proceed with
ballot measures, then the City Attorney must be directed to prepare impartial
analyses. In addition, the City Council may choose to designate one or two
Cauncilmembers to write ballot arguments. Arguments may not exceed 300 words
and are due in the office of the City Clerk by July 29, 2008. Rebuttal arguments may
not exceed 250 words and are due on August 5, 2008.
Honorable Mayor and July 15, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
BUDGET C4NSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost depends on the length of the measures. The cost in 2006 for translation,
typesetting and printing was approximately $2,800 per page. The Charter
amendment done in 2004 consisted of two pages of text and included the ballot
question, impartial analysis, an argument in favor and the full text. Based on 2006
costs and 2004 length, eight measures would cost $44,840, not adjusted for service
cost increases that may have occurred in the past two years.
REC4MMENDATI~N
Adopt the Resolutions placing the Charter amendments on the November 4, 2008,
ballot, direct the City Attorney to prepare impartial analyses and designate
Councilmember~s} to write ballot arguments.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Mooney
Senior Assistant City Attorney
DMlcm
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
E
`\
.~
c~
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION 1N THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TG THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TOAMEND THE CITY OFALAMEDA CHARTER BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 3-l~A}, 3-l~B}, 3-l~C}, 3-7~F}, 3-l i, 3-
~}
15, 9-1 ~E}, 12-3~D}, 11-10, 22-4, AND 28-6~A} THEREOF; BY
DELETING SECTIONS 3-l~E}, 3-15,1, 11-11, 23-4, 23-5, Article
XXV, AND 28-6~B} THEREOF; AND BY ADDING SECTION 2-16
THERETO, TO DELETE OBSOLETE AND UNCLEAR
LANGUAGE AND CONFORM TO GENERAL LAW AND OTHER
SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER; AND PROPOSING SAID
CHARTER AMENDMENTS
0
~,
°~
a
a
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereb ro oses to
yp p
submit to the voters of said City amendments to the City of Alameda Charter
deleting obsolete and unclear language and conforming to the eneral law and
g
other sections of the Charter at the Consolidated General Munici al Election to
p
be held on November 4, 2008.
NOVA, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section ~. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby ro oses on its
pp
own motion that amendments of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to the
voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OFALAMEDA CITYCHARTERAMENDMENTS
By amending Section 2~4 to read:
Section 2-4 The salary attached to the following offices shall be fixed b
th ~ ~ y
e Council, Auditor, Treasurer, City Manager, City Attorney, CEt Clerk. Each
Y
Councilmember shall receive $5x.00 for each meeting of the Council which he
shall attend; provided, that no Councilmember shall receive such fees for more
than two meetings in any one calendar month.
Effect: Deletes "at not less than the following amounts per annum" "$3 600.00"
"$3,600.00;" "$4,000.00;" "$3,000.00;" "$2,400.00." Deletes obsolete
language.}
By amending Section 2-6 to read:
Section 2~6 The term of each elective officer shall commence at 8:00
o'clock p.m, on the third Tuesday of the month followin the eneral munici al
g g p
Resolutions #5-D
D1~15.OH
election at which such officer was elected and continue for four ears thereafter
. ., Y
and until his or her successor is elected and qual~f~ed.
Effect: Deletes "The term of each elective officer holding office as of June 2
1992 shall be shortened approximately four to five months to 8;00 o'clock .m.
p
of the third Tuesday of the month following the November 3, 1992, eneral
.. g
municipal election and shall be considered a complete term." Deletes obsolete
language.}
By amending Section 2-9 to read:
Section 2-9 If any elected or Council-appointed officer of the Ci who
. tY
shall remove from the City or absent himself therefrom for more than thirt da s
. Y Y
consecutively without the permission of the Council, or shall fail to quali b
. fY Y
taking the oath of office wfth~n fifteen days from the time his certificate of
election or appointment is mailed or delivered to him, or shall resi n or be
g,
convicted of a felony, or be adjudged insane, his office shall be vacant.
Effect: Adds "elected or Council-appointed" before "officer." Conforms to
another section of Charter. Deletes "and filing his official bond, whenever such
bond is required." Deletes obsolete language.}
By adding Section 2-16 to read:
Section 2-16 All references to "his" shall be changed to "his or her" and
all references to "him" shall be changed to "him or her" and all references to
"himself' shall be changed to "himself or herself'.
Effect: All references to his, him, or himself shall include her or herself,
}
By amending Section 3-7(A) to read:
Section 3-7 The Council shall:
~A} Meet in the month next succeeding the month in which the
General Municipal Election is held, and organize b selectin from its
Y g
membership, a Vice Mayor of the Council, whose term shall commence u on
sl ~ p
e ection and continue until the selection and qualification of the successor
following the next General Municipal Election.
Effect: Deletes "at g:00 o'clock p.m. on the third Tuesda of and adds "in"
Y
before "the month." New language more flexible},
By amending Section 3-7~8} to read:
~B} Hold regular meetings in the calendar year as fixed b resolution
. Y
~n December of the preceding year. Its meetings shall be ublic and held in
p
the Council Chamber of the City Hail. Special meetings may be called ursuant
p
to general law.
Effect: Deletes "at least twice in each month as fixed by ordinance" and adds
"in the calendar year as fixed by resolution in December of the precedin ear."
,~ g y
New language mare fiexEble. Deletes by the Mayor or three Councilmembers
by serving the Councilmembers personally with written notices of time and
purpose of the meeting or as required by," Adds "pursuant to general law" after
"Special meetings may be called." Conforms to general law.}
By amending Section 3-7(C) to read:
~C} Contract and fix the compensation for the services of a Certified
Public Accountant, who shall at least annually investigate the transactions and
audit the accounts of a!1 officers having the collection, custody or disbursement
of public money, or having the power to approve, alloworaudit demands on the
treasury. Said Auditor shall have free access to a!1 records, books and a ers
pp
in all departments of the City. Said Auditor may at any time visit an of the
. y
public offices and make exam~nat~ons and ~nvestfgations therein without
hindrance. At the close of the investigation said Auditor shall file with the
Council a written report containing recommendations. if during said Auditor's
examination and audit it shall appear that a public offense has been committed,
or that any officer or employee is in default, said Auditor shall immediatel
. Y
report to the Council, which shall take proceedings as are authorized by law.
Effect: Deletes "Said Auditor must examine the official bonds of all Cit officers
y
and employees and investigate the sufficiency and solvency of the sureties
thereon" and "or that the surety on any bond is insufficient,", Deletes obsolete
provisions.}
By deleting Section 3-7(E):
Effect: Deletes obsolete section that requires Council to fix amounts of bonds
of officers and employees for performance of their duties, procedures for the
bonds, and payment by City for the bonds}.
By amending Section 3-7~F} to read:
~F} Prescribe the form of oath of office and require that eve elected
ry
and Council-appointed officer shall, before entering upon the duties of his office
take and file such oaths with the City Clerk.
Effect: Adds "elected and Council-appointed" before officer. Clarifies which
officers of those listed in Sec. 2-~ 2 are covered.}
By amending Section 3-l~l} to read:
~l} Establish on or before July 1, 1938, a retirement, pension and
insurance system for City officers and employees based on sound actuarial
principles, which system once adopted shall not be amended except by ma'orit
1 Y
vote of the full Council and shall not be repealed except by the People. Such
system shall provide for the support thereof by deductions from the
compensation of officers and employees of the City and contributions from Cit
. Y
funds and funds underthe control of the respective boards.
Effect: Deletes "the" before "vote," adds "majority" before "vote," adds "full"
before "Council," and deletes "of five Members". Less ambiguous,}
By amending Section 3-15 to read:
Section 3-~ 5 vVhen the expenditure required for the purchase of
materials or supplies, or for the making of public work or improvements exceeds
the sum provided by general law, the same shall be done by written contract
and let to the responsible bidder who submits the lowest and best bid, after
advertising in the off vial Newspaper by at least one insertion for sealed
proposals, which advertising shall be made at least five days prior to the time
for receipt of bids. Adver#isements for bids may set forth the general character
of the work, materials or supplies and refer for details to specifications on file in
the office of the City Clerk. The Council may reject all bids. In case no bids are
received, the Council may make such public work or improvements without
contract or purchase such materials or supplies in the open market. The
Council may, by four votes, either with or without prior advertisin , as
g
hereinabove set forth, determine that in its opinion the public work or
improvements in question will be performed more economical) b the Cit
YY Y
without contract, or that the materials or supplies can be purchased at a lower
price in the open market, or that great necessity or emergent re uires
Y q
immediate action, and thereupon proceed to make such public work or
improvements without contract and to purchase such materials or su lies in
pp
the open market.
Effect: Adds "provided by general law" and deletes "of one thousand dollars"
after "sum," Less ambiguous because Sec. 3-~ 5.1 requires the sum to be what
is provided by general law.}
By deleting Section 3-15,1.
Effect: Deletes "Anything in Section 3-15 to the contrary notwithstandin ,the
. g
bid and con#ract procedure in said section specified shall be ap licable onl
p Y
when the required expenditure exceeds the sum provided by the general law for
cities for like expenditures." Less ambiguous because the ro osed
pp
amendment to 3-15 incorporates this requirement to use the general law sum
for purposes of bidding.}
By amending Section 9-1~E} to read:
~E} To appoint, discipline and remove, subject to Civil Service
requirements, all employees and deputies in his office.
Effect: Deletes "subject as to all deputies, to approval of the Council."
Achieves consistency with all assistants and deputies in all departments}.
By amending Section 12-3~D} to read:
~D} No employee of the Board receiving compensation from it shall be,
or within one year preceding his employment have been, a member of the
Board.
Effect: Deletes "To establish and abolish positions of employment under its
control and fix the compensation and prescribe the duties thereof. " Conforms
to Secs. 13-2 regarding civil service, and 1-2~D}and 3-1 regarding Council.}
By amending Section 17-1 o to read:
Section 17-1 o The City Manager shall present to the Mayor and Cit
y
Council a quarterly report on the revenues and expenditures as compared to
the adopted budget of all funds of the City. The form of such report shall be
both narrative and budgetary in order to inform the Mayor and City Council of
the financial status of the City. The Auditor will review each report with the
Mayor and City Manager.
Effect: Deletes "The Mayor, Auditor, and City Manager shalt, together, count
the money in the City Treasury at least once in every three months and
ascertain the amount of money on hand and make a written report thereof to
the Council within five days thereafter showing whether the money in the Cit
Y
Treasury corresponds to the amount shown by the fiscal record of the Cit "and
. y
adds "The City Manager shall present to the Mayor and City Council a uar#erl
q Y
report on the revenues and expenditures as compared to the adopted bud et of
g
all funds of the City. The form of such report shall be both narrative and
budgetary in order to inform the Mayor and City Council ofthe financial status of
the City. The Auditor will review each report with the Mayor and Ci Mana er."
. tY 9
Replaces obsolete provESion with language on modern accounting},
By deleting Section 17-11.
Effect: Deletes "A Police Secret Fund in such amount as the Council ma from
. Y
time-to-time appropriate is hereby established under the sole control of the Cit
. Y
Manager. It shall be withdrawable by him without reference to the auditin
g
provisions of this Charter. Such fund shalt be expended by the City Mana er
g
and the Chief of Police under the direction of the City Manager for investigation
and police work of a secret character and far no other purpose. Semi-annually
and at such other times as the Council may require, the City Manager shall file
with the Council his affidavit and the affdavit of the Chief of Police that all
monies expended out of the fund have been used for the purpose hereinabove
set forth." Qbsolete provision.}
By amending Section 22-4 to read:
Section 22-4 Any person convicted of a felony or misconduct in office
shall forfeit his office or position of employment. No person who shall have
been convicted of a felony or misconduct in office shall ever hold any office or
position of employment in the service of the City, consistent with state law.
Effect: Adds "consistent with state law" to conform to state law}.
By deleting Section 23-4.
Effect: Deletes "All members of the Board of Public Utilities Commissioners
elected in the year 1934 for four-year terms shall hold office until June 30,1939,
and all members of said Board elected in the year 1936 shall hold office until
June 30, 1941. Qf the vacancies occurring June 30, 1939, one shall be
succeeded to by the City Manager, one shall be filled by appointment for a term
of four years and one by appointment for a term of one year, and the vacancies
occurring June 30, 1941, shall be filled, one by appointment for a term of four
years, and one by appointment for a term of one year.
Upon taking effect of this Charter, the City Manager shall became ex-officio a~
member of the Public Utilities Board with full participating and voting power."
Obsale#e language concerning only events of 1934, The City Manager remains
on the Public Utilities Board under other provisions of the Charter, Secs. 10-2
and 10-3}.
By deleting Section 23-5.
Effect: Deletes "The Boards and members thereof named in the first column
following shall be deemed to be the successors to the Boards and members
#hereaf named in the second column following. All incumbents and members of
Boards in the second column at the time this Charter takes effect shall
immediately assume and continue to hold the successor office for the
remainder of their unexpired terms.
Library Board, successor to Board of Library Trustees.
Public Utilities Board, successor to Board of Public Utilities Commissioners.
Social Service Board, successor to Board of Social Service." Deletes obsolete
language.}
By deleting Article XXV.
Effect: Deletes "Urban Renewal, area redevelopment pursuant to Federal or
State aid shall not be adopted in the City of Alameda without a vote of the
People." The language is obsolete.}
By amending Sec. 28-6~A} to read:
The Board shall elect a Chairperson and aVice-Chairperson from their
membership. Each office shall be for one ~1 }year. However, an office holder
may be returned to office.
Effect: Deletes " 'Robert's Rules of Crder' shall be used in the conduct of all
meetings. Conforms to procedure of other boards.}
By deleting Sec. 28-6~8}.
Effect: Deletes "Three ~3} members shall constitute a quorum and a decision
of the Board shall be determined by a majority vote of those members present
at the meeting." Conforms to another Charter provision, Sec. 10-13}.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday,
November 4, 200$, The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2008, statewide general
election to beheld on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read a~s follows:
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to delete obsolete and unclear
language? Said amendments will be N~
accomplished by amending Sections 2-4, 2-6, 2-
9, 3-7~A}, 3-l~B}, 3-7~C}, 3-l~F}, 3-l~l}, 3-15, 9-
1~E}, 12-3~D}, 11-10, 22-4, and 28-6~A}, deleting
Sections 3-l~E}, 3-15.1, 11-11, 23-4, 23-5, Art.
XXV, and 28-6~8}, and adding Section 2-16 to
said Charter, all as more fully set forth in
Resolution No. of the Council of the City of
Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Cade to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Cade Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten X10} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 6, The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2oa8 Consolidated General Municipal Election
ba Ilot.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required by law.
*~~***
1, 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 15th day of July, 2ao8, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NGES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the said City this 16th day of July, 2008.
Lora Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
0
a
~a
-a
as
0
L
a
Q
,~'
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY
REQUIRING THE AUDITOR TC HAVE A CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANT LICENSE OR A RELATED DEGREE, AND
ELIMINATING THE BOND REQUIREMENT; AND PROPOSING
SAID CHARTERAMENDMENT
1NHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said City an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter
requiring the Auditor to have a Certified Public Accountant license or a de ree
. ., g
~n accounting or business administration, and to eliminate the requirement for a
bond, at the Consolidated General Municipal Election to be held on November
4, 2008.
NOIN, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
ARTICLE IV
Auditor
Sec. 4-1. The Auditor shall have, at the time of hislher election, a
degree in accounting or business administration or be licensed as a Certified
Public Accountant and five years of accounting experience.
Sec. 4-2. The Auditor shall provide for at feast annual audits of the
City's financial operations, books and records to assure that the City's financial
transactions, accounts and records are maintained in accordance with the
requirements of the City Charter, state and federal laws and generally acce ted
. p
accounting principles.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereb on
. y
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a 2
}~ }
and Section 10241 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesda
. Y~
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Su enrisors
. p
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2008, statewide general
Resolutions #5-D
41-15.08
election to be held on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to provide that the Auditor have a
Certified Public Accountant CPA} license or a NO
related educational degree, and no bond? Such
amendment will be accomplished by amending
Article IV of said Charter, as fully set forth in
Resolution No. of the Council of the City of
Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a~ of
section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing !aw and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten ~~ 0~ days of the adoption of this
Resolution. .
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ballot.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required bylaw.
**~~**
!, 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 July, 2448, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official sea! of the said City this 16th day of July, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
E
Q
a~
0
a
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
CITY GF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4; 2808, FGR THE
PURPOSE GF SUBMITTING TG THE ELECTORS A PROPGSAL
TG AMEND THE CITY GF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY
REQUIRING THE TREASURER TG BE LICENSED AND
REVISING DUTIES QF THE OFFfCE; AND PROPOSING SAID
CHARTER AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said City an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter
requiring the Treasurer to be licensed as a Chartered Financial Analyst or
Certified Financial Planner and revising the duties of the office, at the
Consolidated General Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 2808.
NOVA, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL CF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
ARTICLE V
Treasurer
Sec, 5-1 The Treasurer shall have had, at the time of hislher election,
five years experience in administering investment programs and be licensed as
a Chartered Financial Analyst or Certified Financial Planner,
Sec. 5-2 The Treasurer shaft annually recommend to Council an
investment policy for City monies and monitor and report results of the City
investment portfolio.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday,
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2088, statewide general
election to beheld on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shalt be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
Resolutions #5-D
07-15.08
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to require that the Treasurer be
IECensed as a Chartered Financial Analyst or N0
Certified Financial Planner and annually
recommend to Council an investment policy for
City monies and monitor and report results of the .
City investment portfiolio? Such amendment will
be accomplished by amending Article V of said
Charter, as fully set forth in Resolution No.
of the Council of the Cit of Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9255 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9250, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten ~~ 0} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters 'rn sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2005, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ba Ilot.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further oradditional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required bylaw.
*****
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 15th day of July, 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 the said City this ~ 6th day of July, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
E
0
N
°~
as
0
a
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY
ELIMINATING TRANSPORTATION FROM THE JURISDICTION
OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD; AND PROPOSING SAID
CHARTER AMENDMENT
UUHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said City an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter
by eliminating transportation from the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board at
the Consolidated General Municipal Election to be held on Novembe.r4, 2008.
NOV11, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT;
Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
awn motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section 12-1 The Public Utilities Board shall have the power:
~A} To control and manage all public utilities owned by the City established for
the purpose of generating, distributing or selling electricity or for the purpose of
furnishing communications.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesda ,
y
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2008, statewide general
election to be held on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
Resolutions #5-D
41-~5-48
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to eliminate transportation from the
jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board? Such NQ
amendment will be accomplished by amending
Article 12-1~A} of said Charter, as fully set forth
in Resolution No. of the Council of the City
of Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten X10} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ballot.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required by law.
*~****
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 the15th day of July, 2gg8, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN V111TNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the said City this 16th day of July, 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
_____
L
0
N
°~
0
a
a
,a
.~'
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY
REQUIRING CONTRACTS TO BE IN WRITING AND THE CITY
IS NOT BOUND BY A CONTRACT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH THE CHARTER; AND PROPOSING SAID CHARTER
AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said City an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter
requiring contracts to be in writing, and providing that the City is not bound by a
contract that does not comply with the Charter, at the Consolidated General
Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 2008,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OFALAMEDA CITY CHARTERAMENDMENT
Section 22-13 Every con#ract involving consideration reasonably valued
at more than an amount specified by ordinance shall, except in cases provided
by ordinance, be made in writing. The contract shall be signed on behalf of the
City by a person authorized by the Council. The City shall not be, and is not,
bound by any contract unless it complies with the requirements of this section
and all other applicable requirements of the Charter.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9285~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday,
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2008, statewide general
election to be held on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
Resolutions #5-D
~l-~ 5-D8
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shal! the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to provide that every contract shall be
in writing and that the City shalt not be bound by NO
any contract unless it complies with the Charter?
Such amendment will be accomplished by
adding Section 2213 of said Charter, as fully set
forth in Resolution No. of the Council of the
Cit ofAiameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten X10} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ballot.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required by law,
*~**~
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 15th day of July, 2008, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN UvITNESS, UI~HERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the said City this 16th day of July, 2008.
Lara Uveisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ___~w_
a~
a
~.
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY DELETING
REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY
BOARD MEMBERS; AND PROPOSING SAID CHARTER
AMENDMENT
VIJHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said City at the Consolidated General Municipal Election
to be held on November 4, 2008 an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter
to delete stated reasons for remova! of Historical Advisory Board members and
to authorize the City Council to determine when it is appropriate to remove
those members.
NOVIJ, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section ~. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
Section28-5 VACANCY AND REMOVALS: Vacancies which may occur
on the Board shall be filled by appointment of a new member by the C'rty
Council for the duration of an unexpired term of office. A person may be
removed by the City Council.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday,
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2008, statewide general
election to be held on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
Resolutions #5-D
47-15.08
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to eliminate reasons for removal of
Historical Advisory Board members and to NO
authorize the City Council to determine when it is
appropriate to do so? Such amendment will be
accomplished by amending Article XXVIII Sec. 5
of said Charter, as fully set forth in Resolution
No. of the Council of the Cit of Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten X10} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Glerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ballot.
Section 1. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the Gity Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required by law,
******
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
and regularly adapted and passed by the Council of the
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of July, 2008,
to wit:
AYES.
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIaNS:
Resolution was duly
City of Alameda in
by the following vote
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the said City this 16th day of July, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
o`
~a
°~
as
0
~:
CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY
AUTHORIZING COUNCIL TO DETERMINE VIIHEN CITY
~~
~ OFFICES ARE TO BE OPEN FOR BUSINESS; AND
~ PROPOSING SAID CHARTERAMENDMENT
.v
VIIHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said City an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter
authorizing the City Council to determine when City offices are to be open, at
the Consolidated General Municipal Election to beheld on November 4, 2008.
NOV11, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OFALAMEDACITY CHARTERAMENDMENT
Section22-8 All public offices, except where o#herwise provided by law,
shall be open for business every day, except holidays, from 9:D0 A.M. to 5:00
P.M., subject to modification by Council.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday,
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2005, statewide general
election to be held on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the bafiot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
Resolutions #5-D
01-15-08
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be YES
amended to provide that Council may determine
when City offices are to be open for business? N4
Such amendment wild be accomplished by
amending Article XXII Sec. 8 of said Charter, as
fully set forth in Resolution No, of the
Council of the Cit of Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adapts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Gode to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of ar against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney, The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, shaving the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten X10} days of the adoption of this
Resolution,
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County CEerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ballot.
Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required by law.
****~
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the
regular meeting assembled an the ~ 5th day of July, 2008,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Resolution was duly
City of Alameda in
by the following vote
IN WITNESS, WHEREaF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the said City this ~ 6th day of July, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OFALAMEDA RESGLUTICN NO.
E
0
N
~o
a
CALLING A CGNSGLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE
l CITY OF ALAMEDA GN NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FGR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL
TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY ALLOWING
THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXCEED SUM
~, PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAIN AND FOREGO COMPETITIVE
~' BID FOR PUBLIC WORK OR IMPROVEMENT OR PURCHASE
0
a OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES IN AN EMERGENCY; AND
~' PROPOSING SAID CHARTER AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to
submit to the voters of said Cit an amendment to the i
y Cty of Alameda Charter
authorizing the City Manager or his or her designee to exceed the sum provided
by general law and forego bidding for public works or improvements or for
materials or supplies in an emergency, at the Consolidated General Municipal
Election to be held on November 4, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT:
Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its
own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to
the voters of said City at said election to read as follows:
CITY OFALAMEDACITY CHARTERAMENDMENT
Sec. 3-15.2. In the event of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that
poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or
mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public
services, the City Manager or designee may exceed the sum provided by
general law and forego competitive bid, subject to ratification by Council as
soon as practicable.
Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on
its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255~a}~2}
and Section 10201 of the Elections Gode, submit the proposal to the qualified
electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday,
November 4, 2008. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors
to consolidate this election with the November 4, 2005, statewide general
election to be held on that date.
Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as
"Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned
statement of the measure shall read as follows:
Resolutions #5-D
01.15-48
MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda
Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be
amended to provide that in an emergency the YES
City Manager or designee may forego NG
competitive bidding fora public work or
improvement or purchase of materials .or
supplies to protect life, health, property or
essential public services? Such amendment will
be accomplished by adding Section 3-15.2, as
fully set forth in Resolution No. of the
Council of the Cit of Alameda.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision ~a} of
section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments
have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the
voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election.
Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the
City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to
the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the
measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure
on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such
impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten X10} days of the adoption of this
Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be
included in the November 4, 2008, Consolidated General Municipal Election
ba 11ot.
Section 1. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed
charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed
and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and
manner as required by law,
**~***
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the
regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of July, 2008,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Resolution was duly
City of Alameda in
by the following vote
IN vvITNESS,INHERECF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of the said City this 10th day of July, 2005.
Lara vl~eisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
(To be submitted to the City Clerk)
Name of Council member requesting Referral: Frank Matarrese
Date of submission to City Clerk must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the
Monday before the week of the Counci! meeting requested}; July 3, 2008
Requested Council Meeting date to consider Council Referral: Jul ~5 2008
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform
the City Council and public of the nature of the Council Referral:
ICLE1 Update with Specific Auto Use and Congestion Issues Highlighted
This referral requests status report,,,on the City of Alameda's ICL,EI initiatives. The
re ort should include activities su ortin the oal identified in the Cit 's Local
Actin Plan_
It is re nested that the followin be addressed in the context of the Local Action
Plan:
• City Vehicle Use policy
• Eco_pass fvr City Employees
_ .
• Biodiesel use in city vehicles
Additional) Council discussion and ossible direction to reduce con estion
associated with school sites is requested, far example:
Directin the Youth Commission and Trans ortation Commission to work
to ether on an automobile tri reduction Ian for the hi h school cam uses in
time for the 2008_-_2009 school year}
Directin the Trans ortation Commission and a ro riate or anizations to work
with the AUSD and associated arent or anizations on an automobile tri
reduction Ian for Lincoln Middle School* in time for the 2008 ~- 2009 school
ear .
*Note that traffic generated by Lincoln Middle School and Amelia Earhart School
was discussed during the March 200? joint meeting of the City Council and
AUSD Board of Trustees.
Council Referral #7-A
O1-~5-08
CURRENT APPLICATIQNS
CQMMISSIQN 4N DISABILITY ISSUES
THREE VACANCIES
PARTIAL TERMS: 2 EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2009; I EXPIRING JUNE 30, 20I I
}
Leslie Krongold
Re: Agenda Item #8-A
D7.15-OS
* * ~REVISED*
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
TWO VACANCIES
(COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND MARINE/WATERFRONT SEATS
PARTIAL TERMS EXPIRING 08/31/2009)
Isadora Alman (Community at large)
Mark Breazeal (Community at large)
Cecilia Campbell-Notar (Community at large)
James A. Edison (Community at large)
June A. Grant (Community at large or Marine/Waterfront)
Michael K. Henneberry Community at large or MarinelWaterfront}
Donna Milgram (Community at large)
Jeffery E. Mitchell (Community at large)
Jim A. Price (Community at large)
William Russell (Marine/Waterfront)
Ronald A. Silva (Community at large)
Mel R. Waldorf (Community at large)
Re: Agenda Item #8-A
07.15.08
vNAPpROVE~
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA} AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA} MEETING; AND
ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 17, 2008- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Cit Council APFA
Y ,
and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC Meeting at 8:53 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /
Board Members /
Gilmore, Matarrese,
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
Authority Members /
Commissioners deHaan,
Tam, and Mayor/ Chair
X08-- CC/08- APFA/OS- CIC} Minutes of the Special Joint Cit
Council, Alameda Public Financin y
g Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 3, 2008; and the
Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelo meet
Authorit and Communit Im p
Y y provement Commission Meeting held on
June 4, 2008. Approved.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese
moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
X08- CC/O8-
APFA} Public Hearing and related actions regarding
the Fiscal Year 2008-D9 Budget:
X08- ACC} Resolution No. 14222, "Authorizing and Directin the
Preparation and Execution of g
Certain Lease Financing Documents,
Authorizing the Preparation and Distribution of a Preliminar
Official Statement in Connection with y
the Offering and Sale of
Certificates of Participation Relating Thereto, and Authorizin and
Directin Certain Actions wit ~~ g
g h Respect Thereto. Adopted, and
~a8- A
Directing
APFA? Resolution No. 08-17, "Approving Authorizin and
Preparation and
,' g
Execution of Certain Lease Financing
Special. Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community improvement Commission
June 17, 2006
Documents and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with
Respect Thereto." Adopted.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the new interest rate.
Bill Reynolds, Gardner Underwood & Bacon Financial Advisor,
responded rates are excepted to produce present value savings in
excess of 40; stated the exact rate would not be known until the
sale date; the assumption is that the rate would be in the mid 40
range.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Reynolds is confident with
the assumption.
Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated the upgraded
rating makes the process very competitive; refinancing would not
move forward without a good rate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was opposed to refinancing
before; now she is happy to see that the term would not be extended
and there would be a lower interest rate.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the first
year would not have interest or principal payments and the second
year would have interest payments only.
The City Manager responded interest payments would be made in the
first year.
Councilmember/Authority deHaan inquired whether the cost of the
loan would be amortized, to which Mr. Reynolds responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the estimated savings,
to which the City Manager responded $317,600.
Mr. Reynolds stated market data would be available on the date of
pricing to show comparables.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what percentage
would be the breaking point.
The City Manager responded 5.5o is set in the resolution.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the old and new interest rate
for each issuance.
i
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
The City Manager responded the original issue rates ranging from
5.8o to 7,250 would mature in 2015; $2.77 million was issued for
the Police facility; stated Library and Golf issues in the amount
of $4.9 million have rates of 3.9o to 5.75x.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that a maximum should be set for each
issuance.
The City Manager stated 5.5o is a blended rate; refinancing would
not go forward if expected savings are not realized.
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated the 2022 date
should not be exceeded; the previous proposal did not go forward
because there was no savings, the term was extended, and debt would
be pushed back; now, debt would not be pushed back and the term
would not be extended.
Mr. Reynolds stated the interest rate and savings are two different
numbers; a $317,600 savings is the underwriter's best guess based
on current market conditions; 5.5o would produce less than $317,600
in savings.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the savings goal should be approximately
$317,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that anything over
$300,000 in savings works.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated that he would like the
first two-year savings to be at least $400,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferring debt payments is not the
best way to do budgeting,
Mr. Reynolds stated that bond counsel drafted the resolution with
the idea that a limit would be placed on the average interest rate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the most important issue is savings;
management's goal is to defer payments to limit budget cuts; that
she does not want to pay more and save less due to deferring,
Mr. Reynolds stated an interest only payment would be made; savings
would be limited in the first two years; the present value savings
would change slightly with annual savings versus up front savings.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 3
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 20Q$
Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of
resolutions as long as the duration of the bond would be the same
and the savings threshold would not be less than $300,000.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion with the
caveat that principle would be pushed out.
Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated refinancing makes
sense because the interest rate would be lower and over $300,000
would be saved.
Cn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
X08- B CC} Public Hearing to consider Resolution
"Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191." Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the prior fire inspection
fee.
Mayor Johnson stated a chart showing fee comparisons would have
helped.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Fire Marshall
stated fire inspection fees are based on an hourly rate and do not
have 1000 cost recovery; currently, a business fire inspection fee
is $77.50; full cost recovery would be approximately $148.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether Building staff should perform
inspections instead of firefighters; stated business owners have
complained about inspection fees; the proposed increase would
result in more complaints.
The Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department uses civilian
inspectors, which lowers the expense.
Mayor Johnson questioned what the cost would be if Building staff
performed inspections.
The Fire Marshall stated Fire Department civilian inspectors have
the same salary as the Building Inspectors.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Building inspectors are busy already;
new personnel would need to be added.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 4
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June l7, 200
No. 14223,
The Fire Marshall stated that fire and storm water inspectors are
very specialized and require additional training.
Councilmember Matarrese stated an 80o increase is stiff; in uired
q
whether building fees could be raised by a very small amount over
inflation in order to subsidize fire inspection fees.
The Assistant City Manager responded fees cannot be over 1000 cost
recovery for any service.
Councilmember deHaan stated many inspections are a one hour minimum
and cost $215; inquired how often inspections occur, to which the
Fire Marshall responded annually.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association ~PSBA7, stated
increased inspection fees would put an undue burden on
small
businesses.
Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association ~ACEA7, stated ACEA
feels that Council should not pass a blanket resolution for a no
fee increase for the Golf Course.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the collection rate on ambulance
service.
Councilmember Matarrese responded the report notes the collection
rate was 51o in 2007 and excludes Medicare and Medi-Cal write offs.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the last time ambulance
fees were raised.
The City Manager responded rates were restructured by the Count
Y
last year.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to know the cost recover for
Y
ambulance service.
The Fire Chief stated the collection rate is approximatel 85o if
Y
Medicare and Medi-Cal are taken out as non-collectibles; new
revenue anticipates a 50o collection rate.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the cost to provide ambulance
service and how much revenue is received, to which the Cit Mana er
Y g
responded information would be provided.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 5
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June i7, 2008
Vice Mayor Tam stated Page 8 shows that $1,297 is the base rate for
the ambulance fee; inquired whether said fee is a significant
portion of the City's cost for providing the service.
The Fire Chief responded the fee is close to the cost.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City charges above what
insurance pays.
The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated generally,
insurance pays approximately 800; the patient is billed the
remaining 200,
Mayor Jor~nson inquired what is the recovery rate for private
ambulances, to which the Fire Chief responded that he did not know.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much of the $300,000 would be
accountable to inspection fees.
The Fire Chief responded the EMS portion is approximately $280,000;
stated inspection fees are estimated at approximately $65,000.
The City Manager stated $20,000 would be related to the new fees.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would be a $15,000
shortage, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see raising fees 80o.
The Fire Chief stated false alarm fees were not included and are
estimated at $20,000; $300,000 could be achieved in new revenue if
false alarm fees were included.
Mayor Johnson stated false alarm fees should be included; inquired
what is sent out for a fire alarm, to which the Fire Chief
responded three engines, one truck, and a Chief Officer.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether one free false alarm is allowed per
quarter, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated one free false alarm should be allowed every
six months, not every quarter.
The City Manager stated that the Fire Department responded to 454
false alarms in 2007.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 6
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 20x8
Mayor Johnson stated second false alarms fees should be raised to
$125; $20o should be charged for the third false alarm, and $250
for the fourth false alarm,
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether businesses have different
fees, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated commercial businesses should be allowed one
free false alarm per year.
The Fire Chief stated fire alarms might be disconnected if
restrictions are too severe.
Mayor Johnson stated commercial false alarm rates should be $125
for the second alarm; $250 for the third; and $375 for the fourth.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the first free false alarm should
cover a period of six months.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager
stated the Golf Commission has not recommended golf fee increases
at this point.
Mayor Johnson stated said increases could come back.
The City Manager stated the last golf fee increase was not in
conjunction with the annual Master Fee resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the
following revisions to the Master Fee Schedule: 1} the false fire
alarm schedule for residential be $125 for the second alarm, $200
for the third alarm and $250 for the fourth alarm; 2} the false
fire alarm for commercial be $l25 for the second alarm, $250 for
the third alarm and $375 for the fourth alarm; 3} that the period
for false fire alarms be changed from quarterly to every six
months; and 4} the rest of the fees be increase by CPI.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much less revenue would be
raised with the proposed revisions.
Mayor Johnson responded the amount is not known now; stated the
matter can be brought back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands that $280,000 of
the $300,000 comes from the ambulance fee increase; an additional
$65,000 would have come from increased fire inspection fees;
Special Joint Meeting '
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 7
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
revenue would drop from $65,000 to $15,000 by using the CPI.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants ambulance collection fees
brought back because collection should be improved.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that information be brought back
on how much the uncollected [ambulance] fees represents in dollars.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda goes to
Oakland 273 times versus oakland coming to Alameda 23 times; the
recovery rate could change if determinations are made later.
Mayor Johnson stated the Contract should state that mutual aid
should be proportionate.
Councilmember deHaan stated revenue generation would be impacted if
the City does not provided services to Oakland.
The City Manager stated the issue would be monitored and
adjustments would be made in the quarterly report if necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reports need to be provided more
than quarterly; some issues need to be monitored continually and
constantly.
Mayor Johnson requested monthly reports.
on the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote ~ Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Mayor
Johnson ~ 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Tam ~ 1.
X08- C CC} Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit
Appropriation Limit} for Fiscal Year 2008-2009; and Resolution No.
14224, "Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2006-09."
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated data is based on the amount
of City or County population growth and CPI; Alameda's population
growth is smaller than other cities in the County; inquired where
is the demand far services and commensurate need for increased
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Puhlic
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 200$
costs if population growth has not increased.
Mayor Johnson responded services are decreasing, but costs are
increasing.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that complete cost recovery is recommended
for some areas, but no others; there seems to be some disparity in
which services are more valuable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated small businesses provide sales tax;
CPI is recommended instead of cost recovery because small
businesses are taking on the extra burden of property tax;
businesses need to be kept alive.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is in support of giving small
businesses a break; the City seems to be subsidizing the Golf
Course.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council had previous discussions
regarding only being able to raise fees so high and get same number
of players.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is not subsidizing the Golf Course
now; raising golf fees would result in less revenue; golf fees
would not be frozen.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Golf Commission would be
discussing the Golf Master Plan soon; looking at golf fees today
would be premature.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote-5.
Mayor Johnson stated a policy is needed regarding not having the
General Fund subsidize the Golf Course.
~ARRA} Resolution No. 42, "Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures
Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09." Adopted;
X08- CIC} Resolution No. 08-157, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09." Adopted;
X08- D CC} Resolution No. 14225, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Capital Improvements and Appropriating Certain
Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2008-09 and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 9
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
Establishing an other Post Employment Benefit ~OPEB} Plan."
Adopted;
~D8- E CC} Resolution No. 14226, "Establishing Guidelines for
Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business
Travel." Adopted.
The City Manager/Executive Director provided a handout on issue bin
items from previous workshops and gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the cost for a Park Director,
to which the City Manager responded $25,000 per year.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $25,000 would fully restore
Park Directors at sites without reducing hours, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction should be given to not reduce
Park Director hours; inquired how much it would cost to light
tennis courts, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded
$7,500.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to find money to
light the two tennis courts,
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long
it would take to go through the $30D,000 restored to the Fire
Department overtime budget.
The Fire Chief responded the current overtime usage is averaging
four people per day which costs $6,000 per day for a twenty-four
hour shift.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long
it would take to implement rotating a truck out of service.
The Fire Chief responded early July; stated operationally, the Fire
Department could be ready within four to six weeks; the meet and
confer process would take longer.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated adding
$300,000 would still leave a $520,000 shortage; inquired how the
$520,000 would be absorbed in the budget.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded overtime would still
need to be managed; stated the $520,000 would not be restored back
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 D
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
into the budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated an engine replacement plan should be
reviewed; the vehicle replacement policy may need adjustments.
The Fire Chief stated deferring purchases would build a huge,
future liability; another truck is scheduled to be replaced next
year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would
be the total price.
The Fire Chief responded an engine would cost between $400,000 to
$425,000 and would have a ten to twelve-year lease.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the
compliment of Fire Department staff.
The Fire Chief responded nine firefighters have been hired due to
retirement vacancies; currently, eight positions are unfunded; new
hires will be necessary as retirements occur; otherwise, additional
overtime would be created.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much
overtime would be reduced [with new hires.
The Fire Chief responded average overtime covers four positions;
stated adding two to three positions per shift would be beneficial;
money would be saved in the long run.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how said
scenario is equated into percentage of overtime.
The Fire Chief responded that he guesses that 60a to 700 of
overtime would be saved.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would
be the total compliment.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded 110 funded positions
are assumed for 2008--2009; stated 102 positions are for sworn
officers, 8 are non-sworn.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
overtime would still exist with total staff compliment, to which
the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 1
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
overtime costs would be with total compliment, to which the Fire
Chief responded $~OO,ODO to $300,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that numbers are needed regarding hiring
seven firefighters versus overtime; overtime should be reduced
since nine new firefighters were hired; specific numbers are
needed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated replacement
vehicles could be deferred; additional replacements will be needed
next year; inquired whether take home vehicle costs have been
discussed, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the vehicle replacement policy needs to
come back for discussion.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the vehicle replacement
policy was changed; only a limited number of safety related
vehicles were identified for replacement.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being proposed for vehicle
replacement next year.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded $717,750, which
includes some vehicles carried forward from the current fiscal
year.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that vehicles should not be replaced
until the matter is brought back to Council; shortfalls could be
covered by taking less out of department budgets.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions
are needed regarding deferring an engine or command vehicle
replacement; a fall back position is needed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated $200,000 is proposed to be spent in one
year for a Fire Department command vehicle, Division Chiefs' and
Deputy Chief vehicles.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated said vehicles met the
criteria last year.
The Fire Chief stated delivering
people, good tools, and training.
service in the streets takes
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 2
Financing A+~thority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2006
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the issue
will be revisited many times for many reasons; mechanical
assessments are needed; repair costs need to be evaluated versus
replacement costs.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicle use needs to be identified; fuel
efficiency needs to be reviewed if a vehicle travels a lot of
miles.
The Fire Chief stated the proposal is to replace Fire Department
sedans with hybrid vehicles.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
vehicles would be replaced with the Toyota Prius.
The Fire Chief responded vehicles would be replaced with Ford
Escapes.
Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned whether the command vehicle needs to
be replaced next year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated annual fuel
costs need to be reviewed far take home vehicles; decisions need to
be made regarding reassigning vehicles and reduction of the overall
inventory.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the proposed
budget reflects a certain level of trade offs; $300, 000 would be
generated through the proposed fee structure and would offset the
$820,000 in mandatory [Fire Department] overtime costs; there still
would be $520,000 in mandatory overtime cost expenditures that
would be controlled through rotating the closing of afire truck;
inquired what differs other than postponement.
The Fire Chief responded hopefully some other revenues enhancements
will occur in the fall; stated the additional $300,OOD would be
counted on to delay the immediate closure [of a fire truck].
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that additional funds could be generated
by not replacing vehicles.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated said savings is not
on-going .
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated continued discussions are needed
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 3
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2DD8
regarding longterm issues.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated increased Police
Department grant and fee revenues would be allocated to the
Crossing Guard program; the proposed rescheduling results in
approximately 40o cost reduction; inquired whether the $93,000 is
expected to offset the reduction.
The Police Chief responded $93,000 would help to recover the
additional cost not budgeted for the next fiscal year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would
be the reporting procedure for Fire Department overtime.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the Fire Department
would be monitoring the issue on a daily basis; stated monthly or
quarterly reports could be presented to Council.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the
Public works Capital Improvement Program CIP} would be addressed.
The Public Works Director responded the CIP would be adopted with
the budget.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the
deferred maintenance; stated the report shows medium priority
projects total $66.5 million.
The Public works Director responded the deferred maintenance report
will be coming to Council in approximately four weeks; Council will
see the Pedestrian Plan later in the year; high, medium, and low
priority projects were identified for the Pedestrian Plan;
appropriations will be reviewed this coming year; the only
Pedestrian Project included in the next two year CIP is for access
across the Estuary.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the concern is that $4 million was spent
from the General Fund to catch up on some of the deferred
maintenance and this year $1.5 million will be deferred.
The Public Works Director stated all Measure B funds are being
used; staff was successful in receiving Proposition 1B funds.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a funding
stream has not been identified for other post employee benefits;
the proposed General Fund budget totals $75.4 million for the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 4
Financing Aut~arity, Alameda.Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June l7, 20a8
fiscal year; the accrued liability for post employment benefits was
$75.4 million as of January 2007.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferred costs are between $75
million and $107 million for health and safety post employment
benefits.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that some
of the fund balance could be used to seed the trust fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Speakers: Carol Quintal, Crossing Guard; Janet Crandall, Citizen
Emergency Response Team ~CERT7; David Baker, Alameda; Fred Blass,
Alameda; Christine Novosel, Crossing Guard; Christopher Buckley,
Alameda; Rich Bennett, Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter;
Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Steve Floyd, Local 689; Tim
McNeil, Retired Fire Chief; Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda; Chuck
Millar, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; Kathy Moehring, WABA.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the hearing.
**~
X08- ~ Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner
Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00
midnight.
Mayor/Chair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
**~
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City will not be spending move
Y
on the Meyer's House; Greater Alameda Business Area ~GABA} funding
should not be approved until information is brought back; $50,000
is allocated to the EcoPass program.
The Public Works Director stated the total program is approximately
$36, D00; $14, 000 is from the General Fund; the AC Transit General
Manager is allowed to reduce the passes by 15a.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a better to way to
encourage people to take public transit, such as discount tickets
for BART or other forms of public transportation; suggestin
g
performing an employee survey,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 5
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community improvement Commission
June 17, 20fl6
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that open
dialogue should be initiated regarding the Met'er's House;
additional funding might become available.
The Recreation and Park Director stated Trust representatives have
not indicated that any additional funding would be available but
are willing to review how current funds are invested.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the community gets more per dollar for
funding Park Directors than the Met'er's House.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much
the Fun Fair costs.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the Fun Fair is funded
through fees charged to participants; stated funding is also
received through recycling grants; costs are a wash.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the proposal regarding the Art
in the Park.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the proposal is to
use money from the Pubic Art fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Art in the Park should be self-
sustaining.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated major issues still
exist regarding keeping current public safety levels; Council and
the community want to have a safe community; she would rather buy
more time for the Fire Department than the Golf Complex.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a gap would
still exist if revenue raising options are placed on the November
ballot and revenues start coming in January.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated overtime needs to be monitored; the
vehicle replacement policy also needs to be reviewed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the vehicle
replacement policy is a mechanism to buy time.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue would be understood better
when the vehicle replacement policy comes back; keeping vehicles
longer might be possible.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 6
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a lot of
phone calls and emails have been received regarding not cutting
public safety and increasing staffing levels; maintaining current
levels is difficult, let alone adding additional staff; contractual
agreements cannot be made unless there is revenue in hand.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
hiring people is a contractual obligation; stated people can be
layed off; the Fire Chief mentioned that two to three positions per
shift should be added; more information is needed; enough direction
has been given to the City Manager/Executive Director to approve
numbers provided tonight; trees need to be addressed so that
further liability is not incurred; plenty of notice needs to be
given before spending down the $300,000 of overtime; some matching
fund capability needs to be left to provide an incentive to the
Museum; information has been requested regarding setting up a trust
this year for unfunded post employment benefits.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
agreement has been arrived at regarding trees.
The Public Works Director responded Zone 4 will commence July 1;
Mr. Buckley suggested not pruning specific species at all, which
does not make sense; structural pruning will be performed; left
over money will be applied to new street tree planning.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the
process would equate to manpower.
The Public Works Director responded the tree crew would be reduced
by a Maintenance Worker I and a Team Leader; stated $50,000 has
been added to the Consultant Contract.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of the
work would be outsourced.
The Public Works Director stated all mature tree pruning is done by
an outside contractor; currently, emergency response to down limbs,
some new tree planting, and young tree pruning is done in house;
emergency removal of down limbs and young tree pruning is being
proposed to be done by existing contractor.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated time would
be provided if the Golf Return on Investment ~RO17 and surcharge
were not rebated and put into the General Fund; the money would be
able to fund Fire Department overtime and not take a truck out of
Special ~7oint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1']
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
O'une 17, 2406
service.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the projected Golf Course deficit is
approximately $700,000; the Golf Course cash reserve is $1.1
million; the Golf Course would still be able to cover the shortfall
for this year without the rebate.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the 2004-2005
RoI for the Golf Course and AP&T was to be for a short period of
time.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the proposal is to rebate both
the ROI and surcharge, to which the City Manager/Executive Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is the surcharge.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded $171,960; stated
$99,040 is the ROI revenue.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired haw long the surcharge has been in
place, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded since
1991.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated intending to
fund Fire Department overtime needs to be done with the realization
of buying more time in hopes that revenue enhancement ideas pass in
the fall; another plan needs to be in place if the revenues do not
pass.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he
would support additional time being gained on the back of Golf.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that
everything is being put on a fast track; the top priority is public
safety.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the $300,000 is not
going to buy enough time past the fall; having the extra $271,000
would provide the comfort needed not to rotate a fire truck out of
service.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated $271,000 revenues would
be taken from the Golf Course and added to the General Fund.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that three
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 $
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
years ago he stated that the Golf Course was on a death s iral;
Alameda Point is lacin the Ci p
p g ty In another situation of eroding
the General Fund; lease revenues needs to be increased as much as
possible; the crises is here.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public is starting to understand the
challenges.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved ado tion of
the resolutions with directi p
on provided tonight; stated that he
would not reiterate all points, but summarized the followin
direction: 1} su lement the g
pp $300, 000 [from fees] in Fire
Department overtime funds with the [reinstatement of the] Golf ROI
and surcharge; 2 } require matching funds [of $3, 800 ] for the Museum
subsidy [and reduce the allocation by $7, 500] ; 3} use rants or
g
savings to re-adjust the Tree Maintenance Program so that oun
Y g
trees are pruned and trees are replaced; 4} bring back information
for putting aside a seed amount for the Trust Fund for Other Post
Employment Benefits ~OPEB}; 5} bring back operational ions for
p
sustaining services long-term; 6} look for funding to li ht the
g
tennis court [proposed to be turned off]; 7} bring back the Vehicle
Replacement Plan, including potential reduction in the fleet; 8
}
bring back an analysis of increasing fire staff by two to three er
shift; stated the motion includes p
approving the numbers presented
to Council [including changes outlined in the staff re ort:
allocation of $93 340 to the Poli p
ce Department for crossing guards;
use of $25,000 in Meyers Housing funding for a Recreation Leader
and ado ]
ption of resolution Establishing Guidelines for
Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business
Travel.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson ad'ourned the
J
Special Joint City Council, APFA and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC
Meeting at 12:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora Weisiger, City Clerk
APFA and CIC Secretary
The agenda for meeting this was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 1 9
Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 17, 2008
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community lmprovement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: July 15, 2008
Re: Hold a Public Hearing for the Periodic Review of the Five-Year
Implementation Plan FY 2005106-2009110 for the Alameda Point
Improvement Project
BACKGROUND
Section 33490 of the Community Redevelopment Law requires that at least once within
the five-year term of an Implementation Plan, the Community Improvement Commission
CIC} conduct a public hearing and hear testimony of al! interested parties. The purpose
of the public hearing is to review the Community Improvement Plan ~CIP} and the
corresponding Implementation Plan for each redevelopment project within the
jurisdiction and evaluate the progress of the redevelopment project.
The current Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project
was adopted on June 21, 2006. The Implementation Plan outlines on-going efforts in
economic and housing redevelopment for fiscal years 2005106 through 2009110. The
CIC must hold a public hearing to review the progress of the Implementation Plan n0
earlierthan two years and no laterthanthree years after adoption of the Implementation
Plan.
State law specifies a procedure for holding and for noticing the public hearing. Notice
shall be published in the newspaper and posted in at least four permanent places within
the project area for a period of three weeks, and publication and posting shall be
completed not less than ten days prior to the date setfor hearing.
DISCUSSION
On June 19, 2008, the Economic Development Commission reviewed and forwarded
the draft Periodic Review Report Attachment 1 } to the CIC. The Report details progress
towards meeting the major goals of the Community Improvement Plan and presents the
information organized in the layout of the existing Implementation Plan. Major
accomplishments within the first half of the current Implementation Plan period include
completion of a draft conveyance term sheet with the Navy; selection of a new master
developer after the withdrawal of Alameda Point Community Partners; progress on
environmental remediation; demolition of four unsafe and dilapidated structures; support
CIC
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #3-A
07-15-08
Honorable Chair and July ~ 5, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3
of the Alameda Point Collaborative to assist formerly homeless families through housing
and economic development programs, such as Ploughshares Nursery; completion of an
Alternatives Study for the multi-modal transit center; construction of public infrastructure
including the southern leg of the Bay Trail; a successful interim leasing program; and
ongoing business recruitment and retention efforts.
The Periodic Review Report also includes an assessment of how the CIC has been
meeting its obligations with respect to affordable housing. It provides a report of
deposits to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for each fiscal year that the
Implementation Plan has been in effect, through the end of fiscal year 2441108. The
report explains that no new or substantially rehabilitated units have been produced so
far. Although 600 new units were originally projected to be produced during the
remainder of the five-year period, the production of these units has been delayed due to
the change in master developer.
Notice requirements for the public hearing are established in Section 6063 of the
Government Code. As required, notices of the joint public hearing were physically
posted in four permanent locations within each redevelopment project area, and
newspaper advertising appeared in the ,4lameafa. Journal on June 20, June 2l, and Juiy
4, 2008 Attachment 2 -Public Notice; Attachment 3 -List of Posting Locations}. In
addition, notices were posted at the Main Library and at City Hall.
BUDGET C4NSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
Costs for the CIC holding the required public hearing are provided for in the adopted
CIC FY 2008-09 budget. There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund from holding an
Implementation Plan review public hearing.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DnCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE
The Periodic Review of the Community Improvement Plan and the Five-Year
Implementation Plan for the APIP is consistent with the adopted plans and with
Community Redevelopment Law.
RECGMMENDATIDN
Conduct a Public Hearing and take testimony and comment on progress on the
Community Improvement Plan and the Five-Year Implementation Plan for the APIP.
Respectf y ub ' ted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
Honorable Chair and July ~ 5, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business evelopment Division
_ /
By: Rachel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
DKILALIDESIRS:rv
Attachments:
1. Periodic Review Document
2. Public Notice
3. List of Posting Locations
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
of the
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PERIODIC REVIEW
OF
FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Fiscal Years 2005/06 - 2009/10
ALAMEDA PINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
As Required B y
California Health & Safety Code Section 33490
July 2008
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
950 West Mal] Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
510-749-5 S00
CIC
Attachment 'I to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #3-A
01-15.08
TABLE ~F CUNTENTS
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................1
II. GOALS AND OBIECTIVES .......................................................... ....... .... ... 1
III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS -NON-HOUSING PROGRAMS ...................... 4
IV, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS -HOUSING PROGRAMS .............................. I2
IV-1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................12
IV-2 Unit Production and Housing Fund Expenditure .................................................................................13
IV-3 Replacement of Demolished Existing Affordable Housing .................................................................15
IV-4 Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements for Housing ...............................................................15
V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS --ALLEVIATION OF BLIGHT ...........................16
V-I Alleviation of Structural Blight ............................................................................................................16
V-2 Alleviation of Physical Non-Structural Blight .....................................................................................1 G
V-3 Alleviation of Social Non-Structural Blight ......................................................................................... j b
V-4 Alleviation of Economic Non-Structural Blight ..................................................................................17
1
PERIODIC REVIEW of the CI~MMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN and
FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for the APIP
Pursuant to Section 3349 of the California Health and Safety Code, this report reviews progress
of the Community Improvement Plan and Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Alameda Point
Improvement Project ~APIP~. The current Five-Year Implementation Plan was adopted an 3une
21, 2~~b. The Implementation Plan outlines on-going efforts in economic and housing
redevelopment for f seal years 2~o510b through 2ov911 a. The Community Improvement
Commission ~CIC} must hold a public hearing to review the progress of the Implementation Plan
no earlier than two years and no later than three years after adoption of the Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan identifies programs and goals in the APIP Redevelopment Area, and is
not intended to address specific projects. Any specific projects that are listed are provided as
typical examples, only. ~.dditionally, programs and projects listed do not limit the CIC from
modifying the Plan as need or opportunities arise.
ii
r. BACKGROUND
In 1982, the City of Alameda established the Community improvement Commission (CIC} to
take advantage of the unique planning and financing system offered by California
Redevelopment Law ~CRL}, The law provides the vital f nancial tools and legal authority to
undertake various projects to improve social, economic, and physical conditions in the
community.
The CIC has established three Redevelopment Project Areas: the Business and 'Waterfront
Improvement Pro ject ~BwIP}, the West End Community Improvement Project ~wECrP}, and the
Alameda Point Improvement Project APIP}. The APIP Project Area was established in 1998.
APIP project boundaries are continuous with the former Naval Air Station NAS} Alameda,
which was part of the 1993 Base Closure Realignment Act and was decommissioned in 199b.
~Z. GGALS AND 4BJECTYVES
Building upon the broad principles in the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan that was drafted
in 1996 prior to the decommissioning of the NAS, the Community Improvement Flan ~CIP} for
the APIP was adopted in 1998 to provide a critical tool for eliminating blighting conditions by
promoting economic development through the provision of new public improvements,
commercial development and affordable housing. These goals and objectives were prepared by
the CIC at the time of the adoption of the Project Area and reflect State law requirements
currently in place. The CIP established a process and basic framework within which specific
plans would later be developed, thereby retaining the CIC's ability to respond to development
constraints, changing market conditions and unanticipated circumstances such as the protracted
negotiations with the U.S. Department of the Navy for the transfer of land ownership to the City
of Alameda. The major goals of the 1998 CIP are:
^ The elimination of blighting influences and the correction of environmental de#iciencies
in the Project Area, including, among others, buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy
for persons to Iive or work, small and irregular Iots, faulty exterior spacing, obsolete and
aged building types, mixed character or shifting uses or vacancies, incompatible and
uneconomic land uses, substandard alleys, and inadequate or deteriorated public
improvements, facilities, and utilities.
The assembly of land into parcels suitable far modern, integrated development with
improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area.
The replanning, redesign, and development of portions of the Project Area, which are
stagnant or improperly utilized.
The provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the
revitalization of their properties.
^ The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area and the community by the
installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new residential, commercial, and
light industrial expansion, employment, and social and economic growth.
The provision of adequate land for parking and open spaces.
The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high site design
standards and environmental quality and other design elements, which provide unity and
integrity to the entire Project.
^ The expansion, improvement, and preservation of the community's supply of housing
available to low-and moderate-income persons and families.
The goals and objectives for the APIP were incorporated into various City of Alameda planning
documents since 19~ S
^ In 2003, a Housing Element was adapted which reflected the housing development goals
for the APIP.
^ In 2003,123 acres in the APIP area the "Exchange Area"}were transferred to the BwIP
through an amendment process.
The City's General Plan was also amended in 2043 to address the reuse and
redevelopment of the NAS. The CIC had adopted the APIP consistent with special
provisions regarding closed military facilities. At that time, the General Plan designation
for the majority of the project area was "Federal Facilities." California Redevelopment
Law requires that the CIP and General Plan be consistent in order for tax increment to be
spent. Until 2003, redevelopment activities were funded with a loan from the City of
Alameda General Fund. The General Plan policy direction was presented in a set of
development objectives, which include:
• Seamlessly integrate Alameda Point with the rest of the City of Alameda
• Foster a vibrant new neighborhood
• Maximize waterfront accessibility
• De-emphasize the automobile and make new development compatible with
transportation capacity
• Ensure economic development
• Create amixed-use environment
• Establish neighborhood centers
In addition to incorporating policies and diagrams from the Reuse Plan, the General Plan
Amendment included updated information about the development plans for Alameda Point, the
Golf Course and the V~ildlife Refuge.
Following announcement of the base closure, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
~ARR.A} was farmed as the Local Reuse Authority ~LRA}. LRAs oversee the conveyance of
former military bases from the federal government to the local community. In December 2003,
the ARRA initiated an ARRA-funded pre-development planning effort during which City staff
and consultants prepared a Preliminary Development Concept (PDC} for Alameda Point and
negotiated and planned a schedule for the conveyance of the property from the Navy to the
ARRA. with the assistance of the Alameda Paint Advisory Committee, six well-attended public
workshops were held to receive community recommendations on the PDC. Following
presentations to and feedback from the Planning Board, Transportation Commission and
2
Economic Development Commission, the PDC was accepted by the ARRA Board in February
2006.
Taking into account land use constraints, physical constraints, and institutional and contractual
constraints, guiding principles were adopted to ensure consistency with the APIP CIP and the
General Plan. The PDC became the primary document for guiding the redevelopment of
Alameda Point, and its specific goals and ab~ectives are reflected throughout the Five-Year
Implementation Plan. The CIC's ability to implement the goals and objectives of the APIP,
however, have been restricted by two key contractual relationships.
The ARRA is engaged in protracted negotiations with the U.S. Department of the Navy
regarding the timing and financial terms of the conveyance of Alameda Point. Staff
regularly discusses disposition timelines and other administrative activities related to
conveyance with the Navy. ARRA consultants attend Navy~sponsored Base Cleanup
Team ~BCT} and Restoration Advisory Board ARAB} meetings to monitor remediation
activities and working closely with the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control ~DTSC} and the US Environmental Protection Agency EPA}.
^ The C7CIARRAICity worked closely with its initial master developer, Alameda Point
Community Partners APCP} from 2001 to 2006. APCP, a partnership of Shea Homes,
Centex Homes and Shea Properties, withdrew as master developer in September 2006,
citing a downturn in the real estate market. APCP's withdrawal from the process
necessitated a new master developer selection process that was completed in May 200?',
with the selection of SunCal Companies ~SunCal} as the new master developer. The
departure of APCP delayed conveyance of land from the Navy to the ARRA, which was
originally anticipated for December 2007, and is currently expected to take place in duly
200.
In Spring 2007, the U.S. Department of the Navy notified the ARRA that it was going to declare
an additional 42 acres of NAS Alameda as surplus property. These 42 additional acres are
commonly referred to as the North Housing Parcel. A formal surplus declaration for the North
Housing Parcel was published in November 2007, and triggered the AR.R.A's obligation as the
LRA to manage a legislatively prescribed screening process. The screening process will identify
possible accommodations to meet the community's unmet homeless needs while balancing those
needs with other community and economic development needs. The ARRA is in the process of
amending the 1 X96 Community Reuse Plan to more accurately reflect the future reuse
opportunities created by this new surplus declaration. The disposition of the North Housing
Parcel by the Navy is expected to be underway by the end of the current five-year
Implementation Plan period.
3
ZII. IIVIPLEMENTATI~N PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS - N~N~H~USING
PROGRAMS
Pra am: "Implementation of recommendations in the Community Reuse^Plan. Examples of
s ecific ro'ects include re ulator chap es revisions to the General Plan and Zonin
Grdinance), fRSCalwimpac~ analyses, etc., necessary far high qualit, development within the
APIP."
Status:
^ Completed Project: Housing Element updated to include Alameda Point in 2000.
^ Completed Project: General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
certified by the City in 2003.
^ Completed Project: General Flan Amendment for Alameda Point and new Housing
Element adapted in 2003.
Completed Project: ARRA accepted the 200b Preliminary Development Concept to guide
reuse and redevelopment activities. The PDC anticipates development informed by the
following seven principles:
• Each phase of the development should support and contribute to the creation of a
balanced mix of land uses at Alameda Point to build community and create a
pedestrian friendly environment.
• Development at Alameda Point should be transit~oriented and facilitate convenient
access to multiple modes of transportation in close proximity to homes and
businesses.
• Alameda Point development must be well integrated into surrounding existing
neighborhoods.
• The development of Alameda Point should support creation of a diverse community
with a variety of housing types, income groups, employment and recreational
opportunities.
• The development at Alameda Point must be an economically viable project that will
not require or rely upon General Fund subsidies.
• The development at Alameda Point should support and facilitate the environmental
remediation program and facilitate conveyance of the property from the U.S Navy.
• Alameda Point should be a sustainable, environmentally sound community. Site
planning, building orientation, landscape design and materials, construction
techniques, choice of transit vehicles, and opportunities for partnerships with
Alameda Power & Telecom and the use of solar power must all be carefully
considered throughout the initial design, construction, and maintenance phases of the
project.
4
On-going Project: Conveyance negotiations on-going with Navy. Economic
Development Conveyance Memorandum of Agreement (EDC MOA) amendment was
originally anticipated to be complete by December 2007.
UPDATE: The Navy and ARRA concluded a draft conveyance term sheet in June 2006.
APCP's subsequent withdrawal from the project created the need to negotiate a revised
term sheet, which is expected to be completed by July 2009. The ARRA expects to
execute the final EDC M4A amendment in July 2009.
4n-going Project: A Master Developer for Alameda Point was selected in 2001. An
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement was completed in 2002. A Conditional Acquisition
Agreement was approved in November 2003, with cooperative efforts to complete pre-
development tasks and related negotiations expected to be ongoing. An 1$-month EIR
and entitlement process began in July 2006. A Disposition and Development Agreement
~DDA} was anticipated to be complete in December 2007.
UPDATE: APCP withdrew from the project in September 2006. Xn actober 2006, the
ARRA issued a Request for Qualifications ~RFQ} for a new master developer. In May
200?, the ARRA Board selected SunCal as its new master developer. In July 2007,
SunCal entered into a 24-month Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ~ENA} with the City,
ARRA and C1C for the redevelopment of Alameda Point. SunCal is conducting ongoing
due diligence of the Alameda Point property and has concluded that the Preliminary
Development Concept is not a financially viable land plan. Concerns cited by SunCal
include rising sea level due to global warming, the 100-year flood plain, and geotechnical
issues related to young bay mud and liquefaction. SunCal is preparing a revised land
plan. SunCal conducted two community meetings in 2007, to gather input on a revised
land plan. In March 2008, the ENA was amended to extend the milestone date for
preparing the Development Concept and the draft Master Plan. SunCal's Development
Concept is due in September 2008, and the dxaft Master Plan is due in November 200$.
The revised estimate is for Phase 1 construction activities to occur from 2012 to 2017.
with tl~e completion of the General Plan Amendment in 2003, the Community Reuse Plan goals
and objectives were folded into tl~e City's General Plan. The Reuse Plan goals and objectives
have been further refined through tlae PDC. Therefore, this "Program" loos been replaced, for
redevelopment purposes, by these updated documents.
Pro am: "Facilitation of high priorityprivately or publicly sponsored catal, sit development
ro'ects in the form of financiallen ineerin larchitecturall environmental anal ses site tannin
and ro~ect devela ment etc. Possible ro~ects include ado tive reuse of existin industrial or
commercial sites or buildings on the former_,base, including but not_ limited to, non-traditional
residential activities such as livelwork spaces, and acquisition, disposition or ,reuse of
underutilized ublic or rivatel owned ro erties.
Status:
^ ~n-going Project: Environmental Remediation -The Navy is actively working with the
USEPA and tl~e California EPA to evaluate and clean up environmental contamination
throughout Alameda Point. The environmental regulatory agencies have approved closure
of many fuel storage tanks and other petroleum facilities. For other sites, investigation
and cleanup are in progress. All of the sites with non-petroleum contamination are being
5
investigated and same are in the active clean-up phase. A few non-petroleum sites have
achieved closure sign-off from the environmental regulators, e.g., the Skeet Range and
the Former Transformer Storage Area. The Navy's cleanup was originally expected to be
complete or to have progressed to along-term monitoring phase for mast areas by the end
of 2010, but not the West Beach Landfill (IR-02}, the Northwestern Ordinance Storage
Area SIR-32}, and the most industrialized areas SOU-2} north and east of the Seaplane
Lagoon.
UPDATE: Several non-petroleum sites have achieved closure sign-off from the
environmental regulators : the Former Transformer Storage Area ~ZR-15 }, Gakland Inner
Harbor ~XR-2a}, Estuary Park and the Coast Guard Housing Area (IR-25, except
groundwater}, and the Skeet Range SIR-29}. For other non-petroleum sites, cleanup is in
progress or is about to start: the Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Facility SIR-6}, the
Navy Exchange Service Station SIR-7}, the Pesticide Storage Area SIR-8}, the Former
Fire Training Area SIR-14}, Shipping Container Storage SIR-16}, the Seaplane Lagoon
SIR-17}, the western Hangar Zone SIR-26}, the Dock Zone SIR-27}, Todd Shipyard ~IR-
28}, and the BenzenelNaphthalene Groundwater Plume ~GU-5}. Investigation and
remedial decision-making are in progress at the remaining non-petroleum sites. The
Navy's cleanup is now expected to be complete or to have progressed to a long-term
monitoring phase for most areas by the end of 2012, but not the most industrialized areas
north and east of the Seaplane Lagoon ~GU-2B and OU-2C}.
Gn-going Project: Ploughshares Nursery, an economic development endeavor of the
Alameda Point Collaborative APC},~ is open for business on four acres of open space
fronting Main Street. During the next several years, permanent improvements will
include an indoor retail and classroom facility as well as propagation and outdoor sales
areas.
UPDATE: Ploughshares Nursery is an environmentally sustainable wholesale and retail
plant nursery. It specializes in native, drought-tolerant plants, particularly edible plants.
Ploughshares has added several outdoor propagation areas and a sales pavilion and has
submitted plans to the City of Alameda to develop an education center and generally
expand the facility, Ploughshares also hosts numerous classes and workshops for local
gardeners as well as fun events for families throughout the year. ane acre has been
committed to the APC Growing Youth program far an urban orchard and farm which will
increase the production of fruits, vegetables and eggs available for delivery to APC
families and for its booth at the local farmers markets. In 2D07, it was voted to be the
Best Plant Nursery in the Bay Area by the Easy Bad Express.
Gn-going Project: In accordance with the Stuart B. Mcl~.inney Act of 1987, the ARRA
subleased over I7$,000 square feet of existing buildings to the APC for use in providing
supportive services and economic development opportunities. $330,x00 of Community
Development Block Grant ~CDBG} funds have been invested in upgrades to these
facilities as well as in technical assistance to enhance the APC staff to provide services to
the residents of very low-income housing units at Alameda Point.
UPDATE: APC serves 172 households approximately 500 people} on an annual basis
and provides supportive services that include general family support and advocacy,
employment services, life skills classes, mental health and substance abuse services and
6
referrals and a wide range of children and youth services. By the end of f scal year 2447-
0$, over $405,000 of CDBG funding had been provided far physical upgrades, including
Head Start classrooms, as well as to fund technical assistance for the Growing Youth
program, to educate and engage residents in the issues of nutrition and food security, and
to help APC obtain the HUD designation of Community Based Development
organization ~CBDG~. The CBDG designation increases the City's flexibility to fund
economic development, neighborhood revitalization, and energy conservation measures
at APC. In addition, the APC has undertaken several economic development initiatives,
which include Ploughshares Nursery and Cycles of Change Bike Shop, which provide
goods and services to the public and jobs to APC residents.
According to the PDC which is expected to be revised by SunCal}, between 2008-2013, only
Phase I of the plan will be implemented. Phase I is proposed to include 107,000 square feet of
ComrnunitylCiviclinstitutional uses, 512,000 square feet of office and researchldevelopment
uses, and 115,x40 square feet of. town-center retail space. At the completion of Phase X
redevelopment in 2013, the following physical improvements will be in place;
^ Potential Project: A Town Center on the Seaplane Lagoon with up to 11-5,004 square feet
of community retail shops and services.
UPDATE: The Town Center remains a potential project according to the PDC.
^ Potential Project: Several new neighborhoads with parks, pedestrian pathways and
neighborhood centers will be built. These new neighborhoads will add up to 1,100 new
housing units. A minimum of 25 percent of the new housing will be affordable to very
low-, law-, and moderate-income households. Neighborhood-serving, small-scale retail
centers will offer commercial services, day care centers, places of worship, etc.
UPDATE: The new neighborhoods remain a potential project according to the PDC.
^ Potential Project: Approximately 500,000 square feet of job-generating, non-residential
uses including industrial and manufacturing businesses, maritime-related businesses,
research and development businesses, office uses, and other commercial enterprises.
UPDATE: The job-generating, nonresidential uses remain a. potential project according
to the PDC.
Potential Project: 50-acre regional sports complex to be located at Alameda Point. The
complex will include soccer fields, baseball fields, swimming facilities, and a
gymnasium.
UPDATE: The Sports Complex is being conveyed to the City from the Navy via a Public
Benefit Coaaveyance ~PBC~. As required for PBCs, tl~e ARRA is currently preparing a
Iegal description for the property. The legal description will be completed by July 200$.
The Navy is completing its environmental remediation at the property and it is
anticipated that conveyance will be finalized in 2009. As part of its Development
Concept, SunCal will be updating the Sports Complex Master Plan in September 2005.
^ Potential Project: Approximately 44 contributing structures in the historic district wi11 be
preserved and adaptively reused consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures.
7
UPDATE: The PDC anticipates that as many as 52 historic structures will be retained.
As part of its due diligence, SunCal is preparing an assessment of each contributing
structure in the historic district to determine if it is economically viable to retain and
reuse the structure. This analysis will be completed by the end of 2008.
^ Potential Project: 215-acre Alameda Point Golf CourselResort DevelapmentlPublic
Access project to be located in the northwest corner of Alameda Point. The proposed new
development will include public access lands along the water's edge consisting of two
public parks, a hiking and biking trail, parking, and restrooms. The 2002 Request for
Qualifications did not result in the selection of a golf courselresort hotel developer. The
Golf Course project Draft E1R has been released and will be presented at a Public
Hearing in June 2006.
UPDATE: The Golf Course Project EIR was certified in August 200b. There continues
to be no market for a golf course and hotel complex. SunCal will be evaluating the site as
part of its land planning efforts.
Pr_ a ream: "Super, far on~~ activities axrned at business attractionlreten~ion,. _business
romotion and enhancement of the economic mix in the AP1P area. Potential ro'ects include
contracting with local and regional business associations for _design} promotional business
retention and attraction activities. Possible proiects include financial assistance_ for facade
im rovements of commercial buildin s seismic u actin and the ada tive reuse of ke
landmark buildin s. This will hel achieve the oal of stren enin commercial and industrial
business districts in the APIP."
Status:
^ Completed Project: Electrical System conveyed by ARRA to Alameda Power ~
Telecom.
^ Completed Project: Alameda Power & Telecom completed installation of underground
high-speed fiber optic system at Alameda Point that serves the entire island.
^ Completed Project: Electrical services were relocated and upgraded for Pier 2 and Pier 3
to accommodate a 20-year sublease to MARAD.
^ Completed Project: Electrical, plumbing and structural upgrades have been completed
with a $10 million grant from the EDA to Hangers 11, 23, and 39; and Buildings 77,
400A, and 530 to attract several key business tenants.
^ ~n-going Project: The First Source Hiring program will provide job training and job
referrals to Alameda's low-income residents in accordance with the Standards of
Reasonableness adopted by the ARRA in 1995. The program will be targeted at
businesses creating employment opportunities at Alameda Point.
UPDATE: The First Source Hiring program is constrained at this time as the interim
leasing strategy limits the number of new jobs being created at Alameda Point. Full-scale
redevelopment will create more employment opportunities. In the meantime, the APC
and College of Alameda continue to develop and implement new employment training
programs to prepare residents and students for future employment opportunities.
S
^ On-going Project: The ARRA has an active interim leasing program witl~ more than 90
businesses, with 2,000 employees, occupying two million square feet of existing space at
Alameda Point.
UPDATE: The ARRA contracts with PM Realty to lease available properties at Alameda
Point and manage existing leases. The ARRA continues to Lease property to
approximately 90 businesses with rents close to or at market rate. The biggest limiting
factor to leasing the remaining buildings at Alameda Point is the cost associated with
bringing those buildings into usable condition.
Program: "Designn ,and construction of streetscape improvements. Possible projects include
-feasibility studies to cart, out the recornmendationscont~ined in the NAS Alameda Street
Improvement Plan."
Status.
^ Completed Project: Main Street Linear Greenway property acquired and improvements
complete.
Potential Project: The ARRA approved a streetscape Beautification Agreement with the
Master Developer in September 2002. No funding has been identified for this project to
date.
UPDATE: With the withdrawal of the original master developer in 200b, streetscape
beautifxcatian became an item to be negotiated with the new master developer, SunCal.
No funding has been identified for this project to date.
^ Potential Project: Main Street will be reconfigured to include one lane for cars in each
direction, a center turning lane, f ve-foot bike lanes, and on-street parking. Landscaping
will complement the improvements made along the Main Street Linear Greenway.
UPDATE: The reconfiguration of Main Street remains a potential project according to
the PDC.
Pro am: " Improvements to,traffic circulation and regional access to the City. An example is,the
determination of an all nment for the,proposed Mitchell-Mosley andlo~. Tinker Extension, which
will Quide development on FISC properties, Establishment of _ the alignment_ will improve
circulation to presently underutilized properties, makin tg hens suitable for.-private_development_"
~tat~~~~
Ongoing Project: The Mitchell-Moseley and Tinker Improvements are bath in the BwIP
area fallowing the 2003 boundary adjustment. Therefore, the status of. these projects is
tracked in the BwIP Five-Year Implementation Plan. However, the importance of the
improvements to the redevelopment of the APIP remains significant, The Tinker
Extension is scheduled to be completed in 2009. The Mitchell-Moseley improvements
will provide a major access paint to Alameda Point, but will be configured as a
neighborl~ood boulevard west of the intersection at Main Street. The Mitchell-Moseley
improvements were originally scheduled to be completed in 2015. A portion of Mitchell-
Moseley will be constructed as part of the Phase 1 AP improvements.
9
UPDATE: Tinker Avenue has been renamed 'L~ilver "willie" Stargell Avenue. The City
is on track to acquire the Stargell right-of way in August 200$. Construction of
improvements where Stargell intersects with Mariner Square Loop and Webster Street
will begin in March 2009, and be completed in early 201 fl. The improvements will
support mass transit, and car and pedestrian connections to Alameda Paint, the new 4$5-
home Bayport community, and Alameda Landing, amixed-use project. The Mitchell
improvements are now scheduled to be completed by the end of the Implementation Plan
Period.
^ Ongoing Project: ARRA received a $250,000 Metropolitan Transportation Commission
~MTC} Station Area Planning Grant in 2005 to prepare a specific plan for the proposed
multi-modal transit center at Alameda Point. The specific plan will be completed in early
2007.
UPDATE: Shortly after completion of the Alameda Point PDC in 2005, MTC awarded
the City of Alameda a Station Area Planning Grant to examine land use alternatives and
strategies to support transit at Alameda Point. In March 2007, the City held the first of
two public workshops to examine the relationship between land use and transportation at
Alameda Point. Shortly thereafter, the effort was paused to allow coordination with the
recently designated Master Developer, SunCal Companies. In the fall of 2007, SunCal
held its first two public workshops. On May 5, 200$, the City of Alameda held its second
workshop as required by the Station Area. Planning Grant agreement. The workshop was
hosted by the City Council-appointed Alameda Point Task Force and provided an
opportunity for public review and discussion of the major findings of the study. The
Alternatives Study and the workshop provided an opportunity for the Task Force and the
community to discuss different land use strategies far Alameda. Point that may allow the
community to realize the unprecedented land use and public benefit opportunities at
Alameda Point without resulting in unacceptable traffic and transportation consequences.
^ Potential Project: Amulti-modal transportation ~ program designed to attract new
homeowners and businesses that are willing to pay for, support and use transit and other
alternatives to the automobile is planned for Alameda Point. The program includes
firequent bus and ferry services, use of zero- or low-emission transit vehicles, car-share
and bicycle facilities, etc.
UPDATE: The multi-modal transportation program remains a potential project according
to the PDC.
Pro am: "Im rovements to ublic infrastructure and facilities that are of benef t to the APIP and
allowed by Community Redevelopment Law. Possible improvement_proiects include
trans ortation arkin ublic safer storm drains sidewalks curbs tters sewer lines and
laterals. Examples of~ossible~r~~s include,-developing n~ore~ublic„parkin~~opin new
parl~_and recreational open spaces. and improvingrexistingcpen spaces." -
Status:
^ Completed Project: Public works completed a water separation project to segregate the
fire suppression system from the domestic water system.
On-going Project: PM Realty Group, on behalf of the ARRA, has replaced andlor
repaired raised sidewalks throughout Alameda Point, with emphasis on areas
10
experiencing the greatest pedestrian traffic. Annual assessments and repairs are done
utilizing non-redevelopment funds.
UPDATE: PM Realty continues to assess and repair sidewalks as needed. In addition,
the City has provided CDBG funding for curb cuts and handicap ramps, which are under
construction and expected to be completed by dune 3~, ~a08.
^ Qn-going Project: Alameda Point includes a Sb5-acre national wildlife refuge currently
managed by the US Fish and wildlife Service to protect migratory birds, endangered
species and other wildlife habitat. The US Navy intends to transfer the ownership of the
land to the US Fish and wildlife Service in the future.
UPDATE; Transfer discussions between the Navy and the Fish and wildlife Service
have been stalled. Since November 200b, the Navy has been in discussions with the US
Department of Veterans Affairs OVA} regarding conveyance of the property to the VA for
a columbarium, medical facilities, and possibly a hospital on a portion of the site. Terms
and conditions for conveyance are under discussion. ~n the event of a transfer from the
Navy to the VA, the VA would assume responsibility for protecting the wildlife and
habitat in the refuge.
Potential Project: A key component of the golf courselconference center will be
development of a shoreline trail along the Estuary. Looping through the golf course, it
will connect to the wildlife Refuge trail, or return to the Main Street portion of the Bay
Trail. The conceptual golf course plan provides three park areas along the trail, with a
waterfront promenade, esplanade, observation points, and picnic facilities.
Approximately 14,00 feet, or almost three miles, of new trail would be provided by the
project.
UPDATE: The East Bay Regional Park District ~EBRPD} brake ground on the southern
leg of the Bay Trail in August 207 and has completed that segment of the trail. Because
the land is on Public Trust Iand, EBRPD has a 6b-year lease for this portion of the trail,
renewable at the end of its term.
Potential Project: Seaplane Lagoon: The PDC recommends a major new park on the
north side of the Seaplane Lagoon. The park may include areas for passive recreation,
water access, and organized community gatherings, whale preserving bay views.
UPDATE: The Seaplane Lagoon remains a potential project according to the PDC.
^ Potential Project: water SystemlSanitary Sewer, Storm Drain and Dry Utility System;
The existing systems at Alameda Paint are not built to current City or utility company
standards so the PDC recommends the systems be replaced with new pipes and structures
on a phased basis as each phase of the development is constructed.
UPDATE: Upgrading utility systems at Alameda Point remains a potential project
according to the PDC.
11
Promo ram: "Development of design improvements and coordinated de~ standards for the
Atlantic Avenue entrance to APIP. Possible ro'ects include re oration of streetsca e
im rovements."
Status;
^ Potential Project; The PDC recommends that the existing Atlantic Avenue be
straightened by extending Ralph .I. Appezzato Memorial Parkway directly west to and
along the north side of the Seaplane Lagoon and San Francisco Bay. This broad
boulevard could accommodate rail or bus ways in the future. Implementation is
anticipated as part of the Phase 1 AP redevelopment X2005-13}.
UPDATE: The extension of Appezzato Parkway remains a potential project according to
~~~- ~ the PDC. In addition, the ARR.A removed the former Navy checkpoint at Atlantic
Avenue, thereby improving circulation and enhancing the attractiveness of the Atlantic
entrance, in order to better integrate Alameda Point with Alameda's West End.
Pro am: "The current basis of calculatin State's Education Revenue Au entation Fund
ERAF a ents is sub'ect to than e but the CIC does make annual a ments."
Status:
On-going Project; the State Legislature re-established a requirement far redevelopment
agencies to make ERAF payments during FY 2002103. Through FY 04105 the CIC has
made $1,38,247 in ERAF payments.
UPDATE: The CIC was not required by the State to make any further ERAF payments;
however, the CIC has f Wanted the 2004-05 assessment over a l0-year period.
Program __"Administrative and personnel costs associated with corr. r~~out, all o,f „the ,above
pro rams, projects and expenditures."
Status:
^ Qn-going Project: Both the CIC and ARR.A budgets support on-going administrative and
personnel costs. During FY 2043104, the ARRA budgeted $3.5 million toward the 1 S-
month pre~development planning period that resulted in the PDC.
UPDATE: The CIC and ARRA budgets continue to support ongoing administrative and
personnel costs.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS -HOUSING PROGRAMS
Iv-1 Introduction
The periodic review of the Community Improvement Plan and the Five-Year Implementation
Plan includes an assessment of haw the CIC has been meeting its obligations with respect to
affordable housing. This section provides a report of deposits to the Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Fund for each fiscal year that the Implementation Plan has been in effect. It also
provides an accounting of new or substantially rehabilitated units produced, indicates how many
of these units are affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households and projects
how many additional units will be produced during the remainder of the five-year period.
Finally, it addresses how the CIC targets expenditures from housing funds.
l2
IV-2 Unit Production and Housing Fund Expenditure
Section III-3 of the Five-Year Implementation Plan specifies how the CIC will meet its
requirements for affordable housing far the APIP under Community Redevelopment Law.
Specifically, it anticipated that 600 new units would be developed in this area during the five-
yearperiod of 2005-2010. This information is reported in detail in the Five-Year Implementation
Plan, "Projected APIP Housing Development," and in Table 1 below. The 600 new units
projected were based on a schedule developed in conjunction with Alameda. Point Community
Partners ~APCP}, the master developer for Alameda Point selected in August 2001. In September
of 2006, APCP withdrew as master developer for Alameda Point. The ARRA then went through
a new master developer selection process and selected SunCal Companies as master developer
on May 7, 2007.4n July ] 8, 2047, the ARRA, CIC, and SunCal signed an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement giving SunCa124 months to perform due diligence and meet various milestones to
begin the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Because of delays engendered by the change in
master developer, no new units are projected to be developed in the APIP during the
Implementation Plan period.
Table 1 original Projections, Revised Projections and New Units Completed in the
APIP, 2445 - 24 ~ 4
FY 2045106 2046107 204710$ 204814 2409114 Total
original Projections 0 0 0 300 300 600
Revised Projections 0 0 0 0 4 0
New units
completed 0 0 0 0
State law requires that at least I5 percent of all new or rehabilitated units developed by public or
private entities other than the CIC be available to persons of low or moderate income, and at
least 44 percent of this 15 percent be available to persons of very low income. The Five-Year
Implementation Plan projects the number of inclusionary units to be developed during the f ve-
yearperiod of 2005-2010. It was originally estimated that 150 inclusionary units would be built
for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families within the time period 2005-10 in the APIP,
based on a 25 percent inclusionary obligation. Because of the delay noted above, no new units
are anticipated to be developed during the five-year plan period. However, once new unit
development begins, 25 percent of new units produced will be affordable. Consistent witl~ the
Housing Element adopted on May 6, 2003, it is the policy of the CIC to require developers to
construct housing units for low- and moderate-income households within their projects.
Furthermore, a minimum of six percent of the total units in each residential development must be
affordable to very low-income households.
Since the inception of the APIP in 1997, there have been no new units developed by the CIC.
Two hundred forty-six X246} substantially rehabilitated units were developed by other public or
private developers in the fzve-year period, 1997-2002. ~f these, 17S are affordable to very low-
income households. Not included in these production numbers is the Spirit of Hope II
development located in the Alameda Point Improvement Project APIP), which utilized BwIP
funding to produce 22 units of housing affordable to very low-income households. California
13
Redevelopment Law allows the aggregation of units, and a finding has been made that, based on
substantial evidence, aggregation of these APIP units with the B~VIP will not cause or exacerbate
racial, ethnic, or economic segregation. These units were aggregated to meet the inclusio~lary
requirement for the BWIP for the tc~1-year period, 1994-2004. Inclusionary housing production
developed in the APIP during the last period exceeded the CRL 15 percent inclusionary
requirement and has been carried forward into the current period.
Section III-3 of the Implementation Plan also specifies the projected Housing Fund Set-Aside for
the APIP. Table 2 details the Housing Fund balance and projected Revenues and Expenditures
for the AP1P project area. For each year, expenditures were projected to be equal to revenues,
resulting in a fund balance of zero. The Plan anticipated that during the five-year period covel•irtlg
711105 - GI30110, the ARRA would provide $3.G million of Housing Funds to satisfy the
Alameda Point Collaborative's contribution to infrastructure for its existing 200 very low-
income units, and that any remaining APIP 20 percent funds would be made available to projects
at Alameda Point consistent with State Redevelopment Law.
Table ~ Estimated and Actual Revenues and Unencumbered Fund Balance far the
APxP, 2045-2048 din Thousands}
Revenues
2005-06 Revenues
2006-07 Revenues
2007-OS Ending Balance
2407-08
Estimated $120 $135 $13G $0.0
Actual $S2. $92 $GO* $305'
*Based an information available GI1512008. Final numbe~•s may differ slightly.
Actual revenue received was less than anticipated. This occurred partly because tax increment
received from the Bayport project in the BV~IP was deposited in APIP funds by e~•1-or in FY
2005-OG, inflating the anticipated revenue projections for the Implementation Plan period. This
error was discovered and corrected after publication of the Implementation Plan. In addition,
lease revenues and resulting possessory interest and personal property tax increment have been
lower than originally a~lticipated due to the ARRA's inability to enter into long-ten~1 leases
amore than five years} with tenants pursuant to tDe ENA with SunCal. A~u~ual expenditures were
also less than anticipated, and Dave generally matched actual revenues. The begi~l~ling fund
balance in FY 2005-OG was $305,000. Revenues for the f rst three years of the Implementation
Plan Period totaled $234,000. Expenditures for the same period totaled $237,000, resulting In all
ending fi1~1d balance of $305,000. APIP 20 percent set-aside funds are used for administration
necessary for the monitoring and oversight of the 240 currently occupied Alameda Point
Collaborative affordable 1lousing units and for planning future affordable Dousing units il~ the
APIP. As previously noted, the APIP has a housing fund obligation of $3.G million for
lnfi•astr~~cture to the 200 Alameda Point Collaborative units. It is anticipated that no excess
su1•plus will exist during the five-year Implementation Plan period.
14
IV-3 Replacement of Demolished Existing Affordable Housing
No occupied affordable housing was demolished in the APIP from 2005-2008. No occupied
affordable housing that would require replace~r~ent Per Section 33413~a} of CRL} is anticipated
to be demolished for the remainder of the Implementation Plan Period.
IV-4 Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements fvr Housing
CRL a•equires agencies to set aside, in a separate low- and moderate-income housing farad, at
least 20 percent of all tax increment revenue generated from their project areas for the purpose of
increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of very low-, low-, and nioderate-
income housing. Revisions adopted under AB 637, effective January 1, 2002, and SB 701,
effective January I, 2003, require agencies to address how their Housing Fund expenditures will
meet Housing Fund Targeting requirements. Section 33334.4 of the Health and Safety Cade 17as
been amended to include tl~e following;
Income Targeting
Each agency shall expend over each ten-year period the monies in the Low- and Moderate-
l.nco~~ne Housing Fund to assist with housing for persons of low inco~~~e and housing for persons
of very law income in at least the same propo~•tion as the total number of housing units needed
for each of those i~lcome groups to the total numbe~• of units needed far persons of moderate,
low, and very low income within the community, as those needs have been determined for the
community.
The number of uxaits needed for low- and very low-income households relative to the total
number of units needed for persons of moderate, low, and very low income within the
community isdetermined by the Regional Housing Need Determination ~RHND}, also called the
"fair shaa~e" determination, The Association of Bay Area Govert~nlents ~ABAG} calculates this
every five years, Based on the regional fair share allocation at the time the Implementation Plan
was adopted, 34 percent of the CIC Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund for each project
area m~~st be targeted to very low-income households and 20 percent to low-incoxaae households.
According to the RHND, the City of Alameda ~~eeded to develop 443 units affordable to very
low-income households and 265 units affordable to low-income households in order to meet its
regional fair share goals.
All of the projected APIP expenditures in the current period will be used in support of very low-
incon~e units through the $3.6 million contribution to be made by the CIC on behalf of the
Alar~~eda Point Collaborative. Therefore, tlae planned CIC contributions exceed CRL income
targeting requirements for very low-income l~ousehoids in the current period.
Targeting for Persons Regardless of Age
Each agency shall expend over the duration of each Implementation Plan, the monies in the Low-
and Moderate-Income Housing Fund to assist housing that is available to all persons regardless
of age in at least the same proportion as the population under age 65 bears to the total population
of the community as reported in the most recent census of the United States Census Bureau.
15
The Agency is required to target unit production to persons regardless of age in at least the
proportion of the population under age 65 to the total population, as listed in the latest Census.
According to the 2000 Census, the City of Alameda's population of 72,259 persons consists of
87 percent persons under the age of 65, and I3 percent over the age of b5.
All of the projected APIP expenditures in the current period will be used in support of family
units through the $3.6 million contribution to be made by the CIC on behalf of the Alameda
Point Collaborative. Therefore, the planned CIC contributions exceed CRL requirements for
targeting of housing for persons regardless of age.
V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACC~IVIPLZSHMENTS -- ALLEVZATt~N ~F
BLIGHT
Section V of the Five-Year Implementation Plan describes how the planned projects are intended
to alleviate the physical, social, or economic blight in the Project Area. Provided below is an
update of the projects and expenditures undertaken to date to alleviate blight.
V-1 Alleviation of Structural Blight
As part of the Interim leasing program, PM Realty has been retained to maintain the grounds at
Alameda Point, paint over graffiti, and preserve curb appeal. Tenant investment ~n leased
properties helps refurbish and maintain the buildings. Only those buildings and grounds that do
not require environmental remediation are involved in the interim leasing program. In addition,
the City has provided over $270,400 of CDBG funds to demolish four unsafe and d~lap~dated
buildings in~pacting the APC residential neighborhood. Another $250,000 is progran~med to
demolish an additional three to five buildings surrounding the APC residential area within the
remainder of the Implementation Plan period. .
V-2 Alleviation of Physical Non-Structural Blight
Blighting physical conditions present in the Project Area include: inadequate public
improvements, facilities, and utilities and major environmental contamination. Environmental
remediation is an ongoing effort of the Navy. The ARRA has focused efforts on completing land
use planning and real estate negotiations with SunCal to allow full-scale redevelopment of
Alameda Point to occur. Redevelopment strategies all include major reconstruction of public
improvements and utility systems at Alameda Point.
V-3 Alleviation of Social Non-Structural Blight
Social conditions that result in non-structural blight include inadequate open spaces and
recreational facilities, and the prevalence of social maladjustment. Many recreational facilities
are available at Alameda Point including the O'Club facility, skateboard park, soccer fields and
open spaces. The transfer of property that will contain the proposed sports complex and
development of extensive bike and pedestrian routes (Bay Trail} are underway and expected to
occur within the Implementation Plan period. _
16
V-4 Alleviation of Ecanamic Non-Structural Blight
The CzC promotes Alameda Point as a business location with unique State tax incentives and
other benefits known as LAMBRA} that are similar to those found in the State's Enterprise
Zones. The intent of these targeted business incentives is to attract reinvestment, stimulate
economic growth, and re-employ workers. Furthermore, the Navy's environmental remediation
and ARRA's planning efforts are aimed at removing development constraints in order to help
alleviate economic non-structural blight.
17
,~~°~
w-3rrv L 1
~~
e ~~
~ 'CJ1
~o
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE
CORRESPONDING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE
ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC") will hold a public hearing on
July 15, 2008, at 7:25 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, for the purpose of
reviewing the Community Improvement Plan and the corresponding
Implementation Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project and
hearing testimony of all interested parties. A map showing the general
locations in the City of Alameda of the Project Area is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Section 33490(c) of the California Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that every
redevelopment agency, at least once within the five-year term of its
implementation plan, shall conduct a public hearing and hear testimony of
all interested parties for the purpose of reviewing the redevelopment plan
and the corresponding implementation plan for each redevelopment project
within its jurisdiction and evaluating the progress of the redevelopment
project.
At any time not later than the hour set forth above for the public
hearing, any and all persons wishing to give testimony regarding the
Implementation Plans may appear before the CIC for that purpose.
Interested persons may inspect and, upon payment of the costs of
reproduction, obtain copies of the Community Improvement Plan and/or the
Implementation Ptan for the A{ameda Point Improvement Project at the
office of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda,
located at City Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda,
California. For further information, please call Rachel Silver, Development
Manager, Development Services Department, (510) 749-5800. ~~~
Attachment 2 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #3-A
07-~ s•o~
By order of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda.
Dated: June 11, 2008
/s/ Lara Weisiger
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda
Publish and Post:
June 20, 2008
June 27, 2008
July 4, 2008
EXHIBIT A
MAP OF THE PROJECT AREAS
E1fHIBIT A
A A U A
~. I s ~ ~I 1 t ! !
I
1 • I' ~ `~
F, ~ ~ ll r~"""~~~'t
r .~""« Yry
~~•
• i ~~p
• • / r T ~ ~ ~ _' '
1Y i ..~
k. ~ ~
~r ~ ~~_ ''
~ ~n~ __y__~''~~~ rte.
emu` . ~ ..
~ ~ ~ ~a
• -r.e.
Y..,_ ~~ ,...~.._., o i
~1 APIP BOUNDARY ~' ~ a
• ~-
Boundary Map
Alameda Point ~mpxavement Project
Redevelopment Preject
City of Alameda
List of Posting Locations
for the APIP Notice of Public Hearing
1. City HaIlWest-950West Mail Square
2. Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) Service Center, 677 West Ranger
Ave.
3. Alber# H. Dewitt ~' Club, 641 vilest Redline Ave.
4. Community Bulletin Board at the Garner of Orion and Corpus Christi
5. City Hall Bulletin Board on the corner of Cak St. and Santa Clara Ave.
6. Alameda Main Library-1550 aak St.
CIC
Attachment 3 to
Public Nearing
Agenda Item #3-A
Ql-'I5-~8
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: July 15, 2008
Re: Authorize the Executive Director to Enter into Contracts with the Park
Street Business Association and the West Alameda Business
Association for Fiscal Year 2008-09
BACKGRGUND
The Community Improvement Commission CIC} makes a grant each year to the Park
Street Business Association PSBA} and the West Alameda Business Association
~WABA}. Beginning in FY 2007-08, the CIC also made a small grant to the Greater
Alameda Business Association ~GABA}. These grants support overhead, operations,
marketing, and promotional activities and enable each business association to operate
downtown revitalization programs based on the principles of the National Main Street
Center. In addition, PSBA and WABA are active partners with the City in the ongoing
renewal of their respective districts.
DISCUSSIGN
This fiscal year's grant amounts, determined by the CIC's FY 2008-09 budget process,
include support in the amount of $111,446 for PSBA and $101,146 for WABA. In
addition, GABA is also recommended to receive $12,000 in grant funds. The FY 2008-
09 budgets for each are attached.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The total impact to the CIC budget is $224,592. These funds are represented in the
CIC's operating budget, which comprises ten percent of the overall CIC FY 2008-09
budget. There is no impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL C4DElPGLICY DOCUMENT CRnSS REFERENCE
Economic Development Strategic Plan, July 240Q, Strategy #2 reads as follows,
"Support the Chamber of Commerce, merchants and merchant associations in their
efforts to increase the availability and quality of retail goods and professional services
that meet the purchasing preferences of Alameda residents and the employees of
Alameda firms by: ~1}supporting Park and Webster as "Main Street" retail zones..."
C!C
Agenda Ntem #3-B
01-15-OS
Honorable Chairand July 15, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Executive Director to enter into contracts with the Park Street Business
Association and the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2008-09.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie A. Li e
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
B . . Rus I
Economic Development Coordinator
DKILALIDESISGR:rv
Attachments:
1. GABA FY OS-09 Budget
2. PSBA FY 08-09 Budget
3. vVABA FY 08-09 Budget
cc: Greater Alameda Business Association
Park Street Business Association
vilest Alameda Business Association
.~
'$~ M~,
h;t ^r~ r t ,;, ~s~
GREATER ALAMEDA ~`~"`
INC4IVIE
Membership Dues
Dinner Income
Fund Raiser
Raffle Proceeds
Interest Income
City Grant
TOTAL tNCQME:
GABA Budget 2008-9
7/1/08 to 6/30/09
5750.00
3500.00
.oo
1000.00
10.00
12,000.00
22,26o.oa
F, XPFN.SF.,S
Advertising & Promotion
General Advertising
Member's Directory
Awards & Recognition
Newsletter Printing
500.00
1,000.00
50.00
600.00
Administrative
Project Coordinator, P Jacobs
Postage
Bank Charges
Printing, Copying
Post office Box
Phone Voicemail
Gffice Supplies
Dinner Expenses
Website maintenance
Liability and Dl~ Insurance
Special Projects
AUSD Scholarships
TUTAL EXPENSES:
12,000.00 ~To be paid with City grant}
300.00
0.0
350.00
120.00
255.00
25o.ao
3000.00
250.00
1800.00
785.00
1000.00
22,260.00
Submitted by Patty Jacobs, Project and Event Coordinator
Reviewed by Eric Kos, GABA President
SIC
Attachment 'I to
Agenda Item #3-B
07-15-08
Park Street Business Association - 2008!2009 Budget
08149 Budget
INCOME: Grant L&L
____. BIA PSBA Overall
CD -Grant $111,44b $D $0 $0 $111,44b
L & L Reimbursement $0 $57,417 $0 $0 $57,417
BIA Payments $0 $0 $83,ODO $0 $83,000
Interest & Misc. Income $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $7,D00
Carryover $0 $0 $5,000 $S,OOD $10,000
Art & Wine Faire Income $0 $0 $0 $82,SOD $82,500
Other Event Income ~ ~ ~0, 27 ODD 27 000
Total $111,446 $57,417 $88,000 $121,500 $378,363
EXPENSES: 08109 Budget
Pro rams: Grant L&L BIA PSBA Overall
Committees Sub Totals $0 $0 $3,426 $73,770 $77,196
Pressure Washing (contract} $0 $0 0 $8,700 $8,700
Maintenance Supplies &. Equipment $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $13,200
Maintenance Person #1(salary} $D $3b, ] 20 $0 $0 $3b,120
Maintenance Person #2 (salary} $0 $21,297 $2,b5D $4,130 $28,077
Maintenance Person # 1(benefits} $D $0 $7,000 $0 $7,000
Maintenance Person #2 (benefits} $0 $0 $7,000 $0 $7,000
Maintenance Person # 1(wkrs comp} $0 $0 $S, l OD $0 $5,100
Maintenance Person #2 (wkrs comp} $0 $0 $4,000 $0 $4,000
Maintenance Person # 1 (payroll tax} $0 $0 $3,100 ~ $3,100
Maintenance Person #2 (payroll tax) $0 $0 $2,400 $0 $2,400
Maintenance Sub-Total $0 $57,417 $31,250 $26,030 $114,697
Programs Sub Total $0 $57,417 $34,676 $99,800 $191,593
08109 Budget
General and Administration: Grant L&L BIA PSBR Overall
Executive Director Salary $81,100 $O $0 $0 $81,1DD
Executive Director Benefits ~0 ~ 7 000 ~0 7 000
Executive Director Sub Total $81,100 $0 $7,000 $O $85,100
Executive Asst. Salary $3D,34b $D $7,054 $0 $37,400
Executive Asst. Benefits ~0 ~0 7 000 ~0, 7 000
Executive Assistant Sub Total $30,34b $0 $14,054 $0 $44,400
Staff Salary & Benefits Total $111,44b $0 $21,054 $0 $132,500
Payroll Taxes (8.5°Io of total Salary} $D $0 $1 D,5D0 $0 $10,500
Workers Comp $0 $0 $1,320 $0 $1,320
LiabilitylD~Q Insurance $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
Printing $0 $D $0 $0 $0
Newsletter $0 $0 $0 $4,400 $4,400
Postage $0 $0 $0 $2,800 $2,800
Equipment $0 $O $0 $2,000 $2,000
MeetingslTrainings $0 $0 $O $2,500 $2,500
Supplies $0 $0 $D $2,000 $2,000
Rent $0 $0 $13,850 $0 $13,850
Utilities $0 $0 $1,b00 $0 $1,b00
AuditlAccounting $0 $0 ~ 8 OOD $$,000
G & A Sub Total 1].1446 ~0 53 324 21700 186 470
Budget Grand Totals $111,446 $57,417 $88,000 $121,500 $378,363
CIC
Attachment Z to
Agenda Item #3-B
Ol-'15.08
West Alameda Business Association
Pre~espd ^PERATING BIJDGET~~B-09
INCOME BWIP BIA INCOME L&L FUNDS
BW1P rant 101,146 1D1,14fi
BIA 07-D8 32, 000 32, 000
WABA Other Income 0
Event Revenue 105,900 105,900
ine & Dine 4,000 x 2 D
Concerts 22,900 0
Jam 75,000 ~
Non-BIA memberships 4,fi0D 3,000
Parkin lnewsracks 1,800 1,800
WABA Other Income Subtotal 0
L&L District Maintenance 31,700 31,100
Income Grand Total 101,146 32,000 112,300 31,100 277,1.46
OTHER
EXPENSES BWIP BIA EXPENSE; L&L TOTAL
FUNDS
PERSONNEL SERVICES
1. Executive Director 15,000 l5,DD0
2. Tem Worker~s~ ~ 18,000 2,000 20,000
3. PR TaxlBenefits 2,250 2,250
4. Workers Com 1,000 1,000
Subtotal 96,250 2,000 0 0 98,50
MEMBERSHIP SERVI CES
1. Meetin sand Trainin 500 500
2. Sup lies 1,500 1,500
3. Printin 100 100
4. Posta a 200 200
5. Committees 1,000 1,000
6. Events 71,000 71,000
ine & Dine 2,000 0
Concerts 14,800 0
Jam 52,900 0
Halloween 1,000
Santa 300
7. E uipment 500 500
8. NewsletterslWebsitelMarketin 19,025 19,025
9. Prvmations 0
10.5hoppin Guide 0
11. Business Retention D
Subtotal 0 2,800 91,025 ~0 93,825
LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING
District Maintenance 46,000 4fi,000
Sidewalk Cleanin 6,200 6,200
Graffiti and Shop in Cart Removal, etc. 3,000 3,000
Clean Bus StopslStreet Furniture, etc. 2,219 2,219
Vehicle Gas, Maintenance, etc. 665 6fi5
Street Decorations 0 D
Subtotal 0 D D 58,084 58,Q84
INDIRECTIOVERHEAD
1. Accountin (Audit 0
2. Rent 4,000 1,000 5,000
3. Utilities Tele hone 4,800 4,800
4. Insurance 4,000 4,000
5. Contin enc 96 7,000 7,096
500 1,fiD0 2,100
Subtotal 4,896 15,500 2,600 0 22,996
EXPENSE5 GRAND 101,146 20,300 93,625 5$,084 273;155
ING,~,ME~ ~`~'ESS.,A~7,(~iE'~'~~' ~.~ ~ ~:~O~Q ~~+~? ~ ~ ::~ f ` ~ .~,~~~:
CIC
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #3-B
07-15-48