Loading...
2006-02-07 Joint CC CIC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:27 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Amending Resolution No. 98 -78 [paragraph no. 06- 002CIC] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember /Commissioner 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.] ( *06- 056CC /06- 001CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on December 20, 2005. Approved. (06- 002CIC) Resolution No. 06 -139, "Amending Resolution No. 98 -78 Regarding Commission Bylaws Article II, Section 12 Regarding the Powers and Authority of the General Counsel." Adopted; and (06 -002A CIC) Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal Counsel. Chair Johnson stated that the changes made to the Bylaws were fine; the policy and resolution have inconsistencies; the policy states that General Counsel is authorized spend up to $35,000 per matter; the resolution states that matters estimated to cost more than $35,000 must be brought to the CIC. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the policy question was that a matter should still come to the CIC if the matter costs $25,000 as opposed to $35,000. Chair Johnson responded in the negative; stated the policy states that the General Counsel is authorized to spend up to $35,000 on any matter and then come to the CIC, whether the matter costs Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 1 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 $200,000 or $35,000; the resolution is correct in stating that the matter should be brought to the CIC at the earliest convenience if the estimated costs exceeds $35,0000. The General Counsel stated the policy was adopted by the Council on September 6; noted Page 2, Item #3 states "Comply with the Community Improvement Commission Policy regarding Procedures for Hiring of Special Legal Counsel." Chair Johnson stated that the policy and resolution state two different things; ARRA may have the same inconsistency; the intent was that matters be brought to the CIC if estimated outside counsel legal fees are more than $35,000. Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission would approve the resolution. Commissioner Gilmore and Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner deHaan. Commissioner Matarrese stated the ground rule should be that the matter comes to the appropriate governing body if the estimate is over $35,000 but General Counsel can spend up to $35,000 per matter to initiate the process. Chair Johnson stated that bullet point 1 [General Counsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from appropriate project budget without prior CIC approval] should be omitted; the correction should be made to the ARRA policy also. Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution and approval of the policy with modification to omit bullet point 1 [General Counsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from appropriated project budget without prior CIC approval]. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (06- 057CC /06- 003CIC) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report and approve mid -year budget adjustments, including General Fund reserve policy and infrastructure review. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. The Public Works Director gave a brief update on the December 6, 2005 allocation and the infrastructure plans. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 Mayor Johnson requested that a street resurfacing schedule be provided. Councilmember deHaan requested that a sidewalk- resurfacing schedule be provided. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the field renovation included sprinkler systems in addition to drainage, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated that certain trees, such as eucalyptus trees, grow rapidly and pruning of the trees is costly; suggested reviewing the possibility of replacing trees that are too expensive to maintain. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether project timelines would be brought back to the Council, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated that residents have to pay an $85 permit fee to repair a sidewalk square; inquired whether the fee could be lowered to encourage homeowners to take care of the replacement. The Public Works Director responded both property owner and City responsibilities are identified when sidewalk inspections are performed; homeowners are given the option of using the City's contractor; in which case, the City would cover the encroachment permit. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what was the outcome of the rubberized sidewalk experiment, and whether the City was contemplating having rubberized sidewalks. The Public Works Director responded that positive; currently, the City is not sidewalks; the Council would receive a rubberized sidewalks; a $90,000 grant sidewalks; the intent is to piggyback on Contract for rubberized sidewalks. the feedback has been doing any rubberized )roposal for installing would be applied to the City of Oakland's Councilmember Daysog stated a level of complexity exists in terms of the timing of available dollars; oversight is needed; there are two types of budgeting issues: 1) the two -year budgeting process and midyear adjustments, and 2) dedicating dollars when the reserve is above the 200 level. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 3 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 The Public Works Director stated that the City Manager and Finance Director have assurances that the $2 million is available and is enough to keep the remaining General Reserve funds at 200. The City Manager stated that the recalculation of the General Fund Reserve is reviewed every year at mid -year to ensure that the reserve is based on the actuals. The Fire Chief provided a brief presentation on the $400,000 for fire station planning and acquisition. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether new sites are being considered which would adjoin existing residential areas. The Fire Chief responded all West End fire stations should be reviewed to determine the best way to proceed over the long term. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed study would be directed to the West End fire stations, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether procurement was being considered for West End fire stations. The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the priority is Fire Station 3. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $400,000 was for the study and acquisition, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. The City Treasurer stated reducing the reserve levels is a serious matter; he is concerned with how the money will be used; a good use would be investing the money in City assets; reserves should be spent on projects that result in a dollar - for - dollar benefit; the Fire Department issues should be addressed during the normal budgeting process; the proposal reduced the reserves from 25% to 200; stated that he understood that reducing the reserves to 200 was temporary. The City Auditor stated that money from the reserves should go toward identifiable projects; he takes exception to using reserve funds for a study; questioned why a planning decision needs to be outsourced; stated staff should make decisions; paying for a study is not a prudent way to spend down the reserves. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council is not changing the reserve limit policy but is requesting to pull money out of the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 4 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 reserves today because the infrastructure is accruing debt faster than the reserves are accruing benefit; every dollar should be tied to an infrastructure repair; spending money on Fire Station 3 also qualifies because the station is a crumbling asset; money spent on a study is not appropriate; suggested looking for funding in the ARRA planning budget. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding not changing the reserve limit policy; stated money is being allocated to pay for needed projects. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has known about fire station issues; there is no immediate urgency except for Fire Station 3; the next budget process can review appropriating money for the study; there are deeper problems if $20,000 cannot be found in the normal budget process; the reserve reduction should be considered a one -time occurrence; the goal will be to continue to build reserves back up to 250. Councilmember Daysog stated that the reserves were built up by not investing in the infrastructure over the years; now is the time to invest back into the sidewalks and streets; inquired what the affect will be on the undesignated reserves. The Finance Director responded that there are no undesignated reserves; the policy sets a 25% target for economic uncertainties; some portions of the reserves have been loaned to other funds and the cash is not available; $6 million out of $18 million has been loaned out; the remaining funds would allow sufficient time to make decisions on how to proceed. The City Treasurer stated that $380,000 remains in the pool for planning and acquisition costs after the $20,000 for the study; questioned why $380,000 should be taken out of reserves today to put the money into an interest - bearing account for future acquisition. Councilmember Matarrese stated the funds should be held in abeyance [designated reserve] for Fire Station 3; money would not be allocated [designated] from the reserves for a study, only for acquisition and /or repair. Councilmember deHaan stated impact funding was set aside; inquired whether the impact funding was earmarked for studies and how the balance of the fiscal year looked. The Finance Director responded that the year should end with revenues exceeding expenditures based on what is being done today. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 5 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 Councilmember deHaan stated there will always be adjustments. Councilmember Matarrese stated that some of the money allocated in December would be invested in field repair; a turf management plan was discussed earlier in the year; the turf management plan should be accelerated to ensure repairs are not lost after a year of play or a season of rain; the plan should be accelerated to protect the investment. The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated that the turf management plan has been initiated; solid plans should be in place within the next month. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the process could be accelerated to have plan in place before investments are made, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether most of the $1.6 million would go to contractors. The Public Works Director responded some money would cover costs for design, inspection and contract administration; staff levels cannot cover the physical work; sidewalk inspections are intensive. Mayor Johnson inquired how much of the $1.6 million would toward design and contract management. The Public Works Director responded that design is generally 100 of the construction cost; contract administration and inspections can be 3 -50. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the design, construction management and inspections would be handled by contractors, to which the Public Works Director responded the tasks would be handled by existing staff. Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the costs need to be covered if existing staff is used. The Public Works Director responded the Public Works Engineering division functions like an engineering firm; 800 of the engineering budget comes from revenues. Mayor Johnson stated department budgets should not be supplemented by drawing down on reserves; the $1.6 million should be spent on hard construction projects; 160 of the $1.6 million would go to the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 6 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 Public Works Department and is an extraordinary expenditure to invest in the City. The City Manager stated that the process could be reviewed; other projects would need to be contracted out; staff can review the cost of design and contract management in terms of allocation to obtain economy of scale. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether additional money would be needed to backfill the other projects. Councilmember deHaan stated that staff should determine the best resources for the projects; there is an economy of scale to be derived which might not be a full loo for design; however, the job has to be inspected. Mayor Johnson stated that part of Council direction could be to have the City Manager review costs with the Public Works Department; she hopes that the costs could be below 160; the City should not pay flat fees and end up supplementing the Public Works budget. The City Manager stated some City staff would be dedicated to the projects; more definitive costs will be provided. Mayor Johnson requested that the budget for the $1.6 million appropriation come back to Council for review. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funds from the [General Fund] reserve [$1.6 million for infrastructure projects and $400,000 to designated reserve for Fire Station3 acquisition] and accepting the staff report as written with the following conditions: 1) that the City Manager work with the Public Works Department and Fire Department to break down associated costs to execute the outlined tasks [infrastructure and Fire Station 3 projects] including reviewing economy of scale, 2) review ways to protect the renovations and improvements, such as the turf management plan, and 3) that the policy is to maintain a 250 General Fund target level [but allow for a temporary reduction to 200] . Mayor Johnson requested the motion be clarified for the $400,000 item. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the motion is that the $400,000 would be for acquisition [of Fire Station 3] only, and the study would be addressed during the budget process. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and % Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $400,000 would be taken out of the reserves. Councilmember Matarrese responded that the $400,000 would still remain in the reserves but would be designated for Fire Station 3 acquisition. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the City Manager would review existing funding sources for the study. Mayor Johnson stated a fire station needs study for the Base might be premature because the property has not been acquired. Councilmember Matarrese stated Fire Station 3 needs to be addressed; the problems at Fire Station 3 are comparable to the worst sidewalk or pothole. Councilmember deHaan amended the motion to include that Contracts return to the Council for review. Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Gilmore agreed to the amended motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:56 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 and 8 Community Improvement Commission February 7, 2006