Loading...
2005-06-07 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 7, 2005- -7:25 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:59 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners /Board Members Daysog, deHaan Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MTNTTTFS (05- 257CC/05- 029CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of May 17, 2005. Approved. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan moved approval of minutes with the amendment that the minutes state: "Recommendation to receive and file revised Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation recommendations." Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS ARRA Resolution No. 36, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06." Adopted; (05- 030CIC) Resolution Operating Budget and Expenditures Provided i No. 05 -137, "Approving Appropriating Certain n Fiscal Year 2005 -06." (05- 258CC) Resolution No. 13845, "Approving Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06." and Adopting the Moneys for the Adopted; and and Adopting the Moneys for the Adopted. The Acting City Manager /Executive Director stated that this is the first time that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) , Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council budgets have been presented at one time; noted it is important to receive the budgets together because there is a considerable amount of interaction between the three agencies; a long -term financial plan for ARRA is provided and a ten -year financial plan for the City would be provided in the near future; additional CIC information would lay the ground work for the next fiscal year Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 budget; the balanced budget has no new or increased taxes; there is a significant deficit in the infrastructure maintenance; the City needs to spend considerably more than what is included in the budgets to maintain the City streets, sidewalks, and trees; a proposal on how to approach the backlog will be presented to Council during the next six months; stated that service delivery impact presentations will be presented to the Council by the departments with the most significant impacts. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation on the changes in revenues for the next fiscal year. The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation on the Fire Department's budget reduction impacts. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations gave a brief presentation on the Police Department's budget reduction impacts. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Police Department is being asked to do more with less resources; crime statistics and how the Police Department handles duties matter to the citizens in Alameda; that she received an e -mail recently stating how well the Police Department fights crime and that overall crime statistics have gone down; requested statistics be shared with the public. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations outlined the following statistics for 2004: Part 1 crimes for more serious crimes decreased by 16.50; Part 2 crimes for misdemeanors decreased by 4.60; arrests were up 3.50. Mayor Johnson inquired whether 2005 statistics were available, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that Part 1 and 2 crimes are down, but that he does not have the exact numbers; arrests are on par with last year. Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the hard work of the Police Department and the pro active approach; Alameda has an earned reputation to be a place where people who have served time do not want to come; reaching appropriate staffing levels is a challenge; his suggestion [to increase the number of police officers] addressed 18 months ago should be revisited. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he leaves the ability to keep crime levels down to experts; Council should be advised when staffing levels dip below 99 officers; stated the City has 5,000 marine slips for property tax paying boats; inquired whether the Council wants to make a policy decision not to have patrol boat Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 2 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 services; inquired what the cost would be to restore the police patrol boat to last summer's level. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded the Harbor Patrol Program has never been full time; the Program takes two or three officers out of patrol on weekends, which requires overtime backfilling. Councilmember Matarrese requested figures on what it would cost to restore the patrol operation to last summer's level. Mayor Johnson stated that the Oakland Police Chief was advocating for boat funding from Homeland Security; inquired whether the City could join the Coast Guard, City of Oakland, and Sheriff's department, to provide patrol services on the Estuary. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the Sheriff's Department has been a wonderful resource for harbor assistance. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department has estuary patrol, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department performs enforcement patrols, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded in the affirmative; stated that the Coast Guard's priorities are different from municipalities and counties; stated that he will research the Harbor Patrol Program costs. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland utilized their boat, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the City of Oakland was not spending much time on the boat due to the shortage of patrol cars on the streets; the situation might have changed; he would look into the matter and report back to Council. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the figures for revitalizing the estuary patrol should also include the boat repair costs. The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations stated that the boat is a very expensive piece of equipment; one of the problems with the boat program is that officers' skills diminish due to the limited time spent on the boat; lack of expertise and training also add to the expense of the boat operation. The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the City Attorney's Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 3 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 office budget reduction impacts. Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on the impacts of the City Attorney's office reductions. The City Attorney stated that the duties of two full -time positions that are being cut would be absorbed within the existing staff and would result in some delays in quantity and timeliness of the workload. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the reduction would cause delays in reviewing contracts, to which the City Attorney responded that the current contract review time is two days; contract review will continue to be treated as a priority. Mayor Johnson inquired whether two days is an average time for contract review, to which the City Attorney responded the two -day turnaround time was the average time for contract review during the last five months. Mayor Johnson inquired what service impacts the City departments could expect; stated that a Charter change might be necessary if there was a delay in the City Attorney's office approving a contract. The City Attorney responded that the existing workload would be spread among existing staff; phones may need to be placed on voice mail at lunch time; there may be a delay in document production and routine tasks; stated the City Attorney's office is trying to work smarter; the workload that is handled by the Administration Management Analyst would need to be spread among the remaining staff; there would be a need to have Department Heads do more in terms of contract preparation and review. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a way to advise the Department Heads which contracts need to be approved by the City Attorney's office and which do not. The City Attorney stated that she has tried to triage the contracts by preparing a training program and getting forms and options on line to enable the departments to do more of the routine tasks; the level of the budget cut requires that things be done differently. Mayor Johnson inquired whether presentation for Risk Management, responded that Risk Management Attorney's presentation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 4 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 there would be a separate to which the Acting City Manager has been included in the City Mayor Johnson stated that she would address the litigation contingency account issue later. Councilmember Daysog stated that service to the departments is an important issue; every Councilmember is in agreement with streamlining efforts; the Council appreciates the service that the City Attorney's office has rendered to the public on issues such as the Casino and the Oakland Airport; an 18% cut is a huge hit; stated that the value of the City Attorney's service to the citizens could not be overstated. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation on the impacts of the budget reduction. Mayor Johnson inquired what the cost would be to implement the Park Master Plan. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded estimates are between $75,000 and $125,000, depending upon the number of public meetings, the review process, and the number of times the matter is brought back to various entities. Mayor Johnson inquired whether maintenance would be included in the Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded the Park Master Plan would be an overall park plan covering almost every detail of the park system. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many grants are successfully applied for each year, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded that the City received approximately $860,000 in grants from the last two State bonds [Propositions 12 and 40]; the three grants pending are Estuary Park, Paden School Trail, and Alameda Point Gym. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there has been a full -time grant writer in the past, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; grant writing has been divided among the administrative staff. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a grant writing position might be worth reviewing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a grant writing position could be utilized by all departments. The Acting City Manager responded there has been consideration to Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 5 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 have an experienced grant writing volunteer; stated grant application opportunities will not be missed. Councilmember Daysog stated there are consulting companies that provide grant search and administration services and only charge a portion of the grant amount. Mayor Johnson stated that a professional grant writer might be more aware of grant opportunities; the possibility of contracting out Citywide grant writing services should be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $75,000 to $125,000 for the Park Master Plan consulting services is included in the budget, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether anything has been done on the Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the initial research has been performed; a Citywide needs assessment was performed a few summers ago. The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation on the Human Resources Department's budget reduction impacts. The Building Official gave a brief presentation on the Planning and Building Department's budget reduction impacts. Mayor Johnson stated that there are part -time planners at Alameda Point and City Hall; inquired whether having all planners at one location would be more efficient. The Building Official responded there is one Planner working two days a week at Alameda Point and the rest of the week at City Hall; the schedule has worked out well; the Planner will need to spend more time at City Hall because of the Planning Services Manager cut. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Department's cost recovery is still at 900, to which the Building Official responded cost recovery is at 1000. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that cutting a position that generates revenue may need to be re- thought; the City needs to be business friendly. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City uses contract assistance when there are surges in the workload and whether the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 6 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 costs would be covered by the fees, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cut of the Planning Services Manager would slow down the permit and plan review process, to which the Building Official responded that there would be a slow down in plan review with a ripple effect on advanced planning projects. Councilmember Matarrese stated the cut is not large enough to justify the slow down; the costs incurred due to the cut would be far greater than the savings. Mayor Johnson inquired about the possibility of utilizing outside consultants. The Acting City Manager responded that surges and decreases in activity make it difficult to maintain even staffing levels; outside consultants are used to staff up for surges and are paid for by the applicant. Mayor Johnson stated that staffing should not be leveled to meet the peak demand. The Acting City Manager stated that the new Planning and Building Director could determine the right amount of staffing to handle the workload. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the intermediate and smaller projects whose proponents and owners do not have the ability to absorb the delay; doing work without permits might be encouraged and cause a deterioration of the housing stock across the City; the City should be mindful in trying to save a small amount of money and paying a large price in the future. Councilmember deHaan inquired what the status was for establishing a one -stop permit center and whether it was within the budget. The Building Official responded that staff is working with the Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one -stop permit center could be; funding has been set aside. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in the over - the - counter permit processing. The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 line staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether goals could be met with streamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative. The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation on the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of the Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to which the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes the City would be a better candidate once the project has been completed. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant funding next year, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be. The Development Services Director responded that the formula criteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have been identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or unused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that money is budgeted for Phase 2 next year. Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be very careful in Fiscal Year 2005 -06; what happens in the coming year will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot of committed projects. The Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner /Board Member Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is anticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the position will not be filled; a number of the Development Services Department funds cannot cross pollinate into other activities; the overhead and staffing in the CIC budget is a little over 100; there are very few bodies managing CIC projects; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded staff cannot be moved to CIC projects because it is not eligible for them under the grant dollars; there is flexibility within ARRA and CIC staff; only four people are funded through lease revenues; one person will be eliminated; the Development Services Department will continue to morph throughout Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 8 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 the year; almost all of the cash flows have been completed, which will provide a good picture of all obligations, pass- throughs, contractual arrangements, etc. Commissioner /Board Member Daysog stated there is a greater control over the operating costs for staff; the City will need to keep a close eye on projects. The Development Services Director stated there is not a lot of cushion built in for all of the capital projects. Commissioner Daysog stated that the $2 million earmarked for the Library might not go for the Library because the money might be needed for the redevelopment projects. The Development Services Director stated the cycle is very common; when large construction projects are started there is a slip period of 18 months to three years before the projects hit the tax rolls. Commissioner Daysog stated that it is important to be very cautious with the large budget projects; the Alameda Power & Telecom cable television project was estimated at $16 million and cost $29 million. The Development Services Director stated that construction costs continue to escalate. Commissioner Daysog thanked the Development Services Director for the leadership shown. Commissioner /Board Member deHaan stated the budget is fragile at the best; any Alameda Point glitches would be a major concern; noted he has deep concerns for the future years; stated that he would like to see budgeting for the retail recruiter position in the future. The Development Services Director stated that a retail recruiter has been funded for one year. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that if recruiter benefits are realized, funding can be added for the future years; re- emphasized that 2005, 2006, and 2007 will be extremely lean years; stated that she appreciates the complex and difficult work done by the Development Services Department; efforts will help to bring Alameda back to the viable community and good business center of 20 to 50 years ago. Commissioner /Board Member Gilmore thanked the Acting City Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 9 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 Manager /Acting Executive Director and Department Heads for an extremely useful budget presentation; requested additional information on the COPS Unit and additional staffing of the DARE Program. Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report providing up to date information on the issue of telephone tax for public safety. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the proposal to fund infrastructure included an increase in the property transfer tax and the legality of using the funds for streets and sidewalks. The Acting City Manager responded that he would include the property transfer tax increase in the proposal; the City Attorney will look into the legality of the matter; Proposition 218 addresses what can and cannot be done. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she would like to continue to look at attorney and risk management costs; she would like to spend as little as possible on attorneys so that the money could be spent elsewhere; stated that it is important to be efficient with money and not cut in ways that eventually lead to spending more; stated that the Council needs to exercise some oversight over the litigation contingency budgets; the total amount budgeted for Risk Management is approximately $470,000 and approximately $350,000 for Alameda Power & Telecom; suggested that the money be allocated as proposed in the budget but that the City Attorney bring requests to hire outside counsel to the City Council; the City Attorney could be authorized to spend around $2500 for emergencies until the approval to hire outside counsel can be brought to Council; stated she is open to suggestions from the City Attorney; noted that the Charter gives the Council oversight of hiring outside counsel. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning and Building reduction is a lay off or an unfilled position, to which the Acting City Manager responded the position would not be filled; stated he would like to fill the Planning and Building Director position first and then get staffing recommendations. Councilmember Matarrese reiterated that the dollar amount of the reduction is small; that he likes the idea of contracting services; having a reduction in the processing of permits and review of plans costs the City and customer money in the long run; other budget issues are hard realities; stated City services cost a lot of money. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was $150 million in Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 10 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 permits this year, to which the Building Official responded permits have totaled $138 million. Councilmember deHaan stated that there was not a budget for FY 2004 -05 for nine months; the ten -year plan will give better insight; he is concerned with the future years; praised the efforts of all involved with the budget preparation; stated the information provided is good, hard data; it is important to have some balances in equity within pay structures and labor management agreements. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was glad that the public was present at tonight's meeting; she hoped that more people attend when the ten -year budget is presented; the City's past commitments will pay a big role in the future. Councilmember Daysog stated that having a ten -year budget is great but it is important to have a strong hold on the budget situation for the next 6 to 18 months; suggested devising a system to track spending and see how the budget is evolving every two weeks. The Acting City Manager stated that he always reviews the budget with the Finance Director; stated that said information can be passed on to Council. Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report on grant models and payment options; stated he looked forward to the City Attorney's review on how to handle the budget issues regarding attorney and risk management costs; encouraged there be a six or eight month test period to determine whether or not the proposal works. Mayor Johnson stated that there is a litigation contingency in the budget; the Charter states: "at the request of the City Attorney, the Council can consent to hiring outside counsel "; $470,000 has been budgeted in the past, but there has not been any follow through on the oversight of hiring of outside counsel; stated she would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over spending in the City Attorney's office. Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 1 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 amount; she is trying to follow the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to a certain extent and have impacts on each other. Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Resolution. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement Commission Resolution. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05- 031CIC) Recommendation to approve the Determination that planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004 -05 are necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low - and moderate - income housing. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 12 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005