Loading...
2009-08-03 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesSpecial Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING MONDAY- -AUGUST 3, 2009- -7:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:17 p.m. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL- Present: Councilmembers / Authority Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson – 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09-315 CC / 09-27 CIC] and Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association [paragraph no. 09-317 CC] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (09-315 CC/09-27 CIC) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Regular City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting, and the Special City Council Meeting held on July 21, 2009. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that page 3 of the Regular City Council Meeting minutes should read: “…every day will be a conscious budget day.” Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes as corrected. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Authority Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson – 4. Abstentions: Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam – 1. (*09-316 CC) Resolution No. 14369, “Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda for the Period of January 6, 2008 Through January 2, 2010.” Adopted. (09-317 CC) Resolution No. 14370, “Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association, Alameda Fire Management Association, and Executive Management Salary Schedules.” Adopted. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam questioned why [Fire] command staff would be increased at the expense of street level line staff; inquired whether reclassifying the Deputy City Clerk position to Assistant City Clerk was being done to deal with Y rating, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether amending the Deputy City Manager salary schedule is due to the Deputy City Manager taking on additional line functions; stated the Deputy City Manager classification is lower than the League of California Cities’ classification; inquired whether the intention is to bring the classification up to a level that would be on par with being competitive in the area. The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated most Deputy City Managers and Assistant City Managers have no line authority; the Deputy City Manager would assume line authority with respect to Finance and IT functions. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why a Division Chief position would be eliminated in order to create a Deputy Fire Chief classification. The Interim City Manager responded the Police Department’s command structure is far stronger than the Fire Department; stated the Fire Department command staff needs to be strengthened. The Human Resources Director stated the Fire Department would have two Deputy Fire Chief positions and three Division Chiefs. The Interim City Manager stated three Division Chiefs would be dedicated to Battalion Chief duties and would allow for a command structure at management level. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Authority Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson – 4. Abstentions: Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam – 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (09-318 CC) Financial State of the City - FY09-10; State Budget Impacts - Present and Future; and City Budget Forecast - FY10-11 and Thereafter. Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League, discussed the importance of saving parks for children. The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when hard, definitive PERS numbers would be received. The Interim City Manager responded preliminary PERS numbers would be released to the PERS Executive Board in October; stated the City will be advised of anticipated rates in February or March for Fiscal year 2011-2012 and Fiscal Year 2012-2013; the City should have hard numbers by April of next year if past practices are followed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated having a PERS representative come to the City in October would be a good idea; stated the City should know what would happen to PERS if cities start defaulting on payments. The Interim City Manager stated PERS is a pool investment and she does not know how PERS would allocate a city’s inability to pay a liability. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested clarification on State takeaways and cities’ inability to pay its fair share. The Interim City Manager stated that she received an email from local representatives commenting on new details of the State budget yesterday; Alameda County cities would need to make up a Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 proportionate share if an Alameda County city has financial hardship and cannot pay. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated other cities’ budgets need to be watched. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated PERS takes no risk; cities would be billed more if obligations are not covered. The Interim City Manager stated the burden is on the employer, not the employee. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether cities are looking at other retirement options. The Interim City Manager responded some Orange County cities are discussing joining the County retirement system and dropping out of PERS; stated dropping out of PERS takes two to three years; the City has not analyzed the issue. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the budget memo states that the City has relied on staffing cuts to preserve a fund balance of $8.8 million; the amount could drop down to $7.9 million with the State Board of Equalization sales tax shift; inquired whether the intent is to preserve $8.8 million in Fiscal Year 2010 and $7.9 million in Fiscal Year 2011 in order to address economic uncertainty. The Interim City Manager responded the City’s hope is to hold the $8.8 million firm for twenty-four months; stated the City would need to use approximately $1 million out of fund balance in Fiscal Year 2011 if other strategic things are not done. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated page 14 shows new revenue sources would be needed in the future to maintain current service levels; inquired whether current service levels are identified and proposed in this budget. The Interim City Manager responded previous levels are identified; stated options are to increase revenues or decrease expenses; programs will be evaluated and prioritized after Labor Day; cuts have to be made if revenues are not increased. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated headlines suggest that the economy might turn around; Measure P funds could provide some revenue in 2011. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Interim City Manager stated the upside to Measure P is that the City has not had many foreclosures. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the 8% expenditure growth includes an increase in PERS, to which the Interim Cit Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the General Fund deficit has been over the last two years. The Interim City Manager responded the City broke even this year; stated the deficit was approximately $4.5 to $5.5 million in the prior two years; the deficit was $6.6 in Fiscal Year 2007-2008. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09-319 CC) Resolution No. 14371, “Appointing Lorre Zuppan as a Member of the Planning Board.” Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a certificate of appointment to Ms. Zuppan. Ms. Zuppan thanked Council for showing support and confidence. (09-320 CC) Resolution No. 14372, “Calling a Special Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Charter Amendment Entitled, “Fire and Emergency Medical Services Minimum Protection.” Adopted; and (09-320A CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 17-18 Regarding Funding of Minimum Staffing and Equipment Requirements and Proposing said Charter Amendments. Not adopted. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. In response to Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam’s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the $750,000 cost for a fire truck is not included in the $4,054,476 [initial cost of the mandated minimum staffing]. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what are the election options. The City Attorney responded under Election Code 9255, the Council has the discretion and authority to set a Charter amendment for any election as long as the action is at least eighty-eight days before the set date; stated there is no outside date. The City Clerk stated the established election dates are November 3, 2009, June 8, 2010, November 2, 2010, June 7, 2011, and November 8, 2011. Proponents: (In favor of placing the matter on the November 8, 2009 election): Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Deanna Johe, Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Local 689 Alameda. Opponents: (Not in favor of placing the matter on the November 8, 2009 election): Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda; Gail A. Wetzork, Alameda; Ron Basarich, Alameda; Marshall Comer, Oakland; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA); Walter Schlueter, Alameda; Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Bill Sonneman, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA); Rob Bonta, Alameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Schumacher, Government Relations Committee; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the deficit built up over a long period of time; the question is whether the City should have a special election when there are many unknowns; inquired whether the companion measure would cost property owners $200 per parcel, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council needs to decide whether to place the matter on the November election or a later election; that he does not support placing the matter on the November election; time is needed to absorb what the State is going to do; that he prefers a June 2010 election in order to analyze all points referenced in the staff report; the right people need to show up with the right equipment in an acceptable amount of time when a 911 call is received; that he puts very little faith in the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) report; practical and fiscally feasible deliverable core services need to be examined; Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) need to be addressed. In response to Mayor Johnson’s inquiry, the City Clerk repeated Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 possible election dates. Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the City would be advised of PERS’ 2010 rate estimate, to which the Interim City Manager responded February or March 2011. Councilmember Gilmore stated knowing service costs is important; more time is needed because the City needs to understand what the State will do; the City cannot afford a special election; the City does not have an option to not have an election on the matter because the issue is a ballot initiative; placing the matter on the ballot before November 8, 2011 would be fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution setting the election for November 8, 2011. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated uncertainties still exist; time is needed. Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to propose another motion; the City’s b allot measure requires a funding mechanism before the firefighters initiative is implemented; core services have been discussed; public safety was an overwhelming core service when polling was done for Measure P; funding should rest with City management; the amount of risk the community is asked to take on is a Council prerogative; the City’s ability to respond to an emergency would be compromised by depending upon Oakland or San Leandro. Councilmember Tam moved approval of placing both measures on the June 8, 2010 ballot; the next ten months can be spent evaluating appropriate staffing levels, exploring whether there are additional revenues beside taxes, and working with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) to see if there is an opportunity to develop a collaborative measure; inquired whether the motion is allowable and what are the deadlines for a June 8, 2010 election. The City Attorney responded a date cannot be changed once an action is taken to set the matter for an election. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether both measures need to go on the ballot at the same time. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated any Charter amendment can be set by the Council at any election as long as the election is not set earlier than eighty-eight days after the resolution calling the election. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the timing would be to get the measure ready to place on the ballot. The City Attorney responded an action needs to be taken on the IAFF measure; stated Council can put off taking any action on the companion measure. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer not to take action on the companion measure tonight; the City did not expect Measure P to solve all problems; that she is reluctant to have a tax measure to fund additional fire staffing levels; November 2011 is a reasonable date. Councilmember Tam stated June 8, 2010 provides timely accountability for 9,048 signatures secured by the fire fighters and provides enough time to work on a collaborative effort with the fire fighters. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he believes in a competing measure, not a companion measure because staffing should not be in the City charter; the Fire Chief and City Manager should ensure correct staffing levels; that he agrees with having a June 2010 election because he wants to put a sense of urgency on the matter; funding is part of the issue; the other part is whether the City is taking a risk; staff should be able to determine whether there would be a difference in response time and service with reduced staffing and apparatus; PERS’ worse case scenario can be projected; the matter is urgent. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why the matter is urgent; the fundamental question to the voters would be whether the Charter should require a minimum level for staffing and apparatus units; providing voters with needed information is important. Councilmember Tam inquired why seventeen new firefighters would be added if staffing levels are restored to 27 fire fighters. Mayor Johnson responded the City paid $5 million in overtime in thirty months. Councilmember Gilmore stated information received from the Fire Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Chief shows that response times and service levels have not changed significantly since the brown outs; a ballot measure is the wrong place for minimum staffing issues. Councilmember Matarrese stated Measure P polling indicated that public safety ranked high but nobody wants to pay; a public safety parcel tax, which requires a two-thirds vote, did not even poll 50%. Councilmember Tam stated the question is whether to have the election for the IAFF measure on June 8, 2010 or November 2011. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a second for Councilmember Tam’s substitute motion. There being none, the MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Gilmore clarified that her motion is just for the IAFF measure, not the companion measure. On the call for the question, Councilmember Gilmore’s motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson – 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam – 1. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what are the next steps. The Interim City Manager responded the issue would be addressed with the budget item. (09-321 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14373, “Establishing Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.” Adopted. The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the City is $40 million below the conservative Jarvis/Gann cap on government spending. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the ratio is the same as in years past, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the ratio is getting worse every year. Mayor Johnson stated income is not keeping up with the cost of living. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. *** Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:38 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:53 p.m. *** (09-322 CC/ARRA/09-28 CIC) City Council Resolution No. 14374, ARRA Resolution No. 46, and CIC Resolution No. 09-161, “Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2009-2010.” Adopted. The Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the Interim City Manager for the ambitious plan. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Veterans’ Building is not listed on the parks, facilities and amenities chart. The Assistant City Manager stated the Veterans’ Building is shown on the map, but not the chart. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Mastick Senior Center is not listed. The Interim City Manager stated the chart would be revised. In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan’s inquiry regarding the $3.5 million reduction between 2008 and 2009, the Interim City Manager stated at the end of Fiscal Year 2007-2008 expenses exceeded the General Fund revenue by $6.6 million, which was adjusted to $2.1 million. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 ambulance transport expenditure has been cut in half [from Fiscal Year 2007-2008]. The Interim City Manager responded data is hard to pull from past history; stated the intent is to have Fiscal Year 2009-2010 fund by program; everything was merged together in the past; the best comparison is to look at total department dollars, rather than a trend in administration. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the same situation occurred for the Disaster Preparedness Program. The Interim City Manager responded a lot of administration overhead was allocated to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the past; stated a specific amount of money for a position would be allocated to the Disaster Preparedness Program in the future. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam noted Homeland Security requires documentation on cost centers in order to secure reimbursement, even for volunteer services. In response to Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore’s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated page 86 shows General Fund expenditures by program. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Capital Improvement Project Fund actual revenue to expense charge has flattened out or whether funding has been moved, to which the Interim City Manager responded revenues are reducing. The Public Works Director stated the full costs are funded at the beginning of a project. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Gas Tax revenue staying flat is typical. The Interim City Manager responded the City has not had a lot of population growth. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated cars are becoming more fuel-efficient. In response to Councilmember/Authority Member/ Commissioner Matarrese’s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the City will always have some projected negatives; the idea is not to have all negative funds and be able to recover in a year; that she would recommend zeroing out the $87,650 negative balance in the Police/Fire Construction Impact Fund at the end of the next fiscal year if recovery does not occur; the amount would come out of the $8.8 million General Fund balance; stated the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Revenue Fund has come a long way from the initial negative; the FISC cash balance is dropping. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the drop would continue. The Development Services Director responded the City received a developer advance that is paid off annually with tax increment from the Bayport project; construction of a community building is the only outstanding obligation at Bayport; $2 million in expenses is expected for Bayport this year; the APIP debt is being kept as a debt because redevelopment requires debt in order to collect tax increment; only interest is being paid on the APIP loan. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether funds intended for the Carnegie Building renovation help keep the community development funds positive. The Interim City Manager responded $887,206 in community planning fees were transferred into Capital Improvement Fund; the expectation was that the money would be used for capital improvements for the centralized planning facility at the Carnegie Building; money could have been left in the Capital Improvement Fund; however, it would not be prudent because she does not see the project happening within the next three to five years; the fund would be negative $500,000 without the $877,260; the Worker’s Compensation negative was $2.1 million last January and February; departments worked very hard in five to six months to reduce the amount to approximately $1.5 million; a charge back system is now in place; departments will pay on a proportionate consumption rate. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether charge back formulas would be revisited, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired where is the $400,000 intended for the Fire Station 3 replacement study. The Interim City Manager responded the $400,000 continues to be a reserve within the General Fund. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired where is the money for the special election. The Interim City Manager responded nothing was budgeted; stated approximately $150,000 is in non-departmental funds as a contingency. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan’s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the 5.5 authorized positions is Council plus half of the Deputy City Manager position that works on intergovernmental relations. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Library’s collection level is anticipated to be stable from year to year. The Library Director responded the number of items would remain the same because more money will be spent for fewer items and there will be less money to spend. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether any City services are leveraged with the Boys and Girls Club, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative, especially dances and sports. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated constituents complain about the Lincoln Park Bartell Field maintenance; the field is not being dragged. The Recreation and Park Director stated the matter would be investigated. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the thinking regarding evaluating the transition of the Meyers House & Garden to a historic preservation non-profit. The Recreation and Park Director responded the thought is to review different options for the property. The Interim City Manager stated opportunities have been raised with respect to utilization of the facility. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City spent money on property that the City does not own. The Recreation and Park Director stated there was a subsidy in the past; now, the City only spends money from the trust. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when information would be available on the trust. The Interim City Manager responded staff has done some preliminary Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 research on the matter; stated there is confusion about what would happen if the City cannot use the facility because of lack of parking. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Golf Fund balance started with a fund balance of $748,430 in Fiscal Year 2009; the Fiscal Year 2010 projected balance is $275,590; potentially, reserves could be drained before Fiscal Year 2010 is over; Golf Course operating expenditures are exceeding revenues by almost $500,000. The Interim City Manager stated Kemper Sports has slowed the draw down; decisions need to be made this year. In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan’s inquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated that the Teen Program personnel services expenditure includes part-time personnel. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated all part- time personnel should be included [in the personnel summary]. The Interim City Manager stated that she could not come up with a formula base or standard format that would work; a footnote could be added stating that part-time wages are included. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan’s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the Assistant City Manager’s position is budgeted 50% in Community Development and 50% in Economic Development. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Economic Development Department is responsible for commercial leasing at the former Base; there should be a discussion regarding past direction and whether direction is still applicable in the current or future environment. The Interim City Manager stated the matter is scheduled for the September 1 City Council meeting. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what needs to happen to ensure that there will be enough Fire personnel to staff current equipment; further inquired whether an apparatus would be browned out if staffing falls below 24. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated approximately $550,000 is budgeted for overtime. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Police Chief’s monthly community newsletter is very good; the Fire Department should do the same. The Fire Chief stated the Fire Department has started a weekly newspaper article. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Fire Department should do a monthly community newsletter because not everyone reads the newspaper; the Police Department posts the newsletter on the website; people need to be educated on when to call 911 and when to call a locksmith or plumber. The Fire Chief stated all avenues would be entertained. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the community will be placed at risk if equipment is not staffed in the event of gas fires; inquired what needs to happen to ensure that equipment is staffed. The Fire Chief responded staffing levels could drop below 24 40% to 50% of the time based on July statistics. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a trigger point is needed that looks at response time and impact so that Council can make a policy decision not to exceed a threshold that puts the community and staff at risk; the Fire and Police Departments have periods of intense activity that punctuate long periods of less activity; that he wants to make sure that the public and personnel are not put at uninformed risk; trigger points are needed to ensure that the matter is brought back to Council if trends are going the wrong way. The Interim City Manager stated that she would work with the Fire and Police Chiefs on trigger points and standards and bring the matter back to Council on September 1; the Fire Department issue would be addressed first. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether now is an appropriate time for Council to discuss using the $400,000 discretionary reserves intended for Fire Station 3 in order to keep apparatus staffed through the end of the next fiscal year. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Interim City Manager responded Council took action a while back to earmark the $400,000 for Fire Station 3 rehabilitation; stated reserves are earmarked at Council discretion. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council needs to be very protective of reserves and fund balances; inquired how many fire fighters are scheduled per shift, to which the Fire Chief responded twenty- eight. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated opportunities are available to use overtime to make up the delta; the City has obtained a portion of the Beltline property. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated getting another fire station seems ludicrous if staffing would be reduced. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would be reluctant to have Council use the $400,000 for overtime without further analysis. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether there has been a situation this fiscal year where staffing has dropped below twenty-four and over time was not used, to which the Fire Chief responded in the negative. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long it would take to deplete the overtime budget. The Fire Chief responded each month is different; stated $100,000 was spent in July. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is time to study options and discuss whether or not to shift the $400,000. *** (09-323 CC / ARRA / 09-29 CIC)Councilmember / Authority Member / Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. *** Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated $400,000 was intended to be used for a study for Fire Station 3 replacement; the building is not adequate; plans need to be evaluated. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested that staff provide matrices and a report showing whether adjustments need to be made. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 false alarm response projections are the same as Fiscal Year 2009-2010; the public should be educated more aggressively to ensure that the number of false alarms drop. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated false alarm response numbers are very high. The Fire Chief stated all cities are experiencing a high volume of false alarms; fees have been implemented; the number of false alarm responses is not that high in consideration of the number of smoke alarms, sprinkler heads, detectors, and pull stations within the City. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether calls for plumbing problems have decreased, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Speaker: Domenick Weaver, Alameda Fire Fighters. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ambulance transport expenditure is approximately $3.1 million. The Interim City Manager responded approximately $2 million [of the $3.1 million] is for staffing the Ambulance Transport Service Program. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether EMS billable collections are $1.8 million. The Interim City Manager responded the program brings in approximately $2,040,000. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the $1.8 million is a subset of the $2,040,000, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated one extreme would be keeping things status quo; another extreme would be outsourcing to the County; that he would like to review Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 insourcing, including the hospital; the Police Department should follow the same matrices as the Fire Department to ensure that the community and police officers are not put at risk. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Police Department does not have a way of charging for an inappropriate call such as Fire Department false alarms. The Police Chief stated the Police Department does not want to discourage anyone from calling 911. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be the response for someone calling the Police Department for being locked out of a house. The Police Chief responded the call would be referred to a private entity if not a safety, welfare issue. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Tam stated the dichotomy seems to be that the Fire Department is allowed to respond within six minutes for a cardiac arrest call, but the Police Department’s standard is three minutes if the matter is life threatening. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Fire Department is dispatched from the County and has no say in how many people respond; the Police Department is different. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Fire Department was staffed at twenty-seven at one time; the delta between twenty-four and twenty-seven should be reviewed. The Police Chief stated the Police Department has a process that monitors staffing; personnel is moved out of other units if staffing gets to a point of needing additional resources. The Fire Chief stated response times for automatic device calls are reduced; stated a full response would not be sent for said calls. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the Police Department’s three minute response time is measured. The Police Chief responded the response time is measured from the time the dispatcher answers the call to the first arriving unit on the scene; stated the benchmark in most communities is under a five minute response for a priority-one life threatening emergency and is an excellent response time. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how the depreciation allocation is calculated for the equipment maintenance reserve. The Interim City Manager responded the purchase price is depreciated; stated that she would find out whether depreciation of an inflated number would be allowed. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is afraid that the depreciation would be short of actual money needed. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether plans for keeping up with street and sidewalk maintenance is being reviewed. The Public Works Director responded more money is available for resurfacing this year because of ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds; stated $4.2 million is budgeted this fiscal year; $350,000 is budgeted for sidewalks; $550,000 should be budgeted; the City is receiving less Measure B money. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated new development should be responsible for putting sidewalks on both sides of the street. The Public Works Director stated developers are now required to maintain public infrastructure. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an eye should be kept on the health of the sewer system to ensure that the City does not cost itself out down the road; the storm water runoff and lagoon system are high price tag items. The Public Works Director stated lagoon project funds come from the Urban Runoff Fund, which is separate from the Sewer Fund; master plans are being developed for the Urban Runoff and Sewer projects; staff is very close to receiving ARRA funding for the lagoon seawalls. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether mapping has been completed for sewers, to which the Public Works Director responded mapping is in Phase 2. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore clarified Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 references to ARRA means the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is federal stimulus money, and not the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether federal money is coming to Alameda, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public should know about the funding; information should be posted on the website. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Appezzato Parkway parking strip and Alameda Beltline landscaping are budgeted. The Public Works Director responded currently, funding has not been allocated; stated the current General Plan requires the Alameda Point developer to build a multi-modal facility; the current ballot initiative removes the requirement. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese complimented the Interim City Manager on the report’s clarity. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked the Interim City Manager for the new format; stated the public will be more informed on how the City is spending money. Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred with Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore; stated everyone worked very hard on the budget. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated seeing the final product is nice; the budget is more understandable; a department staffing summary is the only thing missing. The Interim City Manager stated a summary would be provided. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 Special Joint Meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.