2008-12-16 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA7 AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC7
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 16, 2008 - - - ~;00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
Place ; Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
Agenda;
1. Roll Call -- City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
City Caunci 1 /ARR.A
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS X54956.87
PrnnAri-~~
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiations:
Alameda Foint
City, ARRA and SunCal
Price and terms
City Cauncil
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION X54956,97
Name of cases; Chow v. City of Alameda
Gong v. City of Alameda
Velarde v. City of Alameda
Hurst v. City of Alameda
City Counci 1
3-C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision ~b7
of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One
CIC
3--D, CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS X54956.8}
Property; 1829 Paru Street, Alameda
Negotiating parties; JP Morgan-Chase Bank and CTC
Under negotiations: Price and terms
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5 . Adjournment ~- City Council, ARRA, CIC
~ti
Beverly o n Mayor
Chair, d IC
i~~~ ~~
~~ r
~'., ~~
y
~ yr~~/~~~
' p ~~rAN 7'P,7lR~~ r~lY
~Sr U ~~^^~
~.; var;,s~+~i
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 - - - - - - - - - -DECEMBER 16, 2008 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Ch~am~ers, 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. City Manager Communications
6. Agenda Items
7. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment}
8. Council Referrals
9. Communications Communications from Council}
10. 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 6:00 P.M.
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM ~~
Separate Agenda Closed Session}
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:31 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Boy Scout Troop 89 will lead the Pledge of Allegiance
1. ROLL CALL ~- City Council
• Recess/Refreshments
• Council Meeting Called to Order at 8:00 p.m.
REORGANIZATION OF COUNCIL
Installation
The Honorable Judge C. Richard Bartalini will administer the Oaths
of Office.
Office of City Councilmember
Doug deHaan
Marie Gilmore
Office of City Auditor
Kevin Kearney
Office of City Treasurer
Kevin Kennedy
• Consideration of Appointment of Vice Mayor
• Comments by Reelected Councilmembers
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
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 Regular City Council Meeting held on November
18, 2008; the Special City Council Meeting held on November
25, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on December 2, 2008.
City Clerk
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to accept the Impact Fee Report for Police and
Fire services Fund 1617. Finance}
4-D. Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk, Inc.
for the repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 28,
No. P.W. 04-08-12. Public Works}
4-E. Recommendation to accept the annual report for the Public Art
Fund as required by the Public Art Ordinance. Planning and
Building}
4-F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter
into a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Alameda and
the State of California Department of Transportation for
Funding the Realignment of the Path at the North Side of the
Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge in the amount of $40,000.
Public Works}
4-G. Adoption of Resolution Approving an Amendment to the
'Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alameda City Employees
Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Beginning
January 1, 2009 and Ending December 31, 2009. Human
Resources}
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS tCommunications from City Manager}
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Public Comment}
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
8. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted
upon or scheduled as a future agenda item
8-A. Public Safety service level update. ~Councilmember Matarrese}
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Communications from Council}
10. ADJOURNMENT
*~~
• For use in preparing the official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e-mail to: lweisige@ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD
number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
~~'~~'
`~ d~
~`~
~a
~„ ,.1 ti,
~ ~r:~.,,~,~,~~ ~ITY~FALAMEDA ~ALIF~RNIA
'(~~ Ph r ~ ~~~~
~lP~%'l',ji5y~'~~ ~
~''~c~a~~w SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC}
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 16, 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 Council/Board/Commission on agenda
items or business introduced by the Council/Board/Commission may
speak far a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject
is before the Council/Board/Commission. Please file a speaker's
slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak.
1. ROLL CALL -- City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to authorize the transmittal of the Community
Improvement Commission's Annual Report to the State
Controller's Office and the City Council and accept the Annual
Report. Development Services}[City Council and CIC]
2-B. Recommendation to accept transmittal of the: 1} Auditor's
Agreed Upon Procedures Report an compliance with Vehicle Code
Section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing; 2} Agreed Upon
Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111
21005-06 Appropriations Limit Increment; 3 Police and Fire
Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1092 Audit Report for
Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005; 4} Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Grant Programs Financial Statements
for Year ended June 30, 2008; 5} Community Improvement
Commission Basic Component Unit Financial Statements for the
Year ended June 30, 2008; and 6} Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Basic Component Unit Financial
Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2008. Finance} [City
Council/ARRA/CIC]
2-C. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC
Meetings of October 7, 2008 and October 21, 2008. City
Clerk} [City Council/ARR.A/CIC]
3. AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, ARRA, CIC
Beverly J n ayor
Chair, AR d IC
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY -NOVEMBER 1$, 2008- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:42 p.m.
ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Tam arrived at 7:48 p.m.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the
Quarterly Report [paragraph no. D8- ] and the recommendation to
adopt Plans and Specifications [paragraph no. D8- ] were removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.] [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
~*08- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public
Utilities Board Meeting held on November 5, 2008. Approved.
~*08- } Ratified bills in the amount of $2,58D,542.O1.
(08- } Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Report on
implementing the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hopes staff looks to see
what type of air quality grants or emergency funds are available to
provide emergency power.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
November 18, 2Q0$
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.]
X08- } Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue
Extension Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26.
Christopher Buckley, West Alameda Business Association Design
Committee, stated the Committee sees the project as being the first
step in extending the current streetscape treatment south of
Pacific Avenue to the area north of Appezzato Parkway; work needs
to be coordinated with CalTrans since Webster Street north of
Atlantic Avenue is a State highway; the first step would be to
reduce the speed limit from 45 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour;
CalTrans will not allow Aristocrat pear trees because of their
size.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.]
~*08 7 Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate
and execute Agreements with the Water Emergency Transportation
Authority and Blue & Gold Fleet for the operation of the NN Gemini.
Accepted.
~*08- ~ Resolution No. 14283, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for any
Targeted Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Incentive Grant offered in the
Next Five Years and to Enter into All Associated Agreements."
Adopted.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
X08-- } The Development Services Director submitted a handout and
discussed revenue of the Alameda Theatre and garage.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the parking structure's
northern elevation treatment would be addressed.
The Development Services Director responded the bulb out in front
of the marque area would be discussed at the next Community
Improvement Commission ~CIC7 meeting, and the northern elevation
treatment would be discussed at the following CIC meeting.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether figures are available for
increased on-street parking fees.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
November 18, 2008
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated new enforcement is funded by the theatre and parking
structure project; enforcement revenues are up for the entire
business district.
Mayor Johnson stated increasing the time limit [in the garage
during daytime hours should be reviewed.
The Development Services Director stated the garage ticket machine
has been modified so that five hours can be purchased and people
can come back and buy three more hours without moving; signage
needs to be changed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff would be providing a
quarterly report on theatre and parking structure activity and
revenue.
The Development Services Director responded staff would be able to
provide a report after the holiday season; stated weekend parking
fees will be charged at the garage after Thanksgiving.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many of the 214 jobs created are in the
radius of the parking structure.
The Development Services Manager responded the radius is two
blocks; stated the goal is to reach 325 jobs.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08- 7 Resolution No. 14284, "Appointing Douglas Biggs as a
Member of the Social Services Human Relations Board." Adopted; and
(08-- A7 Resolution No. 14285, "Appointing Dennis M. Owens as a
Member of the Historical Advisory Board Architect Seat." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented
certificates of appointment.
Mr. Biggs thanked Council for the nomination; stated that he looks
forward to serving on the Social Services Human Relations Board.
Mr. Owens thanked Council for the opportunity to serve on the
Historical Advisory Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
November 18, 2DD8
X08- } Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner
Square Specific Mixed Use Area to permit office uses at 2400
Mariner Square Drive; and
X08- A} Resolution No. 14286, "overturning the Planning Board's
Denial of a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square
Specific Mixed Use Area and Approving the General Plan Amendment."
Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether zoning would allow office space.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated office
space would be limited to 5,000 square feet within the mixed use
area.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ~ In favor of the appeal } : Steve Farrand, Attorney for
Applicant; Ernest S. Pierucci, Recovery Resources, Cheryl Canaday,
Recovery Resosurces; Nathan Cuthbert, Receovery Resources;
Stephanie Lulofs, Recovery Resources; Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Lars
Hansson, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Development Services has been
consulted on the recommendation, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Development Services reviewed the
mixed use balance.
The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the
General Plan is the issue; the area is a mixed use area.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is sympathetic to the argument that
the structure should be a restaurant; however, the area needs more
economic development; the area could be revitalized by having an
office with twenty-five employees.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not sure that restricting
the structure to restaurant use is the best choice; marina services
and water related businesses are appropriate on the shoreline; the
interpretation of mixed uses along the waterfront should be
reviewed; the Economic Development Commission should make some
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
November 1$, 200$
recommendations; Chevy's has been closed for two years; the
Tidelands closed years ago; advantage should be taken of sailing
and service boat centers.
The Supervising Planner stated the General Plan allows uses other
than a restaurant; marine services and retail uses would be
allowed; office space is limited in the General Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be reviewed
because the office space limitation would restrict commerce that
would be more appropriate than a restaurant.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Alameda has limited waterfront dining
opportunities and sites; Harbor Bay Business Park and Marina
Village Parkway Business Park have extremely high vacancy rates;
inquired whether said areas have restrictions regarding the number
of employees, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
negative; inquired whether the Carriage House and Cardinal Point
take up a lot of office space which results in a deficit of
permitted, available office space.
The Supervising Planner responded Cardinal Point was developed with
a General Plan amendment that allowed 5,000 square feet of office
space; the development was shifted from the entire district to just
the east side; the Carriage House came in with a proposal that
would use 4,000 square feet of the 5,000 square feet that was
allowed within the district.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is nothing at the Carriage
House site.
The Supervising Planner stated the area is vested under a Planned
Development amendment.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Carriage House has an expiration
[for development], to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be changed to include an
expiration.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much additional office space was
given to the Carriage House.
The Supervising Planner responded the Carriage House is a mixed-use
building; stated office space was increased from 1,000 square feet
to 4,000 square feet.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the vacancy rate at the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
November 18, 2008
Marina Village Parkway Business Park, to which the Development
Services Director responded approximately 20%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Applicant looked at other
spaces.
The Applicant responded that she looked at older buildings on
Webster Street and around City Hall; stated parking was not
adequate; that she wants to purchase a building.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Applicant looked at the
former Tidehouse site.
The Applicant responded in the affirmative; stated the former
Tidehouse site is in disrepair and is operating as a law office.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many employees could be accommodated at
the former Chevy's site.
The Applicant responded thirty employees; stated the site would
accommodate growth; off-site storage would be needed.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how many of the Applicant's employees live
in Alameda, to which the Applicant responded ten to twelve.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether most employees are full time, to
which the Applicant responded all employees are full time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the former Tidehouse site
went through a 10,000 square foot renovation, to which the
Supervising Planner responded that she would find out.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how the Pasta Pelican is doing;
stated that she is concerned that there is not enough foot traffic
in the area to support two restaurants.
The Development Services Director responded that she does not know
how the Pasta Pelican is doing; stated the Pasta Pelican tried a
number of marketing programs recently; all restaurants are
experiencing a slump; two Fleet Industrial Supply Center sites were
leased in the last two years; both tenants vacated; adjacent
buildings have high vacancy rates.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Alameda Landing proposes to put
in more retail and restaurants, which would bring direct
competition to the area.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is remote with not much activity;
having another restaurant seems unrealistic.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
November 18, 2008
The Development Services Manager stated the area has had a tough
time in the last few years; roadways have not been repaired because
of future Alameda Landing improvements; more dust control is being
done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is inclined to grant the
appeal because entitlement banking is precluding the business; the
City has to look at its position as a waterfront location and its
flexibility to maximize the marine related services and recreation;
restrictions could stymie development.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal;
stated that he would like to have the Economic Development
Commission and Planning Board review the location's future to
encourage water related businesses.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have staff review the
square footage allocated to the other property owner the Carriage
House] .
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Planning Board granted the
Carriage House an additional 3,000 square feet in zaa3.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council did not make the decision.
Councilrnember Gilmore stated the restaurant struggled and changed
operators; the Planning Board thought that losing one restaurant
was. not a concern because the Pasta Pelican and Chevy's were
thriving; the area did not have any office space.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he wants consistency in the
decision making process.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the total office space
square footage if the proposed office use is approved and the
Carriage House built out to capacity.
The Supervising Planner responded approximately 10,000 square feet;
stated the former Chevy's space is a little less than 6,000 square
feet; the approval for the Carriage House is approximately 4,000
square feet .
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Cardinal Point area lost
approximately 2 0 , 0 0 0 square feet of office space .
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated there
was a two-story office building and a number of rail cars strung
together as offices in addition to retail offices; everything was
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council ~
November 1.8, 2DD8
demolished to construct Cardinal Point and the boat storage area;
the General Plan amendment allowed 5,000 square feet of office
space on the east side of Marina Square Drive.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is approximately
15,000 square feet less office space with the General Plan
amendment than before Cardinal Point was built, to which the
Supervising Planner responded approximately.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Carriage House applied for a
specific project or just a change in land use.
The Supervising Planner responded the Carriage House applied for a
Planned Development amendment; stated Cardinal Point had a Planned
Development; the Planned Development amendment approved by the
Planning Board allowed the Carriage House site to be all office
space.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a specific project was proposed.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
project went through the design review process but was never
constructed.
Mayor Johnson stated the process needs to require a specific time
for moving forward with a project; the building permits have
expired.
The Supervising Planner stated the Planned Development is still
approved.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to be careful in granting
approval if there is limited square footage for a particular use;
applicants are able to land bank and not move forward with the
project.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has had issues with land
banked, blighted buildings; the Silver building was vacant for
years on Park Street; the City did not have the tools to force the
owner to repair and rehabilitate the building; the Carriage House
is very similar; the City should consider specific timeline
requirements for projects moving forward.
Mayor Johnson suggested that staff check the conditions of the
approval to see if the City has any leverage.
The Planning and Building Director stated the Planned Development
is a zone change which stands by itself; the issue is some General
Plan policies not being broad enough and dealing with the actual
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
November 1B, 2008
square footage; zoning should address square footage.
Mayor Johnson stated there was a General Plan amendment for the
property that allocated the square footage; a different process is
needed.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to move approval of
granting the appeal and additional square footage necessary to
implement the change of use of the former Chevy's building.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion; stated that he has
concerns about being consistent.
The City Manager stated Council has been provided with a resolution
that would overturn the Planning Board's denial of a General Plan
Amendment for the MU2 Marina Square specific mixed use area and
approve the General Plan Amendment that would make the appropriate
findings.
On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote-~5.
Councilmember Matarrese directed that the Planning Board and
Economic Development Commission; 1} examine whether the current set
of overlays and restrictions are appropriate in the Mariner Square
area and points east connecting up to the northern waterfront; 2}
review the issue of entitlement and expiration of same; and 3}
review the connection of the Mariner Square area to what is going
on at Alameda Landing and points west.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Landing will be the focal point
for restaurants.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Planning Board and
Economic Development Commission send Council a formal
recommendation with an actual vote taken on the matter.
X08- } Recommendation to approve the Alameda Theater Community
Use Policy and Fee Schedule.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a. brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the policy includes liability
insurance, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the
affirmative .
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the cleaning fee would not
apply if 400 people attend an event.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
November 18, 2008
The Redevelopment Manager responded that the cleaning fee schedule
will be changed to reflect a cleaning fee for 400 people attending.
Councilmember deHaan stated the cleaning fee might be a deal
breaker.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the cleaning fees would come
directly from Alameda Entertainment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the $4S per hour fee would
cover full cost recovery.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that an Alameda Entertainment
Event Coordinator is very knowledgeable regarding the issue and
would oversee management of events.
Councilrnember deHaan inquired whether the fees are within the ball
park of other fees charged, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded the fees are higher.
Councilrnember deHaan inquired whether there has been interest
within the community [for use of the Alameda Theatre.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the operator has received a
number of calls; stated that she and the Recreation and Parks
Department have received calls also.
Councilmember deHaan stated the fees could prohibit use for
graduations.
The Redevelopment Manager stated fees could be changed.
Mayor Johnson stated that Paramount Theater events are very
expensive; people need to understand that clean up cannot be done
by volunteers; appropriate fees need to be charged; otherwise, the
City would be subsidizing private events for non-profit
organizations; renting the Alameda Theatre cannot be compared to
renting Lincoln Park.
The Redevelopment Manager stated a rental fee would not be charged.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the total security deposit
would be $2,500; further inquired whether the deposit could be
refunded entirely other than the $25 processing fee and cleaning
costs.
The Redevelopment Manager responded details have not been ironed
out.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 0
November 18, 2008
Councilmember Gilmore stated the cleaning fees would be $48 per
hour for one staff person up to a maximum of six hours; there would
be $2,500 security deposit and a maximum $500 clean up fee; a lot
of the money could be refundable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a $1 million insurance policy would
be bought; a lot of tax dollars were invested in the restoration
project, which needs to be protected; staff has done a great job in
putting together a fair, detailed policy.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the event sponsor would get the deposit back
if the facility is left in pre--use condition; the total deposit
would be forfeited and the event would be cancelled if staff deems
that the situation is uncontrollable and must call for police
intervention; the event sponsor incurs the cost when Oakland's
Police Department is called to provide crowd control and security;
inquired whether the City has a similar policy.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
applicant would pay for associated costs through the permit
process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the fee would be separate from the
security deposit, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether fees would need to be deposited
within a certain time of the event.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated $500
would be required at the time of reservation; the remaining $2,000
would need to be deposited within three weeks of the event.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that staff provide an Off Agenda
report regarding the number of calls and bookings within six months
after the fees go into affect .
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the cost for handicap
access to the stage.
The Redevelopment Manager responded that she does not know; stated
the cost would be paid by the applicant.
Councilmember deHaan stated hopefully stage access will be
permanent at some point; consecutive dates are not addressed.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the operator can reject certain
dates based on the lease but needs to provide two alternative dates
within fifteen days of dates requested.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
November 18, 2aaa
The City Manager stated the issue is addressed in Availability #2.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation subject
to disclosure on expenses that would be associated with temporarily
providing handicap stage access and with direction to have staff
provide a status report on fee schedule impacts for community use
and availability within six months.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
X08-- 7 Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the East Bay
Division for the League of California Cities meeting last Thursday;
David Stark, East Bay Association of Realtors, gave a housing
market update for Alameda and Contra Costa counties; Alameda's home
values have declined approximately 18.90; there has been a
substantial increase in the volume of homes sold because of
potential bargains; the number of people who can afford the median
price home in the Bay Area has increased because of declined
prices.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(08- ~ Carol Ogle-Delling, Alameda, requested that Council
consider reducing or waiving fines imposed at 1538 Lafayette
Street.
Mayor Johnson inquired what are the plans for the property; further
inquired whether Ms. Ogle-Delling is living at the property.
Ms. Ogle-Delling responded that she is staying at the property;
stated that she plans to purchase the property or place the
property on the open market.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Ogle-Delling is claiming a
financial hardship; stated the house is worth a lot of money which
would go to the estate.
Ms. Ogle-Delling stated that she is here to put the blame where it
is due, which is on her brother.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure whether Council has the
ability to reduce or waive the fines.
Ms. Ogle--Delling stated that she understands that Council is the
only entity that can reduce or waive the fines.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 ~
November ~~r 2~~p
Mayor Johnson stated that she would need to discuss the matter with
the City Attorney.
X08- }Norma Arnerich, Alameda,
closure of the Mif Albright Par 3
reopening the Course.
submitted handout; discussed the
Course; urged Council to consider
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:42
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 3
November 18, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 25, 2008 - - ~ 6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
X08- } Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All Bargaining Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council received a
briefing on the status of labor negotiations and provided direction
to its Labor Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special. Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 25, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA~ MEETING
TUESDAY- --DECEMBER 2, 2008- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:12 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members deHaan,
Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
X08- 7 Conference with Real Property Negotiators ~54956.8~;
Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties: City, ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiations: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that Council/Board Members were
briefed on real property negotiation aspects; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 2, 2006
CITY QF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members~of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant ~ ~~
Interim Chief Financial officer
Date: December 11, 2008
Re: List of Warrants for Ratification
This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and sho wn below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just ch arges against the City in
accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
2154fiD - 215887 $2,01 fi,146.fi2
V18D05 - V18145 $94,9D7.72
EFT 619 $120,741.43
EFT 620 $122, 222.28
EFT 621 $43,fi39.63
Void Checks:
214518
215D 17
215347
EFT519
2123D7
215317
215318
~$2,500.DD~
~$1,481.46~
~$47,3D~
~$120,741,43~
~$54,143.76~
x$55.61 ~
x$55.617
GRAND TOTAL $2,218,fi32.51
Respectfully submitted,
~~~wG.Y
Chief Financial Officer
BILLS #4-B
Council Warrants 1211 fi108 12/16/2008
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December 1 fi, 2008
Re: Acce t the Police and Fire Services Fee Re ort
BACKGROUND
Gn March 21,1990, the City Council adopted the Police and Fire Fee ordinance, which
established the City's Police and Fire Services Fee requirements as Section 27-2 of the
Alameda Municipal Code and statesthatthis fee is required on all newconstruction. This
ordinance serves to mitigate the impacts caused by new construction on Police and Fire
facility demands. The original fee was 12 cents per square foot. In 1991, the fee was
increased to 14 cents per square foot; in February 1995 it was increased to 15.5 cents per
square foot.
The Municipal Code requires that the City Council review the fee requirements on an
annual basis to determine whether that fee reasonably relates to the impacts of new
construction and whether the fee is still needed. This report is intended to satisfy the
annual review and compliance requirement forthe fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.
DISCUSSION
At the time of final inspection or date of the Certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs
first, the developerlbuilder must pay the Police and Fire Services Fee as required by
ordinance. The ordinance permits an appeal process whereby the developerlbuilder may
apply for an ad justment or waiver of the Police and Fire Services Fee. Award of appeals is
based on the absence of any reasonable relationship ornexus between the police and fire
service impacts of the new construction and the payment of the fee itself. The appeal
process includes an administrative public hearing and an ultimate decision by the City
Council.
BUDGET C4NSlDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
The Police and Fire Services Fee Grdinance has no impact on the General Fund. By
ordinance, funds from this fee are segregated in a special account that can only be used
for eligible purposes specified in the ordinance Attachment 1 }.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-C
'I 2-16.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
December 16, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, a total of $51,171 in fees was credited to this
fund. Expenditures from the account supported the debt service payments for the Police
Building RemodellConstruction. Attachment 2 describes the beginning and ending fund
balances and fund activity for Fiscal Year 2001-2008.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This Annual Review is consistent with the requirements of Section 21-2 Police and Fire
Fee Requirements} of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code
Section 66006.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the report for the Police and Fire Services fee to satisfy the annual review
requirement, and reaffirm the need for the fee to support the debt service payment on the
referenced construction as a nexus.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Mare allant
Interim hi f Financial Officer
AMG:dI
Attachments:
1. Police and Fire Fee Ordinance
2. Police & Fire Construction Impact Fee Fund Balance Analysis
2'l-2 ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CQDE
2'1-2.4 Police and Fire Fee Requirements.
a. Fee Requirement. A police and fire fee
requirement is hereby established for new
construction in the City. The City Council
shall, in a Council resolution, set forth the
formula for determining the amount of the fee
to be provided, the cost and beneficiaries
thereof, the relationship between this
requirement and the various types of new and
expanded developments, and the time for
paying such fee. As described in the police and
fire fee resolution, the police and fire fee shall
be paid by each developer on or before the date
of final inspection or date the certificate of
occupancy is issued, whichever is first.
b. Annual Review. 4n an annual basis,
the City Council shall review the police and
fire fee requirements to determine whether
they are reasonably related to the impacts of
new construction and whether the described
police and fire fee requirements are still
needed.
(Qrd. No. 24?9 N.S. § 17
27'5
27.2.5 Procedures.
a . ~Vew Construction. Upon adoption of
the police and fire fee resolution and prior to
application for a building permit, developers of
new construction that are not subject to a
separate and binding development agreement
with contrary provisions, shall file a plan for
the payment of the fees. The building permit
shall not be issued until the plan has been
approved by the City Manager. As described in
the resolution, the payment of the fee shall be
completed prior to the date of final inspection
ar issuance of the certificate of occupancy for
the new construction, whichever is first.
Ord. No. 247'9 N.S. §1}
27.2.fi Fee Adjustments.
a. Application for Adjustment. A
developer of any project subject to the fee
requirements described in subsection 27-2.4
may apply to the City Manager for a reduction,
adjustment or waiver of the requirements,
based upon the absence of any reasonable
relationship or nexus between the police and
#ire service impacts of the new constructian
and the payment of the police and fire fee. The
decision of the City Manager shall be served
on the developer, either personally or by
certified mail addressed to the business
address of the developer, with a notice of
intended decision. This notice shall state the
intended decision on the developer's appli-
cation, the reasons for the proposed decision,
the effective date of the decision if no appeal is
filed by the developer, and the right, of the
developer to appeal to the City Council. The
notice of intended decision shall be personally
served or deposited in the United States Mail.
b. Appeals.
1. Any person dissatisfied with the
decision of the City Manager may file an
appeal to the City Council within the time
specified above. The appeal shall be made in
writing and filed with the City Clerk not later
than ~1} fifteen t15} days prior to the public
hearing of the development permit application
City Council
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #4-C
1 Z-16-o8
DEVELOPMENT FEES
for the project, or ~2} if no development permit is
required, at the time of the filing of an application
for a building permit. The appeal shall state in
detail the factual basis for the claun of waiver,
reduction or adjustment. An appeal fee of fifty
t$5D.DO} dollars shall accompany the request for
appeal to cover the cost of processing the appeal.
2. The City Council shall consider the appeal
at the public hearing on the permit application or
at a separate hearing held within sixty ~fiD) days
after the filing of the police and fire fee adjust-
ment application, whichever is later. The City
Council may preside over the hearing on appeal,
or, in thg alternative, appoint a hearing officer to
conduct the hearing, to receive relevant evidence,
and to submit to the City Council findings and
recommendations to be considered by the City
Council. The City Council shall render its decision
within forty-five X45} days from the date of the
hearing, or in the event that a hearing o~cer has
been appointed, within forty-five X45} days from
the date the City Council receives the findings and
recommendations ofthe hearing o~cer. The deci-
sion of the City Council shall be final.
3. if the City Council finds that an appeal yr
any portion of an appeal does not prevail, the fees
assessed for the matters at the basis of the appeal
shall automatically resume. A waiver, if granted,
shall be in effect for one ~1} calendar year. if a
reduction, adjustment or waiver is granted, any
change in use within the project shall invalidate
the waiver, adjustment or reduction of the require-
ments. ~Drd. No. 2479 N.S. §1}
27-2,'7 Limited Use of Fees.
a. Separation of Fees. The revenues raised by
payment of police and fire fees shall be placed in
a separate and special account, and such rev~-
nues, along with any interest earnings on that
account, shall be used solely to implement the
police and fire projects identified in the police and
fire fee resolution. ~Drd. No. 2479 N.S. §1}
2'1-2.8 Exemptions.
Publicly owned developments shall be exempt
from the provisions of this section. ~~rd. No. 2479
N.S. §1}
27D7
27-3
Rev. ord. Supp. 7101
Police & Fire Construction Impact Fee Fund 1 fit ~
Fund Balance Analysis
FYOT-08
FYOT-08
as of 6130/2008
1 Fund balance forward 6/3012001 I I 63.11
Revenue:
f ~ PolicelFire Construction Impact Fee ~ ~ 51,111.11 ~
Total Revenue 51,111.11
Expenditures:
Transfer to Police Building Debt Service 51,834.22
Total Expense 51,834.22
~ Fund Balance end of 6/30/2008 ~ ~ 0.0~
Police & Fire Construct impact fee.xls 0l-OS 10/612008
City Council
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #4-C
12-16-OS
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December 16, 2008
Re: Accept the Work of Gallagher & Burk, inc., for the Repair and Resurfacing
of Certain Streets,L Phase 28, No. P.W. 04-08-12 ~ ~.
BACKGROUND
Gn June 3, 2008, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $2,965,000,
including contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the repair and resurfacing of
approximately 6.3 miles of streets within the city. The streets included in the project
were selected based on the City's Pavement Management System Program.
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department. The final project cost, including extra work
orders, is $2,734,229.
BUDGET C4NSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the project is budgeted in the Capita! Improvement Program Project No.
82-01 }, with funds available from Measure B, the Construction Improvement Tax, the
Transportation Improvement Fund, Proposition 1B Local Streets and Roads Prop 1B}
funds, Congestion Management Agency Transportation improvement Program funds,
Urban Runoff fees, Gas Tax, and the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIP4LICY DGCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENViRaNMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-D
12-16.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
REC~MMENDATIDN
December 16, Zoos
Page 2 of 2
Accept the work of Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the repair and resurfacing of cerkain
streets, phase 28, No. P.W. 04-08-12.
Respectfully submitted,
. i~
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Directo
;'
By: Laurie Kozisek
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN:LK:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CITY aF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December 16, 2008
Re: Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art Fund ~~
BACKGROUND
Gn March 12, 2003, the City Council adopted ordinance 2892, which created the
Alameda Public Art Program. The intent of the program is to promote a diverse and
stimulating cultural environment to enrich the lives of the City's residents and visitors
and contribute to the vitality of the City's economic development. The ordinance
provides that private and municipal building projects with an assessed value of
$250,000 and over contribute one percent of the building development costs, up to a
maximum of $150,000, toward on-site public artwork, cultural programs, or cultural
activities.
The Alameda Municipal Code requires the establishment of a separate fund for fees,
such as public art fees, paid in connection with the approval of a development project.
The Code also requires the preparation of an annual report that provides information
regarding the amount of fees collected and expended in the fund balance at both the
beginning and end of the fiscal year. This report is intended to satisfy the annual review
requirement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.
DISCUSSInN
In Fiscal Year 2001-2008, the City of Alameda Public Art Program administered fees for
three development projects, the Perforce project on Blanding Avenue, a commercial
building on Webb Avenue, and the Safeway at Alameda Towne Centre. Fees
generated by these projects totaled $30,033. With the inclusion of interest in the
amount of $4,382, the amount credited to the Public Art Fund in Fiscal Year 2001-2008
was $34,415, bringing the ending fund balance as of June 30, 2008 to $73,574.
In June of 2008, the Public Art Commission approved a public art display for a new
commercial building at 1410 Everett Street. Staff is currently working with the Public Art
Commission on the development of an artist resource brochure and guidelines for the
public art identification signage. In addition, Public Art Commissioners have identified
locations of existing public art in Alameda that will be incorporated into the City's
City Council
Agenda item #4-E
12.16.08
Honorable Mayor and December 16, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
computer mapping system. This resource can then be used to create maps of public art
locations, which will assist in elevating the public's awareness of art in the community.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIQNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
By ordinance, funds from public art fees are held in a special fund that can only be used
for eligible public art purposes specified in the ordinance. There is no impact on the
General Fund.
From July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2o0S, $34,415 was credited to the Public Art Fund, for a
total ending balance of $13,514. Expenditures from the fund cover staffing of the Public
Art Program and miscellaneous expenses such as materials and postage for mailings.
Attachment `A' provides the beginning and ending fund balances and reflects fund
activity for Fiscal Year 2DO1-2008.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
This Annual Review is consistent with the requirements of Section 30-65 of the
Alameda Municipal Code.
RECGMMENDATIDN
Accept this report in order to satisfy the Annual Review requirement of the Public Art
Grdinance.
Respectfully submitted,
C=ELI~G l~~~2~i~~~
Cathy Wo bury
Plannin nd Building Dir for
Concur,
Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Chief Financial Officer
5~~~~~V
By: Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager
Attachment:
A. Fund Activity for Fiscal Year 2007-08
Beginning and Ending Fund Balances and Fund Activity for Fiscal Year 2007-08
FUND 285 -Public Art Fund
Starting Fund Balance
Revenue
In-Lieu Contributions
Interest Allocation
Total Revenue
Expenditures
Operating
Miscellaneous (Postage)
Total Expenditures
Ending Fund Balance
PROJECTS MAKING IN-LIEU PAYMENTS FQR 2001-08 FISCAL YEAR
Perforce, Office Building
2411 Webb, CommerciallResidential Building
Safeway Gas Station
TOTAL
Fiscal Year 2001-08
43,384.95
30,032.74
4,38 .94
34,414.fi8
4,225.35
0
~4,225.35~
73,514.28
21,15fi.00
3,250.00
5,fi-
30,032.74
City Council
Attachment to
Agenda Item #4-E
12-'I 6-08
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December ~ 6, 2008
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a
Cooperative Agreement between the City of Alameda and the State of
California Department of Transportation for Funding the Realignment of
the Path at the Foot of the North Side of the Bay Farm Island Bicycle
Bridge in the Amount of $40,000
BACKGROUND
The State of California Department of Transportation Caltrans} has set aside $40,000
as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission ~BCDC} as
mitigation for the temporary impacts to public access that occurred during the State's
seismic retrofit improvements at the Posey and Webster Street Tubes. BCDC staff has
approved the use of these funds for the realignment of the existing path at the foot of
the north side of the Bay Farm Island bicycle bridge. In order to receive these funds,
Caltrans requires a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Alameda.
DISCUSSION
The Cooperative Agreement has been prepared by Caltrans, and has been reviewed
and is acceptable to City staff. Staff is recommending approval of the Cooperative
Agreement and signature by the City Manager. A copy of the Cooperative Agreement is
on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program ~Pro~ect No. 90-677}, with
funds available from the BCDC Bay Trail Access Path fund. Maintenance of the path
will continue to be the City's responsibility and will be funded by Measure B. There is
no impact to the Genera! Fund.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4-F
'12-'16-08
Honorable Mayor and December 16, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODEIPQLICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code and supports the Bicycle
Master Plan Project Number 5, Bay Farm Island Bike Bridge Access, for reducing the
sharpness of the intersection at the north side of the bridge. The project is consistent
with the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection goal to encourage the construction of
bicycle facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
~CEQA} under Sections 15301~c} Existing Facilities and 15304~d} Minor Alterations in
Land Use.
REC~MMENDATIQN
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Alameda and Caltrans for funding the realignment of the path at the
foot of the north side of the Bay Farm Island bicycle bridge in the amount of $40,000.
Respectfully submitted,
. v~~~
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~/~
By: Ed Sommerauer
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN:ES:gc
CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTiGN N0.
~~~
~~
0
L
a
~.
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING
THE REALIGNMENT OF THE PATH AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BAY
FARM ISLAND BICYCLE BRIDGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000
WHEREAS, the City is proposing to realign the existing path at the foot of
the north end of the Bay Farm Island bicycle bridge; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Transportation ~Caltrans}
has set aside $4D,DD0 in funds as required by the Bay Conservation Development
Commission BCDC} Permit No. MG1-9, Special Conditions 11-B-2 of the permit,
as mitigation for the temporary impacts to public access that occurred during the
seismic retrofit improvements at the Posey and Webster Street tubes; and
~lvHEREAS, BCDC has allowed the use of these funds for the realignment
of the existing path and other incidentals as outlined in the BCDC special
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City has filed with the County of Alameda a notice of
Categorically Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act under
Sections 153D1 ~c} Existing Facilities and 153D4~d} Minor Alterations to Land Use;
and
WHEREAS, the City must enter into a Cooperative Agreement with
Caltrans in orderto obtain said funds.
NGW, THEREFaR, BE IT RESGLVED that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to enter into and execute such agreement in a form that is acceptable
to the City Attorney's Gffice.
**~*~*
Resolution #4-FCC
i2.16.OS
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda during the
Regular Meeting of the City Council on the 16th day of December, 2008, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NDES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN UvITNESS, UvHEROF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 1lth day of December, 2008.
Lara1J11eisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December 16, 2408
Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the Alameda City Employees Association and
the City of Alameda Regarding the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
BACKGRGUND
The Memorandum of Understanding MGU} for the Alameda City Employees
Association ACEA} covers the period July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2009. The subject
resolution establishes an Amendment to the MGU for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Golf Complex}.
DISCUSSION
In July 2008, the City Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals
seeking an interim operator for the Goff Complex. In Gctober 2008, ACEA approached
the City with an alternative to contracting out the entire operations of the Golf Complex.
ACEA proposed that the City consider a hybrid structure whereby the City would
immediately contract for the management of the Golf Complex with a private contractor,
but would retain the ultimate responsibility for the operations and maintenance of the
facility. A formal proposal from ACEA was submitted to the City Council at the
November 6, 2008, City Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council approved
the selection of Kemper Sports as the interim operator of the Golf Complex and directed
staff to amend the ACEA MGU so that it is consistent with the terms and conditions
outlined in ACEA's proposal to the City Council. An amendment to the current MCU
betweer the City and the bargaining unit was negotiated and subsequently approved by
the ACEA membership. The genera! parameters of the ACEA Amendment are:
1. The City of Alameda shall enter into a contract for the interim operation of the
Golf Complex through December 31, 2009. Maintenance staff who are ACEA
members would be retained and continue to be paid by the City pursuant to the
existing MGU.
2. The maintenance staff would be subject to the direction and control of the private
operator, subject to the due process requirements set forth in the MGU between
the City and ACEA.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4-G
12.16.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
December 16, 2008
Page 2 of 3
3. The private contractor would be permitted to fill vacancies in the maintenance
staff with non-ACEA members, and ACEA members would work cooperatively
with non-ACEA members.
4. ACEA would work with the private operator to effectuate efficiencies in
operations, which might include flexible scheduling, hours of work, and seasonal
"rainy day" lay-offs.
5. The City would offer "Golden Handshake" retirement incentives to members of
the ParklGolf Maintenance employment classifications at the Golf Complex and
at the Parks Division. If one or more Maintenance employees assigned to the
Golf Complex accept the "Golden Handshake", then non-ACEA members could
replace the retired employees}. The City could also transfer a Maintenance
employee assigned to the Golf Complex into any vacant Maintenance position at
the Parks Division to create a vacancy in the Maintenance staff at the Golf
Complex,
6. The City would need to issue one lay-off notice for the classification of Golf &
Park Maintenance Worker with an effective date of lay-off being January 5, 2009
if at least one Maintenance employee has not elected to retire under the "Golden
Handshake" on or before January 31, 2009. In the event that at feast three
additional Maintenance employees have not !eft employment with the City by
March 3, 2009, then three additional lay-off notices would need to be issued so
that there is total reduction of four maintenance employees by May 31, 2009.
7. The City of Alameda will offer single party health insurance reimbursement at the
2009 Kaiser premium rate for a maximum of 12 months to ACEA bargaining unit
members who retire under the "Golden Handshake" provisions of this
Agreement. Reimbursement to ACEA bargaining unit members who do not retire
on or before December 31, 2008, under the "Golden Handshake" provisions of
this Agreement shall be reduced by one month for each calendar month the
employee remains employed during the "Golden Handshake" window of
December 3, 2408, through May 31, 2009.
8. No later than 60 days prior to December 31, 2009, the City will issue lay-off
notices to all remaining ACEA bargaining unit members assigned to the Golf
Complex with the effective date of the lay-off being close of business December
3 ~ , 2009.
Although the term of the Amendment extends beyond the term of the ACEA MGU, it is
understood that this Amendment shall be valid through December 31, 2009. The City
Council must adopt a resolution in order to approve this Amendment to the
Memorandum of Understanding.
BUDGET CnNSIDERATI4NIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The estimated cost for the extension of the health benefit reimbursement will be
approximately $8,400 for Fiscal Year 2008-09 and approximately $9,975 for Fiscal Year
2009-14. These are estimates only, as costs are realized only for those employees who
retire under the "Golden Handshake". The health benefit costs will be allocated at the
time of retirement to either the Golf Enterprise Fund for employees retiring from the Golf
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
December 16, zoos
Page3of3
Complex or to the General Fund for employees retiring from the Parks Division of the
Recreation and Parks Department. It is anticipated that there will be savings to the Galf
Enterprise Fund by executing this Agreement in combination with the previously
authorized "hybrid" management contract with Kemper Sports. However, the budget for
the "hybrid" management contract has not yet been finalized. In addition, the exact
dates of the retirements, which have been anticipated as a result of this Agreement,
cannot be accurately predicted, and consequently the level of savings can only be
estimated under broad parameters.
RECOMMENDATIGN
Adopt a Resolution approving the Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Alameda City Employees Association and the City of Alameda regarding
the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
RespectFu y submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
0
a
a
APPROVING AMENDMENT T4 MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ALAMEDA CITY EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY CF ALAMEDA FOR THE PERIOD
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2009 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2009
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council an Amendment
~.
= to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda and
0
a the Alameda City Employees Association to establish; and
_~
~.
U
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined
the proposed Amendment, a copy of which is attached, and thereby finds
and determines adoption of said document to be in the best interest of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said
Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding between ACEA and the
City of Alameda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution
shall supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith,
*~**
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 ~ 6th day of December, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
1N WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this llth day of December, 2008.
Lara We.isiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #4-~ CC
X2.16.08
Alameda City Council Referral
Date: 05 Dec 2008
To: D. Kurita, City Manager
L. Weisiger, City Clerk
From: Councilmember Matarrese
Subject: Public Safety Service Level Update -For Discussion and Action as needed at
the City Council Meeting of 16 Dec 2008
Request that the Chiefs of Police and Fire, with the City Manager, provide the City Council with
a presentation on current public safety services levels and briefing on what changes may be
proposed due to the current budget crisis.
The goals of this referral and the reports requested of the City manager and Chiefs are, at least,
~1 } to inform the public on the current status of public safety service levels versus the budget
and ~2} provide the City Council with the opportunity to give policy direction prior to signification
changes in public safety service levels, and ~3} to prepare for mid year budget reporting and
discussion around future cuts anticipated in 2009 due to continuing economic downturn.
The following policy areas should be included in the presentations and briefings:
APD
- Patrols (including business parks and future development areas, such as Alameda Point
and Alameda Landing)
- Parolee surveillance
- Animal Control and Shelter
- Investigations
- Response time
- Staffing levels
Council Referral #8-A
Page 1 of 2 12-16-48
AFD
- Overtimel"Brown Quts"
- Response times
- Transporflambulance service, including uncollected service fees Ito date}
- Staffing levels
- New hire vs. overtime analysis
Page ~ of 2
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December 16, 2008
Re: Authorize Transmittal of the Community Improvement Commission's
Annual Report to the State Controller's Office and the City Council;
Authorize Transmittal of the Redevelopment Agency Annual Housing
Activity Report to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development and the State Controller's Office; and Accept the Annual
Report
BACKG RO U N D
State law requires the Community Improvement Commission ~CIC} to submit an Annual
Report to the City Council, and file a copy of this report with the State Controller by
December 3~ St of each year. The law also requires the submission of the
Redevelopment Agency Annual Housing Activity Report to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development ~HCD}and State Controller.
DISCUSSION
The CIO's Annual Report is available for review in the City Clerk's office. The CIO's
annual report for FY ZOOl-D8 includes the following:
• Independent Auditor's Report on financial statements;
• Independent Auditor's Report on legal compliance;
• Annual Report of Financial Transactions of Community Redevelopment
Agencies Fiscal Statement};
• Redevelopment Agency Annual Housing Activity Report;
• Housing Activities Report Summary;
• Blight Progress Report;
• Loan Report; and
• Property Report
CClARRAICiC
Agenda ltem #2-A
12.16-48
Honorable Mayor and December 16, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
The independent financial audit for FY2001-08 has been prepared by Maze &
Associates. The audit examines the CIC"s compliance with State laws, regulations, and
administrative requirements, including CIC policies and procedures related to record
keeping, public hearings, contracting for services, use of tax increment funds, and
indebtedness. According to the audit, the CIC was found to be in compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, and administrative requirements.
The fiscal statement contains the information required by Health & Safety Code
X33080.5. The Housing Activities Report, describing CIC activities affecting housing and
displacement; the Blight Progress Report, describing the CIO's progress to alleviate
blight; the Loan Report, describing CIC loans in default or not in compliance; and the
Property Report, describing CIC owned and acquired property, are on file in the City
Clerk's Office. The goals of the CIO's three Redevelopment projects are also on file.
BUDGET CCNSIDERATICNIFINANCIALlMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund or the CIO's Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Community Improvement Commission:
Authorize Transmittal of the Community Improvement Commission's Annual Report to
the State Controller's Office and the City Council; Authorize Transmittal of the
Redevelopment Agency Annual Housing Activity Report to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development and the State Controller's Office.
City Council:
Accept the Annual Report.
Res e ~ ~I I ~ s,' fitted,
pF~
~ ~.
~ ~
~`
Leslie A. Little
Development Se ' es D' ctor
By: anette B nk ~, anager
Finance and Administration Division
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairand
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
DKILALINBISF:dc
December 16, 2005
Page 3 of 3
cc: Economic Development Commission
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement
Commission
Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
From: Debra Kurita
City ManagerlExecutive Director
Date: December ~ 6, 2008
Re: Accept Transmittal of:
~} Auditor's Report onAgreed-upon Procedures on Compliance
with Vehicle Code Section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing;
2} Agreed-upon Procedures Report on Compliance with the
Proposition 111 2004-05 Appropriations Limit increment;
3} Police and Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1019 and
1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008;
4} Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Programs
Financial Statements forYear Ending June 30, 2008;
5} Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda,
Basic Component Unit Financial Statements forthe Year Ended
June 30, 2008;
6} Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Alameda, Basic Component Unit Financial Statements forthe
Year Ended June 30, 2008.
BACKGROUND
The Alameda City CharterArticle IV, Section 4-2, various financing covenants, and rules
associated with restricted funding sources, require the City of Alameda to publish
comprehensive financial statements, presented in conformance with generally accepted
accounting principles ~GAAP} and audited by a firm of licensed certified public
accountants. The publication of these statements must be completed within six months of
the close of the fiscal year. Pursuant to these requirements, these documents are issued
and transmitted to the City Council, the Community Improvement Commission, and the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority.
CCIARRAIC~C
Agenda item #2-B
'I Z-16-~8
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 16, 2008
Honorable Chair and Members of the C!C Page 2 of 3
Honorable Chair and Members of the ARRA
Maze and Associates has served as the City's auditor since 1990. Maze and Associates
has completed its independent audit of all funds of the City, the Community Improvement
Commission ~CIC},and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Association ~ARRA}for the
fiscal yearending June 30, 2005. Audit information forthe HousingAuthorityandAlameda
Power & Telecom SAP&T} is included within the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report ~CAFR}. All audit work for Cityfunds has been completed. At this time, however,
due to the recent successful sale of Alameda Power & Telecom's telecommunications
business to Comcast, Maze and Associates has directed a delay in the issuance of the
City's CAFR until such time as further analysis of this major subsequent event can be
completed.
Therefore, thefollowing auditand compliance reports are beingtransmitted: agreed-upon
procedures for compliance with certain vehicle code provisions; the reporton compliance
with Proposition 111 calculation procedures; the Police and Fire Retirement System
Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 audit reports; and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission MTC} Grant Program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. Basic
component unit reports for the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority are also included as separate audit documents. These
results will be included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ~CAFR} at the
time it is issued by Maze and Associates.
DISCUSSION
The auditor's report on compliance with vehicle code and parking citation processing has
been prepared in accordance with California State Vehicle Code Section 40200.3. The
auditor's compliance report indicates no majorweakness orissuesof concern in the City's
management and administration of this program.
The Agreed-upon Procedures Report on Compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-05
Appropriations Limit Increment is required by State law. The report calculations are in
compliance with Proposition 111 procedures and the City's appropriations in fiscal year
2007-2008 comply with the statutory limits.
The Police and Fire Retirement Systems Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report is
required by both the City ordinance and audit reporting requirements for these defined
benefit retirement plans. This report will be required until such time as there are no plan
participants, and all required contributions have been made.
The MTC Grant Programs Financial Statements are required as the City is a recipient of
funds from this agency for specific transportation programs and services. As a condition of
receipt of these funds, MTC requires an independent and separate compliance audit
annually.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council December 16, 2008
Honorable Chair and Members of the CIC Page 3 of 3
Honorable Chair and Members of the ARRA
At June 30, 2008, the Community Improvement Commission's governmental funds
reported combined fund balances of $24,560,612, of which $15,814,138 is legally reserved
and $8,146,534 is available to fund ongoing Commission operations, programs and
projects.
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, at June 30, 2008, had an $11,564,115
fund balance, of which $1,196,491 is legally reserved and $10,361,624 is available to fund
ongoing authority operations, programs and projects.
The aforementioned compliance reports and financial statements are on file in the City
Clerk's office. Each can also be reviewed at the Alameda Free Library and its branches.
Upon approval bythe City Council, CIC, and ARRA, these compliance reports and audits
will be added to the Finance section of the City's website.
The City Auditor, a representative from Maze and Associates, the City's external auditors,
and the Interim Chief Financial Gfficer will be available at the December 16, 2008, City
Council meeting to answer questions and receive comments from the City Council as to
areas of concern, if any, to be emphasized during the fiscal year 2008-2009 audit cycle.
BUDGET CCNSIDERATIDNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
Acceptance of these reports does not affect the City's budget or financial condition. The
reports and financial statements reflect an audit of the financial records for the respective
funds and governmental units at June 30, 2008.
0n October 18, a detailed presentation of all city funds, including revenues, expenditures
and fund balances, was presented. The final audit reports, contained herein, reflect no
significant or material changes since that presentation.
REC4MMENDATI4N
Accept transmittal of the various compliance reports and financial statements.
Respectfully submitted
Ann Marie allant
Interim Ch f Financial Cfficer
AMG:dI
cc: City Auditor
City Treasurer
Maze & Associates
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 7, 2008- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at G:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
X08-411 CC} Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All Bargaining Units.
X08-412 CC
Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties: City
Council, ARRA, CIC, and SunCal; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
ARRA / 08--5D CIC} Conference with Real Property
Following the Closed Session, the Spec
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that
Negotiator gave an update on Alameda
~ACEA}, International Association of
Alameda Police Officers Association
Council provided instruction; regarding
CIC, and ARRA were provided Wlth a
regarding Alameda Point; no action was
Adjournment
:ial Meeting was reconvened
regarding Labor, the Labor
City Employee Association
Fire Fighters ~ IAFF} , and
~APOA} negotiations, and
Real Property, the Council,
briefing on negotiations
taken.
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lora weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
October 7, 2~aa
UNAPPRQVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 7, 2008- -~7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members /
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
MTATTTTT~ ~
Absent: None.
X08-51 CIC} Minutes of Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on September 16, 2008. Approved.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
X08-52 CIC} Recommendation to accept and endorse the Park Street
north of Lincoln Avenue Strategic Plan.
The Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Ian Ross, The City Design Collective, gave a Power Point
presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the form based concepts are innovative;
Council has discussed CalTrans' plans regarding Highway 880 and the
potential closing of Glascock Avenue because of Union Pacific's
plans; inquired whether there has been any outreach to understand
how said issues would factor into the Strategic Plan.
Mr. Ross responded that he is not aware of any additional outreach
with CalTrans.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Ross mentioned that auto servicing
businesses would continue even without auto dealerships because
there is sufficient customer base.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October ~, 2oa8
Mr. Ross stated [auto] dealerships are anchors; some auto servicing
businesses will close or look elsewhere, but there is demand within
the City to sustain many of the uses.
Vice Mayor Tam stated very few businesses have the ability to
produce the same level tax revenue as auto dealerships; inquired
whether Mr. Ross concurs that loss in sales tax revenue cannot be
replaced with mixed uses.
Mr. Ross responded auto dealerships are the main tax producing
entities within cities; stated auto dealerships are abandoning
small cities and moving to auto malls; replacing auto dealership
revenue is very difficult; hotels, motels, and destination retail
uses are possible revenue generators; said businesses prefer to be
on gateway streets.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Mr. Ross noted that residential
development could act as a catalyst; inquired whether work/live
opportunities would differ from the City's current constraints
[ordinance ] .
Mr. Ross responded that residential development has been one of the
primary driving engines for revitalization within City districts;
stated recommendations are to create as much flexibility in the
land use code as possible in order to attract work/live, retail,
and commercial.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether office and tech opportunities
would be beneficial.
Mr. Ross responded that a strong office base is always good; stated
Alameda has vacancies in some of the larger office parks; small,
professional offices are in demand; the office market is not as
strong as in the past.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether high tech could be a driving
force.
Mr. Ross responded that he hopes that high tech would develop
office space in the future; stated small, incubator flex space is
in demand now; office developments love vibrant centers.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board recommends not to
allow any drive-through access on Park Street; inquired what is the
thinking behind the recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, zoos
Mr. Ross responded one of the overall goals is to make the district
walkable; stated he would recommend reducing the number of curb
cuts; drive-through businesses generate conditions for cars to
drive across sidewalks.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the way function and
form has been laid out; inquired whether the Transportation Demand
Management ~TDM} is intended to be a district wide or development-
by-development program.
Mr. Ross responded the Transportation Master Plan has Citywide
recommendations and regulations; stated any future transportation
modifications would be in keeping with the Transportation Master
Plan.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
opponent Not in favor of the staff recommendation}: Arthur Lipow,
Alameda.
Proponent ~In favor of the staff recommendation}: Robb Ratto, Park
Street Business Association ~PSBA}.
Neutral: Bill Smith, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any thought has been given to
advocating for auto sales tax revenue being distributed to the city
in which the purchaser resides.
The City Manager responded sales tax distribution has been reviewed
but still remains at the point of sale.
Mayor Johnson stated that efforts should be made to review the
matter; communities with dealerships are siphoning a lot of sales
tax revenue.
The City Manager stated the League of California Cities could be
asked to explore the matter; opposition would come from cities
benefiting from the revenue.
Mayor Johnson stated fewer cities have larger dealerships; efforts
should be made to advocate for reallocation [of tax revenuej.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese stated staff recommends that Council accept
and endorse the Park Street north of Lincoln Strategic Plan and
direct staff to amend the City's zoning regulations; inquired
whether direction is to include expanding the Work/Live Ordinance;
stated that he advocates using work/live beyond the current scope
in order to review rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings
outside zones currently designated and as a way to meet Community
Action for a Sustainable Alameda ~CASA~ goals.
The Development Services Director stated the Strategic Plan
provides a framework; the next step would be to start exploring
form-based zoning.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate changing
the interior Work/Live Ordinance requirements but expanding
locations within the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan stated six properties fall under the Work/Live
Ordinance; only one property has moved forward; the work/live idea
seems to have hit a wall; the proposed plan sets benchmark visions.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City has the opportunity to take control
of its destiny by going through concerted efforts with the Planning
Department rather than allowing haphazard market forces to decide.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to put
effort into the Transportation Demand Management ~TDM~ plan,
including the integrated area and review expansion of the Work/Live
Ordinance.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated direction should include
review of obstacles associated with work/live projects because only
one project has moved forward; the Work/Live Ordinance is a
critical piece for reuse of historic assets in the northern
waterfront area.
Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend the
motion to include Councilmember Matarrese's and Mayor Johnson's
recommendations.
Mayor Johnson stated the area should not be named the Gateway
District.
Councilmember deHaan stated a better name would be one that is
historical in nature.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2DD8
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated a
temporary name should be used.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the motion should also include assurance
that the TDM addresses what would happen on the other side of the
[Park Street] bridge.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council continually discusses sales tax
leakage; the area provides an opportunity to capture sales tax
leakage.
on the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
X08-413 CC/ARRA/08-53 CIC} Recommendation to approve the second
amendment
Point LLC.
to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave
an overview of the proposed Second Amendment to the ENA, stating
that in June 200$, SunCal Companies, Alameda Point's master
developer, requested authorization from the ARRA to secure a
financial partner to assist in carrying out their obligations under
the ENA. Pursuant to the ENA, a transfer requires approval of CIC,
CC, ARRA. 0n Aug. 19th, the ARRA considered the transfer to the new
entity: Cal Land Ventures, a joint partnership between D.E. Shaw
Real Estate Portfolio Twenty, LLC and WM Development Group, a
wholly--owned affiliate of SunCal.
Discussion of the transfer was based on the following core
principles - 1} any new entity must retain SunCal as the day--to-day
manager of the project, 2} SunCal should retain equity interest in
the new venture, and 3} new entity should commit to invest funds
necessary to meet obligations under the ENA. The City/ARRA/CIC
felt it was critical to amend the ENA to address these core
principles, because City entities are not parties to an operating
agreement between joint venture partners.
The 2nd amendment to the ENA provides: Approval of ownershi
P
transfer, establishes new termination date of July 20, 2010 - this
date reflects SunCal's intention to seek voter approval of its
proposed land plan in Nov. 2009 and anticipates concluding DDA
negotiations by July 20, 2010. The termination date can only be
extended if Alameda hasn't acted on SunCal's land use approvals by
that date.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council Alameda Reuse and 5
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 20Q8
The 2nd amendment also establishes several new mandator milestones:
Y
- SunCal's obligation to elect to pursue, or not, a ballot
initiative by April 30, 2009
- Complete a final Navy Conveyance Term Sheet by July 31, 2009
- Complete a negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010.
2nd amendment provides Alameda with performance standards it needs
to ensure timely progress on the redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Failure to meet any mandatory milestone is a default of the ENA. In
addition, Suncal will now be required to deposit $250,000 with the
City to commence CEQA work by April 20, 2009. Failure to make the
initial deposit or subsequent deposits for this work is a default
under the ENA. The cure periods for all the defaults under the ENA
have been shortened, so the ENA can be terminated more quickly as
necessary. The city may request once every six months that the
developer prove in writing that they are consistent with the
obligations of the ENA regarding any transfer.
These modifications protect Alameda's core interests and allows an
addition of a new financial partner with the wherewithal to fund
the necessary predevelopment activities to entitle a mixed-use
project at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan asked for clarification on the change of the ballot
initiative. Ms. Potter explained that the only change would be
whether Suncal elects to put their land plan on the ballot or not.
They are not required to place it on the ballot, the mandatory
milestone requires only that Suncal to inform us whether they will
go on the ballot or not. Member deHaan asked Suncal if they would
"stay the course" if modifications to the Measure A ordinance would
not pass.
Pat Keliher, Alameda Point Project Manager for Suncal, replied
that, per the agreement, Suncal would like to continue to have an
opportunity to stay the course. To date, they do not believe that
there is any non-Measure A plan that would work. Their plan
developed with community effort is a plan they will take to the
ballot. Mr. Keliher further explained the process it would take to
bring their plan to the ballot. Boardmember deHaan asked if Suncal
would stay in the project, even if the initiative Ito change
Measure A} did not pass. Mr. Keliher replied affirmatively.
Member Matarrese asked staff about his earlier request for a
business plan from Suncal. He expressed his concerns about calling
the pile of data a business plan because there was no proposal, nor
any conclusions drawn. Ms. Potter explained that Suncal did submit
Speczal Jaint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2D08
a draft business plan on September 19th! which was submitted in
multiple parts, and do not exist together as one document. SunCal
understands the Board's expectation of what the Business Plan
document should entail and has promised that when they submit the
final plan on November 19th, it will be bound in one single document
with a narrative tying all the disparate pieces together as the
Business Plan.
Member Gilmore asked who gets to decide which party decides or
determines when DE Shaw can remove SunCal as partner. Amy
Freilich, Senior VP of SunCal, stated that as it's drafted
currently, the Board would get notice from DE Shaw that would
indicate that they have removed, for cause, SunCal as a partner.
At that point, under the standard default provisions of the
document, the ARRA would be entitled to declare default and specify
the reasons for concerns and ask for a demonstration for what the
cause was. If DE Shaw is unable to satisfy the ARRA with respect
to that, it would be a default of the developer, and the ARRA would
be entitled to terminate. DE Shaw would present their evidence
that they were appropriately removing SunCal as partner. Member
Gilmore further asked, under the operating agreement, SunCal can be
removed for "member issues", would the process for determining
default be the same? Ms. Freilich affirmed. Chair Johnson added
that the only remedy would be to declare default and then
terminate.
Member Matarrese stated that the problem with this situation is, in
layman's terms, it puts us back to square one where SunCal doesn't
have any money without DE Shaw. He was concerned that DE Shaw knows
nothing about developing Alameda Point, and that if we lose SunCal,
we're at the end of the line -~ we're stuck with a terminated
agreement and no developer, and have to start the process all over
again.
Member Gilmore discussed that this scenario could happen at any
point in the process, whether it's SunCal or DE Shaw; as you go
forward, you always run the risk that something unforeseen could
happen, and the project could not be completed and then you're back
to square one. Alameda Point is a risk-inherent project. Chair
Johnson agreed, stating that there's not 1000 assurance to
ourselves that something could happen; it's a very risky project
and there's not way to prevent the risk.
Chair Johnson requested that language be
terminates SunCal for reasons insufficient
affect the relationship between the ARRA
explained that if SunCal is terminated for
added that if DE Shaw
for our ENA, it doesn't
and SunCal. Ms. Potter
cause, the ARRA has the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 7
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meetinq
actober 7, 2008
opportunity to approve a replacement. The path forward under
either scenario would be approval of replacement, or termination if
DE Shaw did something contrary to ENA.
Member deHaan expressed deep concern with this issue in general. He
discussed that SunCal was selected because they had multimillion
dollar background. He was uncomfortable that SunCal had to get a
hedge fund partner to tie them over to get through the ENA.
Because he has no in~depth knowledge of the company, Member deHaan
requested a financial consultant prepare a fiscal evaluation of DE
Shaw and their capability to weather the storm for this project.
Member Tam stated that it is clear that there have been
extraordinary events in financial market, and a solvent financial
partner is difficult to find. Comparing Alameda to Mare Island
~Lennar~, she said we have the safeguards in place, and if DE Shaw
jettisons SunCal, the deal would be off and we're not absorbing any
fallout or cost.
In response to Member deHaan's request, Ms. Potter explained that
DE Shaw had submitted their financial information to our
consultant, EPS, who analy2ed the data and determined that DE Shaw
could take on the financial obligations of ENA. Ms. Freilich
further discussed DE Shaw, stating that they have $36 billion under
management and $1.8 billion in real estate. They began 20 years ago
as hedgefund in global and technology, with 10 different asset
classes, and have hired an experienced team to do real estate
acquisitions. DE Shaw acknowledges that it is a difficult real
estate market, but that they've done extensive due diligence at
Alameda Point, which they view as a unique and irreplaceable
opportunity. SunCal is thrilled to have a partner with the
capacity and ability that DE Shaw has, and they understand the goal
of tightening up the milestones, and remain a committed partner in
producing the DDA.
Member deHaan asked if SunCal was in such dire straits that $lOm
was difficult for them to invest without a financial partner. Ms.
Freilich explained that because the markets have changed, lines of
credit are not available under the same terms. From SunCal's
standpoint, partnering with DE Shaw provides stability to the
project rather than the opposite.
Chair Johnson asked for a fundamental explanation of the ENA and
DDA, for the benefit of the public. Ms. Potter explained that the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ~ENA~ is a predevelopment period
with SunCal, with a term that runs through July 20, 2010. During
this period, the City works in partnership with SunCal to get to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 8
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008
the Disposition and Development Agreement DDA} stage. The DDA is
a critical document negotiated during the ENA period and is an
acquisition agreement - what you're paying for the land, what
you'll be developing on the property, etc. If we don't have a
negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010, then we go our separate ways.
Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of the Navy still owning
the property, and the clause regarding Navy negotiations. Ms.
Potter stated that it is true that one of the riskiest issues about
the Alameda Point property is that any developer we work with is
not negotiating with the Property owner, which is the Navy. one of
the key milestones being converted to a mandatory milestone under
the 2nd amendment is the conveyance term sheet, our agreement with
the Navy on the land purchase price, how the property will be
conveyed to the ARRA, and ultimately to the developer. This term
sheet is due July 31, 2009. If we don't come to an agreement with
the Navy, SunCal is in default under the agreement of the ENA and
we move to plan B.
Chair Johnson asked whether the July 31, 2009 deadline is that a
realistic time frame for the Navy. David Brandt, Deputy Executive
Director, stated that the date was what the Navy indicated they're
willing to entertain in terms of negotiating with us on a deal with
SunCal, and that they're not moving further past July 2009. Chair
Johnson asked if we are expecting any changes in the Navy's
approach on the project after election. She hopes for a new
outlook on base reuse from Federal Government and recommended we
have flexibility in that milestone. Mr. Brandt explained that
certainly, if we're making great progress, and if the Navy wants to
extend beyond July 09, we'll come back and see if all parties want
to go beyond; but doesn't want to be caught in the position where
there are no changes after the election, and we're unable to move
forward. The Navy would not officially negotiate directly with
developer, but will negotiate with ARRA.
Member Gilmore asked staff to inform the public of the upcoming
community meetings where SunCal will present their Development
Concept to eight boards and commissions. Ms. Potter summarized the
meeting schedule and discussed that public comments from each of
these meetings will be compiled into one document and presented to
the ARRA Board at its Nov. 5th regular meeting. ARRA will also
provide their comments, all of which will feed into the Draft
Master Plan due on Nov 19th. Member Gilmore asked if the Nov. 19th
deadline was enough time.
Ms. Potter acknowledged it is aggressive time frame. Mr. Keliher
said that the purpose of the public meetings was to listen and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 9
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008
receive, and SunCal hopes to receive a number of different comments
from all of the different groups, and needs to time to analyze,
make changes so that these comments can be considered in developing
the draft master plan. He said they are committed to 11/19 date.
Member Gilmore was concerned that it's not enough time and asked if
the Board and staff was opposed to an extension? Mr. Brandt
supported the extension because it would mean receiving a better
product. Ms. Potter agreed and requested that the mandatory
milestone be modified to extend the submission of the draft master
plan to Dec. 19th, 2008.
Ms. Freilich requested that language should be added to protect
their interest; that as long as negotiations with the Navy continue
and are fruitful, SunCal would not be in default. Mr. Brandt, and
stated that the City should be included as a party in the same
language.
Ms. Potter wanted to note that there will be a correction made to
an oversight in a sentence included in the ENA, per Senior
Assistant City Attorney, Donna Mooney. Chair Johnson acknowledged
the notation.
There were several speakers on this item: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda,
spoke regarding cleanup of Alameda Point scheduled for completion
in 2011, which is beyond the deadline for conveyance of the
property. Arthur Lipow, Alameda, was concerned about, and against
the partnership between DE Shaw and SunCal. He discussed an
alternative and would like to see a public trust situation like at
the Presidio. Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, discussed health and safety
codes, traffic issues, and clean-up of the Alameda Point and would
like more transparency in General Plan and Business Plan. Joel
Ramland, Alameda, was not in favor of the agreement between SunCal
& DE Shaw and discussed its financial status. Bill Smith, Alameda,
spoke about light industry.
Member Matarrese asked how much SunCal has spent to date. Ms.
Potter replied that SunCal has spent approximately $3M to date with
a non-refundable $1M deposit. Member Matarrese asked if we own the
materials produced by SunCal and its consultants pertaining to
geotechnical and environmental information. Ms Potter said that it
is a provision that we do own any and all materials prepared or
commissioned by the developer.
Member Tam motioned approval of
including approving a transfer of
Alameda Point LLC to Cal Land
the 2nd Amendment to the ENA,
the ownership interest in SCC
~Tenture, LLC, subject to the
Special Joint Meetinq
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1 O
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
2mprovement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008
following modifications:
1. modify mandatory milestone for submittal of Final Business
Plan and draft Master Plan by December 19, 2008, in order to
incorporate public comment and to have a meaningful work
product
2, get a status report at least 30 days in advance whether or not
we need an extension on the mandatory milestone regarding
finalization of the Navy term sheet on July 31, 2009.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0.
Member Gilmore requested an update of the financial analysis of DE
Shaw given the tremendous change in market. The Board directed
staff to provide this update and staff affirmed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:59 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC and
Irma Glidden, Secretary ARRA
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1 1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting
October 7, 2008
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND
COMM[JNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING
TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 21, 2008- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members /
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
~*08- CC/ARRA} Recommendation to authorize execution of a Payment
Plan for Sales Tax Guarantee between the City of Alameda and
Auctions by the Bay, Inc. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEM
X08- CC/ARRA/08-52CIC} Recommendation to accept the Year End
Financial Report for the period ending June 30, 2DD8.
The Interim Finance Director gave a presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the equipment replacement fund is $2.5
million, which is too much; there should be a discussion on what
the equipment replacement is for and why there is so much money in
the fund .
The Interim Finance Director stated the revenue is generated by
depreciation, which departments have as an expense; how quickly the
funds are used depends on budget decisions made each year; the
depreciation rate is based upon the schedule adopted as part of the
audit and is pretty much the IRS's depreciation schedule.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the number represents real
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 20x8
dollars, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount is too high.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much
was added last year, to which the Interim Finance Director
responded $400,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount in the fund increased last
year when 4o to 5o cuts were made in department budgets; the matter
should be reviewed.
The Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide Council
with information on what auditors would expect.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
the $1 million sales tax overpayment would come from the General
Fund.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the amount would not be included in the last Fiscal Year; provided
background information on the State Board of Equalization's claim
that the City was overpaid $1.1 million in sales tax.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired about the ambulance service bill from
the County.
The City Manager responded the City returned the bill to the County
because the City does not have a Contract.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired the amount, to which the City Manager
responded over $1 million.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what the bill is for.
The City Manager responded the bill is for the County providing
regulation for ambulance services; stated the City pays the amount
from the General Fund because the City does not assess residents
for the service; the City has been negotiating with the County
since 2005.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City Fire Department provided back
up to American Medical Response AMR} approximately 600 times; the
number of times AMR backed up the City is much, much less; the City
should send the County a bill for the disproportionate amount of
mutual aid; the City should not provide backup for AMR, a private
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 2
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Ymprovement Commission
October 21, 2aaa
company; taxpayers should not support AMR; the County should
receive a $1 million bill for the service.
The City Manager stated staff would follow up; the City made
changes to avoid the situation in the future.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the bill should be sent for past mutual
aid.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
the $1 million sales tax overpayment and $1 million bill from the
County are outstanding, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired the
likelihood of the City prevailing on the outstanding County bill.
The City Attorney responded the City is in good shape; stated the
amount relates to an expired Contract that the City has been trying
to negotiate; The county refunded the City when the Contract has
expired in the past.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner inquired how outstanding
amounts are captured on the balance sheet.
The Interim Finance Director responded the amount is captured as a
liability at the time the process is concluded and the amount is
real.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested a
breakdown of the $6 million in IQUs [owed to the General Fund].
The Interim Finance Director stated the three large amounts are
$2.2 million from Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ~AR.R.A},
$2.4 million from Alameda Power and Telecom SAP&T}, and $1.2
million from Alameda Point.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's
inquiry regarding repayment of the $6 million loaned out from the
General Fund, the Interim Finance Director stated the principle is
not being retired; ARRA is paying interest only, which is booked as
$130,000 in General Fund revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
there is a funding mechanism for repayment.
The Interim Finance Director responded the matter would be visited
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 3
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 2Q08
in more detail in the future; stated some housekeeping paperwork
needs to be done to make it [loans] more formal; continued the
presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested the outstanding bonds debt balance.
The Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide the debt
service schedule, including a description of why the City went to
the market and what was financed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to maintain what has been
built and cannot let assets deteriorate before they have been paid
off .
The Interim Finance Director stated one of the things that
government does not do very well is anticipate maintenance costs
and roll [maintenance] costs into operations; some cities adopt
policies.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City should do so [adopt a policy].
The Interim Finance Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $38
million in the sewer fund is the asset, not cash; inquired whether
$38 million is the amount it would cost to put in the sewer system.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated GASB
34 requires that a value be placed on infrastructure; stated the
replacement cost would be a lot more than $38 million.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the amount
should be grounded to reality; requested the matter be reviewed;
stated the value should be understood.
The Interim Finance Director stated a GASB 34 report could be
provided on the sewer and ferry systems.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is trying to catch up on
deferred maintenance for streets and sidewalks; the City needs to
have a plan and funding mechanism in place to deal with assets so
that they do not crumble away; the Council needs to know the
expected maintenance needs in the near and long term for all
assets, such as the sewers.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a real
number is needed, not a number driven by an accounting standard.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 2008
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the
$300,000 in the Golf due from ARRA fund would be repaid, to which
the Interim Finance Director responded staff would look into the
matter.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired the
amount in the ARRA fund balance.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the aggregate, fund
balance is $10.3 million.
The City Manager stated staff would get back to Council because
there are difference between the amount and the cash flow.
Councilrnember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
the [ARRA] fund owes money to the General Fund and Golf, to which
the Interim Finance Director responded staff would look into the
matter.
The Assistant City Manager stated some of the commitments are
pretty poorly documented.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to do a better job [of
documenting commitments].
The Interim Finance Director stated the [ARRA] funds might not be
available due to obligations in a Disposition and Development
Agreement or something else; the numbers would be broken down more
clearly; continued the presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Workers'
Compensation fund.
The Interim Finance Director stated the fund has been set up to
include the potential liability similar to other Post Employment
Benefits ~oPEB~ .
The City Attorney stated both federal law and the City's
participation in a workers' compensation risk pool require that the
City show the actuarial loss reserve; the number is very high and
represents the worst case scenario; the City has to have the funds,
rather than just show the number on paper; the funds are held in
the General Fund; as claims come in during the year, money is
backfilled into the workers' compensation budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the reporting be made clearer.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 5
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 20Q8
The Interim Finance Director stated the amount is on the balance
sheet, not the profit and loss statement; the amount does not have
to be liquid and can be in an asset.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City
is federally required to have $5 million [for workers'
compensation]; inquired whether the $5 million is part of the $10
million that is cash in the [General Fund] fund balance.
The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated the
number is recorded as a liability; however, the money is not
earmarked exclusively far workers' compensation.
The City Attorney concurred that the amount does not need to be
earmarked; stated there must be at least that much money in the
General Fund.
The Interim Finance Director stated if Council wanted to fund it,
the cash would be moved someplace.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the fund balance is $16 million, $10
million of which is cash; $5 million of the $10 million [in cash]
has to remain liquid [for workers' compensation].
The Interim Finance Director stated the federal requirement is that
the City has to have the capacity to pay.
The City Attorney concurred that the City has to demonstrate the
capacity to pay; stated the way the City does so is by keeping the
money in the General Fund.
The Interim Finance Director concluded the presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the amount budgeted for the next
fiscal year be included in another column in future reports; stated
some funds have significant balances and might need to be reviewed;
further requested that the police overtime Contract overtime be
reviewed to ensure that the amount charged fully funds all costs.
The Interim Finance Director stated contract overtime would be
handled differently; there would be an object code to show expenses
along with a revenue source by detail.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount charged needs to include the
amount of time a Captain spends overseeing contract overtime.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 6
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 2Q08
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the Meyers House,
the City Manager stated the amount was removed from the Recreation
budget and was not funded.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission Tam seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote ~ 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 7
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 21, 2008