2010-07-06 Packet;i =Fr F. UITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
N
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PU�
TUESDAY JULY 6, 201 -5 :00 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
1 Roll Call Cit Council, PUB
Note: Board Member Hamm will be present via teleconference from Aloft
Philadelphia Airport, 4301 Island Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153
2. Public Comment on A Items Onl
An wishin to address the Council/Board on a items onl ma speak
for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
City Councill/PUB
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION
Si Exposure to Liti Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9
Name of Cases: Vectren Communication Services v. Cit of Alameda, Actin
B and Throu Alameda Municipal Power
Bernard A. Osher, Trustee v. Cit of Alameda, et. al
Cit of Alameda on Behalf of Itself and Alameda Municipal
Power, et al v. Nuvee-n Municipal Hi Income Opportunit
Fund, et al
Cit Council
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of liti pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One
3-C. LIABILITY CLAIMS (54956-95) —WORKERS) COMPENSATION CLAIM
f' I 'n rn 'n n+-
Esperanza Sanchez
A Claimed A Cit of Alameda
4. Announcement of Action Taken in closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment city council, PUB
Beverl JQn I Mtyor
CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA
ti r. =•t,
SPECIAL JO INT JO MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
TUESDAY JULY 6 2010--- 6:55P.M.
Location city council chambers, city Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave. and Oak street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission /Board on agenda items or business
introduced by the Commission /Board may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda
item when the subject is before the Commission /Board. Please file a speaker's slip with
the Deputy city Clerk if you wish to speak
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1 ROLL CALL CIC, HABOC
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Recommendation to Approve the Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners
Meeting Held on April 6, 2010. [HABOC] (Housing Authority)
2 -13. Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to the Affordable Housing
Agreement Between the Housing Authority and Community Improvement
Commission Extending the Term of the Agreement Two Years to July 2026. [CIC,
HABOC] (Economic Development)
2 -C. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Rules and Procedures of the Housing
Authority, Effective January 1, 2010, Changing the Time to Start Regular Meetings
of the Board of Commissioners to 6:55 P.M. [HABOC] (Housing Authority)
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $106,680, Including
$17,780 for Contingencies, to Replace the Brush Street Parking Lots at Esperanza
to DRYCO Construction Inc., and to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to
Execute the Contract. [HABOC] (Housing Authority)
4. ADJOURNMENT CIC, HABOC
Beverly J ns C Tir
CIC and HA C
l
if c j
k
'f
,ZZZ tiff
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 JULYS 20'10--- -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)
6. 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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Sessio
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 6 :66 P.M.
COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING 7:01 P.M.
AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1 ROLL CALL Cit Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Presentation of Certificates of Service
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or
adopted b one motion unless a re for removal for discussion or
explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public
4-A. Minutes of the Re Cit Council Meetin Held on June 15, 2010. (Cit Clerk)
4-13. Bills for Ratification. (Finance)
4-C. Recommendation to Accept the Quarterl Sales Tax Report for the Period
Endin December 31, 2009. (Finance)
4-D. Recommendation to Accept the Work of J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the Repair
of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Drivewa and Minor Street
Patchin Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Phase 10, No. P.W. 06-09-15. (Public Works)
4-E. Recommendation to Accept the Work of Schaaf Wheeler Consultin Civil
En for the Assessment of the Cit of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, No.
P.W. 06-08-16. (Public Works)
4-F. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize .Call for Bids
for the C Sewer Replacement Pro Phase 8, No. P.W. 01-10-03. (Public
Works)
4-G. Adoption of Resolution Re and Authorizin the Count of Alameda to
Lev a Tax on All Real and Personal Propert in the Cit of Alameda as a Voter
Approved Lev for the General Obli Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General
Election Held on November 7, 2000. (Finance)
4-H. Adoption of Resolution Desi a Cit Consultant as the Authorized
Representative to Examine Certain Sales and Use Tax Records. (Finance
4-1. Adoption of Resolution Callin for a General Municipal Election to be
Consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be Held in the Cit of
Alameda on Tuesda November 2, 2010, and Re the Alameda Count
Board of Supervisors to Permit the Re of Voters to Render Specified
Services to the Cit Relatin to the Conduct of Said Election. (Cit Clerk)
4-J. Final Passa of Ordinance Approvin Amendment to Master Plan MP05-01 for
Grand Marina Villa to Reduce the Number of Re Affordable Housin
Units. Communit y Development
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Cit Mana
5-A. Senior Safet Pro
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointin Jose Villaflor as a Member of the Civil
Service Board; Jo Pratt as a Member of the Housin Com missiom .Catherine
Atkin as a Member of the Librar Board; Eric Ibsen as a Member of the Plannin
Board; and Philip Tribuzio as a Member of the Transportation Commission.
6-B. Public Hearin to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amendin Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees. (Finance)
6-C. Public Hearin to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approvin Tentative Parcel
Map No. 9876, Plannin Application No. PLN09-0185 a Parcel Map for the
Proposed Subdivision of the Site at 2318 Pacific Avenue into Two Parcels.
Communit y Development)
6-D. Public Hearin to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Revisin the Cit Sewer
Service Char (Public Works)
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
An person ma address the Council in re to an matter over which. the
Council has j urisdiction 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
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address an matter, includin reportin on an
Conferences or meetin attended
9-A. Consideration of Ma nomination for appointment the Historic Advisor
Board.
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
0 Audio Tapes of the meetin are available upon re
Please contact the Cit Clerk at 7474800 or TDD 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
en the benefits of the meeting
CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA
r fI
E -JA
M. "7
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA
TUESDAY JULY 6 2010 -7:01 P.M.
Location: council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and oak street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Board
Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is
before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant city Clerk if you wish to
speak on an agenda item.
1. Roll call APFA
2. Minutes
2 -A. Minutes of the Regular APFA Meeting of June 15, 2010. (City Clerk)
3. Agenda Items
None
is
5.
Oral Communications (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over which the Board
has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda
Board Communications (Communications from the Board)
6. Adjournment APFA
4jV
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
701. Atlantic Avenue Alameda, California 94501 -2161 TEL: (510) 747 -4300 FAX: (510) 522 -7848 TDD: (510) 522 -8467
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2010
The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:16 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
0
4[0]4WfWA
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 January 6, 2010.
Minutes were accepted.
*2 B. Adopted a Resolution Approving Housing Authority Budget Amendment No. 5 for
Fiscal Year 2009-2010.
*2 -C. Adopted 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.
*2 -D. Awarded a Contract for the Modernization of 1 416 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 authorized the Executive Director to
execute the contract.
3. AGENDA
3-A. None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None. CIC/ �►ABOC
Agenda Item #2►A
07-06-10
Minutes of the Board of Commissioners
Special Meetin April 6, 2010
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Torre reminded ever to mail in their census forms and said a
census office is at the Housin Authorit at 701 Atlantic Avenue in Alameda.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There bein no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meetin at 7:17 p.m.
Attest:
Beverl Johnson, Chair
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director Secretary
CITY OF ALAI EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Executive Director/ Interim Chief Executive officer
Date: July 6, 2010
Re: Approve a Second Amendment to the Affordable Housing Agreement
between the Housing Authority and the Community Improvement
Commission Extending the Term of the Agreement Two Years to July 2026
BACKGROUND
The Housing Authority receives approximately $700,000 per year from the Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) to subsidize. rents and operating
expenses at Independence Plaza. On January 18, 1989, the Housing Authority and the
CIC entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement. Under the terms of this
Agreement, the affordable housing tax increment funds. generated in the. West End
Community Improvement Project (WECIP) remaining after the CIC has met its debt
service and other administrative obligations are made.available to .the Housing .Authority
to subsidize rent and operating expenses for Independence Plaza.. The term of the
Agreement is defined as the life of the WECIP, or until July 6, 2023, unless extended.
On April 6, 2004, the Board of Commissioners and the. CIC approved an arnendment.to
the Affordable Housing Agreement releasing the June 30, 2003 fund balance and any
future years' fund balances that might accumulate in the WECIP housing fund to be
spent on eligible affordable housing activities and extending the term of the Agreement
one year to July 2024.
In August 2007, the City Council adopted an ordinance extending the. time limit on the
effectiveness of the WECIP Plan for two years to July 2026. The attached amendment
extends the term of the Affordable Housing Agreement two years to be consistent with
the extended term of the WECIP Plan.
DISCUSSION
In 2004, the State passed special legislation that required redevelopment agencies to
Shift more of their tax increment funds into the State's Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in fiscal years 2004 -06 and 2006 -06. In consideration of
C C1HABOC
Agenda Item ##2 -13
07-06-10
Honorable Chair and July 0, 2010
Members of the community Improvement commission Page 2 of 2
Honorable chair and
Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
this ERAF shift, redevelopment agencies were allowed to extend the life of their
redevelopment project areas for one year for each year an ERAF payment was made.
The CIC made ERAF. payments in both fiscal years. Therefore, in August 2007, the city
Council adopted an ordinance extending the WECIP Plan term two years to July 2026,
consistent with SB 1096.
The Affordable Housing Agreement's term is the duration of the WECl P Plan to July
2023, unless extended. The first amendment to the Agreement extended the terra .one
year to July 2024. The second amendment wou ld extend the term another two years to
July 2026 to be consistent with the duration of the Plan.
FINANCIAL I M PACT
There is no impact from approving a second amendment to the Affordable Housing
Agreement.
ISM
Approve the second amendment to the Affordable Housing Agreement by and between
the Housing Authority and community Improvement Commission extending the .term of
the Agreement two years to July 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
0,Y
Michael T. Pu cci
Executive Director
Exhibit:
1. Second Amendment to Agreement
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
DATED 2010
BY AND BETWEEN
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
CONCVEUNITY IlvTROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALA MEDA
CIC/HABOC
Exhibit to
A to #2-13
07-06-10
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, a public body,
corporate and politic (hereinafter, "HOUSING AUTHORITY") and the Community
hnprovement Co=ission of the City of Alameda, a. public body corporate and politic
(hereinafter, "COMMIS SION entered into that certain agreement dated January 18,
1959, as amended, to allow the HOUSING .AUTHORITY to use available low- and
moderate- income housing set -aside funds aceming to the COMMISSION with respect to
the West End Community Improvement Project Area (hereinafter, "Project Area,"
"Project Area Set -Aside Funds," and "the 1989 Agreement," respectively); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance 2910, as authorized by Senate
Bill 1 045, on November 5, 2003, the City Council of the City of Alameda amended the
Community Improvement Plan for. the Nest End Community Improvement Project Area
"the Plan'), by extending by one year the time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan and
the time limit to repay indebtedness, thereby extending the Plan until July 5, 2024;
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance 2970, as authorized by Senate
Bill 1096, on August 21, 2007, the City Council of the City of Alameda amended the
Community Improvement Plan for the guest End Community hnprovernent Project Area
"the Plan"), by extending by two years the time lirn.it on the effectiveness of the Plan and
the time li't to repay indebtedness, thereby extending the Plan. until July 5, 2026;
N OWTI IEREF ORE, the Parties hereby agree to amend the 1989 Agreement, as
amended, as follows
SECTION 1. INCORPOR-ATION OF RECITALS
The Parties agree that the foregoing recitals are true -anal correct and hereby
incorporate them into this Amendment to the 1989 Agreement, as amended, (hereinafter,
"this Amendment").
SECTION 2. TERM
Section. 2 "Tenn of the .Agree ment is modified to read as follows:
"The terra. of this Agreement shall be the duration of the Plan for the West End
community Improvement Project Area Plan adopted by the City Council of the
City of Alameda on July 5, 1953, by ordinance No. 2141, as amended by the City
Council On November 5, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2910, and amended on .August 21, 2007
by ordinance No. 2970, or as may be otherwise extended. The duration of the Plan
covers a period which is scheduled to end on July 5, 2026, unless extended. In no event,
however, shall the term of this Agreement be less than the period required under
California Health Safety Code Section 33334.3, as such code section may be amended
or superseded from time to time."
1
g; \colantuono \aha -c1 ck. do c
SECTION 5. INTEGRATION.
This Amendment and the 1989 Agreement, as amended, together vq'th Exhibits A.
and B thereto, constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject
matter of this Amendment and the 1989 Agreement, as amended, and no other promise of
the Parties, whether oral or written, made p'n" or to the effective date set forth on the cover
of this Agreement, shall be of any force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HOUSING AUTHORITY and the
COMMISSION have caused their duly authorized officers to execute this Amendment to
the 1989 Agreement, as amended, on the day and year set. forth on the cover page of this
Amendment.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF A LAMEDA.
M
Michael T. Pucci, Executive Director
Approved as to form.:
By:
Farimah Faiz, Assistant General Counsel
COMM'L) RvIPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALA MEDA.
i
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director
Approved as to form:
By:
Farimah Paiz, Assis nt General Counsel
P:pomzeHded ffor Approval.:
By
Michael. T. Pucci t e Director
Housing Autho rit
-2-
g :1c o f antuono Iahaci c afford ab 1 ehousingagrand. do c
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Chief Executive officer
Date: July 6, 2010
Re: Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Rules and Procedures of the Housing
Authority Effective January 1, 2010, Changing the Time to Start Regular
Meetings of the Board of Commissioners to 6:55 P.M.
Background
on December 9, 2009, the City Council adopted a resolution to. revise the time it holds
its regular meetings. The Housing Authority Rules and Procedures Currently have the
start time for regular Board of Commissioners meetings set at 7:25 P.M.
Discussion
Regular meetings of the Board of Commissioners are set according to the. Mules and
Procedures of the .Housing Authority (i.e., By. Lars). The Rules and Procedures were
revised in November 2002 setting a new start: time. for meetings. to 7:25 P.M.; five
minutes prior to the time established for. regular .city Council.. meetings. With the
December 2009 change for the start time for city Council meetings, the. start time for
meetings of the Board of Commissioners should be adjusted. for continued continuity of
these meetings. The City Clerk's office has recommended a start time of 6 :65 P.M. be
established for the Board of Commissioners meetings.
Recorn mend ation:
Adopt effective January 1, 2010, the Resolution to amend the Rules and procedures of
the Housing Authority establishing a new time to start meetings of the Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners.
Respectfully submitted,
g
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director
MTP: ED CICII°IA BBC
Attachment Item rn -C
Agenda t
07-06 -10
ResoCution No.
O THE RULES AND PROCEDURES
OF"71-HE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMED]
WHEREAS, the lousin Authorit of the Cit of Alameda re Rules and
Procedures to g uide the operation and deliberation of the Board of Commissioners of
the Housin Authorit and
WHEREAS, the Housin Authorit seeks efficienc and coordination of its
operations with the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda and other g overnin g bodies and
WHEREAS, chan the time for the Board of Commissioners meetin to
be from 7:25 p.m. to 6:55 p.m. would facilitate the flow of meetin from the Board
meetin to the followin Council meetin or meetin of other Cit g overnin g bodies
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE Q, that effective Januar 1, 2010, the
attached Rules and Procedures of the Housin Authorit of the Cit of Alameda be
adopted, supercedin all previous versions.
ATTEST:
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director Secretar
Date
WBOCV-eso to amend R&P of HA
Beverl Johnson, Chair
Board of Commissioners
-10 Form
CIC/HABOC
At I C 0 U N S E L
Exhibit to
A Item #2-C
07-w06-10
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Chief Executive officer
Date: July 0, 2010
Re: Award the contract in the amount of $100,880. including $17,780 for
contingencies to replace the Brush. Street Parking Lots at Esperanza to
DRYCO Construction Inc., and authorize the Executive Director to execute
the contract.
BACKGROUND
The Fiscal Year 2011 Extraordinary Maintenance Project (EMP) budget includes .the
replacement of the Brush Street parking lots at .Esperanza.
DISCUSSION
On May 21, 2010, the Dousing Authority issued an Invltatipn for Bids (11713) for the
replacement of the Brush Street parking lots .at Esperanza. A public notice was placed
in the local newspaper and on the Housing -Authority's webs In addition, all
companies that have requested placement on the Mousing Authority's list of potential
contractors for this type of work and all Alameda contractors with a relevant business
license were contacted about the 11713.
A pre -bid conference was held on May 28, 201 to provide interested contractors the
opportunity to inspect the site. Four contracting firms attended this pre -bid conference,
On June 8, 2010, four bids were received and publicly opened, and the results are as
follows:
CONTRACTOR
LOCATION
BID. AMOUNT
DRYCO Construction, Inc.
Fremont CA
$88,900
ABSL
Hansard, CA
$89,004
Ransorna Company
San Leandro, CA
$11157
Gallagher and Burly
Dublin, CA
$1531000
The apparent low bidder, DRYCO Construction Inc., has worked on multiple Dousing
Authority projects. The contractor has a good record of completing projects on time and
within budget. This contractor already has an Alameda business license and the
appropriate insurance on file with the Dousing Authority.
CIC/HABO
Agendas Item #3 -A,
1 1 1
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Jul 6, 2010
Pa 2 of 2
The bud provides $150,000. for parkin lot replacement at Esperanza, includin
contin A twent percent contin ($17,780) is recommended for potential
Chan Orders which will increase the contract to a not to exceed amount of 10600.
AK
Award the contract in the amount of $106,680 includin $17,7.80 for contin to
replace the Brush Street Parkin Lots at Esperanza to DRYCO Construction Inc., and
authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract.
Respectfull submitted,
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director
Exhibit
1. Contract with DRYCO Construction Inc.-on file in the Cit Clerk's- office
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL ME ETING
TUESDAY -JUNE 15, 2010- -7:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tangy
and Mayor Johnson 5.
Absent. None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS
10- J Proclamation Recognizing Contributions to the City by Gay and Lesbian
Residents and Encouraging the Community to Recognize These Contributions,
Particularly During the Month of June, Gay Pride Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Arbuckle.
Ms. Arbuckle thanked Council for the recognition.
Tracy zellenger, Alameda, stated that she has lived in Alameda with her family for
almost ten years and has been with her partner for thirteen years; she enjoys the
diversity in Alameda and appreciates the City's acceptance of the gay community.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Ordinance Approving Amendment to Master Plan
MP05 -01 [paragraph number 10- J was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Tara moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote 5, [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
*10- )Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on June 1, 2010. Approved.
(*10- Ratified bills in the amount of $2,874,733.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 15, 2010
*10- Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland Knight, LLP, in the
Amount of $90,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services. Accepted.
*10- )Recommendation to Accept the Boys &Girls Club Joint Use Agreement.
Accepted.
*10- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $95,110, Including
Contingencies, to PSOMAS Consulting Civil Engineers for an Assessment of Existing
Storm Drain Pump Stations, No. P.W. 05- 10 -13. Accepted.
*10- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $93,380, Including
Contingencies, to Fehr Engineering for Design Services for the Serer Pump Station
Backup Generator Project, No. P.W. 04- 10 -10. Accepted.
*10- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $147,552, Including
Sales Tax and Contingencies, to Resource and Design, Inc. for Furnishings for the
Neighborhood Library Improvement Project, No. P.W. 10- 09 -29. Accepted.
*10- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the amount of $227,853, Including
Contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for Culvert Reconstruction at Various
Locations, No. P.W. 02-- 10 -04. Accepted.
*10- Recommendation to Appropriate $300,000 in Community Development Block
Grant Funds and Award a Contract in the Amount of $2,731,305, Including
Contingencies, to Gallagher Burk, Inc. for the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain
Streets, Phase 29, No. P.W. 02- 09 -00. Accepted.
*10- Resolution No. 14449, "Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Implement a City
Wide Policy on Integrated Pest Management." Adopted.
*10- Resolution No. 14450, "Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit a Grant
Application to Caltrans for the Safe Routes to School Program for the Fiscal Year
2010/2011 Grant Funding Cycle, Use $40,800 in Transportation Development Act,
Article 3 Funds for the Local Match, and Execute All Necessary Documents." Adopted.
*10- Resolution No. 14451, "Authorizing the City of Alameda Fire Department to
Access Federal Level Summary Criminal History for Emergency Medical Technicians."
Adopted.
*10- Resolution No. 14452, "Authorizing Examination of Sales, Use and
Transactions Tax Records." Adopted.
(10- )Introduction of an Ordinance Approving Amendment to Master Plan MP05 -01
for Grand Marina Village to Reduce the Number of Required Affordable Housing Units.
Introduced.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
June 15, 2010
Councilmember Tara inquired whether the City has financial analysis to show that
building ten out of forty units would not be economically feasible because there would
be no tax increment funding.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded Warmington Homes is
not required to provide an economic analysis; stated the 2004 inclusionary housing
requirement was reduced to 5% in 2009; staff is recommending the reduction for the
Grand Marina project because of parity; the Grand Marina project is the only project in
the City required to provide the 25% without any subsidy from the City; the priority is to
get the project underway as quickly as possible as well improving the surrounding area.
Councilmember Tarn inquired whether the parity would be within the Master Plan area
and not Citywide, to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded
the parity would be Citywide.
Councilmember Tangy stated Alameda Point requires a 25% inclusionary housing as a
result of a settlement agreement; parity will never happen at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated Alameda Point is different
because of the settlement agreement.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding was available when Grand Marina
considered relocating to Island High School.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded the City did not provide
financial assistance to help with the relocation.
Speakers Lois Pryor, Alameda; and William Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City reduced the inclusionary housing percentage so
that developers would not be automatically entitled to incentives; inquired how staying
with ten affordable units would impact the developer's use of the density bonus.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded Warmington Homes has
not submitted a density bonus application as part of the project.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board provided a recommendation,
to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan Inquired whether the City's requirement is 15% by State
redevelopment law, to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services
responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated staff's thoughts for changing the inclusionary requirement from
25% to 15% is based on the way that the density bonus ordinance counts existing units
within a development; the ordinance counts all units, including ones that the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
June 15, 2010
requires under the inclusionary requirements, and if a developer could count 25%
affordable units towards entitlement, a density bonus option would be granted every
time; the city could have chosen not to permit counting inclusionary units to get a
density bonus or go with the Planning Board recommendation to count all units, which
included rolling back the inclusionary requirement from 25% to 15% in order to avoid an
automatic density bonus for every project.
The Deputy City Manager Development services stated Grand Marina would be
subject to the 15% requirement if an application were submitted today.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other developments are requesting an
exclusion.
The Deputy city Manager Development Services responded an Alameda Landing
project has a 25% requirement, but the project has a lot of public assistance.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the city has money to build affordable units
in a development that would make up for going from 25% to 15 to which the Interim
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said scenario has been reviewed.
The Interim city Manager responded in the affirmative; stated upcoming projects would
address affordable housing Issues; reducing the number of affordable housing units to
six seems like a reasonable recommendation knowing that the city has several projects
which would require subsidies.
Councilmember Tara inquired whether construction would be delayed by the 25%
requirement because financing would not be feasible.
The Interim city Manager responded the project would be able to go forward without a
subsidy if four units were removed; stated the project has some failsafe mechanisms;
contributions would need to be made to the housing in -lieu fund if deadlines are not
met; the decision was not made in a vacuum.
Councilmember Tam requested confirmation on whether public subsidy mould be
needed to build four additional units.
Lincoln Leaman, Warmington Residential, stated financing does not cover affordable
housing; cash flog is pretty limited; the project would be the only one that would not
receive funding and would provide significant public infrastructure improvements.
Councilmember Tara stated the issue is broader than just the four homes out of forty
units; others might want to seek similar arrangements.
Mr. Leaman stated building at 25% would make Warmington Homes eligible for a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City council 4
June 15, 2010
density bonus by building at 25 Warmington Homes would not gain the benefit of a
density bonus; Warmington Homes was able to receive financing because of the
ordinance change.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the delta between 25% and 15% as
far as the project needing subsidy.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded a very love income unit
could have a $250,000 subsidy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether or not staff knew the amount with
entitlement of ten affordable units.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded staff did not require
Warmington Homes to provide an economic analysis.
Councilmember Tam stated the 2004 resolution requiring the 25% inclusionary housing
requirement was the basis for which calculations were performed; in 2009, the
requirement dropped to 15% because of the density bonus ordinance.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the Warmington Homes
project would be the only project that would be subject to the 25% requirement; staff is
more concerned with starting the project, creating jobs, and getting assessed value for
the City.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the matter is a tough balancing act in terms of job
creation versus affordable housing; the can keeps getting kicked down the road; that
she is concerned that the last piece of property developed in Alameda would have to
have all of the unbuilt affordable housing.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the concern is valid; another
concern is that units might not be built if the requirement is not changed.
Mice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the incentive for building the houses.
The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded Warmington Homes
would be required to pay a $31,000 affordable housing in -lieu fee for each uncompleted
phase; stated the money would go into the affordable housing fund; the incentive is in
the Agreement in order to ensure that the project would be built and the City mould see
results and performance.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the incentive would be difficult to meet, to which
the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded the incentive is
reasonable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Warmington Homes has financing now, to which the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
June 15, 2010
Deputy City Manager Development Services responded Warmington Homes has
financing for the first phase.
Mr. Leaman stated Warmington Homes has financing for the project; affordable units
come out of pocket; financing is based upon financials; Warmington Home's financial
records would be impacted by paying out of pocket for more than six units; financing is
predicated on following the business plan.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Warmington Homes has financing for the entire
project, to which Mr. Leaman responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the timefrarne for the build out, to which Mr.
Leaman responded twenty -four months.
The Deputy City Manager Development services stated Warmington Homes has
thirty -six months in which to pull the final permit; the project might be completed sooner
than thirty -six months.
[Mayor Johnson inquired how many phases there are, to which Mr. Leaman responded
four.
Mayor Johnson stated the tirneframe is aggressive.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would happen if there is a no vote on the item.
Mr. Leaman responded a no vote would
Homes' financial status; stated Warmington
for the project.
have a significant impact on Warmington
Homes does not have out of pocket cash
Councilmember Matarrese Inquired whether no homes would be built other than the
existing models, to which Mr. Leaman responded possibly.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is weighing the need to get the project moving and
job creation against creating a situation that pushes the affordable housing allocation to
the last unit which happens to be Alameda Point; the City is having difficulties
negotiating appropriate levels of public subsidies for affordable housing; that she would
feel more comfortable seeing a pro forma and understanding how Warmington Homes'
bottom line would be affected; inquired when Warmington Homes would need a
decision.
Mr. Leaman responded time is of the essence.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda Point has any subsidy for affordable housing.
The Deputy City Manager Development services responded SunCal's pro forma
includes 100% of the City's 20% set aside funds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
June 15, 2010
The Interim City Manager stated the ordinance could be introduced and numbers could
be brought back for final adoption.
Mayor Johnson stated the idea sounds good.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the approach; he is concerned that the
City could end up holding to the 25% requirement and not get any affordable units; the
project could build six affordable units without City subsidy; backfilling with City subsidy
would only deliver four more units; more than four units could be built by using the
subsidy somewhere else.
The Interim City Manager stated staff would come back to Council regarding a project
that is before the Planning Board next week, which deals with the kicking the can down
the road issue; numbers would be provided at the July 6 Council meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with direction to have
the Interim City Manager bring back financial information balancing four units within the
project Versus money that would go elsewhere to potentially build more than four units.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned about homes selling
in today's market; inquired how many units have been sold, to which Mr. Leaman
responded three.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether two of the sales were to prior owners, to which Mr.
Leaman responded one sale was to the prior property owner.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when the next phase would be built, to which Mr. Leaman
responded second phase sales would be this weekend.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she reluctantly goes along with the motion for the
moment; she wants to see the concept of not kicking the can down the road; she would
like to get more than four units because a dent would be made in the overall
requirement.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote. Ayes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson 4. Noes.
Councilmernber Tarn 1.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10- PERS Actuarial Update Bartel and Associates
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
June 15, 201
John Bartel, Bartel and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether projections to 2040 assume the current number of
employees and do not assume new employees hired between now and 2040.
Mr. Bartel responded projections assume that the work force would be constant and a
retired person would be replaced with a new employee; continued the presentation.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Bartel stated the 31% public safety rate
represents base pay for public safety and does not include overtime; continued the
presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the PERS actuarial assumption numbers are overly
optimistic.
Mr. Bartel responded in the affirmative; stated projections would have less impact on
Alameda than other agencies; PERS has guessed low on non safety enhanced
formulas; continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the market value assets include all losses; stated
PERS has millions of dollars in losses in Mountain House which has not been factored
into the portfolio; PERS has not written off the loss.
Mr. Bartel responded that he thinks the loss has been taken into account when
projecting to June 30, 2010 but would not know until final information has been
provided; stated some losses that happened before June 30, 2009 were not factored in;
that he believes the losses are factored into 2011; that he is cautious about information
being released; continued the presentation.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, Mr. Bartel stated formulas are put in place
by the State Legislature; labor groups pushed for a 3% formula as a cousin to the public
safety formula; the belief was that the benefit should not be higher than public safety;
the 2.7% at 55 formula is the exact same formula as the public safety 2% at 50.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a two tiered defined benefit does not have
that big of a financial impact, to which Mr. Bartel responded in the affirmative.
Mice Mayor deHaan inquired what Mr. Bartel is recommending if a two -tier system does
not work.
Mr. Bartel responded that the City should contribute more than PERS is recommending;
stated a lot of his clients wished they were at Alameda 's current non safety benefit
formula; the contribution rate is not high compared to most non safety plans; the rate
would be going up but would not be as dramatic; that he is a fan of the 2% at 00 formula
and 2% at 55 formula; that he would not recommend decreasing from 2% at 55 to 2% at
00; the 2% at 50 formula gets to 2.7% at 55, which is approximately 10% lower for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
June 15, 2010
public safety employees retiring at 55; that he does not know whether benefit level
would make the City less competitive.
Mayor Johnson inquired ghat would be the average public safety retirement benefit for
2% at 50.
Mr. Bartel responded the benefit would depend upon retirement age; stated currently,
the average pension benefit is approximately $100,000 and would drop by
approximately 10 the benefit would be substantially less by retiring at 50; generally,
fire fighters retire closer to 55; police retire between 53 to 54.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other municipalities are looking at different
retirement plans other than PERS; further inquired what would happen to PERS [if cities
withdrew from PERS].
Mr. Bartel responded very few; stated the challenge of pulling out of PERS is that
withdrawal is very expensive; PERS has an efficient percentage of the City's assets
going toward expenses; PERS administrative expenses are low; going to another plan
would be amazingly more expensive; withdrawal costs would depend upon the
withdrawal method; withdrawing and taking all asset liability would result in taking the
City's market value of assets, not actuarial value of assets; the City would be 55%
funded instead of 90 PERS population is one -third state, one -third non certificated
school employees, and one -third public agencies; schools would not have the ability to
pull out of PERS; the State would not pull out; one -third of assets would be pulled if all
public agencies pulled out and PERS would still do just fine; the City would have the
responsibility to provide the current benefit formula for current employees; withdrawal
would be expensive and painful; that he is not aware of an efficient way to withdraw.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10- Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14453, "Authorizing Collection of
Delinquent Integrated waste Management Accounts by beans of the Property Tax
Bills." Adopted.
The Public works Director provided handouts and gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Opponent (Not in favor of resolution): Pom II Song.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated ghat has been done in the past has worked.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
June 15, 2010
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City has collected on past liens, to which the
Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired hove much the City received last year, to which the Public
Works Director responded $21 ,7'16.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated money
was collected through property sales or refinancing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of
the resolution], including trying to resolve cases under dispute.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson 4.
Abstentions: Vice Mayor deHaan 1.
10- Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14464 "Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and ordering Levy of Assessments,
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, All Zones." Adopted.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation,
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 6.
10- Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14466 "Approving the Engineer's
Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and ordering Levy of Assessments,
Maintenance Assessment District 01 -0 (Marina Cove)." Ad- opted,
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tangy moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 6.
10- Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14466 "Establishing Integrated
Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.,
for Rate Period 9 (July 2010 to June 2011); and Allocation of $21 0,000 from the
Integrated Waste Management Account." Adopted.
Pro onents (In favor of Resolution): Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association
(PSBR and Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City has had the opportunity to extend the Contract to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
June 15, 2010
2022 and do some capital improvements; inquired whether said issues have been
factored in.
The Public works Director responded part of the Contract extension would require that
100% of the fleet be converted to alternative fuel; currently, 50% of the fleet uses
alternative fuel; the requirement does not kick in for a couple of years.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there would not be any rate increases in a couple
of years because of the requirement.
The Public Works Director responded that he does not know whether or not there would
be any rate increases; stated Alameda County Industries (ACI) is contributing to reduce
the rate increase.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the solution is good for the rate
period; revenue has decreased due to a decrease in commercial customers, which
hopefully will increase once the economy comes back, in addition to a shift of residential
customers from a 32- gallon service to a 20- gallon service; the City needs to start
preparing for Rate Period 10; the City's reserve will go down and will not be able to
contribute another $210,000 to close the gap.
The Public works Director concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Councilmember Tam inquired how much would be left in the Integrated Waste
Management account after the $210,000 one -time contribution, to which the Public
Works Director responded $2 million.
Councilmember Tangy stated at some point, she would like to understand if there would
be an option to include the School District in the system and whether there would be
some economy of scales.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
10- Public Hearing Relating to Issuance of Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing
Authority and Considering Resolution No. 14457 "Of Intention to levy Reassessments
and to Issue Refunding Bonds Upon the Security Thereof Relating to the City of
Alameda Marina Village Assessment District 80 -1. "Adopted;
10- A Resolution No. 14458 "Reassessment Report for the City of Alameda Marina
Tillage Reassessment District No. 10 -1, Confirming and ordering the Reassessments
and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto; and
10- B Resolution No. 14450 "Authorizing the Issuance of Two Series of Refunding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
June 15, 2010
Bonds, Providing for Execution of Fiscal Agent Agreements and Other Matters with
Respect Thereto, and Making Findings with Respect to and Approving the Issuance of
Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority." Adopted.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation and introduced Bill Reynolds,
Sequoia Financial Croup; Mark Holmstedt, Westhoff, Cone Holmstedt (WCH); and
Paul Thirnmig, Quint Thimmig, LLP, to answer Council questions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the project would not go forward if primary property
owners do not pay property taxes.
Mr. Reynolds responded that he would still recommend going forward; stated financing
needs to be recognized on the tax rolls by August.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether there would be two financial advisors (Sequoia
Financial Group and WCH).
Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated there is no time for an RFP process;
the best way is a competitive bid sale; his fee would be approximately 30% of the
Sources and Uses of Funds; the rest would be for specialized work, which WCH has
already performed on the project with the assumption that WCH would be the
underwriter; the City usually uses a negotiated sale method; an underwriter is
compensated through an underwriter's discount; in this situation, a normal underwriter's
discount would be approximately $12.50 per $1,000 of bonds; one fee component is a
management fee in which the underwriter helps the financial advisor structure the deal;
the rest is used to sell the bonds; a portion of the fee listed under the Financial Advisor
column is what the management fee would be for an underwriter to put the deal
together; that he estimates by bidding the project on a competitive basis, the bids would
only represent the take down portion which would be less than $5 or $0 per $1,000 of
bonds; as proposed, the City would end up saving money on the underwriter's discount
overall.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the 70 %/30% split between WCH and Sequoia
Financial Croup would occur only if bids are accepted.
Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated all fees are contingent.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether having two financial advisors is typical, to which
Mr. Reynolds responded having two financial advisors happens fairly often.
Councilmember Tam inquired how the WCH partnership was chosen.
Mr. Reynolds responded Finance Directors generally pick someone who they have
worked with in the past; in the past, he has put out an RFP for underwriters; the Interim
City Manager has a long history of working with WCH.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
June 15, 2010
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether bids would be rejected if the City does not
like any of the bids.
Mr. Reynolds responded bonds are offered to anyone who wants to bid; stated that he
would not approve moving forward if a 3% target savings does not make sense; a
minimum present value savings is at least 3 current present value savings are 14
the deal is very difficult; a lot of time would be needed to call potential bidders; that he
would like to attract small companies; the cost for putting in a bid would be very low.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would happen if the City does not receive bids
that the City likes.
Mr. Thimmig responded the proposed resolutions authorize the Interim City Manager to
negotiate with one of the underwriters if all bids are rejected or another plan would be
presented to Council.
Mice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there would be enough time to renegotiate, to
which Mr. Thimmig responded time is tight, but there is enough time.
Councilmember Gilmore Inquired whether Council approval would be needed.
Mr. Thimmig responded the proposed resolutions authorize the Interim City Manager to
reject all bids, negotiate with one of the underwriters, or not go through with the deal;
stated a deal could be brought back in a different form; the delinquency in the
assessment district versus a long history of timely payments has been the difficult part.
Councilmember Gilmore stated timing is important in order to give the maximum amount
of relief to homeowners and commercial property owners; inquired how the market
would play in terms of rates.
Mr. Thimmig responded rates would be whatever market rates are at the time; stated
the bonds would not have been sold a year ago; today, there is a market; municipal
interest rates are good and have been steady over the last couple of months; any
underwriter in the country could bid on the bonds; currently, municipal bonds are getting
a favorable reception.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the interest rate, to which Mr. Holrnstedt responded
5
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current interest rate for existing bonds.
Mr. Holrnstedt responded the Marina pillage interest rate is 7.65% and Harbor Bay is
under 6
Mayor Johnson inquired whether requiring a maximum interest rate and having the
property owner pay property taxes within 48 hours would be a problem.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
June 15, 2010
Mr. Thimmig responded the proposed resolution has a minimum interest rate; holding
the deal hostage for one property owner would not be a good idea; the deal has
protections; any land secured financing is unique.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the maximum interest rate in the resolution, to which
Mr. Thimmig responded 7
Mayor Johnson inquired whether going forward if the interest rate is 7% would make
sense, to which Mr. Thimmig responded probably not._
Mayor Johnson stated that the maximum interest rate should be lower.
Mr. Thimmig stated parameters are usually given; typically, he does not micro manage;
staff would be delegated to ensure that bids are appropriate and at market rate.
Mayor Johnson stated ensuring that the
because of the cost; inquired whether Mr.
City for twenty years.
issue makes financial sense is important
Reynolds has been under contract with the
Mr. Reynolds responded that there is no retainer; stated that he receives fees if
financing closes; he has worked on the ARRA twelve -year plan and has been paid on
an hourly basis with a cap.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what was the original rating of the bonds, to which Mr.
Reynolds responded the bonds were unrated.
Speakers Lonnie Odom, Stinson Securities LLC; and former Councilmember Tony
Daysog, Alameda.
Following Mr. Odom's comments, Councilmember Gilmore stated WCH is not
mentioned in the APFA resolution, only Sequoia Financial Group; both firms have been
mentioned in the staff report; inquired whether not mentioning WCH is an error.
Mr. Thimmig responded WCH is a co- financial advisor; State law will not allow WCH to
be an underwriter without the expressed permission of the APFA, which is not included
in the resolution.
Following former Councilmember Daysog's comments, Mr. Reynolds stated the
underwriter's discount is about $12.50 [per $1,000], which works out to be about
$325,000; of that [$325,000], the portion that would normally be the management fee is
about $6.80 [per $1,000], which is the 70% of the financial advisor fee that WCH would
get that would not be in the $325,000 making the figure not $12.50 [per $1,000]
anymore, rather it would be more like $5.00 [per $1,000] and the total ends up slightly
less.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
June 15, 2010
Councilmember Gilmore requested that Mr. Reynolds clarify his explanation.
Mr. Reynolds stated the deal is very complicated and the fee is a little higher than what
would normally be [the fee] on a certificate of participation where the total underwriter
discount would be expected to be around $6.00 per $1,000 worth of bonds; on this type
of transaction, where calls have to be made to try to get buyers, the fee that an
underwriter normally charges is around $12.50 [per $1,000]; the fee would normally
have two components: the management portion, which WCH has been doing, and the
take down, which is the portion that the buyer gets; the break down is usually around
$6.00 or $7.00 per $1,000 for the management portion and $4.00 to $5.00 [per $1,000]
for the take down; that he does not expect the competitive bid to be $12.50 per [$1,000
worth of] bond but should be around $5.00 per [$1,000 worth of] bond because the
management fee is being taken care of as part of the financial advisory fee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated part of the team did not have to compete to be on the
tears; a louver fee could have been passed down to Harbor Bay homeowners or Marina
Village commercial and industrial properties; rules seem to be loose around the rest of
the team; the City would be going on faith that $12.50 is the best it can do.
Mr. Reynolds stated some cities have underwriters under contract, but is very rare
because different underwriting firms have different expertise; a city may put out an RFP
if a city is doing a new type of transaction; in the past, the City's Finance Director and
City Manager have developed relationships with underwriters; the Interim City Manager
has a lot of experience working on Community Facilities District (CFD) land secured
financing with WCH.
Mayor Johnson stated Council may want to consider a different approach going forward;
inquired whether Mr. Reynolds' Contract is approved by Council, to which Mr. Reynolds
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired how long is Mr. Reynolds' contract for, to which Mr. Reynolds
responded three years with two renewals; that he has worked for three different firms
while working for the City.
The Interim City Manager stated the idea is to find a business that has people with the
best expertise in certain areas and try to negotiate the best arrangement possible; the
team is transaction driven and would not get paid unless there is an actual deal; finding
the best time to do the transaction in today's market is important; that she thinks
Sequoia Financial Group and WCH are the best team to do the transaction in today's
market.
Councilmember Tam stated sequoia Financial Group would get $58,000 and WCH
would get $137,235 which exceeds the $75,000 approval authorization; that she would
like to understand the past relationship and transaction that occurred between the
Interim City Manager and Mr. Holmstedt.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
June 15, 2010
The Interim City Manager stated that she has known Mr. Holmstedt since the 1980's;
that she has never worked with Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Thimrnig before; both firms are
highly reputable; that she worked for Westhoff and Martin Financial services Croup in
1993 and 1994; the innuendo that Mr. Holmstedt or Mr. Westhoff would get the deal
because of some type of payback is professionally insulting and is not the case; Mr.
Holmstedt and Mr. Westhoff would not get any compensation other than for work done;
Stone and Youngberg and WCH are the two strongest firms in the market for California
dirt bonds; a good structure for a very difficult transaction has been proposed; in the
future, staff could start an RFP process for financial advisors; an RFP could be done for
investment bankers also; an RFP process would be difficult at this time because of the
stringent timeframe.
Mayor Johnson stated the City wants to help property owners save money; the savings
would be significant for many; that she likes the idea of an RFP process for financial
advisors and creating a short list moving forward; the City could move forward with the
transaction with parameters.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council needs to have discussions going forward so
that everyone is clear; one member of the team got the position without having to
compete; everyone is scrambling around looking for jobs and opportunities in today's
economy; the appearance of how the City does things is just as important, if not more,
than how the City actually does things; the City should be very clear to ensure that
everyone gets an opportunity to complete; in the past, opportunities for women and
minorities have been based on who the person knew, not how good the person was at
what they did; the appearance of the City being accused of not following procedures or
not going out for competitive bid is bothersome.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue needs to apply to everything across the
board and not just isolated cases regarding investment bankers or financial advisors;
the issue should be revisited and a menu of different categories should be created.
Mayor Johnson stated the City uses a similar process with attorneys.
The City Attorney stated Mr. Thimrnig is on her list.
Mayor Johnson stated brining the matter back for further discussion is a good idea.
The Interim City Manager stated local preference was discussed at the last Council
meeting; the matter would affect the purchasing ordinance, signatory limits, and how
fast things get done.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is very uneasy regarding the partnership; one of
the partners mentioned that the Interim City Manager worked for Mr. Holmstedt.
The Interim City Manager stated that she worked for Westhoff Martin Financial Services
Group which is not Westhoff Martin Banking Group.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
June 15, 2010
Councilmember Tara stated that she is focusing more on the comment that there was a
business partnership with Mr. Holmstedt and the Interim City Manager.
The Interim City Manager stated the companies are separate; that she did consulting
work for approximately ten to twelve months; she did not do banking work.
Councilmember Tara stated the City is dealing with appearances; clearly, one member
of the team secured the position because of a relationship with the Interim City
Manager.
The Interim City Manager stated that there was no relationship because she worked for
a subsidiary in 1993 and 1994 which was fifteen years ago; she knew Mr. Holmstedt
before when he was working for other firms; some firms will suggest debt issues that
are risky and she does not believe WCH would.
Councilmember Tara inquired whether the partnership between the Interim City
Manager and Mr. Holmstedt still exists.
The Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated that she is not a partner
and does not know if the firm exists anymore; she does not receive any annuities; stock
options, and is not making any money on the transaction.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is under time constraints; property owners would get a
significant savings.
Councilmember Tara stated that she does not understand the savings.
Mayor Johnson stated Exhibit 2 shows the estimated savings.-
Mr. Reynolds stated the savings is assumed at 5 7% would be is used if the 5% does
not provide present value savings.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Reynolds stated the annual estimated
savings would be based upon the property size.
Mayor Johnson stated the annual estimated savings for AD 89 -1 would be $863,218.
Councilmember Tarn inquired whether the estimated savings is based on 5
Mr. Holmstedt responded the issue is more complicated; stated the bond interest rate
average is about 5 underlying assessment bonds that create revenue to pay the
bonds would need to be set at a little higher rate to create the proper debt coverage that
investors are looking for; said rate is approximately 6 the typical standard for
refinancing the transaction or not is to have present value savings of 3% minimum; the
present value savings is well in excess of 3% for Harbor Bay and Marina village; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
June 15, 2010
present value savings is projected at 4% for Harbor Bay and 10% for Marina Village;
picking the perfect rate is difficult because the transaction is complicated; a lot of factors
go into achieving a rate; that he Mould suggest having a present value savings of 5% to
6 all of the other numbers would wash out; Legacy Holdings gent through an
exhaustive analysis to see its actual savings would be; the City received an email
stating that Legacy Holdings should be making a payment.
Mayor Johnson inquired what are Legacy .Holdings property taxes, to which Mr.
Holmstedt responded approximately $2 million.
CouncilrremberTarr left the dais at 11:00 p.m. and returned at 11:04 p.m.
The Interim City Manager stated the $2 million is not delinquent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the estimated savings would be more conservative
than expected.
Mr. Holmstedt responded in the affirmative; stated $9 million was set as the maximum
for the principal amount of the bonds for Marina Village; last time numbers were run, the
amount was approximately $8.6 million; Harbor Bay is at $10,780,000; the resolution
states not to exceed $1'1.6 million; the idea is to set parameters so that the market can
do its job; the bid process be competitive; the City needs to ensure there is
enough room because of the nature of public noticing; a bond sale is scheduled for
competitive bids on June 23rd; the transaction is good; the total transaction cost,
including financial advisory fees and what underwriters would be allowed to achieve
would be less than ghat was estimated for doing it another way.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Reynolds stated the rule of thumb
is that financing does not make sense unless there is a present value savings of at least
3 the limit could be put at 6% because the present value savings is anticipated to be
more than 3
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with the limit [present
savings value of 6 and direction to set a policy on single source bids across the
board.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be discussed in more detail in order to establish
a comprehensive set of policies.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter would be placed on the June 24 special
meeting agenda.
Under discussion, Mr. Thimmig clarified that the Council resolutions would not need to
be amended to include present value savings but the API =A resolution would be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
June 15, 2010
amended.
Vice Mayor del -aan seconded the motion
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
10- Resolution No. 1 4450 "Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Apply for
Regional Measure `i Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge
Toll Reserve Funds for the operating Subsidy and Capital Projects, and Regional
Measure 2 Bridge Toll Funds for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter Into
All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. 15
Adopted;
10- A) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute a Fifth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services Agreement
with the Port of Oakland to Extend the Terra for one Additional Year at a Cost of
$60,649;
10- B) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute an Eighth Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated operating
Agreement for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and Adopt the Associated Budgets; and
(10- C) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute an Amendment to the Agreement to Extend the Term for One Additional Year
of the Blue &Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service
and Adopt Associated Budgets.
The Public works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Regional Measure 1 and 2 funds are new.
The Public works Director responded the City has always received Measure 1 funds;
stated Regional Measure 2 funds are new.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $10,000 Port of Oakland reduction is not so
significant, to which the Public works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would be spending over $1 million more for
the ferries if the City did not get the Regional Measure 2 funds.
The Ferry Services Manager responded the Regional Measure 2 allocation consists of
two components: 1) Regional Measure 2 funds controlled by the water Emergency
Transportation Authority (WETA) for chartering WETA's boats; and 2) Regional
Measure 2 subsidy for operating the City's services, which is just under $500,000; some
projects included in the budget would normally be for capital maintenance expenses.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would need to pay for chartered boats without
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
June 15, 2010
Regional Measure 2 funds.
The Ferry Services Manager responded the City would not charter boats without
Regional Measure 2 funds.
Mayor Johnson stated the City would need to pay for operating expenses for its boats.
The Ferry Services Manager stated the money for WETA boats is above and beyond
what the City would use in operating the four boats owned by the City; VIII =TA is willing
to pay incremental costs above ghat the City would pay for operating the City's four
boats for the two ferry services.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $439,000 is operating money that the City can use
at its own discretion, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution [and approval of the staff
recommendation].
Councilrnember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
5.
(10- Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Section 2 -71 (Election Campaign Contributions) to Article VI (Elections) of Chapter II
(Administration) to Create Enforceable Limits on Election Contributions to Facilitate
Local Campaign Finance Reform and Promote Broader and More Open Citizen
Participation in the Electoral Process. Not finally passed.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, Alameda League of women Voters;
and Bill Smith, Alameda.
Following Mr. Spangler's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the voluntary
spending cap is enforceable; further inquired whether a candidate would sign a contract.
The City Attorney responded the only way to enforce a voluntary spending cap mould be
to have the City set aside a pot of money for the purpose of contributing a match; opting
out would always be an option; voluntary means voluntary and no ordinance can force
candidates to agree to a voluntary limit on expenditures.
Following Mr. Smith's comments, Mayor Johnson stated that the City is behind on the
issue; there is no reason to delay; concurred that some type of voluntary spending cap
should be reviewed; suggested seeing what other cities have.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested clarification on the City's ability to control Political Action
Committee's (PAC's) expenditures.
The City Attorney stated that she has noticed a lot of public interest and some confusion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 20
June 15, 2010
on the distinction between campaign contributions and campaign expenditures; the
issue is a legal issue; the City cannot give any more sunshine or light on the issue other
than what has been said in the Supreme Court said and case law following; the issues
are first amendment issues; the courts have stated that in terms of contributions, the
regulation must be closely drawn to a sufficiently important interest in order to avoid a
first amendment challenge; so far the only government interest that courts have held to
be valid with respect to campaign restrictions is "in preventing the actuality and
appearance of corruption Council could consider adding said phrase to the Purpose
section of the ordinance; by contrast, limitations on expenditures are subject to strict
scrutiny; regulation must be very narrowly tailored and government interest must be
compelling; so far, the supreme Court has rejected expenditure limits for individuals,
groups, candidates, and parties; campaign contributions are treated differently because
the courts find that contribution limitations entail only a marginal restriction upon the
contributor's ability to engage in free communication; the courts state that expenditure
ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political
expression and association; the ordinance would not limit campaign expenditures from
any source because by case law and recent supreme Court case, the City cannot do
so; limitations apply to a contribution from a PAC; should a PAC make a contribution
directly to a candidate, the contribution would be limited to $250; by contrast, if a PAC is
expending money which may benefit a candidate, case law states that the expenditure
cannot be restricted; every ordinance that has been challenged on the issue has been
struck down; the ordinance was drafted very simply to only address the issues that
could be safely addressed; suggested that the additional safeguard language be added;
stated otherwise, the ordinance is as narrowly drawn as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is for campaign reform; he voted in favor of
the first reading in order to get started; he attended the Democratic Club meeting last
week; the meeting topic was campaign reform; a watchdog group gave a good
presentation; at the end of the discussion, not one question came up about Alameda or
the first reading of the ordinance; he feels discussions are in a vacuum; he would
support having more hearings on the matter; particularly, with hearing the City
Attorney's analysis of additional suggestions; the City has a Sunshine Task Force that is
composed of appointees from each Councilmember; that he would like to have the
Sunshine Task Force review the ordinance and come back with a recommendation.
'dice Mayor deHaan stated the City looked at model ordinances from other cities; the
issue was not under the oversight of the sunshine Task Force; Council spelled out
items to the Sunshine Task Force; only four elements can be controlled within campaign
funding; State law PAC limitations have been a concern.
The City Attorney stated that she Would not be surprised to see similar requests for
regulation; however, the regulation would not be enforceable and the City would be
subject to a legal challenge by doing so; the voluntary contribution concept could be
added, but Council would have to determine whether it can afford to set aside money for
the purpose of publicly financing campaign contributions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
June 15, 2010
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Councilmember Tangy stated Fremont does
not have a cap on expenditure limits but has a cap on contribution limits; Hayward has a
voluntary expenditure limit; Hayward's ordinance has a $50,000 expenditure cap;
enforcement is one of political peer pressure rather than violation of civil penalties;
Pleasanton has an expenditure limit tied to a dollar amount per registered voter with an
escalator for inflation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated everyone would point at the violator but there would
be no civil penalty.
The City Attorney stated the ordinance addresses what the City can do; the only thing
missing is a voluntary agreement for a candidate to limit expenditures; a public financing
snatching fund would need to be created for enforcement.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would be enforceable with a public
financing matching fund.
The City Attorney stated enforcement would be not getting the match.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports the idea of campaign finance reform;
the City should have a good ordinance, but this ordinance is not it; the ordinance has
been rushed, is politically motivated, and has not had the proper public debate; the
ordinance has not gone to the Sunshine Task Force or League of Women Voters; the
League of California Cities has a resource on campaign finance which the Council has
not reviewed; this ordinance is unfair; if someone decides to self fund the race there is
no provision to give an escalator to anyone else so that the playing field would be level;
there is no escalator for inflation; the ordinance is politically motivated because there
seems to be a rush to get the ordinance in place before the November election; several
candidates have already announced that they are running and have raised money; rules
would be changed in the middle of the campaign cycle; candidates who file in July
would be bound by a set of rules that people who got in early were not bound by; there
is no provision saying that a candidate cannot transfer money into a campaign account
for another race; if the ordinance passes in its current form, then everyone that has
been campaigning should give back money that has been raised that violates the
ordinance; it is more important to have the ordinance done right rather than quickly; a
major barrier is being raised for people who have not already declared intent to run.
Mayor Johnson stated that she thinks the ordinance is very basic finance reform; people
that she has spoken to assume that the City already has an ordinance in place; waiting
too long would be unfair to people running in the November election because they
would not understand ghat the rules would be.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why rules are being changed in the middle of the
campaign; stated candidates should give back money that has already been raised if
the ordinance passes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
June 15, 2010
Mayor Johnson stated candidates can ask each other to make said pledge but it would
not be enforceable.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not think there will ever be a right period.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a right period would be an odd numbered year when no
one is running for anything; the ordinance is rampant with conflict of interest.
Mayor Johnson stated that she feels the ordinance is for the public.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that public wants more public discussion; the only time
the matter has been of concern was when a candidate spent a lot of money.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated anyone can spend any amount of their own money; that he
wishes the issue could be included but it cannot.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Council voted three to two to introduce the
ordinance; three Councilmembers would be putting through a rushed campaign
financing law which is very important to the City; an ordinance is needed but not on a
rushed basis without public input.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been opportunity for public comment; lack of public
input indicates that the community is not opposed to ghat Council is proposing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated in the time between the first reading and this meeting,
he found out that people do not know about the ordinance and more public hearing is
needed.
Councilmember Tara stated everyone supports campaign finance limits; the ordinance
needs to be meaningful and reflective of the community; if the idea is to limit the amount
of expenditures and to make it more transparent on who receives money from whom,
she does not think an individual contribution limit is the way to go because it would drive
money underground and would force a PAC to fund campaigns to the nth degree that
no one would have any control over; the voluntary expenditure limit is the way to go and
should substitute contribution limits; giving an opportunity for more review and comment
would not take that much more time; inquired whether there should be a motion to
extend the deadline for public comment, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of extending the deadline for public comment
and sending the ordinance to the sunshine Task Force with participation from the
League of Women Voters; that she would direct the Sunshine Task Force to the League
of California Cities website.
Councilmember Tara seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 23
June 15, 2010
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when the ordinance would be brought
back.
Councilmember Gilmore responded the ordinance could be brought back anytime;
however, the ordinance should not be effective until 2011 because of the current
election cycle.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the motion included that the ordinance would be
effective in 2011, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded not at the time, but now
yes.
Cou ncilrnernber Tam stated that she would still second the notion [with the 2011
inclusion date]; changing the rules in the middle of the game is inappropriate; the
conflict of interest would work in her favor.
Mayor Johnson summarized that the motion is to have the ordinance Sent to the
Sunshine Task Force to receive more public input and that the ordinance would be
effective January 1 2011.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilrnembers Gilmore, Matarrese and Tarn 3. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan and
Mayor Johnson 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON- AGENDA
(10- )Michael Johnson Torrey wished Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilmember
Matarrese Happy Father's Day.
(10- )Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10- )Consideration of Addressing Parking in Impacted Residential Neighborhoods
around Alameda High School.
Councilme mber Matarrese gave a brief presentation.
Speaker: Robb Ratto, PSBR,
Councilmember Gilmore encouraged staff to look at St. Mary's High School in Berkeley;
stated students get parking permits, but priority is given to students who carpool; St.
Joseph's High School would be another place to look.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 24
June 15, 2010
Councilmember Tarn inquired whether School District employees are offered a discount
for using the parking structure.
The Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated the parking
structure offers a reduced, monthly rate.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether School District employees have participated in
monthly passes.
The Economic Development Director responded that she does not know; stated School
District employees are welcome to participate.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated teachers arrive early and take up parking spaces; offering
teachers a different rate would be a good idea; the School District needs to be involved;
at one point the School District was involved in discussions, but he does not know the
outcome.
The Economic Development Director stated the School District wanted to park free
which would pose a problem on designated floors.
Mice Mayor deHaan inquired how many teachers are at the School District, to which the
Economic Development Director responded that she does not know.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the School District may have only fifty or so teachers;
something could be worked out.
The Economic Development Director stated the parking structure is not producing as
much revenue as anticipated; the parking structure is offset by other lease revenues,
citation collection, and parking meter enforcement.
Councilmember Tara moved approval of directing staff to review the matter.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
o Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board,
Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public .Utilities Board,
Transportation Commission, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee.
Mayor Johnson made the following nominations: Jose Villaflor, Civil Service Board; Joy
Pratt, Housing Commission; Catherine Atkin, Library Board; Eric Ibsen, Planning Board;
and Philip Tribuzio, Transportation Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 25
June 15, 2010
(10- )Written Communication from the League of California Cities requesting
designation of Voting Delegate for the League's 2010 Annual Conference.
Councilmember Gilmore nominated Councilmember Tam as the designated voting
Delegate and vice Mayor deHaan as the alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote.
(10- Councilmember Matarrese stated on June 3 there was a Joint City /School
District meeting; the subcommittee recommends Council to direct the City Manager to
negotiate a master Joint Use Agreement with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
to manage, improve, and maintain playing fields including, but not limited to, Encinal
and Alameda High School fields; the purpose of the agreement would be to provide
fields for continued school use and additional community use at large; Board Member
Spencer raised potential health concerns which may be related to synthetic turf fields;
joint efforts will be made to research the issue; the subcommittee discussed potential
City participation with the Everett Street site, the former Island High School campus, to
assist AUSD in obtaining money so that AUSD would not need 'to develop housing; an
item was tabled until the Youth Commission survey results are obtained; rumor is that
Pacific Gas Electric (PG &E) is going to apply commercial rates instead of municipal
rates to school districts; the subcommittee is requesting that the City ensure
continuation of the past policy regarding the School District getting municipal rates; the
School District is having difficulty maintaining after school programs through a grant;
having Recreation and Parks take the programs is a problem because of PERS
requirements; the Interim City Manager has been requested to help with the issue; the
subcommittee is recommending that the Council and School Board convene a meeting
in the fall Similar to the 2007 Joint Meeting; the next subcommittee meeting is tentatively
scheduled for September 1 st provided a handout.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted Councilmember Tam raised the issue of getting the School
District to join in on garbage.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the subcommittee will discuss waste
management and disposal for the schools.
Councilmember Tam stated the School District needs to implement energy efficiency
programs; Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) is willing to help secure grant funding.
(10- Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities
Legislative Action Day on June 2 which was organized by diversity caucuses within
the League; the event was very well attended; the State budget issue seems to be the
major topic; the State is at a recessionary troth; the General Fund revenues for Fiscal
Year 2010 are running slightly ahead of the State budget forecast; by the end of May,
the State will see General Fund revenues about $300 million over forecast; a budget is
being proposed to close the $19 billion gap; the budget compromise includes paying off
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 26
June 15, 2010
cities for funds borrowed in order to minimize the debt service by approximately $5
billion; the Governor is proposing an insurance surcharge on home premiums in order to
pay for emergency response and is looking at increasing booking fees to help raise $1
billion for fire protection; Councilmembers throughout the cities have urged their
legislative delegation not to take any more redevelopment money.
(10- Mayor Johnson inquired when the vehicle parking ordinance is coming back to
Council, to which the Deputy City Manager Administrative Services responded at a
meeting in July.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnsen adjourned the meeting at 12:11 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 27
June 15, 2010
CITE' OF AL.AM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
Date: July 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.
Amount
229384 230006
V20586 V20739
EFT 864
EFT 865
EFT 866
EFT 867
EFT 868
EFT 869
EFT 870
EFT 871
EFT 872
EFT 873
EFT 874
EFT 875
EFT 875
Void Checks:
228931
229789
147482
148105
148359
155826
155837
155838
155845
155849
155855
155862
155865
155871
155872
155877
155882
155883
155885
155887
155888
155894
$3,879
$111,512.53
$11,559.00
$23,621.77
$83,570.09
$91.80
$11,953.50
$14,515.50
$14,743.78
$6,921.04
$2,293.50
$35,493.50
$84,882.24
$195
$4,331.17
($150.00)
($81.33)
($21.30)
($603.90)
($750.00)
($192.96)
($192.96)
($209.04)
($203.51)
($111.51)
($203.51)
($203.51)
($203.51)
($203.51)
($192.96)
($94.97)
($203,51)
($182-41)
($203.51)
($203.51)
($16.21)
($209.04)
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: July 0, 2010
Re: Accept the Quarterly sales Tax Report for the Period Ending December
31
This report summarizes the sales tax transactions for the period October 1 through
December 31, 2009, which is the basis for sales tax revenues received by the City
between January 1, 2010, and March 31 2010. For purposes of this report, sales tax
revenues exclude Proposition 172 funds, the allocation from the statewide pool for
public safety services.
DISCUSSION
Sales tax continues to be the fourth largest source of General Fund revenue for the City
of Alameda, representing 7.5% of total projected revenues for FY09 -10. Proposition
172 revenue, projected as $0.54 million, when combined with local sales, increases the
percentage of total sales to 8.3% of all General Fund revenues.
Taxable sales transactions in Alameda for the period ending December 31, 2009,
decreased 4.1 or $00,977, from the same quarter in the prior fiscal year. This
decrease of 4.1 is shown on the following two charts of sales by Geographic Areas
and sales by Economic Category. The top 25 businesses in Alameda represent 54.8
or $782,348, of the quaver's sales transactions. The top 100 businesses represent
78.8 or $1,124,839, of the quarter's sales transactions.
A thirteen quarter historical comparison of per capita sales in Alameda to other local
cities is illustrated in Exhibit 1. Additional exhibits have been included in this report that
summarize the history of sales tax for the City's major industry groups (Exhibit 2),
compare sales by major industry in the City to the state of California (Exhibit 3), and
provide information about Alameda and the economic outlook for California (Exhibit 4).
Following is a comparison of the key economic categories with subcategory detail.
City Council
Agenda item ##4-C
07-0640
Honorable Mayor and duly 6, 2010
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
Building and construction decreased by 44.3% or $34,700, primarily as a result of a
decline in sales of building materials. Transportation declined 19.0 or $49,588, as a
result of the fluctuating gasoline prices and the continuing effects of the closure of new
car businesses in Alameda.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter of
calendar year 2009, as compared to the same period in 2008, shows an overall loss of
4.1 or $60,978, largely due to decreased sales in the Park Street forth and South of
Lincoln, 'Webster North of Lincoln, and Marina Village Business Park areas. These
decreases were due to declines in the Autos Transportation, Fuel Service Stations,
and Business and Industry segments. A large increase was noted in Harbor Bay
Business Park resulting from the Business and Industry segment.
Total Sales Transactions
4th Quarter 2009
4th Quarter 2008
Percent
Change
Economic Cate or
g
Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
19.0%
2.1%
Transportation Fuel
Food Drugs
$211,112
$229
14.8%
16.0%
$260,700
$224,446
17.5%
15.1%
23.2%
General Consumer Goods
$271,146
19.0%
$220,155
14.8%
-4.6%
Business Industry
$442
31.0%
$463,821
31.1
-4.5%
Restaurants Hotels
$230,283
16.1%
$241,120
16.2%
44.3%
Building Construction
$43,678
3.1%
$78,378
5.3%
-4.1%
Total Quarter
$1
100.0%
$1,488,620
100.0%
Building and construction decreased by 44.3% or $34,700, primarily as a result of a
decline in sales of building materials. Transportation declined 19.0 or $49,588, as a
result of the fluctuating gasoline prices and the continuing effects of the closure of new
car businesses in Alameda.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter of
calendar year 2009, as compared to the same period in 2008, shows an overall loss of
4.1 or $60,978, largely due to decreased sales in the Park Street forth and South of
Lincoln, 'Webster North of Lincoln, and Marina Village Business Park areas. These
decreases were due to declines in the Autos Transportation, Fuel Service Stations,
and Business and Industry segments. A large increase was noted in Harbor Bay
Business Park resulting from the Business and Industry segment.
Total Sales Transactions
4th Quarter 2009
4th Quarter 2008
Percent
Change
Geographic Areas
Total
Percent
of Total
Total
Percent
of Total
37.5%
Park North of Lincoln
$113,143
7.9%
$180,968
12.1%
21.3%
Park South of Lincoln
$148
10.4%
$188,504
12.7%
32.4%
Webster North of Lincoln
$80,755
5.7%
$119,375
8.0%
10.9%
Webster South of Lincoln
$34
2.4%
$3V40
2.1%
-0.9%
Bridgeside Center
$59,881
4.2%
$60
4.1%
16.8%
Alameda Towne Centre
$301,095
21.1%
$257,870
17.3%
--0.3%
Marina Village Shopping Center
$37,413
2.6%
$37,535
2.5%
0.4%
Harbor Bay Landing
$45,621
3.2%
$45
3.1%
-46.6%
Marina Village Business Park
$58,894
4.1%
$110,327
7.4 0 10
176.8%
Harbor Bay Business Park
$132,665
9.3%
$47
32 0 10
1.5%
All other Areas
$415,822
29.1%
$409,529
27.5%
.4.1%
Total Quarter
$1
100.0%
$1
100.0%
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
July 6, 2010
Page 3 of 3
As of March 31, 2010, fiscal year sales tax revenues were $3,265,195, or 63 of the
$5.) million projected for FY09 -1 0. In comparison, in the prior fiscal year, sales tax
revenues were $3,753,425, or 73% of the $5.1 million projection. The decrease of 10%
was due to one time allocation adjustments by the Board of Equalization.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Quarterly sales Tax Report for the period ending December 31, 2009.
LG:Ig
Exhibits:
1. Per capita sales in Local cities, Historical comparison
2. Major Industry croups, Historical comparison
3. city to state comparison by Business category
4. city of Alameda sales Tax Update
XTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE