2010-04-06 Packet7
CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY APRIL 6, 2010 6..; 0O P.M.
Location- Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
1. Roll Call Cit Council
2. Public Comment on A Items Onl
An wishin to address the Council on a items onl ma speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
A negotiators- Interim Cit Mana and Human Resources Director
Emplo or International Association of Fire Fi
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Aqenc negotiators- Interim Cit Mana
Emplo or Executive Mana
3-C. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: Cit Mana
3-D, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Si Exposure to Liti Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9
Name of Case: Alameda Gatewa Ltd. v. Cit of Alameda
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if an
5. Adjournment Cit Council
V
everl J n Ma or
<31 1
z
I It k-1 U I 11
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, California 94501-2161 TEL: (510) 747 -4300 FAX: (510) 522 -7848 TDD: (5 10) 522 -8467
DATE TIME
LOCATION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 6:55 PIVI
City Hall, council chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each
quarter in the council Chambers at city Hall.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by
Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the
subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive
Director if you wish to address the Board of commissioners.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL Board of Commissioners
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted
by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public.
2 -A. Minutes of the Special Board of commissioners meeting held January 6, 201
Acceptance is recommended.
2 -B. Adopt a Resolution Approving Mousing Authority Budget Amendment No. 5 for Fiscal
Year 2009 -2010.
Regular Meeting 4the Board of Commissioners
April 8, 2010
Page 2
2 -C. Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Housing Authority Budget for the Two -Fear Period
Starting July 1, 2010, with the Housing Development and Programs Portion
Contingent upon city council and community Improvement commission Action.
2 -D. Award a Contract for the Modernization of 1416 Sherman street to Bay cities
Construction including the $13,500 alternative for exterior painting, and $23,800 for
contingencies in the amount of $400,000, and authorize the Executive Director to
execute the contract.
3 -A. None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non Agenda (Public Comment)
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners
0. ADJOURNMENT
Note:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board of commissioners
after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Housing
Authority of the city of Alameda, 701 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 during
normal business hours.
Sign language interpreters will be available. on request. Please contact carol Weaver,
Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8407 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to
req u est an interpreter.
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is
available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in large print.
Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request.
Please contact carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8407 TDD at least 72 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.
S
CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant 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 APRIL 6 2010 -7:00 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:00 pm, city Hall, Council Chambers,
corner of Santa Clara Avenue and oak Street]
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
6. City Manager Communications
6. Regular Agenda Items
7. oral Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment)
8. Council Referrals
9. Council 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 Assistant City Clerk if you
wish to address the City Council
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 6:66 P.M.
OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:01 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1 ROLL CALL City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation Declaring the Week of April 17 as Earth Day Alameda 2010.
(Public Works)
3 -B. Proclamation Declaring April as Fair Dousing Month. (Economic Development)
3 -C. Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Update.
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 March 16, 2010. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids
for the Alameda Point Multi -Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04- 09 -11. (Public
Works)
4 -D. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1 ,499,000, Including
Contingencies, to Sausal Construction for the Neighborhood Library
Improvement Project, No. P. W. 10- 09 -29. (Public Works)
4 -F. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $97,978, Including
Contingencies, to Schaaf Wheeler Civil Engineers, for Design and Preparation
of Plans and Specifications for the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump
Station, No. P.W. 02- 10 -00. (Public Works)
4 -F. Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount of
$24,315, Including Contingencies, to Ninyo Moore, for Geotechnical Support,
Materials Testing, and Environmental Services for the Webster Street/Wilver
"Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10- 08 -20. (Public Works)
4 -G. Recommendation to Approve a Letter of Understanding Between the
International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda on the Fire
Investigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant Fire Marshall Assignment.
(Human Resources)
4-H, Adoption of Resolution in Support of SB 1068; and Recommendation to
Authorize the Ma to Conve the Cit Support for the Bill to Senator Hancock,
and Modif the Cit Adopted Le Pro to Include a Polic on
Business Development. (Cit Mana
4-1. Final Passa of Ordinance Amendin Sections 30-37.6 of the Alameda
Municipal Code Related to Desi Review Approval Expiration and Extension,
(Communit Development)
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Cit Mana
5-A. Civic Center Plan Ma "Open House"
5-B. Park Master Plan/Urban Greenin Plan
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Recommendation to Accept Financial Report for Second Fiscal Quarter.
Finance
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment
An person ma address the Council in re to an matter over which the
Council has jurisdiction or of which it ma take co that is not on the
a
8. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the a b a Councilmember ma be acted upon or
scheduled as a future a item
8-A. Consider Pursin the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and
Support Businesses, Educational and Technolo Resource Opportunities.
[Continued from March 16, 2010] (slice Ma deHaan)
8-B. Consider, Discuss and Act on the Webster Street Business District Plannin and
Revitalization. (Councilmember Matarrese)
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address an
Conferences or meetin attended
matter, includin reportin on an
10. ADJOURNMENT Cit Council
Materials related to an item on the a are available for public inspection in the
Cit Clerk's Office, Cit Hall, Room 380, durin normal business hours
Si lan interpreters will be available on re Please contact the Cit Clerk
at 747-4800 or TDID number 522-7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meetin to
re an interpreter
E for the hearin impaired is available for public use. For assistance,
please contact the Cit Clerk at 747-4800 or TDID number 522-7538 either prior to,
or at, the Council Meetin
Accessible seatin for persons with disabilities, includin those usin wheelchairs, is
available
0 Minutes of the meetin available in enlar print
Audio Tapes of the meetin are available upon re
Please contact the Cit Clerk at 747-4800 or TDID number 522-7538 at least 48
hours prior to the meetin to re a materials in an alternative format, or
an other reasonable accommodation that ma be necessar to participate in and
enjo the benefits of the meeting
R Ef 'ipt
CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARRA AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC
TUESDAY APRILS 2010 ?:01 P.M.
Location city Council Chambers, city Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave 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 for a maximum of 3 minutes per
agenda item when the subject is before the CouncillBoard /Commission. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Assistant city Clerk if you wish to speak.
1 ROLL CALL City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 3, 2010; and the Special Joint city
Council, ARRA and CIC Meetings of March 10, 2010. [City Council, ARIA, CIC
(City Clerk)
2 -B. Recommendation to Approve a waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline council,
BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient Mariner Regatta. [ARRA] (Economic Development)
3. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DI RECTOR COMMUNICATION
3 -A. Update on SunCal Negotiations [City Council, ARRA, CIC]
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative
Highlights of March 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting [ARRA]
5. ADJOURNMENT city council, ARRA, CIC
e h noo
Chair, ARRA
ad� �1.
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, California 94501-2161 TEL: (510) 747 -4300 FAX: (510) 522 -7848 TDD: (51 522 -8467
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY of THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 0, 2010
The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:23 p.m.
PLEDGE of ALLEGIANCE
'I. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tarn, Torrey and Chair
Johnson
Absent: None
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved acceptance of the consent Calendar. Commissioner
Tarn seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk.
*2 -A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners meeting held October 20, 2009.
M inutes were accepted.
*2 -B. Awarded the Contract to Replace Kitchen, and Bathroom Cabinets at Anne B.
Diarnent Plaza to Bay Cities Construction I ncluding the $15,300 for Contingencies in
the Amount of $168,300.
*2 Approved the Housing Authority Budget Revision for Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
2010, and Adopted a Resolution to Approve the operating Budget for the Lour Rent
Housing Program.
*2 -D. Accepted the Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2009.
*2 E. Adopted Resolution to Authorize the Housing Authority to Submit an Application for
federal Funding for up to 100 Vouchers for Ilion- Elderly Disabled Persons.
3. AGENDA
3 A. None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS HABOC
Item #2 CC
4 -0 -10
Minutes of the Board of Commissioners
Special Meetin Januar 6, 2010 Pa 2
None.
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
None
6. ADJOURNMENT
There bein no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meetin at 7:24 p.m.
Beverl Johnson, Chair
Attest:
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director Secretary
ANY
t s
Housint!
Authority of the City Of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, California 94501 -2151 w Tel: (510) 7474300 Fax: (510 )522 -7848 TDD: (510) 522 -8457
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 0, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving Housing Authority Budget Plimend dent N'p. 5
for Fiscal Year 2000 -2010
On April 15, 2008, the Board of Commissioners adopted a. two -year budget for the
Housing Authority. The Housing Commission reco mends a final budget revision to
address a few minor issues.
DISCUSSION
With the elimination of the Low .Rent Public. Housing Program and the growing Section 8
Housing Choice .Voucher and Project -Based voucher.. Programs; the Housing Authority
would like to obtain services to determine the most efficient and effective workflow,
adapt to a new organizational structure, and. perform an audit of the Section 8 program
in preparation for the Section Eight Managers ent Assessment Program. The cost for
these services is projected to. be an amount proposed for addition to this
year's budget.
The current budget .includes funding for.training. Out. of state travel.. must be approved
by the Board. of Corn rnissioners.. At the Regional NAHRO .Conference. in May,
Casterline Associates, an accounting firm specializing in. affordable housing, will be
holding a workshop. This conference is being held in ..Scottsdale, ..Arizona.. The
proposed budget revision .would add another staff. person for a total of two staff to this
conference. The current budget has adequate funding for this travel and the workshop
fee.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed budget revision would result in no more than $30,000. additional in
expenditures. Savings have resulted in .the current fiscal year due to the retirement of a
division manager that more than offset this additional cost. The budget revision would
simply move the cost from one line item (Salaries) to another (Sundry).
HABOC
Item #2 -B. C
4-6 -10
Honorable chair and April 0, 2010
Members of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Housing Authority budget revision number five for
fiscal year 2009 -2010.
Respectfully submitted,
F
Michael T. Pucci
Executive director
PHA Board Res olution U.S. Department of Housing OMB No. 2577 -0025
Approving Operating Budget and Urban Development (exp. 1013112009)
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Real Estate Assessment Center (P1H -REAL)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not collect this information, and you are not required to
complete this form, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This information is required by Section 6(c )(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income public housing program and provides a
summary of the proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the
information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the public housing agency (PHA) and the amounts are reasonable, and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures
prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality.
PHA Name: Housing Authority of the City of Alameda PHA Code CA052
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: July 2009 Board Resolution Number:
Acting on behalf of the Board 9 of Commissioner of the above -named PHA as its Chairperson., I make the following
certifications and agreement to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's
approval of (check one or more as applicable):
DATE
Operating Budget approved by Board resolution on:
Operating Budget submitted to MUD, if applicable, on:
X❑ Operating Budget revision approved by Board resolution on: 04100/201
F Operating Budget revision subs pitted to HI,_ D, if applicable, on:
I certify on behalf of the above -named PHA that:
1. All statutory and regul a.tory requirements have been net;
2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments;
3. Proposed budget expenditure are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of
serving low income residents;
4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover al.l proposed expenditures;
5. The PHA will comply with the wage rate requirement under 24 CFR 968.1 1 o(c) and (f); and
6. The PHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 C FR 965.11 o(i).
I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith,
if applicable, is true and accurate.
Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. (18
U.S.C. 1001 1 o o, 10 l 2.31, U.S.C. 3729 and 3802)
Print Board Chairperson "s Name: Signature: Date:
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Previous editions are obsolete form HUD 52574 (08/2005)
�L•��''L�` iw ,t.•'� s V'r'�.r..r:�' �°Y`r, �t i, j is� -�i 1ri.,�i,�
Housi
7
da
Authori"L'�'
;.t A• =;tree r� is f �i 'CSC s r q a f 'CK
'i {�-.a fa €i I 3. 1 J. -f �r g w t�av T 6
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of commissioners
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 0, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Housing Authority Budget. for the Two
Year Period Starting July 1, 2010, with the Housing Development and
Programs Portion contingent upon city council and community
Improvement commission Action
N Xg rM 6:1611 jo
The J.S. Department of Housing and..U.rban Development (HUD) wants the Housing
Authority to have a budget in place 90 days prior to the beginning of its new fiscal year.
The Housing Authority's proposed tyre -year budget is presented to. the Housing
Commission in March of even numbered Years. This allows the budget to ..be
considered for adoption by the. Board of Cornmissioners in April, close to .90 days before
the July 1 beginning of the fiscal year. ..The Housing Co.mmiss.ion voted unanimously. at
its March 17, 2010, meeting to recommend adoption of the. Housing Authority's
proposed budget for the next two fiscal years.
DISCUSSION
The proposed tiro -year budget for the Housing Authority is attached (Exhibit A). It
covers the period July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011 (FY201 .1) and July 1, 2011, to June 30,
2012 (FY2012). The proposed budget compares the upcoming years with the current
fiscal year's budget (FY201 0) by line item.
The Housing Authority's budget for housing program activities is consolidated ..into six
funds. The six funds in the .proposed budget reflect the changes that occurred recently
in the current fiscal year. Bsperanza is no longer a public housing complex; therefore, it
is no longer a separate fund. It has been .combined Frith other properties into the. HA-
Owned Fund.
Housing development activities have transitioned from the city :of Alameda to the
Housing Authority. A budget for the Housing Development and Programs Division is
included in the proposed Housing Authority budget. A narrative description starts on
page 7 of this document. The Housing Authority is waiting for the results of an
organizational study that is looking at the impact .of the addition of this division to the
HABOC
Item #2-C CC
4-6-10
ono.......... e. C. hIr.
..x..
x...... x
x....x
x
x..........
•.fix:•:•:•:
I
F'�!'Sa ac:1
x.
..................:.x::::::::::
m
x
x
x
m
junior golf rate; that he would need to check about the Northern California Golf
Association rebate amount.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked the Junior Golf Association for doing an amazing job;
stated Page 4 of the report addresses the golf course as a whole and notes that the City
is only one of thirteen municipalities around the country that operates a 45 -hole golf
course; that she wants to ensure that juniors and seniors have a place to play, but also
wants to ensure that golf in Alameda is saved for decades to come; inquired how the
rest of the golf course would be impacted, to which Mr. Sams responded competition
might occur.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the city has two championship 18 -hole courses; the Mif
Albright course is a place for beginners, seniors, and people with disabilities to play; two
different populations are being served; inquired what the statistics noted on Page 4
would mean to the rest of the golf course.
Mr. Sams responded the National Golf Foundation report indicates that there is too
much golf in Alameda; stated one proposal is to build a new Mif Albright course at Jack
Clark golf course site, 9 holes would be lost, but everyone would be served on 30 holes.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a profit could be turned for the other 18 hole
courses if the Mif Albright course is removed [operated by anon- profit].
Mr. Sams responded the city actually has 30 holes; stated the north and south course
players probably would not play the Mif Albright course; the courses would not be in
direct competition; that he is not sure whether 38 holes can continue to operate at a
profit.
Councilmember Gilmore stated revenues have declined; assuming the Mif Albright
course is breaking even, the city still needs to ensure that the rest of the golf course will
not be in trouble.
Councilmember Tara inquired whether the north and south course revenues are needed
to subsidize the Mif Albright course to smooth out the peaks and valleys.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a blended statement is
provided for the whole complex; the courses were not run as separate programs; the
$800,000 in cost allocations, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and Return on Investment
charges are not allocated by course.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some of the revenue generated for the city is from
surcharges, which is predicated on rounds played.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Van Winkle responded there are
primary points relative to the operation; starter operations take in money; tee times
would be needed if the course is really busy; the logical place [for said operations]
Regular Meeting
Alameda city Council
March 10, 2010
would be the pro shop; that he has discussed the issue with Kemper Sports; Alameda
Junior Golf would love to work with Kemper Sports or the company selected; a lot of
economy of scales could be had; other options are available too.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Junior Golf would hope to work with the
eventual operator of the course for the operation that deals with collecting customer's
money.
Mr. Van Winkle stated two models have been built into the plan; one model would be to
outsource the operation; the other model involves contractors, labor, and volunteers;
some courses operate on self management; there are other ways to regulate the
course.
S peakers Matthew Cerio, Alameda; Andy Cerio, Alameda; Erik Van Winkle; Sara .Kunz,
Alameda; Dot Moody, Alameda; Barbara Hoepner, Alameda; Pam Curtis, Alameda; Al
Wagner, Alameda; John Curliano, Alameda Golf Club and Alameda Junior Golf Club;
Alexander Stevens, Alameda Junior Golf (submitted handout); Jon Pecson, Alameda
Soccer Club; Jinn Strehlow, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Steve Taddei,
Alameda Golf Club and Alameda Commuters Committee; Ken Arnerich, Alameda; Fred
Framstead, Alameda Commuters Committee and Men's Club; Ron Salsig; Bill Schmitz,
Golf Commission and Alameda Commuters Committee; Cheryl Saxton; Connie
Wendling, Alameda Junior Golf; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and Alameda
Commuters Committee; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a par 3 course is needed; if closed, the par 3 course
costs the City money; negotiations should start to see how the course can be en kept open
p
until replacement or alternative funding sources can be found; the General Fund was
being fed from [golf course] deferred maintenance, which will have to be resolved for
the whole complex.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees that the complex needs to be looked at
as a whole; she wants to hear the rest of the presentation; the process started in 2007
when the golf course was in trouble because of declining revenues and there was no
capital to bring the course up to par with other neighboring courses; a place is needed
for kids to learn and seniors to play; discussions need to encompass the whole golf
course.
Vice Mayor deHaan commended the group formed within the last five weeks; stated the
golf community has demonstrated what can be done; the City has been blessed with the
Siewald commitment [$20,000 matching grant]; the situation is a win, win, win; the Mif
Albright course was loosing money; the proposal provides an opportunity to upgrade the
existing golf course; the feeder system is important; five hearings have been held; not
one person has suggested closing the Mif Albright course or two 18 -hole courses.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of accepting the report; commended the efforts of
Alameda Junior Golf for; stated the juniors and seniors need to be served; the operation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
March 16, 2010
has to be looked at holistically.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is impressed with all the
work and research done by Alameda Junior Golf.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates efforts made; the entire golf
complex will be discussed as a whole; a proposal has been submitted by good people
with a lot of expertise; a critical part of the golf course includes having a par 3 for
beginners, a driving range, 18 hole courses, and a clubhouse; that he wants to see how
to make everything work together.
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 0.58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
(10 -125) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into
Negotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long -Term Management and
Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Ben Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the golf course has 36 championship holes; 111,000
rounds are played per year; inquired what is the capacity percentage.
Mr. Blake responded in 2003, 160,000 rounds were played, which was 67% [capacity].
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the projection is that rounds will remain flat
for the next four years because of the Metropolitan Golf Links.
Mr. Blake responded rounds will be flat or slightly up; stated the hope is to get to a level
of 130,000 rounds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how much would need to be charged to have
everything work out well.
Mr. Blake responded that he thinks that the same rates could be charged with 27 holes
to still make the numbers work; operating costs are lower; a. lot of land needs to be
maintained; the irrigation system is in disrepair; operating costs will go down with
improvements.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired ghat would be the price differential by keeping the 30
holes; further inquired whether the current $30 charge would rise to $45 with capital
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
March 15, 2010
infusion, Mr. Blake responded a round would cost closer to $50.
The Interim City Manager stated currently, the average round [fee] is $30; $38 per
round is needed [to cover costs]; putting $500,000 into capital each year would increase
the cost to approximately $48 per round; figures are based on 120,000 rounds; both
Request for Proposals (RFP) respondents indicate that the facility needs $6 million to
$8 million in improvements.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's request further clarification, the Interim City
Manager stated the average player pays $38 per round; said average needs to be $38
per round; $500,000 per year should be put into capital infusion to keep the current golf
course configuration going if the course is in good shape; said $500,000 is in addition to
the $0 million to $8 million need to improve the course condition; based on 120,000
rounds, rates would need to increase by $5 per round.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquired regarding infusing $500,000 per year,
Mr. Blake stated the commitment would need to be long terra; everyone would go home
if people thought that golf [play] would be flat forever.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a new Mif Albright course [constructed by
Kemper] would be comparable to the current course in function, cost, and purpose and
have the same rates.
Mr. Blake responded the course would be a 9 hole par 3 course with contemporary tees
and fairways and would be nicer than the existing course; stated a new par 3 course
would be built if Council thinks that makes sense; a par 3 course is needed for juniors
and seniors.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a new course would be comparable in
terms of having short fairways, being walkable, and good for children to play and learn.
Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated the [new] par 3 course would have holes
in the range of 100 -180 yards, which is normal.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the new Mif Albright course would be an
executive course.
Mr. Blake responded in the negative; stated there would be more space between holes
for safety reasons; the scope of the course would be a little bigger and would be more
contemporary, but it would not have par 4 holes.
Mice Mayor deHaan inquired what the loss would be if the existing Mif Albright course
was taken out of operation, to which the Interim City Manager responded that she does
not know how to calculate the amount.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the cost of building a new Mif Albright
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
March 16, 2010
course, to which Mr. Blake responded approximately $1 million.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated building a new would be another burden.
Mr. Blake stated that he believes a new Mif Albright course would work financially.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether taking the Mif Albright course out of operation has
been taken into consideration, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Vice deHaan stated in 2003, new irrigation was installed at the north course; the south
course has major irrigation problems.
Mr. Blake stated the south course has pump issues.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the water received from the Bast Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) is inadequate; inquired whether alternatives have been reviewed, to
which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see a new profile on ghat .can happen
in light of new information; inquired whether tournament play is being maximized.
(10 -126) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past
12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
John Vest, Kemper sports, responded tournament rounds grew last year; almost
$200,000 was generated in tournament revenue last year; most of the increase was a
result of gaining back trust.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there is an advantage to having one course used
for tournament play and leaving the other course available for open play, to which Mr.
Vest responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether play has been lost because of the poor condition
and inadequate drainage.
Mr. Vest responded play has been lost because of the inability to have carts on the
course; some areas are very wet and people are losing golf balls.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the north course is deplorable because of drainage; inquired
what is Kemper's vision.
Regular Meeting
Alameda city council 15
March 16, 2010
Mr. Blake responded areas need to be cleaned out; stated lines will be put in the wet
spots to run the water to the major slews; drainage will be installed.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any steps [for improvements] have been taken in
the last two years or whether a caretaker status has been maintained, to which Mr.
Blake responded a caretaker status has been maintained.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what kind of cost savings have been derived from having
all personnel under Kemper sports, to which the Interim City Manager responded
approximately $700,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired hoar the transition has been working.
Mr. Vest responded currently sixteen employees are on the maintenance crew; stated
things are working great.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the set up [Kemper managing City employees] was awkward
at first, but [staffing] is now under Kemper's purview.
Mr. Vest stated three [City] union staff members stayed; everyone is working as a team.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $1 million to build a new Mif Albright
course is part of the overall $6 million to $8 million, to which Mr. Vest responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Tara stated there is a threshold in which fees can be increased without
losing rounds because the market can only bare so much given the conditions of the
golf course; inquired whether option D in the Kemper proposal: one 18 hole course, a 9
hole course, a par 3 executive course and concession buyout] would allow charging the
market rate which is between $3o to $38, but $47 could not be charged.
Mr. Blake responded resident rates would be in the affordable category; stated other
rates would change because Alameda would be more competitive.
Councilmember Tara stated the north and south courses use reclaimed water from
BBMUD; the Mif Albright course uses potable water; the cost differential is 20 a 30%
rationing is imposed during a drought year, particularly for golf courses; using over the
allotment imposes a 33% penalty; inquired whether turning the entire operation into
potable water, paying more, and dealing with penalties would be worth it, to which Mr.
Blake responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tangy stated the City made a conscious effort to be greener by
participating in a recycled water program; the City was able to enjoy a discounted rate
because the state pays subsidies for recycled water; maybe the trade off has to be
revaluated if problems have been caused over the years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
March 16, 2010
Mr. Blake stated part of the problem is good drainage.
Councilrnember Tam inquired whether Kemper operates in concert with a non profit or
other private operator elsewhere.
Mr. Blake responded in the negative; stated Kemper operates the First Tee program at
Harding Park in San Francisco.
Steve Argo, Kemper Sports, stated the First Tee program at Harding Park has a
separate driving range on the golf course that students have access to in addition to a
classroom at the clubhouse.
Councilmember Tarn inquired whether having a non profit partner do programs for
teens and seniors makes sense.
Mr. Blake responded that he does not think a non profit would have the expertise to
teach; stated volunteering involves oversight versus teaching golf lessons; that he
would not feel comfortable giving up teaching golf lessons.
Council member Tara inquired whether a role could be envisioned for a non profit to run
programs.
Mr. Blake responded that he is not prepared to talk about the matter.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the quality of water has deteriorated over the last three or
four years; well water has been used but salt -water intrusion developed because casing
collapsed; inquired whether other golf courses have successfully used well water.
Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated water is the number one issue on golf
courses; existing wells continue to be used; water is monitored and monthly reports are
submitted to State agencies.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City recently dug to 200 feet; requested an example of a
success story that Kemper has experienced upgrading a golf course and increasing
rounds.
Mr. Argo stated Harding Park is a perfect example; the golf course was renovated in
2002 and reopened in 2003; rounds did not grow, but non residents were charged a
higher rate; revenues were approximately $3.9 million annually when the golf course
reopened; now, revenues are approximately $8 million annually.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a 30 -year contract is typical, to which Mr. Blake
responded a 20 to 30 -year contract is typical.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake is comfortable with the Alameda
complex.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
March 16, 2010
Mr. Blake responded the complex has a lot of potential because of the location and
maturity; stated 110,000 rounds are being played despite the condition; improving the
product would be significant; the formula works for Kemper and would also work for the
City because the City would receive rent checks.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the complex is still very successful; inquired how many
rounds are played annually at Metropolitan Golf Links, to which Mr. Blake responded
55,000; stated there are different types of golfers; Alameda offers the most affordable
golf on the market, but there is an opportunity to be more competitive.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is happening with Alameda Junior Golf now
under Kemper running the Complex.
Nis. Arnerich responded Alameda Junior Golf is using the par 3 and Jack Clark courses
on Wednesdays throughout the summer; stated things are working very well; the pros
provide half hour lessons to children who are not ready for the Mif Albright course or
other courses.
Councilmember Gilmore stated there are two scenarios: one scenario is Kemper
operating the golf course and working with Alameda Junior Golf; the other scenario is
Kemper operating the golf course and Alameda Junior Golf operating the Mif Albright
course separately; inquired what the scenarios would look like on a day -to --day basis.
Mr. Blake stated if the Mif Albright course were self sustaining, Kemper would not be
involved other than with lessons and tournaments; that he understands that Alameda
Junior Golf would run the operation.
Ms. Sullwold stated that Alameda Junior Golf would welcome the opportunity to contract
for maintenance with the company that gets the contract for the other 36 holes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the [Junior Golf] presentation noted that mowing
and hardscape maintenance would be contracted to the operator of the rest of the
complex; having anon- profit as a stand -alone is not practical.
Mr. Blake stated that Council approval would be needed first; Kemper would be open to
the idea with Council approval.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated pros have arrays been dedicated to the youth; inquired
whether that would continue, to which Mr. Vest responded absolutely.
Spea Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle; Norma Arnerich, Alameda;
Barbara Hoepner, Alameda; Bob Sullwold, Alameda; Dot Moody, Alameda; Al Wagner,
Alameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee and Alameda Golf Club; Bill
Schmitz, Coif Commission and Alameda Commuters Committee; Beverly Blatt; Tim
Scates, Alameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
March 16, 2010
Alameda Commuters Committee; and Ray Caul, Golf Commission.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Mr. Blake stated things have changed [with the non profit
proposal to operate the Mif Albright course]; inquired whether Mr. Blake would be willing
to look at two 18 -hole courses, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake is comfortable in light of the changes.
Mr. Blake responded that he is not willing to make said statement; stated more
homework needs to be done; pencils need to be sharpened; that he is willing to work on
the issues.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the north and south courses have different skill levels;
making the two courses the same would be difficult.
Mr. Blake stated a professional golf architect was hired to come up with renditions; that
he feels comfortable making three 9 -hole courses in a similar style.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Blake has seen clubhouses at other similar
level courses, to which Mr. Blake responded all of them.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether accommodating all activity is difficult on a single
course, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
Councilrember Gilmore stated the Commuter and East Bay Junior Tournaments have
a long history in Alameda; inquired whether tournaments could be run with only 27
holes without disrupting the flow and pace of play; further inquired hove much revenue is
made off tournaments every year.
Mr. Vest responded approximately $200,000 for almost 6,000 rounds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether rounds have remained stable over the last
three or four years.
Mr. 'nest responded rounds are blended with other golf course rates; stated last year's
revenue was $176,000; under the 27 -hole concept, the biggest impact on tournaments]
would be during the first weekend; the qualifier would be different; players would have
to go in two waves and would have to play the same two 9 holes to qualify on like
conditions and courses.
Councilrrember Gilmore inquired whether the Mif Albright course has a safety problem;
stated some areas of the course get tight.
Mr. Blake responded the architect designed the new par 3 with spacing considered safe
today; stated that he cannot comment on the [current] safety of the Mif Albright course.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
March 15, 2010
Councilmember Gilmore requested Mr. Van Winkle to comment.
Mr. Van Winkle stated that he is not aware of any complaints or anyone getting hit or
hurt.
Ms. Sullwold stated that she had not heard of any injuries on the Mif Albright course;
most of the Mif Albright course holes are 100 yards or less and players have a much
more controlled shot.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated players do not tee off until the greens are clear.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is hearing that a compact par 3 is needed so
that young children and people near the end of their golfing life can play while walking; a
driving range is needed in addition to championship 18 holes; having one or two
courses is debatable; the proposal does not have any figures regarding running costs
and how each option compares; a side by side comparison is needed; making a
decision is a long way off; Council is here to give direction to start looking at two
operators who can either work in concert or separately; that he would like to give
direction to work with both parties to understand the concept of a non profit and all the
permientations that has on either running a stand alone course or contracting services
from the operator and having the rest of the facility for the championship holes; he
would like to have Kemper provide advice about what would be the cost of operating
and catching up and keeping up with maintenance and whether it is practical to do with
30 holes or 27 holes; since reviewing the two operations will take time, the current Mif
Albright course could have a short term contract with the non profit to ensure that the
course is not operated without a par 3.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the first motion should address Council entering into
exclusive negotiations with Kemper; the second motion should give direction to continue
two 18-hole courses; the third motion should be to enter into negotiations or discussions
with the non profit for the Mif Albright course.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not ready to talk about the number of holes.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan' inquiry regarding removing the Mif Albright course
from operations, the Interim City Manager stated the total complex with no changes has
a $750,000 shortfall; the shortfall has been reduced under Kemper.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the name of the other company [that responded to
the RFIP], to which the Interim city Manager responded Bellows Golf Management.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of entering into negotiations with Kemper as
opposed to Bellows.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City council 20
March 16, 2010
Councilmember Matarrese stated there are two offers on the table; one group is offering
to raise money to operate a par 3 course; that he does not care where the par 3 course
is as long as there is one; a lot of money needs to be raised. to. continue to have low
green fees; having conversations with. both groups is important because one is feeding
the other; the Interim City Manager should be directed to negotiate with both the non-
profit and for profit to show the numbers for the options that do not work; then, a
decision can be made.
The Interim City Manager stated various scenarios could be provided, but the
negotiations would take longer now.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how much time would be needed, to which the Interim City
Manager responded six months.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Kemper interim management contract would be
extended, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated in the interim, some of the non profit money should .be
used to maintain the par 3 course to ensure that children have a place to. play in the
spring and summer; that he would like to see an interim contract for both Kernper.and
the non- profit.
Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the Interim City Manager would negotiate with
both entities; in the meantime, Kemper would have a short -term contract to maintain the
status quo of the Mif Albright course and other two courses; meanwhile, the non profit
would continue raising money.
Ms. Sullwold stated the problem is that donations have to go to a 501(3)(c) corporation
in order to allow deductions; most, if not all, donations :would diminish if there is not an
agreement that the non profit would operate the Mif Albright course; donations are
based on whether the plan [for long -term non profit operation] goes forward.
The Interim City Manager stated the question is how long it will take to get all of the
pieces together; there are too many moving parts; 90 to 180 days are needed for
negotiations which should allow enough time to generate some revenue commitments;
inquired whether people would not make commitments until after a deal is made.
Ms. sullwold responded the people have committed to putting money forward to a non-
profit operation; stated that she does not know if commitments would be made on an
expectation of getting a contract.
Mr. Van Winkle stated the funding put together is predicated on Council giving direction
to negotiate with the non profit.
Councilmember Tam stated a long -term operator has been selected; direction has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
March 16, 2010
given to negotiate with both Kemper and the non profit; in the meantime, the Interim
City Manager needs 180 days to negotiate with the parties; the City has a renewable
clause with Kemper for every 30 days; inquired whether the Mif Albright course and two
18 -hole courses would stay open for the next six months until a long -term agreement is
reached.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there would be no reason
to make any changes until a final decision is made; all pieces of the puzzle need to fit.
Mr. sullwold stated negotiating a license with Alameda Junior Golf would not take 180
days; discussing negotiations with Kemper can be done after fitting the Mif Albright
course in the puzzle.
Ms. sullwold stated Council needs to ask the people who made pledges whether they
are willing to carne forward with pledges without a contract.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a timeline could be established to review the full
analysis.
The Interim City Manager responded that she understands the plan; stated nonprofit
negotiations will go faster than the number crunching for the 30 holes; the uses cannot
be competing and need to dovetail into each other; insurance, indemnification, etc. for
the non profit have not been resolved yet; a decision cannot be made in a vacuum.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a certain amount of negotiations could be made
upfront for both parties without finalizing with Kemper within 00 days.
The Interim City Manager responded a business term sheet could be developed within
90 to 120 days to deal with questions in the original motion in terms of cost, numbers,
and the analysis, but the final document [agreement] could not be completed; 90 to 120
days is reasonable for a term sheet for both sides to see if pieces fit; legal documents
could be drafted if Council blesses the business terms which would take another 90
days.
Mice Mayor deHaan inquired whether preferences should be discussed at this time.
The Interim City Manager responded that she understands that a motion includes: 1)
having a par 3 course to deal with teens and seniors, 2) addressing the driving range
issue, 3) dealing with the 36 holes, whether it is two 18 -hole regulation courses or
whatever combination makes sense, 4) evaluating financial numbers with both parties,
5} considering a non profit option for operating the par 3, whether at the existing site or
the Kemper par 3 option, and E} continuing things for 90 days on an as -is basis;
financials may need to be bifurcated and just review the par 3.
Mayor Johnson stated factoring in the cost for reconfiguring the golf course versus not
reconfiguring should be reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
March 15, 2010
The Interim City Manager stated justice scales will be reviewed as to what the
percentage of receipts are on the business points; the General Fund would get less as a
result of a long -term lease.
Mayor Johnson stated the motion does not include picking a configuration; inquired
whether it would make sense to have a workshop to explain options at the golf course
during the period of negotiations; stated tonight's meeting is not the best place to
discuss what would work.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a different concept has been presented tonight; that he
would like to have more defined direction; he is not sure about having a workshop.
Mayor Johnson stated golfers should have the opportunity to provide input.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she has a very clear understanding of golfers want;
financial feasibility is the only issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not believe a decision will be a specific option;
there will be tradeoffs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial boundaries need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she understands the issue regarding the two 18 -hole
courses; that she does not believe the issue is black and white.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated everything is open for discussion; that he would like to be
able to provide what he prefers.
Mayor Johnson stated that everyone agrees with having two 18-hole courses; the
question is economic feasibility.
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether a joint City Council and Golf Commission workshop could
be held after 60 days to discuss Ideas.
The Interim City Manager stated a business term sheet could be provided in July and
could be turned into a lease or license agreement between one or two parties.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of negotiating with both parties with the
understanding that components are needed for a par 3, driving range, and two 18-hole
championship courses; stated the starting point would be two 18-hole courses and
looking for financial feasibility; direction is to carne back with a business term sheet
based on the starting point, incorporating the non profit aspect for operating the par 3
and working backwards from there.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with the modification that the Mif Albright
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 23
March 16, 2010
course portion not be addressed after the fact.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion started with the need for
a par 3 course.
Mice Mayor deHaan stated that he understands Councilmember 111atarrese's motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson 4. Abstentions:
Councilmember Tarn 1.
10-127 Resolution No. 14432 "supporting the City's Response to Google I nc.'s
Request for Information Regarding the Google Fiber for Communities Initiative and
Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Designate a Single Point of Contact and to
Establish a Google Streamlining Task Force for the Project." Adopted.
The Deputy City Manager Development services gave a brief presentation.
Speakers Howard Ashcraft, Wire Alameda; and Jim Meyer, Wire Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is very impressed with the community coming
forward regarding Google Wireless and the American Cup.
On the call for the question the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON- AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
-128 Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and
Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource opportunities. Continued
to April 6, 2010.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:43 a.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 24
March 16, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda city council 25
March 16, 2010
CITY OF ALAM EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
Date: April 1, 2010
Re: List of Warrants for Ratification
This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in
accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
($10,941.03)
Check Numbers
Amount
227029 227494
$2,286,890.86
EFT 825
$183.60
EFT 826
$3,264.94
EFT 827
$74,867.32
EFT 828
$2,626.00
EFT 829
$194,030,00
EFT 83❑
$4,759.99
EFT 831
$215,191,51
Void Checks:
223961
($150.00)
226596
($10,941.03)
226826
($21, 527.70)
226943
$967
227057
($165.52)
227093
($600.00)
207142
($950.00)
225294
($20.30)
GRAND TOTAL $2,746,491.75
Respectl:ully submitted,
Deputy City Manager
BILLS #4 -B
Council Warrants 04/06/10 4/6/2010
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: April 6, 2010
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a call for Bids for the
Alameda Point Multi -Use Field Uogrades, No. P.W. 04 -09 -11
The Alameda Point multiuse field is used by soccer and baseball teams throughout the
year. During heavy rains, the Alameda Point multi -use field, which .is .built on a deep
layer of bay mud, develops isolated areas of standing water that affect the grass and
result in bare spots. Public works staff has completed the design work necessary to
upgrade the field to address this condition.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project will improve the drainage of the multi -use field by installing a sub
drain system. In addition, quick couplers will be added to the existing irrigation system
to provide maximum watering distribution throughout the field. A copy of the plans and
specifications is on file in the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The funds for this project are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (08 -10),
with monies allocated from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority funds
and the Dwelling Unit Tax. No General Fund monies are required.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVI
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Alameda Point
multi -use field upgrades project is categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines
Section 16301(c), Existing Facilities.
City Council
Agenda Item ##4 -C
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
April 6, 2010
Page 2of2
Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for the Alameda Point multi-
use field upgrades, No. P.W. 0409 -11.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio{�
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
L 'a I r L L' M
Evelyn Leung 9
Interim Supervising Accountant
30�
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: April 6, 2010
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,499,600, Including Contingencies,
to S usal construction for the Neighborhood Library Ire revernent Project,
No. P.I. 10 -09 -29
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2010, the city Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized
a call for bids for the neighborhood library improvement project, No P.W. 10 09
The project will remodel the west End and Bay Farris Island nei g hborhood libraries.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the. maximum number of bids and most competitive. rice, fans and
p p
specifications were provided to 17 separate.. builders exchanges throe hout the Bay 9
Area. and the. eBidboard website. A notice of:. bid was also published ir, the
Journal. Fourteen contractors submitted bids, and the bids. were o erred on Larch 9,
p
2010. After. reviewing all the bids .to ensure. each. contained the required docum tatidn,
three. bids were .determined .to be nor responsive because the names of subcontractors
working on. the project were not included. The ..City: Atterne y has reviewed the
determination. of non responsiveness and concurs ith staff's conclusions. The list of
qualified bidders, from lowest to highest total project cost, as well as the non -res
p onsive
bidders, is as follows:
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -D
Honorable Ma and Ap 6, 2010
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 3
Bidder
Bid Amount
B. Brothers Construction, Inc.
-Location
San Leandro
Nonfesponsive
S H Construction
Fremont
Non. responsive
1 MR Contracto.,r, Corporation
ta y w a rd.
Non-re.s.ponsive
Sausal.Corporation
San Leandro
:$1,304.,0
Plant
San Francisco
D.L. Faulk Construction
Ha
$1.13541000
A
DbI
.$11398.1.00.0..
Rodan
.:Bu-rlin
$1. 398)000
DRR Builders
Mor .:Hill
$1:.140.51000.
Ba Construction Compan
Oakland
:$1 ,470.000
Robert L. Brown Construction
Martinez
$1.1507.1000
Coast Side Association
Half. Moon. Ba
..$125.6316.1-5.
River View Construction
vilest sa cramento
$1.75671000.
Johnstone Mo
San :Mateo
$1 ,624,943
Public orks.staff contacted several references provided b the lowest q ualified bidder
and received :positive feedback about the quality a nd timeliness of th flar
eir work on similar
projects. Staff proposes to award a contract to Sausal Construction for a total amount
Of $11499,600, includin a 15% contin A co p y of. t he c o ntract is..o file in the Cit
Clerk's office.
Staff that the Cit Council .has prioritize .the use of.an -ups-p-ent funds. at
e
the end of the pro for landscape improv ments.. Plans to .address the Cit Council's
y
intent will be implemented once construction is.u.nderwa
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The funds for this project are bud in the L ib r ar y Department's accou for Capital
Improvement Pro (05-05 with monies allocated from the Measure 0 bond
proceeds and its acc interest. T.hes.e funds are dedicated solel to
improvements for the nei libraries. No..Gpne.ralF.und monies are re g uired.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This pro will assist in meetin the g oals of the Cit of:Alameda's Local Action Plan
for Climate Protection b decreasin furnape-produced g reenhouse g as emissions, and
b encoura usa of facilities closer to home.
Honorable [Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
April 6, 2010
Page 3of3
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the neighborhood
library improvement program is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines section
16301(a), Existing Facilities Exteriorll nterior Alterations; section '15301(e), Alterations to
Existing Structures of 2,600 square Feet or Less; and section 1 6331, Historical
Resource Restoration /Rehabilitation.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $1,499,600, including contingencies, to Sausal
Construction for the neighborhood library improvement project, No. P.W. 19- 09 -29.
Approved as to funds and account,
Xr 6
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
9���
CITY OF ALA MEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: April 6, 2010
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $97,978 Including Contingencies, to
Schaaf Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, for Design and Preparation of
Plans and Specifications for Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump
Station. No. P.W. 02-10 -06
�:aQ 6111101
In February 2010, Public Works staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and conducted
a selection process to choose consultant services to design and prepare plans and
specifications for upgrades to the northside storm drain pump station. Storms during the
2009120/0 rainy season flooded the pump station, shutting it down. The project will review
the existing pump Station design; design standby power and measures to reduce potential
flooding; prepare plans, specifications, and an engineer's estimate; and recommend
upgrades to the System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system hardware /software
at the station.
DISCUSSION
The City accepted sealed proposals until 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 2010, and the following
civil /storm engineering consultants submitted proposals:
Proposer
Location
Amount
Schaaf &Wheeler
San Francisco
$104,988
BKF
Redwood City
$77,825
On March 12, 2010, Public Works staff reviewed the two responsive proposals and on
March 18, 2010, interviewed both firms. The proposal from BKF did not include design of
an enclosure Structure for the standby generator. Public Works staff determined that
Schaaf Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers was best qualified for the work based on
experience, Capabilities, understanding of the issues, cost, and staffing availability.
After negotiating with Schaaf Wheeler, the review of the SCADA system was deleted.
Staff proposes to award a contract to Schaaf Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for a
City Council
Agenda Item ##4 -E
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
April 0, 2010
Page 2 of 2
total amount of $97,978, including a 1 contingency. The scope of work in the contract
includes design and preparation of the plans and specifications. A copy of the contract is
on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 99006), with
monies allocated from the Urban Runoff fund. No General Fund monies are required.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Statutorily Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $97,978, including contingencies, to Schaaf Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers, for design and preparation of plans and specification for
upgrades to the northside storm drain pump station, No. P.W. 02- 10 -00.
Respectfully submitted,
Me .—.,o
Matthew T. Naclerio�
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
Ar
tAr
6 I r
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
MEMM
CITE' OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: honorable Mayor and
Members of.the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: April 0, 2010
Re: Award a First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount of $24,3151
Including Contingencies, to N in.yo Moore for Geotech n ical Su pport,
Materials Testing, ..and Environmental services for the Webster
Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, loo. P.W. 10 -08-
20
BACKGROUND
In May 2009, the Public Works Department .solicited and received proposals from. four
geotechnical engineering firms to e geotechnical support, materials testin and
0
environmental services during construction of the Webster street/Wilver hill ie" Stargell
Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.v. 1 0- 0826. On July 1 X009, the Cit y approved. roved a
contract in the amount of $74,328.to N inyo Moore for these services.
DISCUSSION
Ninyo Moore has been involved in the project during he various :phases of the
g p
construction to. insure that work conforms to the standards, materials specifications, and
testing requirements established by caltrans. Durin g construction of the street
improvements, which is approximately. 60 percent complete, the. contractor encountered
numerous unforeseen conditions, including underground fixtures from the p revious
Naval. and drive -in theater land uses, unsuitable subgrade, and multiple subsurface
pavement layers. As a result, additional site observations, soil Barn Ilr and testin
p g g,.
and geotechnical recommendations for site rernediation have. been retjuired. This
additional work was not anticipated in the original contractFrith Nin o Moore.
Y
Therefore, Public. Works. staff. proposes to increase Ninyo Moore s: contract by
$24,318 for geotechnica support, materials testing, and. environmental services to cover
these additional and. costs. The total contract amount will be $98,643. This is
approximately 1.5 percent of the total construction cost and. is. well within the Indust
ry
standard for geotechnical support of a construction project of this magnitude. A co of
J g py
the amended contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The budget for the Stargell Avenue project, including both the street and landscaping, is
shown in the following table:
City council
Agenda Item ##4 -F
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
April 0, 20 0
Page 2of2
Revenue: Fun daing Sources
Amount
STIR 310.
$3
CFD#2 .361:
3.80
ARRA Lease 858
.700 1 00.0.
FI SC Lease 250
80 1 000.
CDF 340.11
....620,000
Seger Fund 620
$2,948
Revenue 'Total:
$9,204. 015
Expense:
Construction Contract
U.
Construction Contingency 25%
$1.
Contract Administration
Engineering Support
.:260 9 093
Environmental Consultant
133.7.D0
La nd sca e Architect
7.0 0.0.
Materials Testing
24.95
Construction Management 8%)
004,99.1
Su ort.Contin enc (3 0 Zol
.35
Total Expenses
$%204,0.15
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does. not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a :first amendment to the contract in the
amount of $24,315, including
contingencies, to Ninyo Moore, for geotechnical support, materials testing, and
environmental services for the Webster Street/Wilver
"Willie" Star 9 ell Avenue
intersection project, No. P.W. 10- 08 -26.
Approved as to funds and account,
J 4 A UA
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: April 6, 2010
Re: Approve a Letter of Understanding Between the International
Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda on the Fire
Investigation Programs and Not Filling the Assistant Fire Marshall
Assignment
BACKGROUND
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and the
International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) has a term from January 1, 2005 through
January 6, 2010. The parties are currently in negotiations on a successor agreement.
The subject Letter of Understanding will establish a new section to the successor
Memorandum of Understanding for the Fire Investigation Program. A copy of the Letter
of Understanding is attached.
DISCUSSION
In January 2010, the IAFF and City acknowledged that it would be in the best interest of
both to have trained fire investigators on -call to quickly investigate the cause and origin
of fires. The plan calls for up to six firefighters to be trained on hoer to investigate the
cause and origin of fires and to compensate these individuals with a five percent special
assignment pay for this work.
The City and IAFF have met and have reached a tentative agreement for this fire
investigation program and resultant assignment pay. This agreement, if approved by
the City Council, would provide for the immediate implementation of the Fire
Investigation Program and would add a new section to the successor Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and IAFF entitled Fire Investigation Program. In
reaching this agreement, the parties have agreed that the Assistant Fire Marshall
assignment will no longer be filled.
The City Council must approve this Letter of Understanding prior to the implementation
of the Fire Investigation Program.
City Council
Agenda stern ##4 -G
04 -06 -10
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
April .6, 2010
Page 2 of Z
The cost to the General Fund for the implementation of the Fire Investigator Assignment
Pay for the remainder of FY09 /10 is approximately $5,300. The funds for this are
included in the FY09 /10 Fire Department budget under employment costs (Account
#3210 -41100 Fire Emergency Service Regular Pay).
The cost to the General Fund for the Fire Investigator Assignment pay for FY10/11 is
approximately $32,000. The funds for this will be included in the FY10/11 Fire
Department budget under employment costs (Account #3210 -41100 Fire Emergency
Service Regular Pay).
RECO
Approve a Letter of Understanding Between the International Association of Firefighters
and the City of Alameda on the Fire Investigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant
Fire Marshall Assignment.
Approved as to funds and account,
Evelyn Leung
Interim Supervising Accountant
Exhibits:
1. Letter of Understanding Between the City of Alameda and the International
Association of Firefighters on the Fire Investigation Program and Not Filling the
Assistant Fire Marshall Assignment
LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING
on
Fire Investigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant .Fire Marshal Assignment
MARCH 19, 2010
The purpose of this letter of understanding is to memorialize a settlement
agreement between the City of Alameda and IAFF Local. 6.89 reg arding Fire
g g
Investigation Services in the City of Alameda and the .decision not to fill the
Assistant Fire Marshal assignment or proposed Fire Protection Engineer
classification. This settlement shall resolve all existing disputes between the
parties on these issues.
This agreement shall be effective upon approval of the parties,.and shall also be
incorporated into the next Memorandum of Unde rstanding between the Cit y .of
Alameda and IAFF Local 689 in a separate section titled "Fire Investi ation
g
Program." IAFF Local 689 agrees that it will not pursue a petition to. compel.
arbitration on these issues and shall withdraw any related grievances..
The parties agree that neither the Assistant Fire Marshal assignment nor the Fire
Protection Engineer classification shall be filled at this time.
IAFF Local 689 agrees that it shall .withdraw all grievances. it has .filed regarding
the Fire Protection Engineer classification as well a.s all grievances it. has filed
regarding the failure of the City to fill the Assistant Fire Marshall assignment. It
further warrants that. it will not pursue any litigation or administrative charge
g
regarding these issues.
IAFF Local 689 further agrees that the City may subcontract the proposed duties
of the Fire Protection Engineer, including but not. limited to the following duties
as they relate to new construction: conducting construction plan reviews to
include the review and analysis of. designs, plans, and specifications; ensuring
compliance with fire and life safety ordinances, laws and codes; conducting site
inspections, meeting with Contractors and issuing final approvals.
In the event that the City of Alameda determines that the work duties set forth
above shall not be subcontracted but shall be performed by City employees,
the City agrees that it will provide written notice to the IAFF Local 65.9 and an
opportunity to meet and confer regarding the restoration of such work at that
time.
city council
Exhibit to
C. \QOCUME-1 \STA3CA -1 \LOCALS -1 \Temp\XPgrpwise\Fire [nve:
Agenda Item
04-06-10 0
The parties agree that the City will contract fire investigation services for the
purpose of training team members until such time as the City determines the
team members are fully trained to an acceptable level.
The Alameda Fire Department shall establish a policy to train a team of Fire
Investigators drawn from its ranks of Firefighter, Apparatus operator, and Fire
Captain and to have Fire Investigators so trained to conduct Fire Investigations
and be available on a "stand -by" status 24 hours a day. 7 days a week in the
manner described herein. A maximum of six (6) employees who are trained as
Fire Investigators and are actively participating in the Fire Investigator Program
shall receive an additional five percent (5 salary differential while assigned to
the Program and actively serving as a Fire investigator. Fire Investigation team
members shall be distributed equally among the three (3) suppression shifts. Any
shift balancing shall be in accordance with GOB 2 -40 Station Preference
Assignments. It is the intent of the City that there will be six employees in the
program at any given time.
In order to qualify as a Fire Investigator, an employee must have successfully
completed Fire Investigation course 1A, and Fire Investigation course 1B. Fire
Investigation courses 2A, 2B and the forty hour component of P.C. 832 must be
completed within 18 months of being accepted into the program. It is also
desirable that the employee have experience in investigating cause and origin
of fires. The on duty Fire Investigators in Fire Suppression shall normally be used to
investigate small or routine fires that occur while they are on duty. However, if
fire cause and origin cannot be determined within a reasonable time as
determined by the Duty Chief, the Duty chief may recall a standby Fire
Investigator. The parties intend that Fire Investigators who are on duty in Fire
Suppression should not investigate large or complex fires on the same day in
which they have responded to a fire as a crewmember on any Fire Engine, Fire
Truck or Ambulance.
Team members shall select standby rotations in two week blocks equally until all
standby time is filled. The selections shall be made in order of decreasing
departmental seniority. A team member who is unable to fulfill his /her obligation
for standby shall be required to find a replacement and to notify the Duty chief.
The Duty chief shall notify both the Deputy chief of Support Services and the
Dispatch Supervisor. A Fire Investigator on standby who is called in shall receive
premium pay at the rate of one and one -half times the base rate of pay. The list
of standby investigators shall be maintained by the Deputy Chief of Support
Services with a current list located at Dispatch and in the Duty chief's office with
one investigator assigned standby at all times.
C./DOCUV,E-1 \STA3CA-1 \LOCALS -1 \Temp\XPgrpwise \Fire Investigation Program FINAL Plan.dcc
The Department shall find a replacement standby investigator when it assigns a
team member on standby to mandatory overtime. If a member becomes
unavailable for standby duty due to personal illness or on the job injury. the
Department shall replace the member on standby duty. It is the responsibility of
p y
the member to notify the Duty chief at the earliest time possible when tine
become unavailable for standby duty because of illness or injury. Should 'the
y
Department need to find a replacement standby investigator and none
volunteer, that selection shall be made in order of reverse departmental
seniority among those qualified to perform the work.
Fire Investigators on standby are expected to respond when requested by
Dispatch or the Duty chief. when on standby, Fire Investigators shall carry a Fire
Department cell phone for direct contact and must. be fit for duty and available
to respond within a reasonable period of time. Department issued.cell phones
are to be used for conducting fire investigation business only. when recalled for
an investigation the investigators shall retrieve the fire investigation unit and
respond to the scene.
Employees who become Fire Investigators shall make a five 5) year
commitment to the city to actively serve in the program. Any member who
decides not to continue with the program after five years may be. required to
participate for up to one additional year, including being on standby and
subjected to being recalled for investigations during that year. The Fire. Chief
may remove any member from the program at any time. Employees leaving
the program will no longer receive a pay differential.
During the initial rollout of the Program (the initial assignment cif the first.grou.p.of
employees to the Program) employees who have not cornpleed the required
Fire Investigation coursework may apply and be accepted as one. of the six Fire
Investigators assigned to the program upon the condition that he /she
successfully complete Fire Investigation course 1A, and Fire investigation course
I B within one year of his /her assignment to the program. It is d.e.srable that the
employee have experience in investigating cause and origin of .fi Fire
Investigation courses 2A, 2B and the forty hour component of P.C. 832 must be
completed within two years of being accepted into the program. During the
initial rollout of the Program, the City shall pay for training and associated costs
for any employee who is selected to become one of the initial six Fire
Investigators.
C:\DOCUME- I 1sTA3CA- I \LOCALS- 1 \Temp\XPgrpwise\Fire Investigation Program FINAL Plan.doa
The selection process will consist of submitting a letter of interest with
qualifications and experience, along with a structured oral interview. The
selection shall be at the sole discretion of the Fire Chief.
All Fire Investigation team members may be required to attend meetings and
conferences to further develop the skills as Fire Investigators. At a minimum,
team members may be required to attend one of the two annual California
Conference of Arson Investigators training burns. Failure to meet training
requirements shall result in the removal of the employee from the Prog along
g
with the corresponding pay differential Any City paid training shall be excluded
from consideration under the Educational Incentive Program.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, the city does not waive its right to
subcontract fire investigative services in the future. If the City determines to
subcontract fire investigative services it will provide IAFF 689 with not less than 30
days advance written notice and prior to the decision becomin g final, meet
and confer with IAFF 689 about both the decision to subcontract such work as
well as the impact on the bargaining unit of such subcontracting..
Any dispute about the interpretation or application of this Letter of
Understanding shall be subject to the grievance procedure contained in the
parties' Memorandum of Understanding.
For the City of Alameda For IAFF Local 689.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim City Manager Domenick weaver, President
Approved a s to forrr�xG
Teresa Highsmith, City Aft ay
C\DCUME- \STA3CA -1 \LOCALS- I \Temp\XPgrpwise\Fire Investigation Program FINAL P.1an.doc
CI OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable mayor and
Members of the city council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager
Date: April 0, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution in Support of SB 1068, Authorize the Mayor to Convey
the City's Support for the Bill to Senator Hancock, and Modify the City's
Adopted Legislative Program to Include a Policy on Business
Development
0 0 -Y, 401:�0 K9111011�
The city's adopted legislative program, as approved by the city council on January 0,
2010, is intended to enable both the City council and staff to react quickly .to most
legislative matters as they arise. Issues that develop mid -year that are not covered by
the legislative program are brought back for city Council consideration as needed.
On February 17, 2010, Senator Loni Hancock introduced SB 1008, a bill to allow craft
distillers, like St. George's Spirits, to sell their products on site. current lair prohibits.
this practice for distillers while allowing it for wine growers, brewpubs, and brandy
makers. Since the existing legislative program does not contain any policies that speak
to support for business development, staff cannot advocate for this b.ill's passa
0 e
without a formal City Council action.
DISCUSSION
According to Senator Hancock, there are 22 craft distilleries (defined as distillers who
distill fewer than 50,000 gallons of spirits annually) in California, These distillers are not
allowed to sell the products they distill directly to consumers on site. To have their
products Sold at their own licensed premises, a distiller must first find a wholesale
distributor willing to take them on as a client. The wholesaler then sends a truck to the
distillery, loads the product onto the truck, drives it to a warehouse, unloads the product,
re -loads the product back onto the truck, and then drives it back to the d istillery of origin.
This process, according to Senator Hancock, is inefficient, wastes natural resources,
adds unnecessary pollution and congestion to the roads, and severely cuts into the
profits of the boutique distillery.
Another challenge that craft distillers face is that distilled spirits licensees, such as
restaurants and licensed retailers, must purchase their spirits through a wholesale
distributor. They cannot purchase directly from the distillers. Given the low volume that
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item ##4
Honorable Mayor and April 0, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
craft distillers produce, it is difficult to find a wholesaler to sell their products, even to
local restaurants.
SB 1008, which is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Governmental organization
committee on April 13, would rectify these problems by allowing licensed craft distillers
to sell their spirits directly to consumers on site. It would also allow licensed craft
distillers to sell spirits distilled at their premises directly to restaurants and other vendors
licensed to sell such spirits. Because passage of this bill would be a boon to a valued
Alameda business, St. George's Spirits, and generate additional sales tax revenues for
the City, staff recommends the City Council endorse SB 1088 and authorize the Mayor
to convey that support to Senator Hancock.
In order to enable staff to react quickly in the future to any additional bills that will
encourage business development in Alameda, staff proposes to insert the following
legislative policy in the Revenue and Taxation section of the attached 2010 City of
Alameda Legislative Program:
Business development: The City depends on the success of local businesses to
create jobs, generate tax revenue, and provide goods and services for its residents
which results in the strengthening of the local economy and enhancement of the City's
overall quality of life. As a result, the City supports legislation that promotes. the
attraction, retention, and expansion of local businesses, creates new and im p. roved
market opportunities for business, and facilitates the efficient movement and sale of
goods and services.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct impact to the General Fund from this action. However, the eventual
passage of this bill could provide additional sales tax revenues for the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution in support of SB 1068, authorize the Mayor to convey the City's
support for the bill to Senator Hancock, and modify the City's adopted legislative
program to include a policy on business development.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
Exhibit:
1. 2010 City of Alameda Legislative Program
2010 City of Alameda Legislative Program
Adopted January 6, 2010
General Principle
The City of Alameda opposes any legislation or regulations that preempt
local authority, negatively affect the City's budget, or impose unfunded
mandates on the City. The City supports the use of incentives to encourage
local government action, rather than the imposition of mandates.
Revenue and Taxation
Fiscal Reform Since 1992, the State has drained more than $40 billion of local
property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts. According to the League of
California cities, the State took $52,434,482 from the city of Alameda between 1991
and the end of FY07 -08. Even in years of budget surpluses, the State has used local
monies to finance its constitutional funding obligation to public education, allowing it to
increase State general fund spending for other programs at the expense of vital local
services.
The passage of Proposition 1A on the November 2004 ballot guaranteed the City some
measure of protection against future State raids. Under the terms of Proposition 1A,
however, the State can declare a fiscal emergency and take local revenues, twice within
a ten -year period and providing prior loans have been repaid.
In passing its FY09 -10 budget, the State declared a fiscal emergency and took $1.9
billion in local government property taxes, including close to $2.3 mi.1lion from the City of
Alameda. Because the city is participating in a State- financed securitization ro ram
p g
through an organization called California Communities in which the funds are taken by
the State and restored by California Communities the same day, the city is not actually
losing any funds. However, the City's community Improvement Commission is losing
approximately $4.4 million in redevelopment funds this year and an additional $900,000
to $1 million next year as part of the State's $2.05 billion takeaway of redevelopment
funds.
Despite decimating redevelopment agencies and essentially using City property taxes
as revolving loan funds, the State continues to face massive deficits. In November, the
Legislative Analyst's office estimated that the State now faces a $20.7 billion gap
between revenues and expenditures over the next 18 months. That figure includes $0.3
billion this fiscal year and an additional $14.4 billion in FY10 -11.
Many of the one time solutions the Governor and Legislature used this year to balance
the budget, such as accelerating the collection of payroll taxes and postponing the last
payday for state workers in the current fiscal year until the first day of the next fiscal
year, are no longer available. In addition, the State is facing federal maintenance -of-
effort requirements for certain education, health, and social service funding, as well as a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the redevelopment takeaway.
With the State's continuing structural budget deficit, it will again be critical that the city
oppose efforts by the State to balance its budget by taking local funds, including
property taxes, redevelopment monies, and gas tax funds. To that end, a coalition of
cities, redevelopment agencies, transit operators, and business and labor organizations
is sponsoring an initiative to protect local revenues for vital local services entitled "The
Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010.'
If passed by the voters in November 2010, the measure would prohibit the State from
taking, borrowing, or redirecting local taxpayer funds dedicated to public safety,
emergency response and other vital local government services. It would also close
loopholes to prevent the taking of local taxpayer funds currently dedicated to cities,
counties and special districts and revoke the State's authority to borrow local
government property tax funds or divert local redevelopment funds. Finally, the initiative
would prevent the State from borrowing, taking, or redirecting transportation and public
transit funds such as the sales tax on gasoline (Proposition 42 funds) and the Highway
User Tax on gasoline funds. The initiative's sponsors have until May 17, 2010 to
gather the 004,354 signatures required to place the measure on the November 2010
ballot.
Finally, organizations like the Bay Area council and California Forward are considering
additional measures, including the calling of a Constitutional Convention, to address
State governance and fiscal reform. While the City is supportive of such reform efforts
in general, staff recommends that the City continue to monitor the various efforts and
forego taking a position until such time as the measures, and their implications, have
been reviewed by the League's Board of Directors.
Lower threshold for local special taxes: Local governments cannot easily raise
revenues. Taxes to fund specific, important services, such as park and street
maintenance, public safety, and library hours must be approved by a two- thirds majority
of the voters. This high vote requirement makes it extremely difficult for many cities to
raise needed monies. The City therefore supports a constitutional amendment to lower
the threshold for approval of local taxes to either 55% (the same requirement schools
now face) or to a simple majority.
E- commerce: Sales of goods and products over the Internet pose a serious threat to
the City's overall sales tax revenue base. At a minimum, the Legislature should enact
legislation to close the loophole in current law that allows corporations with a physical
presence, or nexus, in California to evade their sales and use tax obligations by setting
up related web -based businesses based outside California.
4
Homeland Security and Public Safety
Reimbursement: Since the events of September 11, cities have had to assume
additional staffing and equipment costs for emergency preparedness and public safety.
Although local governments are usually the first to respond in cases of natural disasters
and acts of terrorism, they receive little financial and technical assistance from the State
and federal governments. The City supports legislation to provide resources for
emergency planning, training, exercises, and equipment for emergency workers.
COPS Funding. The City supports funding for the Citizens' option for Public Safety
(COPS) program, which provides monies, on a population basis, to local law
enforcement agencies to provide enhanced public safety services. Funds can be used
for salaries and benefits, or for technology, training, and other frontline law enforcement
purposes. The City uses COPS money for technology and training purposes not
already budgeted in the General Fund.
Interoperability. The City is a member of the East Bay Regional Communications
System Authority, a Joint Powers Authority established to build and operate a
coordinated public safety communications system in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties. The City supports legislation to provide funding for such systems to ensure
that public safety agencies can communicate with each of -her during an emergency.
SpaylNeuter Laws: The City supports legislation to encourage spaying and neutering
of domestic cats and dogs in order to reduce overpopulation in animal shelters. A bill
introduced last year would have prohibited a person from owning a cat or dog that is
over six months old unless the animal had been spayed or neutered or the person had a
permit to own an intact animal. The bill exempted from the spay /neuter requirement
dogs used by law enforcement, fire agencies, and working dog organizations; as well as
pets owned by licensed breeders and shag animals.
Transportation and infrastructure
Lower threshold for approval of transportation sales tares: The City supports a
constitutional amendment to lower the threshold for approval of sales and use taxes for
transportation purposes. Currently, such taxes must be approved by two- thirds of the
voters. The City supports lowering the requirement to either 55% (the same requirement
schools now face) or to a simple majority in order to provide much needed fundin g for
transit and transportation infrastructure.
Fuel fair increase: The voters last increased the State fuel tax in June 1990 when
Proposition 111 passed. This measure doubled the State fuel tax to 18 cents a gallon.
Since then, California's fuel tax rate has lost much of its buying pager. The City
supports fuel tax indexing or an increase to ensure funding for local street projects and
maintenance.
Ease Meuse
Preservation of local interests: The City supports legislation and policies that
preserve Alameda's interests related to base reuse, clean -up, and conveyance.
Land Use
Preservation of local land use authority: The City opposes legislation that would
remove or limit local government land use authority.
Housing elements: The City opposes legislation that penalizes local governments for
noncompliance with their housing element requirements. Proposed penalties have
included loss of gas tax funds and court- ordered penalties for noncompliance.
Employee Relations
Mandated employee and retiree benefits: Decisions about health and retirement
benefits should be made at the local level, through the collective bargaining process,
not mandated by the State. Therefore, the City opposes legislation mandating. new or
enhanced local employee and retiree benefits because such benefits can impose
financial costs and administrative burdens on local governments.
4550 benefits: Under current law (Labor Code Section 4850), public safety employees
who are totally temporarily disabled by injury or illness on the job are .entitled to a leave
of absence at full salary, tax free, for up to one year. The City opposes legislation islation to
extend that timeframe.
Workers' compensation The City opposes any new or additional workers'
compensation benefits and supports legislation to further reform the system and lower
employer costs.
Second tier Public Employees" Retirement System (PEES) benefits: Existing law
allows a CalPERS local contracting agency to amend its contract with CalPERS in order
to create a second tier of benefits, subject to certain restrictions. The second tier can
only apply to employees who are hired after the contract effective date or who change
membership classification after the contract amendment date. Existing laver also
prohibits local agencies from amending their contracts with CalPERS to reduce
employee benefits for existing employees. However, a second tier, which applies to.
prospective employees only, may provide a lesser or different level .of optional benefits
than exists for employees in the first tier. The City opposes legislation to eliminate a
local contracting agency's ability to reduce or modify benefits for new employees of the
agency.
Pension reform: Employer costs for the State's defined benefit retirement system
(CalPERS) have increased significantly in recent years. The Governor and the
Legislature are exploring various means of achieving cost control and budget certainty.
0
The City supports pension reform, provided that it achieves savings without imposing
additional costs.
Retiree medical. As a result of a Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
change, local agencies are now required to account for their liability for retiree medical
benefits, also known as other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). Instead of
accounting for these benefits on a pay -as- you -go basis, which is ghat many local
governments do now, agencies must report their annual OPEB costs and their unfunded
actuarial liabilities for past service costs. The new GASB regulations are intended to
improve transparency in government accounts by making it easier to know what the
future liability for OPEB expenses will be for a given government and to assess whether
the government has a strategy for meeting these requirements. The California Public
Employees Retirement System is offering local agencies a program to pre -fund their
OPEB obligations. while the City may choose to participate in such a program in the
future, the City opposes any legislation that would make such participation mandatory.
y
Environment
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants: The Energy. Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, which was authorized by Congress
several years ago but funded for the first time in 2009, received $3.2 billion in American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. funding for fiscal year 2000. The majority of. this
funding, more than $2.7 billion, was distributed through formula grants; the Cit y. of
Alameda received $640,600 from this program. These funds are being used to install
solar panels on the Main Library; expand the Webster Street Smart Corridor; desi g n,
develop, and launch a third -party energy audit training program; conduct energy
efficiency audits of the Alameda unified School District's facilities; conduct a City
facilities energy audit; and install lighting occupancy sensors at City Hall to ensure that
lights turn off automatically when a space is vacant.
The City supports ongoing funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant program, which is enabling California cities to implement energy conservation and
greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects and initiatives to meet the State's
aggressive emissions reduction goals, create jobs, and foster economic growth in the
renewable energy sector.
Recycling. The City supports continuation of existing Source Reduction Recycling
Act (AB 039) waste diversion requirements. The City also supports diversion
measurement and reporting improvements that do not adversely impact the assessment
of compliance efforts made by local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions should be
considered in compliance with AB 939 goals if they have met the waste diversion 9 oals
or if they are making a good faith effort to implement applicable Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) programs.
Climate protection The City supports legislation and policies that assist local
governments in reducing global warming pollution levels. These efforts may include
1
reducing dependence on fossil fuels, developing alternative energy resources and fuel
efficient technologies, and implementing sustainable practices such as transit friendly
development.
Poiystyrene foam: The City of Alameda supports legislation to ban the use of
polystyrene foam disposable food service containers. such containers have already
been banned in over loo cities nationwide, including Alameda, San Francisco, Oakland,
Berkeley, Emeryville, and Millbrae.
Local autonomy: The City opposes legislation that preempts local planning decisions
regarding solid waste facility siting; preempts local solid waste and AB 939 fee setting
authority; or imposes taxes or fees on local solid waste programs to fund state
programs not directly related to solid waste management.
Litter control and abatement The city supports legislation to address litter control
and abatement problems in California, including measures to expand the enforcement
authority of the California Highway Patrol to include enforcement measures for any
vehicle generating litter on public roads; provide for effective enforcement of anti litter
lags; implement a strong statewide anti litter outreach campaign; and provide for
cleanup of littered areas.
Extended producer responsibility or product stewardship: The City supports
legislation such as AB 32 to require manufacturers to assume financial and/or physical
responsibility for the costs of collecting, processing, recycling, or disposing of products
at end -of -life, especially products that create significant economic burdens on local
government for end -of -life management because high volumes of the material exist .in
the waste stream, or because the nature of the product snakes it difficult to manage in
the current integrated waste management system; including computer, electronic and
other products that incorporate hazardous materials requiring special handling. In
addition, the City supports legislation and education efforts of the California Product
Stewardship Council in advocating product stewardship, which means whoever designs,
produces, sells, or uses a product takes responsibility for minimizing its environmental
impact through all stages of the product's life cycle.. And the producer, havin g the
greatest ability to minimize impacts, has the most responsibility. Product stewardship
programs have already been implemented in Europe and Canada with many of the
same companies now selling products in California,
Recycled ,product market development: The City supports legislation encouraging
manufacturers to include post consumer recycled material in their products, and
encouraging state and local government agencies and school districts to purchase
products made with post consumer recycled material, that reduce waste, and that
reduce toxicity of materials that may be discarded or disposed in the future.
Stor water program funding: The City supports legislation that would snake it easier
for cities to fund and comply with new and increasingly stringent storm water quality
permit requirements, including adding fees for storm water management programs to
those voter approved exemptions already included in Proposition 218.
Home generated pharmaceutical waste: borne- generated pharmaceutical and
sharps (needle) waste are difficult to dispose of safely and can pose a hazard to waste
haulers and recyclers. For that reason, the California Integrated Waste Management
Board or its successor agency, Department of Conservation, is sponsoring legislation to
require the State Board of Pharmacy to coordinate with other state agencies, local
governments, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies to develop sustainable, efficient
policies and programs to manage pharmaceutical wastes and the disposal of sharps.
The bill would also authorize a pharmacy to accept the return of home- generated
pharmaceutical waste and home generated sharps waste. The City supports this
legislation, which would also make local programs, such as the City of Alameda's,
eligible to receive grants to help prevent the improper disposal of these products.
Single use bags: The City supports legislation that would require retail businesses to
transition from single use bags to reusable bags of non -HDPF plastic material. As part
of any waste reduction strategy, the city will consider implementing local legislation that
would ban all single use bags within the retail industry in Alameda,
7
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 1068
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2010, Senator Loni Hancock introduced
E Senate Bill 1068, a bill to alloy craft distillers, like St. George's Spirits, to sell
C their products on site; and
WHEREAS, craft distilleries are defined as those distilling fewer than
60,000 gallons of spirits annually; and
WHEREAS current lam rohibits craft distillers from selling elling their products
on their premises while allowing it for wine growers, micro brewers, and brandy
makers; and
WHEREAS, to have their products sold at their own licensed premises,
the 22 craft distilleries in California must first contract with a wholesale
distributor; and
WHEREAS, the distributor must then send a truck to the distillery, load
the product onto the truck, drive the product to a warehouse, unload the truck,
re -load the truck, and then drive the spirits back to the distillery of origin for
sale; and
WHEREAS, this process is inefficient, adds unnecessary pollution,
contributes to congestion on the roads, and reduces profits for craft distilleries;
and
WHEREAS, distilled spirits licensees, such as restaurants and licensed
retailers, must purchase their spirits through a wholesale distributor rater than
directly from the distillers; and
WHEREAS, given the low volume that craft distillers produce, it can be
difficult to find a wholesaler to sell their products, even to local restaurants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Alameda endorses Senate Bill 1 068 and authorizes the Mayor to send a
letter of support for the bill to Senator Hancock.
Resolution #4 -H CC
04- 06 -10
1, the undersigned, hereby Certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 6th day of April, 2010, by the following vote to
grit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 7th day of April, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING SECTIONS 30-37.6 OF THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO DESIGN REVIEW APPROII EXPIRATION AND
EXTENSION
BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda:
0
CL Findin
In enactin this Section, the Cit Council finds as follows:
1 The amendments maintain the inte of the Gene.ra.1 Plan. The
proposed zonin text amendments are nece to ensure .thatclesi
review can be uniforml and efficientl processed and assist staff Jn
attainin General Plan g oals to develop a protection. of Alameda's
historic nei and small to character as stated in th.e�.Qit
Desi Element. The proposed amendments will al.so.:..
improve the desi review process in Alameda and provide relief for
propert owners who are re to dela construction on approve
projects
2. The amendments will support the welfare of th c .The
proposed zonin text amendment will not ne affbc th e: g eneral
welfare of the communit Onl projects with valid desi review.
permits
will be allowed to proceed to construction. The amendments provide
relief. to propert owners that ma have been re to ..dela
construction due to the worldwide economic downturn by not re
them to pa for renewin permits.
3. The amendments are e The proposed zonin a.mendment is
e in that it established a consistent expiration and extension
re for all desi review projects, irrespective of whether the
are j oined with a variance or use permit.
Section 1. Section 30-37.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereb
amended to read as follows:
Final Passa of Ordinance #4- 1 CC
04-06-10
30 -37.6 Expiration and Extension.
Design Review approval shall expire two (2) years from the initial date of
approval unless construction has commenced under valid permits. Design
review approval may be extended upon application for up to two (2)
additional years from the date of expiration.
Section 2 Severability clause. It is the declared intent of the City
Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional b y a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so
construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provision of this
ordinance.
Section 3 This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions,
requirements, orders, and matters established and adopted hereby shall take
effect and be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30)
days from the date of its final passage.
Section 4 CEQA. The proposed amendments are categorically
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The proposed amendments amend the
review process for Design Review and do not increase the intensity or density
of use that would be permitted on property in Alameda.
Presiding officer of the city Council
Attest:
Lara weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the
regularly adopted and passed by council of the
assembled on the day of
AYES:
DOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIO NS:
foregoing ordinance was duly and
City of Alameda in regular meeting
2010 by the following vote to wit:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal
of said city this day of 201 o.
Lara Weisiger, city clerk
City of Alameda
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: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager/Interim Executive Director
Date: April 0, 2010
Re: Accept the Financial Report for the Second Fiscal Quarter October,
November, and December 2010
BACKGROUND
The second quarter, mid -year financial report on all City funds has been completed,
based upon actual revenues and expenditures through December 31, 2009. Quarterly
reports include financial information for all City funds presented as follows:
Exhibit I outlines by fund the revenues, expenditures, changes in, and projected
net fund balance for all city funds at June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 2 summarizes by major category actual revenues and actual expenditures
for the General Fund, as of December 31, 2009, and projected General Fund
revenues and expenditures at June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 3 details General Fund actual revenues by source at December 31, 2009
and projected revenues by sou rce at June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 4 details General Fund actual expenditures by program at December 31,
2009, and projected expenditures by program, at June 30, 2010.
Exhibit 5 graphs FY09 -10 budgeted General Fund revenues by major category,
including actuals as of December 31, 2009.
Exhibit 6 graphs FY09 -10 budgeted General Fund expenditures by major
category, including actuals, as of December 31, 2009.
City Council
Agenda Item #6 -A
04-06-10
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 6, 2010
Honorable Chair and Members of the CIC Page 2 of 6
Honorable Chair and Members of the ARRA
Exhibit 7 summarizes by fund actual revenues and expenditures at December
31, 2009, and projected revenues and expenditures for all remaining, non
General Fund City funds, at June 30, 2010.
Quarterly reports provide the City Council with timely updates on the financial status of
the City funds, comparing budget projections in revenue and expenditures to actual
receipts and expenses each 90 days. In addition, each quarterly report includes a
projection of revenues and expenditures at fiscal year end, based upon actual
experience, changes in revenue forecasts, or other variables such as changes in State
subventions or reimbursements, which can affect the approved budget in each fund.
It is important to note, however, that projections are based upon the information, data,
and assessment of market conditions at the time the projection is made. In this volatile
economic environment, projections cannot be guaranteed to reflect final results at Y ear
end. However, including such information in the City's quarterly reports each 90 days is
a critical tool in gauging fund performance, and thereby anticipating any major revenue
or expenditure impacts that would affect the City's annual financial position at fiscal
year -end.
General Fund
The FY09 -1 0 annual budget was balanced at the time of adoption in August 2009 with
total appropriations of $58.7 million. However, the downturn in both the national and the
state economies, which affected the City's budget so dramatically in FY07 -08 and in
FY08 -09, continues to shadow its FY09 -10 budget. The General Fund, and related
funds, will continue to contend with limited to non existent revenue growth due to
declines in retail sales, home sales, present and future impacts of the State budget. As
of December 31, 2009, revenue in the General Fund is projected to be $08.5 million.
Lesser revenues reflect lower than anticipated receipts in interest earnings, which are
directly affected by the investment market.
As a result of cost controls, including a freeze on vacancies, reduced overtime usage,
and a careful reallocation of certain capital expenditures to other funds, General Fund
expenditures at fiscal year -end are projected to be $66.5 million. However, this is
merely a projection, and this projected expenditure savings will undoubtedly dissipate
with revised revenue and expenditure projections at third quarter. Any excess revenues
over expenditures, which may be realized at fiscal year -end, must be applied to
negative cash fund balances in the General Fund's Internal Services funds, which have
accumulated cash deficits in providing services for which the General Fund was not
charged, but for which it is responsible in its operating budgets.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council April 6, 2010
Honorable chair and Members of the CIC Page 3 of 6
Honorable chair and Members of the ARRA
Based upon activity at raid -year, the General Fund fund balance, projected at June 30,
2010, is $20.4 million, of which $14.1 million is unrestricted cash. General Fund actual
revenues as of December 31, 2009, were $31.4 million, or 46.6% of FY09 -10 budgets
actual expenditures were $33.2 million or 48.4% of FY09 -1 0 budget.
General Fund major revenue categories are summarized in Exhibit 2, with details on
revenues by source in Exhibit 3. The city derives a significant portion of its General
Fund revenues from economically sensitive sources such as property tax, sales tax,
utility users' tax, and construction- related permits and fees. When one or more of these
key revenues decline significantly below projections, program and service operational
levels are placed in jeopardy.
General Fund expenditures by major department are summarized in Exhibit 4, which
includes actual expenditures at December 31, 2009, including General Fund transfers to
other funds such as debt service in the amount of $33,249,907; Library Fund transfer of
$860,000, and other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) transfer of $1,062,018.
Special Revenue Funds
The Special Revenue Fund group includes such individual funds as redevelopment, gas
tax, library fund, various assessment districts, and the athletic fund. The FY09 -10
actual receipts at December 31, 2009, for this fund group totaled $17,926,679; actual
expenses totaled $20,668,060. Projections at June 30, 2010, are $61,934,142 and
$64,670,827, respectively.
The vast majority of these special revenue funds operate within budget projections,
utilizing available fund balances only strategically. A number of these funds are grant
funds or capital project driven funds, which generate revenues and expenditures in
patterns different than that of the City's General Fund or other operating funds, such as
Enterprise Funds or Internal service Funds. Sufficient reserves in each fund are always
maintained to ensure completion of projects or programs. At June 30, 2010, the
projected net fund balance for the special Revenue Fund Group is $46,663,736
Capital Project Funds
The capital Project Fund Group, which includes such individual funds as general capital
projects, construction funds, assessment districts, impact fee funds and urban runoff,
had aggregate actual revenues of $6,192,687 and expenditures of $9,636,449, at
December 31, 2009. Projections at June 30, 2010 are $14,550,480 and $16,403,620
respectively.
This major decrease in year -end projections compared to budget is a direct reflection of
revised estimates in those development- driven funds, such as impact fees, which have
been affected by the economic climate in California. No individual fund is operating in
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 6, 2010
Honorable chair and Members of the CIC Page 4 of 6
Honorable Chair and /Members of the ARRA
negative cash. All assessment districts are fully funded, with sufficient cash fund
balances. The fund balance in this fund group is projected to be $22,776,804.
Debt Service Funds
The Debt Service Fund Croup includes individual funds established to account for the
long -term debt of the city and its redevelopment agency. The year -end fund balance of
all debt service funds is projected to be $10,466,489 at June 30, 2010, a decrease of
$620,340 or 5.6% from the prior fiscal year. This decrease can be attributed to the use
of fund balance for the police building debt and the Library bond in order to reduce the
transfers in (revenues) to these debt service funds from the General Fund.
Enterprise Funds
The Enterprise Funds Group, comprised of City business -like operations such as the
golf course, ferry services, and the sanitary surer system, requires fund balance
reporting that includes cash, reserves, and asset valuation of the enterprise such as
buildings, equipment, and infrastructure. Exhibit 1 includes detail in cash, reserves, and
assets for each of these individual funds. The aggregate fund balance at June 30, 2010
for all enterprise funds is projected to be $61 ,058,596.
Internal Service Funds
The Internal Services Fund Group includes those funds created for programs and/or
services provided citywide to all departments. optimally, revenues to these funds are
the result of administrative (cost recovery) charges to the other funds, principally the
General Fund. The projected fund balance at FY09 -10 year -end reflects negative cash
of approximately $1.Z million from such funds as Information Technolo Worker's
Compensation, and Unemployment Insurance. This negative cash amount is one third
of that which existed at mid -year in FY08 -09 ($3.7 million). Aggressive cost controls,
budget reductions, and full cost recovery formulas applied to departments in FY09 -10
have significantly reduced the prior negative cash balances.
Trust and Agency Funds
The Trust and Agency Fund Group includes bond reserve funds for the various City
long -term debt obligations, as well as various funds established for the payment of the
City's pension and retirement obligations, such as the 1 079 and 1 082 Pension Plans,
and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). Fund balance in this fund group is
projected to be $46,358,619.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council April 8, 2010
Honorable chair and Members of the CIC Page 5 of 8
Honorable chair and Members of the AR.RA
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY09 -10 raid -year report includes several exhibits that detail the variances between
budget and actual for revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance budget at
December 31, 2009. Exhibits were developed to facilitate review of this detailed
financial information, and to create a fully disclosed and clear presentation of the city's
budget and cash position for each city fund at the close of the second fiscal quarter.
Projections for year end can be affected by numerous variables; however, continued
revenue monitoring due to market conditions and maintained diligence in expenditure
cost controls through June 30, 2010, will ensure that FY09 -10 does not require any
utilization of General Fund fund balance.
The FY10 -11 budget adoption schedule has been accelerated. Staff began preparation
in mid January, continuing to incorporate changes in budget structure that were adopted
in FY09 -10, and acknowledging the fiscal realities facing local government in the
immediate future, due to the State budget crisis. city management has initiated several
major studies and analyses, completed by both staff and independent experts, which
target the more significant revenue and expenditure factors that must be evaluated in
preparing the City's annual financial plan. These include a multi -year property tax
analysis; a multi -year sales tax analysis; a multi -year analysis of property transfer tax
projections; revised 1079 and 1082 actuarials, including updates on annual required
fixed contributions; revised OPEB actuarials, as required by Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) ruling 45, including updates on annual required fixed
contributions; a refunding and debt analysis of all long terra obligations of the City,
including calculation of potential cash savings; and, a revised cost allocation plan, which
will calculate requisite levels for charges to departments for internal and administrative
services provided to operating funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the quarterly financial report for the period ending December 31, 2009.
AMC /dl
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council April 0, 2010
Honorable Chair and Members of the CIC Page 6 of 6
Honorable chair and Members of the ARRA
Exhibits: 1 Projected Fund Balance (Unaudited) of All Funds at June 30, 2010
2 General Fund Projected Revenues and Expenditures at June 30, 2010
3 General Fund Projected Revenues by Source at June 30, 201:0
4 General Fund Expenditures by Program at June 30, 2010
5 Budget to Actual General Fund Revenues by Major category as of
December 31, 2000.
0 Budget to Actual General Fund Expenditures by Major Category as of
December 31, 2009
7 Projected Revenues and Expenditures for Non General Fund City
Funds at June 30, 2010