2010-07-27 Joint CC ARRA CIC MinutesSpecial Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 27, 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Councilmember/Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair
Johnson – 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to appoint Michael Krueger
[paragraph no. 10-377] was continued; and the recommendation to authorize the Interim
Executive Director to sign a Letter of Agreement [paragraph no. 10-58 CIC] and the
recommendation to approve an Agreement with the City of Inglewood [paragraph no.
10-378] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*10-376 CC/ARRA/10- 57 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and
CIC Meeting Held on July 7, 2010. Approved.
(10-377 CC) Recommendation to Appoint Michael Krueger to the Oakland Chinatown
Advisory Committee. Not heard.
(10-58 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Sign a
Letter of Agreement in the Amount of $9,690 with the Greater Alameda Business
Association for FY 10-11; to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $89,993 with the
Park Street Business Association for FY 10-11; and to Enter into a Contract in the
Amount of $81,676 with the West Alameda Business Association for FY 10-11.
Commissioner Gilmore stated two of the business associates have contacted her
regarding street maintenance and lighting; landscaping and lighting funds are in the
budget; inquired whether a decision has been made for street maintenance and if so,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
2
how things are working.
The Interim Executive Director responded the agreements are the same as in the past;
stated this year, funds have been reduced by a nominal amount; the City did an
Request for Proposal (RFP) to see if some of the landscape and maintenance services
could be done at a reduced rate; the associations have had different views regarding
whether the amount of coverage in the RFP’s were comprehensive; a vendor has
agreed to work with the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) to bifurcate the
bid so that the bid would work for WABA; the Park Street Business Association (PSBA)
will continue to do its own thing; the landscape and lighting agreement funds are
sufficient to cover whatever WABA and PSBA choose to do.
Chair Johnson stated past discussions have addressed advertising at the Oakland
Airport; that she thinks the idea is worth reviewing.
The Interim Executive Director stated Alameda is very close to the airport, but nothing is
advertised on the screen; advertising costs will be researched.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he recalls the matter being addressed with the
Chamber of Commerce.
The Economic Development Business Development Division Manager stated the City
has a Contract with the Chamber of Commerce for writing articles and public relations,
not airport advertising.
The Interim Executive Director stated the motion could include language regarding
looking into airport advertising.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation, with direction for
the Interim Executive Director to review advertising in the Oakland Airport.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
– 5.
(10-378 CC) Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with the City of Inglewood for
Citation Processing and Collection Services.
The Deputy City Manager – Administrative Services gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the service is provided to other cities; inquired whether staff has
contacted other cities to get an idea of satisfaction.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded in the negative; stated
the City of Inglewood advised her that its track record for renewing Northern California
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
3
client contracts is good; in 2009, the City of Inglewood had 12 existing clients that
renewed contracts and new clients came onboard, the City of Berkeley has renewed its
contract.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands the efficiencies, but is having
trouble with contract costs versus what would be saved.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated currently, the parking citation
program costs approximately $85-90,000 for staff, which does not track the Supervising
Accountant time for managing the program; the Supervising Accountant’s time is
charged elsewhere; the savings would be approximately $10,000 in terms of the
program; an existing employee would be transferred as opposed to hiring a new
employee which would result in another $80,000 or so in savings.
Councilmember Tam stated staff looked at the City of Inglewood when performing its
due diligence regarding economies of scale; inquired why staff has not talked with the
City of Oakland or City of Berkeley regarding exploring partnering opportunities in terms
of the Duncan Solutions program.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded both Berkeley and
Oakland contract out and use different vendors; Duncan and Inglewood are the industry
standard and have 65 clients in northern California.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is not clear on the processing center location; the
location does not seem to be centralized, but spread out.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated Duncan Solutions is based
out of Milwaukee; Inglewood sought partnership with Duncan Solutions since it is the
largest provided; handheld ticket writer support is provided from Carlsbad.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the $13,000 a year credit card processing costs
would be included in the $75,000 [annual agreement cost], or whether the cost would be
part of the convenience fee that the person getting the ticket would have to pay.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the person getting the
ticket would pay the convenience fee as an added cost to the ticket.
Speaker: Richard Hausman, Alameda.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated developing a system would
be a time consuming process and would be quite costly; some money would be given
up for the privilege of having someone else do collections; staff could bring the
collections issue back as a separate item in September so Council could choose
whether or not to pursue the issue.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
4
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the collection system would be used for tickets that
are not paid, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the
collection system would be used for outstanding tickets that would go through the
Franchise Tax Board.
Mayor Johnson inquired what process is used now.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded letters are sent out four
times a year; people do not necessarily respond; eventually, something gets placed on
a person’s DMV record, which prevents re-registering a car.
The Interim City Manager stated the City has an integrated financial management
system that does not have all the modules; having parking citations in an integrated
ledger is usually part of accounts receivable; the existing financial management
software system is more driven for school districts than for cities; the average cost for a
new module is between $85,000 to $120,000; the existing system has not been
maintained or serviced; the City would have to buy a separate parking citation module,
program and integrate the module into the existing system, and find someone to
maintain the system; replacing the financial management system with integrated
modules would cost approximately $1.2 million; a maintenance and service fee would
be approximately $49,000 to $80,000 depending on the module.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the issue is more than just personnel but involves software
and maintenance.
The Interim City Manager stated the most efficient way to handle the matter would be to
start peeling away at the various modules little by little and budget going toward a
hosted system or outsourcing a system.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Interim City Manager is looking at looking at
outsourcing some of the components.
The Interim City Manager responded different modules are being reviewed; stated the
issue will be discussed under the budget item.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether any other services are available other than
Inglewood Citation Management Services (ICMS); further inquired what the City of
Oakland uses; stated that she is concerned with being tied to one system and having no
recourse other than not renewing the contract if there is a problem.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she does not know
what the City of Oakland uses; stated if a problem develops, the City could contract with
another vendor once the existing Agreement expires.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
5
The Interim City Manager inquired whether the Agreement has a termination clause, to
which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she would
need to check.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the software being used by the vendor is
proprietary; further inquired whether the City would need to reprogram everything or get
a whole new system when terminating the Contract, or whether someone else would
know the system’s functions.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the Agreement would be
a three-year term with optional renewal; stated either party could terminate the
Agreement by providing 120 days written notice; everything would be hosted and would
reside with ICMS, the City’s data would be converted into the data files; the City could
sever the relationship six months down the road if it chooses; that she does not know
whether the software is proprietary or not.
The Interim City Manager clarified that the City would get its data back in some format
but would not get the software.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services stated having an adversarial
relationship with another local agency would not be in the best interest of the City of
Inglewood.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether hard information going into the database
would be certified as being secure; whether data would be retrievable to ensure that
data would belong to the City at the termination of the Contract; and whether handheld
validated information would go into the database.
The City Attorney confirmed security of information is included in the contract.
The Supervising Accountant explained the data validation process.
Councilmember Matarrese stated certification of validation, certification of secure
database, and certification that the City would get data in a format that could be used at
the end of the Contract is important.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how long the City of Inglewood has been doing citation
processing and collection services, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative
Services responded 20 years.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that staff would not be considering hiring the City of
Inglewood if there were unhappy customers in the past.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
6
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation with Councilmember
Matarrese’s clarifying issues regarding certification requirements.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote – 5.
(*10-379 CC) Resolution No. 14478, “Authorizing the City of Alameda and the Alameda
Fire Department to Access Federal Level Summary Criminal History for Emergency
Medical Technicians.” Adopted.
(*10-380 CC) Ordinance No. 3020, “Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending Subsection 8-7.11 (Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers) of
Section 8-7 (Parking Prohibitions) of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and
Alternative Transportation Modes).” Finally passed.
* * *
(10-381 CC/ARRA/10-59 CIC) Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that agenda items
would be taken out of order and provided the revised order.
* * *
AGENDA ITEM
(10-382 CC) Recommendation to Approve Reimbursement Agreement with VF Outdoor
(SRM Associates).
The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation; and the Interim City
Manager gave a brief presentation.
***
Vice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 7:48 p.m. and returned at 7:53 p.m.
***
Councilmember Tam stated that she wants to be clear that VF Outdoor would be a
great company to welcome to Alameda; inquired whether half of the subsidies would be
recovered by year four.
The Interim City Manager responded other property transfer taxes are not being
projected in future years phasing; stated the only number put in is the number that
would be reimbursed for that year; assumptions should have been made regarding the
next phases; as other phases are sold in future years there would be more property
transfer tax.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether concessions would be made for other phases, to
which the Interim City Manager responded in the negative, only Phase 1.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
7
Councilmember Tam stated generating $3 million over twelve years is approximately
$250,000 per year; Exhibit 3 shows a different estimate of net revenues to the General
Fund; inquired whether the recovery would seem to be more like eight years.
The Interim City Manager responded eight years seems about right; stated 50% of the
property tax would be going into the special fund, not the General Fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired how VF Outdoor would compare to other businesses in
Alameda.
The Business Development Manager responded the best comparison would be Abbott
Diabetes Care; stated having 600 plus employees would be similar.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the next step down in terms of employees, to
which the Business Development Manager responded Wind River.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many employees Wind River has, to which the Business
Development Manager responded 300 to 400.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants to make the scale apparent to the public; VF
Outdoor would be a significant business for Alameda.
Speakers: Steve Rendle, VF Outdoor; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; and Lorre
Zuppan, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated VF Outdoor would be a great
company coming to Alameda; Alameda is a safe community; the proposed design
meets bay view requirements.
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the bay friendly landscaping plan; Peet’s Coffee
has similar landscaping.
Vice Mayor deHaan commended SRM; stated five years ago, the City considered
relocating a warehouse in the area; that he cannot say enough about the evolution of
the Harbor Bay Business Park; supporting transportation is important.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked staff and SRM for all the hard work; stated that she is
very impressed with the campus design; putting parking in the rear adds a lot to the
front.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
8
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-383 CC) Correspondence to the United States Department of Transportation
Requesting Denial of Alameda County’s Proposal to Modify the Hours of Operation to
Estuary Drawbridges.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated now is a good time to bring the issue before Council; that she is
very disappointed with the process the County and Supervisor Lai-Bitker have used;
past discussions involved closing bridges for a few hours during the middle of the night;
the County did not have any public process before providing a proposal to lock bridges
down at 4:30 p.m.; encouraged Alameda residents to express concern and outrage to
Supervisor Lai-Bitker; that she is offended that Alameda residents’ interest have been
disregarded; the Coast Guard has confirmed its policy that economics is not a
justification for shutting off waterways.
Speakers: Ed Payne, Alameda and Alameda Waterfront Homeowners Association; and
Tom Charron, Alameda.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:32 p.m. and returned at 8:34 p.m.
***
Following Mr. Payne’s comments, Mayor Johnson stated people need to be vocal
regarding the issue and continue to send communications to the Coast Guard;
concurred that property values would be significantly affected because bridge closure
would turn a navigable waterway into a non-navigable waterway.
The Interim City Manager stated that the Public Works Director has spent a lot of time
researching the issue, particularly in terms of safety conditions; that she has not done
all the work.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is very discouraged with the lack of transparency and
meaningful public input; encouraged yacht club members to write letters to the Coast
Guard.
The Public Works Director stated the three options noted in the press release are to
send letters: 1) to the Federal E Rue Making Portal at www.regulations.gov; 2) via fax to
(202) 493-2251, or 3) to the docket facility for the United States Department of
Transportation in Washington, D.C.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
9
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff would be sending a letter to the Coast Guard.
The Public Works Director responded sending a letter to the Coast Guard is not one of
the options; stated letters sent to the Department of Transportation would eventually get
to the Coast Guard.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Coast Guard is recommending such procedure, to
which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated letters should be very strong in stating that the City does not
support any change to current bridge operations since the County has not worked with
the City; the County has not used a good faith process; the City should oppose any
changes and force the County to work with the City.
Councilmember Tam stated that she attended a forum at Aeolian Club on the issue;
inquired what is the City’s financial contribution to the bridges and whether the City has
the option to take over the bridges.
The Public Works Director responded the Park Street and Miller-Sweeney [Fruitvale]
Bridges are owned by the County; stated the City has no financial responsibility; County
sales tax is earmarked for maintenance; the City has no responsibility to pay for bridge
maintenance; the County should have known that there would be on-going costs for
maintenance when it accepted ownership; the Coast Guard would not be interested in
reducing services that would reduce maritime use.
Captain Payne stated the County collects money for bridge operation through road and
gas taxes and is reimbursed for half of the Miller-Sweeney [Fruitvale] Bridge operation
from the Federal government.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is interested in what Alameda contributes from its
share of the gas or sales tax; the situation is similar to when the City closed Fire Station
5; economics and probability drove the closure; constructive solutions should be
considered rather than criticisms.
The Public Works Director stated gas tax is based upon population and miles of roads
for the entire County; focus should not be on costs; the Coast Guard stated that costs
should not be addressed; the Coast Guard is concerned that maritime service not be
unreasonably impacted; that he thinks maritime service would be impacted.
Councilmember Tam stated that she does not have a dispute with writing letters on
behalf of the community underscoring the need for the 24/7 operation; other options,
other than operating at a loss, should be reviewed if the County and City do not have
funding.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
10
The Public Works Director stated the County needs to figure out funding.
Mayor Johnson stated that she attended two meetings; one meeting was with Coast
Guard and County staff; the other meeting was with County staff; the first meeting was
after the newspaper noticed that the County was proposing to lock the bridges; the
County did not answer economic questions regarding operations and maintenance; the
County should have come back and worked with the community; the County will not
meet or discuss the matter with people who would be most impacted with the proposed
change; the County did not outreach to the City regarding the 4:30 p.m. closure; the
County has not fulfilled its responsibility.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the Interim City Manager to
send a letter rejecting the County’s proposal; stated a solution is out there somewhere;
there is a chance to reset the issue.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese’s motion
includes that the City does not support any changes to the current schedule, to which
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community was willing explore other ways at an Aeolian
Club meeting in February or March.
The Public Works Director stated staff met with the County and reviewed options with
the County Public Works Director; she was not interested; the solution would be her
way or no way.
Mayor Johnson encouraged people to continue communicating with the Coast Guard
and Supervisor Lai-Bitker; inquired whether proposed language regarding no changes
to the current schedule is acceptable to Councilmember Tam, to which Councilmember
Tam responded, said language is what the letter currently states.
Mayor Johnson requested the language be made stronger.
The Interim City Manager stated language would be firmed up.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the letter can start with the City not wanting any
changes.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
11
(10-384 CC/ARRA/10-60 CIC) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda’s Real
Estate Asset Management Policy.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht.
Following Mr. Spangler’s comments, the Interim City Manager stated the policy is a
Council policy; the Authorities and Responsibilities sections have citations in terms of
policy administration; the City Manager would make administrative decisions as to what
the policy means.
Councilmember Tam stated for clarity, language should be added stating: “before
recommending to the City Council for final approval”.
The Interim City Manager inquired where the inserted language should go.
Councilmember Tam responded on Page 5 [of the Real Estate Asset Management
Policy] under Organizational Responsibilities X-1 where it states: “the City Manager’s
office is the ultimate decision maker with respect to administrative interpretation of this
City Council policy. All transactions under this policy must be approved by this office”;
recommended inserting “before recommending to the City Council for final approval”
after the word “office”.
In response to Mr. Spangler’s comment regarding the policy including the City’s
commitment to making older City-owned buildings Leadership Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certified or green buildings, the Interim City Manager
stated the idea sounds good.
Following Ms. Cameron’s comments, Mayor Johnson stated that the City wants to
continue to work with Bay Ship and Yacht and appreciates all the work that Bay Ship
and Yacht has done.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Interim City Manager, businesses that provided
input, as well as staff; stated the policy is exactly what he hoped for when he put in the
Council Referral; the earlier policy was not working; the new policy is comprehensive
and dynamic; changes and adjustments might be needed; that he wants to stay focused
on a long-term approach; taking lease revenues up to the front end to the exclusion of
others is not the way to do things.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation; stated the policy
could be evaluated in six months or after “x” number of negotiated leases to ensure that
the City is on target or adjustments need to be made.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
12
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion with the modification to include additional
language she proposed [before recommending to the City Council for final approval].
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether including efforts to become
greener would be included, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese and Tam concurred with amending the motion.
The Interim City Manager stated Council would approve the ultimate lease.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice – 5.
(10-385 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Approve a Cooperation Agreement between
the City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the Alameda
East Bay Miracle League; and
(10-385A CC) Resolution No. 14479, “Supporting the Alameda East Bay Miracle
League Efforts to Construct Miracle Park, Which Will Provide Special Needs Persons
with the Opportunity to Play Baseball as Team Members in a Formally Organized
Baseball League in the City of Alameda.” Adopted.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the resolution of support
would identify and commit the City to the site; further inquired whether the resolution
would be strong enough to state that there would be a site and money would be
provided.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded staff provided the Miracle
League with the draft resolution for review; stated the Miracle League believes that the
resolution is sufficient; staff coordinated with the Miracle League to ensure that needs
would be met.
Speakers: John Pecson, Alameda Soccer Club; Roberta Rockwell, Miracle League; and
Nino Borsoni, Miracle League.
Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the Miracle League and staff for putting together a
project that would go forward in the foreseeable future, rather than at an unknown time
in a certain phase of development fifteen years from now; congratulated everyone on
putting things together.
Councilmember/Board Member Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
13
stated everyone’s hard work and perseverance has paid off.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the commitment has always been there;
timing has been everything; site control is all-important with fundraising.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
(10-386 CC) Resolution No. 14480, “Authorizing the Sale of 2216 Lincoln Avenue,
Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Alameda and
Community Improvement Commission, and Authorizing the Interim City Manager to
Execute the Agreement and Related Documents.” Adopted; and
(10-61 CIC) Resolution No. 10-169, “Authorizing the Purchase of 2216 Lincoln Avenue,
Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the City of Alameda and
Community Improvement Commission, and Authorizing the Interim executive Director to
Execute the Agreement and Related Documents.” Adopted.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project is very positive for Alameda; affordable housing
would be a great use for the site and the location is good because it is near City
facilities and transportation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the location is great and the proposed use is
sorely needed; the City would be selling the property to itself; inquired how staff arrived
at the $735,000 purchase price.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded two appraisals were
performed and the difference was split.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the proposal would be to put 19 units on half
an acre; inquired how Measure A or Article 26 of the City Charter would apply.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the Guyton exemption is
a settlement agreement that allows the Housing Authority to develop a number of
affordable units exempt from Measure A as long as the Housing Authority is the owner;
stated the project would be built pursuant to the Guyton exception and settlement
agreement.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the process would include
Planning Board design review and site planning, and whether Council would have final
approval.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
14
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded absolutely; stated
additional outreach would be done because the community usually has questions
regarding affordable housing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired what would be the funding source, to
which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP) Affordable Housing Fund.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the fund balance, to which the
Housing Development and Programs Manager responded the fund exceeds $3 million
and may be closer to $4 million.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the site has been used for employee parking;
the parking structure is being used now.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated employees who were parking in the
lot have been relocated to the top floor of the parking structure; approximately 100
spaces have been earmarked for employee parking.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the proposed affordable housing
site would be the first move forward in the Civic Center vision plan, to which the Interim
City Manager/Executive Director responded absolutely.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the process for the proposed project has
been rapid and well thought out; hopefully, the rest of the Civic Center plans do so as
well.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated identifying funding would
come next.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is impressed that plans have
been implemented, appreciates leadership and direction, and hopes the project moves
rapidly.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote – 5.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-387 CC/ARRA/10-62 CIC) Operational Budget Highlights
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
15
Speaker: Richard Hausman, Alameda.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the budget discussion would answer Mr.
Hausman’s questions regarding the Alameda Free Library being almost $500,000 in the
red at the end of Fiscal Year 2011; the Civic Center garage having $500,000 going out,
leaving $6,000 at the end of Fiscal Year 2011; Section 227.1 appearing to be a
duplication and being listed as Theater Parking structure with different figures; and the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service being almost $1 million in the red at the end of Fiscal
Year 2011, to which the Interim City Manger/Executive Director responded in the
affirmative.
(10-388 CC) Capital Budget Highlights
The City Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City still does street crack sealing, to which the
City Engineer responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Public Works stripes red curbs from the
corner; stated the paint wears off and people are out in traffic before making a left turn.
The City Engineer responded the City has one striping program for target areas and
another program for on-call; stated red curbs are refreshed if there is enough money left
over in the target program; Pubic Works tries to add red curb painting to address the
issue; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how closely traffic flow and signage improvements
are integrated with other projects such as the Webster Street Planning Project; stated
people living on Eighth Street have been suffering with additional Webster Street traffic,
which Webster Street wants, since Constitution Way went in twenty years ago; further
inquired whether coordination has been performed.
The City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated staff has met with the West
Alameda Business Association (WABA); the Congestion Management Authority (CMA)
has a signal interconnect program; deciding how to set signal controls is a balancing
act.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is spending money on attracting people to
Webster Street; inquired how closely staff is working with WABA.
The City Engineer responded the Supervising Civil Engineer is working with WABA and
CMA; stated everything depends upon signal timing.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
16
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the North Pump Station would fix the lake
that occurs next to the Tube every time there is a little rain.
The City Engineer responded last year, water started backing up from the Pump Station
throughout the entire West End; stated the lake next to the Tube is more localized; a
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) could be done and would cost approximately
$125,000; water hits the hump and never gets to the inlet; grinding down the hump
would not provide needed elevation to have a flow line; the whole area would need to
be ground out and the grade would need to be reestablish to match the inlet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there are no curbs on Grand Street between Buena
Vista Avenue, Eagle Avenue, and Clement Street; that he noticed a commercial truck
pulled up to the dirt where a sidewalk and curb should be; oil was spilling out of the
bottom of the truck; inquired whether there are plans to have curbs and gutters
throughout the City.
The City Engineer responded development is conditioned to include curbs, landscape
strips, and sidewalks for new construction; stated gutters and curbs are part of the
resurfacing program.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the site he is referencing seems as though there has
never been a curb; inquired whether the issue would be addressed.
The City Engineer responded curbs would be put in as the project comes forward
through entitlement or resurfacing.
The Public Works Director stated the site that Council Matarrese is referencing was
Beltline property now owned by the City; perhaps some of the lease revenue could be
put into capital improvement projects as part of the asset management process.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City handles ponding on Otis Drive.
The City Engineer responded the matter would need to be sent to CalTrans; stated the
City does not work on any State highway segments.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff needs to notify CalTrans, particularly regarding the
situation above Broadway; that he is concerned about not having funding available for
trees along Appezzato Parkway; inquired how the matter would be addressed.
The Public Works Director responded the City has two types of capital improvement
projects; stated the City Engineer addressed the traditional capital improvement
program, which includes extending the life of a public infrastructure; the other type is
annual capital improvement projects, which tend to be maintenance functions; street
tree planning falls under annual capital improvement projects; funds would be increased
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
17
by $10,000 if the proposed budget is approved; the amount could be increased more.
The Interim City Manager stated that staff has discussed having a tree nursery which is
not part of the budget adoption tonight; the matter could be presented at the first City
Council meeting in October.
Councilmember Tam stated that she needs help in reconciling the capital improvement
program; expenditures have a huge variability; inquired whether the Krusi Park
Feasibility Plan, court resurfacing, and Tillman Park improvements would absorb all of
the $2.1 million in the first year and no funding would be left over.
The City Engineer responded projects are based upon when funding is made available;
stated staff did not know whether the City would have Measure WW funds when
preparing the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget; hopefully, grants will be available for park
improvements next year.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the same applies to pedestrian/bicycle
improvements.
The City Engineer responded pedestrian/bicycle improvements are included in the Park
Street Streetscape federal funding and specifically earmarked for lights, sidewalk, and
tree work.
Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification of the Harbor Bay Parkway resurfacing.
The Public Works Director stated Harbor Bay Parkway is one of the Americans
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) federal funding projects; a second round of
ARRA funding became available; the City provided paperwork for Doolittle Drive to Ron
Cowan Parkway; the City was in the top ten [to receive federal funding] and then federal
funding stopped; the City should be eligible once funding is freed up.
The City Engineer stated rumor has it that some funding might be available in
September.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned with zero park funding for Fiscal Year
2011-2012; inquired whether Measure WW is the only source available for parks, to
which the City Engineer responded a new fund, Roberti-Z-Berg, has been established.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is at the mercy of receiving periodic funds to keep
parks together; inquired where funding would be generated if federal funding is not
available.
The Interim City Manager responded the base level would be parcel fees; stated the
next level would be State grants such as Roberti-Z-Berg or State bond initiatives; the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
18
majority of cities are able to contribute to park improvements from impact fees; the City
is lucky to generate $10,000 to $50,000 in park impact fees; hence, the City should
focus on upgrading the development impact fee study; another option would be using
property sale proceeds; a Capital Improvement Discretionary Fund has been
established this year which is not a recurrent revenue source; the City has an
opportunity to put $2 million to $4 million into the fund; the City has an unfunded liability
in terms of capital improvements for streets, curbs, and gutters in addition to the park
shortfall; impact fees are not going to be substantial for the City.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated parks and libraries will be severely impacted given the
State’s condition; the City will need to provide its own funding mechanism.
The Interim City Manager stated a recurrent revenue source would have to go to
taxpayers.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is bothered by a zero balance [for Fiscal Year 2010-
2011].
The Interim City Manager stated cities are going to be forced to finance capital
improvements and do maintenance; discretionary State and federal dollars might not be
available.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated street funding has dropped from $3.5 million to $1 million.
The Interim City Manager stated the City has to leverage opportunities to do joint
venture with non-profits so that maintenance dollars can be redeployed.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated things are not going to get better; that he is concerned about
how the mechanism might work.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is an update on the State budget.
The Deputy City Manager – Administrative Services responded the budget is at a
standstill; stated the Governor stated that he will not deal with the issue, but will let the
next governor deal with the issue; no one seems to be in a hurry.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the State deficit is at $19 billion and holding, to
which the Deputy City Manager – Administrative Services responded $19 billion sounds
right.
AGENDA ITEMS
(10-389 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Establishing the Proposition 4 (Appropriations)
Limit for fiscal year 2010-2011;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
19
(10-389A CC) Resolution No. 14481, “Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year
2010-2011.” Adopted;
(10-389B CC) Resolution No. 14482, “Approving and Adopting the Operating and
Capital Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for Said Expenditures in Fiscal Year
2010-2011.” Adopted;
(10-63 CIC) Resolution No. 10-170, “Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for Said Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2010-
2011.” Adopted; and
(ARRA) Resolution No. 48, “Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital Budget
and Appropriating Certain Moneys for Said Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Adopted.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on call provisions.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated call provisions are structured and
indentured when bond holders are able to be paid off; sometimes call provisions are
limited and conditions are structured in a municipal debt as an incentive to the buyer of
the municipal debt because no one wants to take x amount of dollars if the bond will be
called; the debt service term has not been expanded.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether doing that kind of debt made sense at the time;
stated the 2000 AMP bonds that are being refinanced did not make sense even in 2000;
policies need to be in place to ensure that bad debt is not done.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated a lot of cities do dirt bonds
[Community Facilities Districts]; the best ratio is $1 of debt for every $4 of land value;
the City needs more elaborate financial policies; municipal debt has variations.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue with the 2000 bonds is that the bonds were
taxable.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated in general, taxables have been at a
higher rate; nowadays, cities can get taxables that are less than a municipal rate
because city tax credit is not as good as some taxables; government can no longer
budget for just a year.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the bond that Council did not like a couple of
years ago and sent back a number of times cannot be refunded.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the bond would be difficult to
refund in today’s market; at the time, the bond probably made sense to relieve the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
20
pressure in the General Fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council sent the bond back at least three times and then
reluctantly agreed to move forward; Council would not have gone forward if the
provisions were know.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated refunding the bond over the time
period left in the initial bond would result in higher debt service payments; payments
would spike by not extending the debt service term beyond what was initially done on
the debt.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated policies need to be development to avoid mistakes that
have happened in the past.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the City has very low debt ratio;
debt is in the future; standards and policies need to be in place before debt is issued.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the policy approach is
the same approach that is being taken with asset management; balancing the budget is
necessary; revenue needs to be generated to fill the budget gap and long term affect; a
long-term approach should be included as policies are developed.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she will come back before the
holidays with a financial policy similar to the asset management policy.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/
Executive Director stated refinancing cannot be done and that the General Fund would
be needed; inquired how long the bleeding would last.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded there is no long-term funding
out of the Library; General Fund dollars would be used on a recurring basis until 2014,
unless another way is found.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $12.1
million [General Fund balance] would drop.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $1.7 million transfer to the
Library would go up to $2.1 million and $2.2 million; stated staff will work very hard to
find a solution; another part of the policy would be what would be financed with a thirty
year debt; that her first reaction would be to see if some of the bonds could be called to
reduce debt service and lower the balance; however, she has not looked far enough in
the indenture; right now, her feeling is not to refund something unless money could be
saved because the cost of issuance would be too high.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
21
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is approximately a
$10 million difference in Special Revenue Funds (SRF) from Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to
Fiscal Year 2011-2012; reduced revenues are expected; inquired what expenses would
be cut.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded a number of the SRF are
grants, bond proceeds, and CIP Funds, which will have draw downs; expenditure
reductions need to be reviewed because revenues have been reduced, in terms of the
gas tax and Measure B, which are coming down 10% - 20%; redevelopment funds are
also in the SRF.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the SRF drop
is the result of what the State is doing to the City.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated
interest would go down; the State is taking redevelopment money and the City is
drawing down on capital improvement funds to pay bills and finish projects.
Councilmember//Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the drop
includes last year’s regular property tax reassessments that will hit the tax roles this
year.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative for the
redevelopment agency and General Fund.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam’s inquiry regarding
Fire and Police Department expenditures, the Interim City Manager/Executive Director
responded in Fiscal Year 2008-2009, the City did not fully fund all Police positions;
netting out salaries is not uncommon if a city knows there will be a large delay in
vacancies; Fiscal Year 2008-2009 figures reflected the Reduction in Force (RIF) and did
not include fully funding the positions; in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, all positions were
funded in the Police Department; approximately $600,000 in Police personnel costs
were not fully funded in the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget; personnel sheets have been
redone to ensure that positions are fully funded; in the year now closing, departments
need to absorb additional costs; medical insurance increases have been a common
theme across all departments; the Fire and Police Departments have 92 sworn
personnel, which will not change this year.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated one fire station closed which
resulted in a 20% loss in activity; inquired how the loss is reflected.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded closing the Fire Station is
parallel with the number of positions cut in the Fire Department; stated the assessment
for Police and Fire will be different and will be based on what makes sense; the goal is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
22
not to reduce staffing absent circumstances beyond control; that she does not know
what the State will do with some of the issues; she thinks revenues are very solid and
will stay firm; the City is in a no growth period until 2014.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated federal government projections are 9.5% unemployment
until 2014.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated California is at 14.6%
unemployment; the Bay Area is particularly high; continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated contingency plans need to be
in place.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated finding ways to protect services is
important; sometimes the easiest things to cut what some people believe are
nonessential services that are quality of life services; staff is trying to come up with
strategic ways, such as working with consortiums to do non-profit, school opportunities,
and outsourcing non-core services so that existing employees can be redeployed
someplace else like filling a position in another department; the process is of managing
resources is constant.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an item on tonight’s
agenda is a project that would bring revenue and jobs to the City; the leasing program
at the former Naval base and the Alameda Point plan will help with the revenue stream
so that the City can stay steady; the proposed budget looks good and reflects
maintaining a plan that is well thought out, is tight, and is very conservative; a way
needs to be found to strengthen the revenue stream so that the City can stay steady
when the economic experiences deepens.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated new revenues are not included in
the projections, which are conservative; the City has projects coming forward that are
generating jobs in the dead economy; staff has had to revisit some things because
generating jobs and property tax makes sense right now; the situation is a give and
take.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Hausman had some questions [regarding the Civic
Center garage and theatre/parking structure].
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Special Revenue Funds that have a
.1, .2, etc. following the fund number are sub funds; 224 is the Parking Meter Fund;
funds pay for the citation process; 224.1 is the Civic Center Garage Fund and contains
all parking structure revenue, administration costs through out sourcing, paying for staff,
and any debt with respect to the parking structure; a lot of capital is not kept in the fund
to pay for debt service.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
23
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services stated the fund also includes rental
income.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the fund also pays for a Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) debt service loan; the fund will be closed when the HUD
loan is paid off; the Council/Commission/Board Member’s would then need to figure out
what to do with the excess revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated excess revenues could
be used for maintenance.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Fund 621.2 is the Alameda/Oakland
Ferry Service fund which has a negative projected cash fund balance; the service is
being packaged up to send to WETA; the 600 series are Enterprise Funds; numbers are
merged assets and liabilities and are not necessarily negative cash but depreciation; in
the very near future, the City will only have two enterprise funds: sewer and golf.
* * *
(10-390 CC/ARRA/10-64 CIC) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing
the meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote – 5.
* * *
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous discussions
have involved surveying the Beltline property; that she has discussed the potential for
having a fire station on one of the pieces or property with the Interim City
Manager/Executive Director; $400,000 has been set aside for soft costs for a fire
station; inquired whether the idea is still being pursued.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated a
corner piece of the Beltline property could be a good spot for relocation of Fire Station
3; that she thinks looking at a complete site analysis and location would be warranted;
using existing City property for buildings is important because buying property and
building the structure costs too much; constructing a building on City-owned land could
easily be done with some one-time monies in the CIP Fund; the CIP Discretionary Fund
does not include dollars discussed earlier regarding the sale of the employee parking lot
but does include two hits of one-time revenues, which are AMP back payments in the
amount of $1.2 million and approximately $800,000 of administrative dollars that had
not been charged to the refinanced assessment districts for approximately ten years;
the CIP Discretionary Fund has approximately a $2 million projected balance; expenses
have not been projected; six to eight months ago, Public Works sold a small portion of
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
24
property which generated approximately $200,000; at the time, her recommendation
was to put the money into a facility maintenance reserve; the policy is to take one-time
property sale revenues and put the money into an open space fund; a small amount
was used to pay for the final purchase of the Beltline property; the question is what to
do with the money when the City decides to liquidate property.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the $400,000 [set
aside for a fire station] is in the General Fund.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $400,000 is in a reserve
fund in the General Fund and is not included in the $12 million General Fund balance.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City is paying a lot of
rent to house fire fighters next to a fire station that is not earthquake safe; a lot of money
would be needed for expensive repairs in order to use the fire station; the City could
spend money on something that could be constructed and City owned instead of putting
money into something that the City does not own and would not use long term; that she
is trying the nudge the process along.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated site location is not easy, especially
because location impacts response time.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a letter has been
received from SunCal regarding a development program; there have been
disagreements on how things have been charged; that she assumes staff would come
back with explanations when discrepancies are reconciled.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she would review the accounts
and ensure that everything is reconciled.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City needs to
get some answers from SunCal also.
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services responded the City would need to
get information on eligible pre-development expenses; however, the point is moot now.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the budget
as presented [adoption of the resolutions]; stated that he appreciates the clarity,
sacrifices, and hard work of the entire workforce; he does not expect the budget to be
static but moveable through quarterly updates.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
25
impressed with the work plan; staff has come a long way; the rainy day is not over; the
$12 million [General Fund reserve] is in jeopardy the longer the economy stays as is.
Mayor/Chair Johnson complimented staff for continuing to refine the budget and make
the budget more transparent and understandable; stated the budget [format] gets better
and better each year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether all of tonight’s
Power Points would be posted to the website; further inquired whether a hard copy
would be on file at the Library.
The Deputy City Manager – Administrative Services responded a hard copy is already
at the Library; stated staff is figuring out how to technologically break the budget into
smaller pieces.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated tonight’s meeting has been
the most productive meeting in a long time.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated a year’s worth of planning,
concepts, and drafted policies have culminated into something tangible; agendas should
be very active in the next year.
The Deputy City Manager – Administrative Services requested that the Proposition 4
limit be adopted before the budget.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote – 5.
On the call for the question, the original motion carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
(10-391 CC) Resolution No. 14483, “Reappointing Ian Couwenberg to the Housing
Commission.” Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote –
5.
(10-392 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Report on the Collection of Sewer
Service Charges on the Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
26
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote – 5.
(10-393 CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the
City of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a
Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Repealing Article XXVII on
Compulsory Arbitration for Firefighters; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Not
adopted;
(10-393A CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the
City of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a
Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 3-20, 17-18 and
21-2 regarding Budget Authority of the City Manager and City Council; and Proposing
Said Charter Amendments. Not adopted; and
(10-393B CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the
City of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a
Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Section 3-18 to Allow the City Clerk
to Reject All Legal Advertising Bids; by Amending Section 10-3 to Add a Member to the
Public Utilities Board and Convert the City Manager into a Nonvoting Member; By
Amending Section 12-1(C) to Add Restrictions to Public Utilities Board Contracting; and
By Repealing Section 22-8 Regarding the Hours of City Offices; and Proposing Said
Charter Amendments. Not adopted. (City Attorney)
The City Clerk and Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated that when she was on the Charter Subcommittee, thirty-two
different amendments were on the 2008 election; one section relating to specified hours
relegated that Council could adopt a schedule.
The City Clerk stated there was a measure regarding the Council meeting.
Councilmember Tam stated the measure also addressed to hours of operation because
the Planning Department opens at 7:00 a.m. and the Library is open on Saturdays;
Council did not want to be prescriptive in City Hall’s hours of operation.
The City Clerk stated that she would double check.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls the measure-included hours of
operation; previous hours of operation did not meet what is in the Charter; discussions
included departments having different hours of operation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
27
The Interim City Manager inquired whether the issue actually went on the ballot or was
just discussed.
Mayor Johnson, Councilmember Tam, and Councilmember Gilmore stated the issue
went on the ballot.
Mayor Johnson stated all measures passed and perhaps the Charter has not reflected
the change yet.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, League of Women Voters; and
Domenick Weaver, IAFF.
The City Clerk stated Section 22-8 was modified; the following language was struck: ”to
increase such hours for the necessary accommodations of the public”; the section after
the 2008 election reads: “All public offices except for otherwise provided by law shall be
open for business every day, except holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. subject to
modification by Council”.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Subcommittee thought subject to modification by
Council would mean Council could pass an ordinance to modify hours.
The Interim City Manager stated her interpretation is different; inquired whether the
language allows Council to amend hours by ordinance or resolution.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that she recalls that the section was
modified in 2008 because the way the Charter read, Council could only increase hours,
not decrease hours; what is being suggested now is to repeal the section entirely so
that Council would have more flexibility and hours could be set by resolution, ordinance,
or policy; making a change now would require a Charter amendment.
In response to Councilmember Tam’s regarding repealing the section in 2008, the City
Attorney stated the matter was not discussed.
Mayor Johnson requested the City Clerk to read the section again.
The City Clerk read the section again.
Mayor Johnson stated that it sounds as though Council can modify the schedule,
including Saturdays and Sundays.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Subcommittee’s intent was to enable Council to
change hours; the Subcommittee had discussions regarding departments having
different operating hours and did not want to have a Charter amendment every time
Council wanted to change a department’s hours; despite what the Charter said prior to
the amendment, some departments did not have the correct hours.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
28
Councilmember Tam stated the Subcommittee process eight months; the
Subcommittee consulted with all departments; the issues [proposed tonight] did not
come up; the proposed amendments have not gone through a fully transparent process
and with a meaningful opportunity for public input; that she has not had a full briefing on
the implications of the Seal Beach issue [noted by Mr. Weaver].
The City Attorney stated that she could provide a briefing; in addition, Mr. Wiley, the
City’s Labor Attorney, is also here to provide input.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the City Attorney’s foresight in
having Labor Counsel available for a briefing, which does not solve her biggest issue;
the Subcommittee went through an exhaustive process to the point of polling different
departments to see if anything else should be added; that she does not think the issue
should be taken lightly; the public needs to have the opportunity to ask questions and
be educated; amending the Charter should not be rushed; 2008 was the first time that
the Charter was amended; amending the Charter without having the same process the
first time around is not good public policy.
The Interim City Manager stated that she addressed the proposed Public Utilities Board
(PUB) amendment in the past.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see the proposed PUB
amendment go forward because of the inherent conflict of interest; people have time to
discuss the issue between now and November; the PUB item is the simplest one.
Councilmember Tam stated that she disagrees that the PUB issue is simple.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the City Manager was put on the PUB; further
inquired why the City Manager would be a PUB member if not a voting member.
The Interim City Manager responded the Alameda Municipal Power General Manager
thought that having the City Manager be an ex-officio would be helpful; stated that she
is not aware of any instance where the City Manager has voted; the Charter is a living,
breathing document; the opportunity to amend the Charter only comes around every
couple of years unless a special election is called, which would be pricey.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how long staff has been working on the amendments.
The City Attorney responded some of the proposed amendments have been in the
works for over a year; stated the language has not sprung up overnight; the language is
a product of concerted staff effort; unfortunately, the Charter Subcommittee declined to
meet this year; the General Election would be the cheapest opportunity to do any
Charter amendments; the proposed amendments have been brought forth
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
29
administratively; tonight, no policy action would be taken on any of the resolutions;
Council would be letting voters decide.
Councilmember Gilmore stated not having the Subcommittee meet ahead of time
should not have prevented staff from coming forward with the ideas prior to the eleventh
hour; staff is requesting Council to take an action tonight at the last possible minute to
allow the matter to go forward on the November election; staff could have brought the
matter forward administratively a month or two ago; that she is not imputing any bad
motive by staff; however, from a public policy standpoint, the matter appears rushed
and ill-considered to be brought up at the eleventh hour.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when would be the next window of opportunity [to address
the issues].
The City Clerk responded for a General Election, two years; stated the issues could be
consolidated with countywide elections.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the fire fighter initiative was relegated to
November 2011.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the election would not be a General
City election.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether putting more issues on the ballot would help
cost-wise.
The City Clerk responded costs would not be significantly more; stated the City would
already be bearing the cost of the election.
The Interim City Manager stated the only new resolution is regarding delaying the
effective date of any ordinance that would require an expenditure of funds until funds
are identified; the issue is something that the City should consider because initiatives
spring up left and right.
Councilmember Tam stated the binding arbitration resolution is new to her; the issue
was not brought up when she served on the Charter Subcommittee.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue has been a major discussion as long as she
has been Interim City Manager; the City has an opportunity to move forward on
something that would reflect the Fiscal Sustainability Committee’s theme, which would
allow voters to decide whether or not to have binding arbitration given today’s economic
reality; putting the measure on the ballot would involve a through public process; that
she does not think management should not be able recommend something that is vital
to the City.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
30
Councilmember Matarrese noted the reason the [fire fighter initiative] issue has been
scheduled for November 2011 is because the City had been waiting to see what PERS
would do.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated Mr. Weaver noted that binding arbitration
was established for fire fighters in 1980; a poison pill was added to include that funding
would be necessary in order to occur.
The City Attorney stated the original binding arbitration provision was not put on the
ballot by the City but was sponsored by the union; the City put on a companion measure
which stated that if binding arbitration is invoked and the arbitrator gives an award that
is beyond what the City has been paying, then the City can also invoke it’s right to send
the award to the voters; the issue is outlined in Section 17-17.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the basic concern is why there is binding arbitration for one
union and not others; inquired how existing negotiations would be affected if the
proposed resolution went forward.
Joe Wiley, Labor Negotiator, responded the ground rule would be predicated on the
existence of the Charter amendment; stated binding interest arbitration could be
bargained if Council gave authority to do so; the issue would be a non-mandatory
subject of bargaining.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the issue has been done for any other unions, to
which Mr. Wiley responded not to his knowledge.
The City Attorney stated parties could always elect to go to arbitration when there is a
dispute; arbitration does not have to be mandatory or binding.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why one bargaining unit would have something that others
would not.
Councilmember Tam responded fire fighters are precluded from striking.
Mr. Wiley stated that fire fighters and police officers are precluded from striking; the
Seal Beach decision stated having a strike that would create an impact to public health
and safety would be unlawful and would be subject to being enjoin; the Seal Beach
case does not apply to the City’s circumstances; the Seal Beach case addressed a
mandatory subject of bargaining in which an employee would be fired without review if
engaged in the conduct [strike]; a mandatory subject of bargaining cannot be placed on
the ballot without first having a meet and confer; two decisions have been handed down
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
31
on whether binding interest arbitration is a mandatory, permissive subject of bargaining;
both the Public Employment Relations Board and District Court of Appeal found interest
arbitration is a permissive, non-mandatory subject of bargaining and expressly held that
meeting and conferring with the union first is not necessary prior to putting the matter on
the ballot.
The City Clerk restated Councilmember Tam’s motion: to move approval to reconstitute
the Charter Subcommittee in preparation for the November 2011 election.
Councilmember Tam stated that her motion includes beginning discussion in 2011.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a March election next year.
The City Clerk responded elections are held in March in odd numbered years and in
June and November every year.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the three proposed amendments are critical and need
to be put before the public because of serious budget implications and good
government.
Councilmember Tam stated that her motion remains the same; in all fairness to the
proposed fire fighter initiative, it should be juxtaposed against each other and should not
separately preempt the measure.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the matter would not be discussed until
November.
Councilmember Tam stated that her motion is to have discussions starting in 2011 in
preparation for the November 2011 election and to reconstitute the Council Charter
Subcommittee because the Subcommittee might change after the November 2010
election.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Subcommittee could start working on the matter
before January, 2011; stated the start time should be flexible so that the current Council
Subcommittee could start working on the matter sooner.
Councilmember Tam stated under the Mayor’s advisement, the Subcommittee would
have the option to work on the matter sooner rather than later.
Mayor Johnson stated the Subcommittee should start earlier because more cleanup
language might be needed.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the same process should be resurrected regarding
asking Department Heads for suggestions; inquired whether the City Attorney’s staff
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
32
could be utilized, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam modified her motion to
include starting discussions earlier.
Councilmember Tam responded that she has not modified her original motion; under
advisement from the Mayor, the Subcommittee would have the option of starting
discussions earlier than 2011 if schedules work out; that she thinks it would be very
hard pressed for Councilmember Gilmore and her to find time to work with the
departments because of going dark in August, having a full schedule in September,
October being the election season, and the election is in November; however, every
effort will made to do so.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote – 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-394 CC) Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that she was
present to wish the Council farewell.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-395 CC) Consider Directing the Interim City Manager to Prioritize an Alternative
Process and Plan for Alameda Point.
Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Pat Keliher, SSC Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that the item is Councilmember Matarrese’s referral, not
something that comes from staff.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he always looks for alternatives; he submitted the
Council Referral on July 21, 2010 as a proposal for where to go next; new elements
have arisen, particularly, taking a look at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment,
which is a good place to start; the City would always work with the Navy, Veteran’s
Administration, and State Tidelands Trust; that he wants a specific plan on how the City
will move forward post the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA).
Mayor Johnson stated some items [on the Council Referral] have already been done;
that her preference would be to have staff come back with options; Council would need
to talk about a process; a broader look needs to be taken before specific direction is
given.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
33
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with a lot of the points made tonight;
Council needs to take a deep breath; staff should look at a broad set of options and
bring the matter back to Council for discussion so the public can come forward and
provide ideas; that she has heard several different ideas from the public; some of the
ideas do not include jobs or housing; Council should be very deliberate and listen to the
public; encouraged the public to contact Council or staff with preferred options.
Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore’s and Mayor
Johnson’s comments; she feels that the wheel has been reinvented right after the wheel
seemed not to be working; everything listed on Councilmember Matarrese’s referral has
been evaluated in the course of getting to a Master Plan; redeveloping Alameda Point is
important, is a goal in the budget, but is not as important as developing a project that
can be supported by the community and is financially and environmentally sustainable;
the financial part is a big deal; the federal government does not think the world revolves
around her and Alameda; having funding to get the project going is important; that she
thinks providing direction is premature until the City can identify a funding source for
conveyance of the property.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is appalled that people are accusing Council of
having secret plans; Councilmember Matarrese’s Council Referral is logical; local, non-
profit development corporations have been used; Councilmember Matarrese is
suggesting looking into the matter and nothing more than that; everyone has different
thoughts; Councilmember Matarrese has set a baseline; a lot of caveats need to be
included to provide leeway in order to put the issue in property context; Council and
staff are not starting at square one.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not want staff to be limited what options are
brought to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated limiting options is not the point; the first point would
be to focus on job creation and commercial development; the focus has always been
housing; that he is advocating local control; he wants to give direction on maximizing
leases and building a commercial community which has always been lacking.
Mayor Johnson stated staff should come back to Council with a full range of options; the
ideas are fine to consider; consequences would not be known by giving specific
direction in a very narrow area; comprehensive options need to be brought back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is proposing a comprehensive plan for job
creation and commercial development at Alameda Point, including, but not limited to,
points listed in the Council Referral.
Mayor Johnson suggested that staff come back with options in September regarding
how to proceed.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
34
Councilmember Gilmore stated staff should take a reasonable amount of time; that she
would like to see a full blown discussion on the full range of options and include the
public; she has heard options that include a public land trust which seems to be
diametrically opposed to things discussed tonight; that she does not want to give
specific direction to start down one path and limit options.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) and SunCal
plans have had commonalities; the core is very common and could be developed; the
marketplace should be reviewed.
Councilmember Tam stated that her preference is to give direction on finding a funding
stream and getting a project that is fundable as opposed to trying to decide the project
direction.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated funding streams are extremely important; developing large
parcels could create funding streams; understanding the overall project is important.
Councilmember Tam stated the City had a master developer, Alameda Point
Community Partners, who lost financing; another developer has looked at a potential
maximum build out of over 4,000 units; staff came back with negative rates of return;
inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan thinks there is some magic fundable project, to
which Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated Council couldn’t provide specific direction tonight; options need
to be reviewed; giving specific direction on component parts would be a mistake.
The Interim City Manager inquired whether the direction is to include Council Referral
items, but not limit the options, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated staff should consider the items and come back in
September or October.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not see anything revolutionary in the Council
Referral.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants the broadest possible point as long as
the Council Referral items are included.
Councilmember Gilmore stated nobody wants financial analysis; that she looks forward
to staff’s insight on the matter.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of incorporating everything discussed.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
35
Vice Mayor deHaan noted transportation is missing.
The motion carried by consensus.
(10-396 CC) Discuss/Take Action on the City Attorney Policy of Not Providing Legal
Opinions to Councilmembers in Advance of Meetings.
Councilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what Section 8-2 of the Charter states.
The City Attorney responded the last phrase of the last sentence of Section 8-2 states
“The City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of and attorney and counsel for the City
and for all officers and boards thereof in all matters relating to their official duties, and
whenever requested in writing by any of them, he shall give his or her legal advice in
writing”; a legal opinion was given in writing; that she advised each individual
Councilmember that the legal opinion would be handed out in Closed Session which
has been done many times before; that she needs to have some discretion as to how
best to do her job to protect Council and the City; she made it clear that the opinion was
going to be provided in Closed Session, but that any Councilmember could come to her
office to read the opinion in advance; the opinion was to be collected at the end of the
Closed Session as has often been done which is not a violation of the City Attorney’s
duties under the Charter.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the opinion was particularly lengthy as well as the staff
report; she went to the City Attorney’s office to read the opinion within an hour before
the meeting started; the lengthy opinion was hard to digest; the City Attorney’s
procedure assumes that she would only read the opinion once; the City Attorney made
some vague comments regarding concerns with leaks coming out of Closed Session;
that she has not been accused of a leak; she does not understand why she could not
have a copy of the opinion to read at her leisure; that she advised the City Attorney that
she had no problems with giving the opinion back; she has no interest in keeping
confidential materials; the City Attorney is making it hard for her to do her job; the
Charter does not state that a Councilmember needs to go to the City Attorney’s office to
read an opinion.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore’s intent is to put the matter on
an agenda for discussion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter is hard to discuss at 1:45 a.m.; that she does not think
that the City Attorney has violated the terms of the Charter; perhaps Councilmember
Gilmore is looking for clarification on document handling.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
36
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants consensus to bring the matter back for a
full-blown discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to bring the matter back rather than
discussing the matter at 1:45 a.m.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is in concurrence.
Councilmember Tam moved that the matter be brought back.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated past practices have been to bring legal
opinions to Closed Session.
Councilmember Gilmore stated this time, she found out about the existence of the
opinion beforehand.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a hard copy has never been provided to Council [to keep] in
the past.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney has followed past practices; Councilmember
Gilmore wants to discuss the issue.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent would be to discuss the matter or
provide a policy for handling confidential documents.
Mayor Johnson stated the discussion and/or policy would need to be addressed when
the matter is heard.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter agendized for further
discussion, and wants some sort of direction to come out of the discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated the process followed by the City Attorney has been consistent
with past practices.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has not affirmed policy and direction.
Mayor Johnson stated a policy is nowhere to be found if there is one.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson – 4. Noes: Vice Mayor
deHaan – 1.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
July 27, 2010
37
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-397 CC) Consideration of Mayor’s nomination for appointment to the Public Utilities
Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Madeline Deaton for appointment to the Public Utilities
Board.
(10-398 CC) Councilmember Gilmore inquired why Council did not find out about the
documentation given to the District Attorney on May 26, 2010 until six weeks later.
The City Attorney responded the District Attorney’s office requested that the matter be
kept confidential pending their investigation; stated it was only at the insistence of the
attorneys for the City and Interim City Manager, given the fact that it was necessary to
hold a Closed Session regarding SunCal, that precipitated the need to make the matter
public.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:47
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.