The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-05-16 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - MAY 16, 2006 - - - 5:30 P.M. Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006, 5:30 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Negotiating parties: Community Improvement Commission and ProLogis. Under negotiation: Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - MAY 16, 2006 - - - 5:31 P.M. Time: Tuesday, May 16, 2006, 5:31 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Campos- Marquez v. City of Alameda. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency negotiators: Employee: 3 -C. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT Title: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese. City Attorney. City Attorney. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - MAY 16, 2006 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Authority on agenda items or business introduced by Authority may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Authority. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of May 17, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Authority) ADJOURNMENT AGENDA TUESDAY CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 2006 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 5:30 p.m. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5:31 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 7:25 P.M. AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:31 P.M. REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Presentation by Alameda Architectural Preservation Society of a Historic Preservation Award for the storefront rehabilitation of the Oddfellows Building at 1501 Park Street using a City facade grant. 3 -B. Proclamation declaring May 18, 2006 as Bike to Work Day. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 2, 2006, and the Special City Council Meetings held on May 3, 2006. (City Clerk) 4 -13. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. (Finance) 4 -D. Recommendation to approve a Contract with EIP Association, Inc. in the amount of $173,075 for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Associates, Inc. (Planning and Building) 4 -E. Recommendation to appropriate $16,000 from the Curbside Recycling Fund and award a Contract in the amount of $72,582, including contingencies, to AJW Construction for installation of Rubberized Sidewalks, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. (Public Works) 4 -F. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $436,000, including contingencies, to SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2005 -06 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, No. P.W. 03- 06 -06, and authorize the City Manager to execute up to four additional Contract Extensions. (Public Works) 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Requesting the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to Allocate $219,186 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funding for the Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11- 02 -15. (Public Works) 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2006 -07 and to Set a Public Hearing for June 6, 2006. (Development Services) 4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of an Abandoned 15 Foot Storm Drain Easement within Assessor Parcel No. 074 -1360- Portion of 24, 25, 27, 29, 125 and 152 and Authorize Recordation of Quitclaim Deed [ID No. 16]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of Abandoned 10 Foot Sanitary Sewer Easement within Assessor Parcel No. 074 -1356- Portion of 12 and 13, and Authorize Recordation of Quitclaim Deed [ID No. 17] (Catellus /Bayport Residential Project) . (Development Services) 4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Web Technical Producer. (Human Resources) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Jeanette L. Copperwaite, Kenneth I. Dorrance, David J. Duffin, Liam Gray, Orin D. Green, Patricia A. Grey, Tamar Lowell, and Theatte (Teddy) B. Tabor as Members of the Film Commission. 5 -B. Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2006 -07; and • Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2006 -07. (Finance) 5 -C. Public Hearing to consider collection of Delinquent Business License Fees via the Property Tax Bills. (Finance) 5 -D. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $1,050,505.00 to McGuire and Hester, and allocate a 10% contingency in the amount of $105,100.00 for the construction of the Bayport 4 -acre park. (Development Services) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended. 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY - - - MAY 16, 2006 - - - 7:31 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board /Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Council /Board /Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council /Board /Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on May 2, 2006; and the Special CIC Meeting held on May 3, 2006. (City Clerk) 1 -B. Recommendation to approve Amended Contract with Komorous -Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract by $27,200 to provide additional Architectural and Construction Administration Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage. (Development Services) [Community Improvement Commission] AGENDA ITEMS 2 -A. Adoption of Resolution Adopting Policy of City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissions, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for Expense Reimbursement, Compensation, and Ethics Training for Elected Officials and Legislative Body Members. (City Manager) 2 -B. Discussion of City Attorney /General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options. (City Attorney) ADJOURNMENT Beverly Joh so MJyor Chair, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 17, 2005- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the annual meeting at 8:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES Minutes of the Special Industrial Development Authority Meeting of June 1, 2004. Board Member Daysog moved approval of the Minutes. Board Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Board Members Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstention: Board Member deHaan - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, complimented the Board for bringing back former Executive Director Bill Norton. AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the annual meeting at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Industrial Development Authority May 17, 2005 Proclamation WHEREAS, bicycling to work alleviates traffic congestion, reduces air pollution, and decreases fuel consumption; and WHEREAS, bike -to -work days have proved effective in converting drivers to bicyclists and educating citizens about the environmental and health benefits of biking to work; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the City of Alameda encourages its citizens to bike to work to improve air quality and promote the health benefits of cycling; and cities and counties throughout the Bay Area are promoting Tuesday, May 18, 2006, as the Bay Area's Bike -to -Work Day, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 18, 2006 as ALAMEDA BIKE-TO-WORK DAY, 2006 FURTHERMORE, I commend BikeAlameda for their partnership with the City, and encourage all of our citizens to join with the City of Alameda, the California Bicycle Coalition, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service in supporting the Bay Area's Bike - to -Work day. Proclamation 3 -B 5 -16 -06 AME.11 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 2, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson -5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (06- ) Public Employment; Title: City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reonvemed and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and gave directions to Legal Counsel; and regarding Public Employment, the Council discussed hiring of a new City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 2, 2006- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (06- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the discussion of City Attorney /General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options [paragraph no. 06- CC /06- CIC] on the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting agenda would be continued. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (06- ) Proclamation declaring May as National Preservation month. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Nancy Anderson, Chair of the Historical Advisory Board. (06- ) Proclamation declaring May 14 through May 19, 2006 as Girls' Rights Week. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Gabriella Lewis and Danessa La Cap, Girls Inc. Members and Melissa Marsh, Girls Inc. Board President. (06- ) Library project update. The Project Manager provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the County issue was with the [Gim's] restaurant building and not the wood frame building. The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that he encouraged the property owner to de- couple the application and delete the plans to have the kitchen equipment in the historic building for the short term in order to move forward with the application; the property owner would seek financing for the improvements. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 May 2, 2006 Councilmember deHaan stated there are structural concerns with the historic building; inquired whether there are ways to ensure that the asset stays in tact. The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated plywood bracing could be applied to the interior and corners. Mayor Johnson inquired whether spending money on cosmetic improvement makes sense if structural work is not performed to make the building sound; the community considers the building to be a historic asset; the building should be painted for the grand opening; grant money should not be spent on the facade if the owner is not committed to perform structural work. The Project Manager stated the facade grant money could pay for a decent paint job and window replacement. Councilmember deHaan stated the question is whether the building is in jeopardy of being lost; inquired whether the owner's application addresses the shoring up of the building. The Project Manager responded that the current application includes a foundation replacement and structural stabilization; stated he has not been in the building for over six years; the building appears to have a five - degree tilt towards the back; the permit addresses using the structure as a tearoom, which prompted the involvement of the Health Department. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see other City departments engaged in the process, particularly the Planning Department. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner was hung up with the County Health Department and whether the City could concurrently process the rest of the application The Project Manager responded Health Department requirements trigger other requirements; stated a straight rehabilitation application could move forward fairly quickly. Mayor Johnson inquired whether an application went to the Historic Advisory Board (HAB). The Project Manager responded that the HAB issued a partial demolition permit for up to 30% of the structure. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the application was for the historic Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 May 2, 2006 structure alone, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired why the owner has not moved forward. The Project Manager responded that the owner states that there are delays with the Health Department. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other City departments could help with the process to save Gim's historic structure. The Project Manager responded that he will work with the Planning and Building Departments to facilitate an evaluation of the structure. Richard W. Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), stated that AAPS voted to appropriate $500 toward painting Gim's historic structure if the owners cannot get the money themselves; stated he was the architect for the Independent Order of Odd Fellows facade renovation; facade grant money was not received until progress billings were provided. Councilmember Matarrese stated the library project and LEEDS required insulation is impressive; requested that a fireproof viewing port be considered; a building in Red Bluff had a glass cut out which provides a view of the fireproofing. The Project Manager stated that he would work with the other departments to find a solution. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a mock up could be placed in a shadow box and hung on the wall to look like a cross section of the walls layers. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the community should see proposed alternatives. (06- ) Announcement regarding need for Poll Workers and general voting information for June 6 election. Mayor Johnson read a statement regarding the election and urged voters to work at the polls; suggested that the information be posted on the City's website. The City Clerk stated that May 22 is the last day to register; election results will be available the morning after the election instead of election night because paper ballots will be used; the Registrar is working on solutions for the November election. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 May 2, 2006 Mayor Johnson inquired whether early voters would be voting by machine. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the equipment will be borrowed from San Diego and meets the requirement for paper audit trail. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the partial refund of Appeal Fees [paragraph no. 06- ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she watched the meeting and read the minutes; inquired whether or not she could vote on the minutes, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Minutes [paragraph no. *06- ]. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *06- ) Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings held on April 18, 2006. Approved. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Minutes.] ( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,530,239.69. ( *06- ) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2006. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 for May 16, 2006. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to Approve Contract Amendment for Library Artist Yuki Nagase. Accepted. ( *06- ) Recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 2, 2006 Maintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2, Zone 5 - Harbor Bay Business Park. Accepted. ( *06- ) Resolution No. 13946, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 20, 2006 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2." Adopted. ( *06- ) Resolution No. 13947, "Preliminarily Approving Annual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 20, 2006 - Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove)." Adopted. ( *06- ) Resolution No. 13948, "Authorizing the City Manager to Apply to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a Targeted Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Incentive Grant and to Enter Into All Associated Agreements." Adopted. (06- ) Recommendation to authorize the partial refund of Appeal Fees to the Planning Board and to the City Council collected in Fiscal Years 2004 -05 and 2005 -06. The Planning and Building Director provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated that staff came up with an approach to resolve the issue in a fair and equitable manner. Councilmember deHaan stated a proper decision has been made to provide a refund. Councilmember Daysog stated other people will be very happy in addition to the three appellants whose fees were reduced; the refund is good news. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06- ) Resolution No. 13949, "Approving the Endorsement and Supporting the 2006 California State Library Bond (Proposition 81)." Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 5 Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Library Building Team, presented the Council with buttons supporting Proposition 81; stated she attended the Annual California Library Association and School Library Association Legislative Day in Sacramento; Proposition 81 is a $600 million Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act; Proposition 81 is not polling well; the City could benefit from State bond funds to renovate the two branch libraries or build another branch library; noted over 3 million native English speaking Californians are functionally illiterate; urged adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Daysog inquired what underlying revenue stream would pay for the Bond. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the indebtedness is taken on by the State; stated Proposition 81 has the same structure as Proposition 14. Councilmember Matarrese stated the New Main Library would not be possible without Proposition 14; support is needed for Proposition 81; the West End has an old branch library and Bay Farm Island has an undersized branch library. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Resolution No. 13950, "Supporting a "Buy Alameda" Philosophy." Adopted. The Acting Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the centralization for purchasing goods and supplies is being handled by the Finance Department, to which the Acting Assistant to the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether hiring a buyer was anticipated. The City Manager responded expanding the responsibilities of existing staff is being considered. Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 5% preference would work on a $10,000 purchase. The Finance Director responded written proposals would be requested Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 May 2, 2006 on large purchases; a local vendor would have the advantage if they were within 5% of the lowest bidder. Councilmember Daysog stated the 5% preference is still competitive. The Finance Director concurred with Councilmember Daysog. Mayor Johnson stated local merchants would not have the opportunity to submit proposals if centralizing is not done. The Finance Director stated local vendors are now being asked whether goods and services can be provided; previously business license printing was sent to a Santa Clara firm; now the Contract has been awarded to a local vendor. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a workshop will be held with the theme of doing business with the City. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City, including Alameda Power and Telecom and the Housing Authority, is partnering with business associations to provide a workshop entitled "How to Do Business with the City of Alameda." Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a separate workshop for services. The Finance Director responded goods and services both would be discussed. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Public Works purchases would be included, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the emphasis on competition; the 5% preference is reasonable for local businesses. Councilmember deHaan stated the 5% preference has been in place for quite a while; Contracts have multiple phases; smaller Alameda companies may only be able to fulfill one segment; inquired whether businesses could team together. The Finance Director responded that the City reviews the proposals and suggests other vendors that may be available to provide the missing piece; stated the City does not provide direction. Councilmember deHaan stated the City should encourage teaming with other companies; a "Hire Alameda" philosophy is also important; traffic would lessen with a "Hire Alameda" philosophy. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 2, 2006 Mayor Johnson suggested moving up the paragraph regarding the City of Alameda being a consumer of local businesses; stated the City is falling short in buying in Alameda despite Municipal Code Section 2 -62; the opening paragraph should include a statement regarding the City of Alameda buying locally and promoting Alameda businesses as shopping destinations; language should be added to the last paragraph regarding the Finance Department's efforts to show that the "Buy Alameda" philosophy is not just based on the Alameda Municipal Code; the April check register shows that $20,340 out of $4.5 million was spent in Alameda. The Finance Director stated that $91,151 was spent locally; $159,000 was purchased in Alameda County and approximately $2 million was spent outside Alameda County. Mayor Johnson stated many goods and services are not available in Alameda; there is a better chance of a business locating in Alameda if businesses know the City will do business locally; the City is trying to provide an incentive for businesses to move to Alameda; $4.5 million is a lot of public money; she seldom sees outside businesses supporting the City's non - profits. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a trend has been seen. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the trend does not move positively in one direction; one month may have an increasing proportion of payment to Alameda businesses and the next month may be different. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with Mayor Johnson's recommendations. The Acting Assistant to the City Manager summarized the Mayor's recommendations to move up the paragraph regarding the City of Alameda being a consumer of business, include the City of Alameda buying locally and promoting Alameda businesses as shopping destinations, and include the Finance Department's efforts. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- ) Resolution No. 13951, "Establishing Guiding Principles for the Management of the City Fleet Vehicles and Equipment." Adopted. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 8 Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Public Works' budget would have a line item for equipment replacement. The City Manager responded that a separate page would be provided which would summarize all the recommended equipment to be replacement. Councilmember Daysog stated the Police and Fire Departments have specialized vehicles. The Public Works Director responded that Public Works would work directly with the Police and Fire Departments to identify special vehicle needs. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether bio- diesel fuel is possible with the existing fleet. The Public Works Director responded he has not looked into the matter; electric and hybrid vehicles seem to be viable; hydrogen fuel is being investigated. Councilmember Daysog requested that bio- diesel fuel alternatives be reviewed. The Finance Director stated bio- diesel fuel was considered for the standby generators at Alameda Point; the engine needs to be diesel; all of the rubber has to be retrofitted to not ruin the engine. Councilmember deHaan stated the funding stream becomes very important with expensive vehicles such as a fire truck; obtaining the Navy vehicles helped in some areas; a purchasing procedure is needed; replacement criteria has been established with the Police Department. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the Resolution; the Resolution defines how to get a handle on fleet management; suggested that additional language be added to the Resolution; alternative fuel vehicles need to be identified; the first choice should be electric; the next choice should be hybrid, if electric is not practical; alternative fuel vehicles would be the next choice; the last choice would be status quo; choices need to be spelled out so that there is a decision tree; boats are not on the list; the City has two ferry boats and a fire and police boat. Mayor Johnson stated the City also has a Trident ship. Councilmember Matarrese stated a watercraft inventory is needed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 9 The Public Works Director stated the Police and Fire Department boats are included in the list, the ferry boats are not; he would investigate the Trident ships. Councilmember Matarrese stated Bay Crossings had an article on the debate of the ability to construct a solar ferry; proposed additional language to the Resolution and rewording of Point D to address order of choices; stated he would rather pay Alameda Power and Telecom for clean fuel than pay the oil companies. Mayor Johnson stated that she liked the terms of the Resolution; electric vehicles make sense for making trips back and forth from the Base to City Hall; it is important to identify vehicle use to see what type of vehicle is most efficient; other cities have a greater variety of vehicles. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the University of California at Riverside has a fleet of Gem cars; Gem cars could be used by Building Inspectors, Interoffice Mail and the Library Department. Councilmember Daysog stated there is general excitement regarding alternative fuels; guiding principles for managing the fleet are before the Council; alternative vehicle discussions would be helpful but should be a separate item. The Public Works Director stated alternative vehicle discussions have started. Councilmember Daysog stated that he wants to know why an alternative is practical or impractical at some point. Councilmember deHaan stated the City declared itself as an electric City in 1996; the City partnered with Calstart to move forward; efforts evaporated in 1999; the commitment was not fulfilled; Alameda Power and Telecom can be the City's leader; electric cars are not being made in the United States; the electric car philosophy should be revisited. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution adding the following language: WHEREAS there have been dramatic increases in the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel, and there are anticipated continued long term escalation of these prices due to supply; and WHEREAS the current use of gasoline and diesel fuels have adverse effect on the environment while alternative cleaner fuels such as electricity from Alameda Power & Telecom, bio- diesel, ethanol mix gasoline and compressed natural gas are available; Point 3 -D: electric vehicles are the first choice with hybrid vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles as the second and third choices if Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 10 the first or second choice is not practical due to functional requirements. Councilmember deHaan stated that he was not sure about the proposed priorities; natural gas conversion is one of the methods discussed; approximately one -third of the City's fleet is industrial type vehicles. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether establishing the overall fleet inventory issue would be included, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the electric vehicles would be purchased with the Transportation for Clean Air money. The Public Works Director responded the Transportation for Clean Air money provides only 20% funding; the funding was changed to Congestion Management Air Quality money which covers 90% funding and has a lower threshold for air emissions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (06- ) Duane Rutledge, Dublin, stated that he was selected in the Bayport housing lottery; the process has been unclear; the selection, points and evaluation have changed over time; he has been involved in the process for two years; he was told his lottery number is being changed because now the selection committee does not recognize volunteer work in the City as legitimate work; his application was stalled due to staffing problems; he is not receiving clear answers or information on the appeal process. The Assistant City Manager stated applications were processed by the Alameda Development Corporation which had staff turnover; the City is aware of Mr. Rutledge's situation and will ensure the process is clearly explained and understood. Councilmember Daysog requested the Council be kept informed. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested Mr. Rutledge be provided contact information. The Assistant City Manager stated the Development Services Housing Development Manager is responsible. Councilmember deHaan requested the City Manager's office be the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 May 2, 2006 point of contact. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested Council be provided a detailed report on the outcome, what happened, and why it happened. Councilmember deHaan stated the report should include how other applicants could be affected. Councilmember Matarrese stated the report should address and provide exhibits of what applicants are told when applying, documentation of the point system, how points can change and what documentation goes with point changes. The Assistant City Manager stated what applicants were told might be difficult to reconstruct due to ADC staffing changes. Councilmember Matarrese stated anything in writing should be provided. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a system; applicants should receive a handout clearly spelling out the requirements. The Assistant City Manager stated the City used ADC as a contractor. Councilmember Matarrese stated there should be contractor performance requirement. Mayor Johnson inquired whether ADC contracted with the City or the developer, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the City. Mayor Johnson stated the City should have specifications in place when entering into a contract. Councilmember deHaan stated the evaluation process should not have changed; consistency is all- important; further requested staff to review the recourse and how applicants appeal the matter to a different level. (06- ) Mark Irons, Alameda, stated that he has concerns about the use of alternative fuels; the process for reviewing use of alternative fuel vehicles should be thorough; questioned whether electric vehicles should be selected over hybrids; hybrids are the fastest way to stop the greenhouse effect. Mayor Johnson stated the City's electric power is over 80% green; inquired whether Mr. Iron's had concerns with using electric vehicles given Alameda's circumstance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 May 2, 2006 Mr. Irons responded inspectors driving around the Island in electric vehicles would not be a problem; electric vehicles have limitations; if the country wanted to change fire engines to bio- diesel, it could be done. Councilmember deHaan requested that Adoption of Resolution Establishing Guiding Principles [paragraph no. 06- ] be reopened; stated priorities should not be set completely; the City will use the greenest technology. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06- ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Film Commission. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the terms were staggered. The City Clerk responded the staggering would be done by lottery after nominations are made. Mayor Johnson nominated: Jeanette L. Copperwaite (Historic Experience); Kenneth I. Dorrance (Retail /Property Management); David J. Duffin (Film /Video Industry); Liam Gray (Arts /Cultural); Orin D. Green (Film /Video Industry); Patricia A. Grey (Film /Video Industry); Tamar Lowell (Water /Marina Based Experience); Theatte (Teddy) B. Tarbor (Community- art - large). Mayor Johnson stated that committees will be established. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the nominated applicants were Alameda residents, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated only two commissions allow non- residents; the Charter requires applicants to be residents. Mayor Johnson stated that all Film Commission categories require Alameda residency; a non - resident can fill the Business Association Executive Director seat if the category cannot be filled by a resident. Councilmember deHaan stated he leans toward applicants being residents. Mayor Johnson stated the issue could be considered; she prefers Alameda residents. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 13 Councilmember Daysog stated that existing non - resident Board Members and Commissioners should not be removed from their positions. Councilmember deHaan requested the City Clerk to review the resident status of other Board Members and Commissioners. Mayor Johnson stated that the Council can change the Municipal Code; the Code is intended to be flexible. Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda Report on the matter. Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be brought back to the Council for discussion. Councilmember deHaan requested the Council address commission residency requirements. (06- ) Mayor Johnson reported that she attended the Northern California Power Agency /Northwest Public Power Association Western Federal Policy Conference in Washington D.C.; the conference is an opportunity for small utilities to express their voice in Washington D.C.; Alameda Power and Telecom has to keep up on State and federal policy and legislative issues. (06- ) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated pending federal legislation regulating cable companies included the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) overseeing trenching in City streets; the proposal takes away local control; requested information; stated the City should be actively lobbying against such regulations. The City Manager stated lobbying against the regulations was consistent with a resolution Council previously adopted; an update would be provided. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:45 p.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 2, 2006 14 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 2, 2006- -7:31 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:46 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (06- CC /06- CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting held on April 18, 2006. Approved. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes Councilmembers /Board Member /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore - 1. AGENDA ITEM (06- CC /06- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2006 Third - Quarter Financial Report and approve Budget Adjustments. The Finance Director provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired what was the booking fee reimbursement which results in a $200,000 reduction. The Finance Director responded that the State appropriates a reimbursement for fees that the City pays to the County for booking prisoners; the State took the reimbursement fee out of the General Fund budget during Fiscal Year 2006; the reimbursement fee will be included in the Fiscal year 2007 budget. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission May 2, 2006 1 Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- CC /06- CIC) Discussion of City Attorney /General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT (06- CC) There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the special joint meeting in sympathy and respect for the family of Fire Captain Rick Zombeck at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission May 2, 2006 2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- -MAY 3, 2006- -6:29 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:46 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Agenda Item (06- ) Recommendation to reject the bid, adopt Amended Plans and Specifications in accordance with amended CalTrans requirements, and authorize second call for bids on an expedited basis for the Fernside Pedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11- 02 -15. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation explaining the project must be re -bid because CalTrans adopted a new Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. Mayor Johnson stated that she is disappointed with what CalTrans has done; the City has been caught in the middle; going out to bid again costs the City and contractors; CalTrans should have given notice or a grace period; the City is stuck and has to rebid; suggested the City Manager be directed to send a letter to CalTrans expressing the Council's thoughts and requesting consideration if there are similar changes in the future. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether CalTrans provided written authorization to go forward with the plans and specifications when the project went to bid. The Public Works Director responded the City has an E76 which authorizes the City to bid; the fine print on the form allows CalTrans to make last minute changes. Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review whether the form requires CalTrans to notify the City of changes; stated the City should build a case and demand the [cost] difference; the bid numbers are now public; CalTrans is costing the City money; the City should be made whole if CalTrans is obligated to inform the City of changes; the City should present Cal Trans with a bill rather than expressing disappointment. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2006 1 The Public Works Director stated the City's DBE consultant indicated that approximately 100 cities are in the same position as the City of Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated the requirements should not change for bids that have already gone out. The Public Works Director stated staff tried to reason with CalTrans; an April 14 e -mail stated CalTrans was considering the [DBE program] change, but instructed the City not to use sample boiler plate language provided; CalTrans implied there would be a grace period; finding out about the change yesterday was a shock. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the documentation be provided to the City Manager to start building the City's case. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is nothing to prevent CalTrans from changing regulations again; the letter should explain the position the City was put in by CalTrans and put CalTrans on notice that the City would like accommodations and a grace period in the future. Councilmember deHaan stated there could be costs involved with the delay in the project or a cost differential in bids; there is an unfair advantage. Mayor Johnson stated contractors put together bids in good faith; CalTrans causing the City to reject bids is unfortunate for the City and the contractors. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation with the direction that the City go forward with a strong rebuttal. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2006 2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- -MAY 3, 2006- -6:32 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (06- ) Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant: Yvette Stairrett; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda. (06- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding disposition of the claim; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, direction was given to the Risk Manager regarding the disposition of a claim; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiator. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2006 May 11, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 147992 - 148422 E15019 - E15141 EFT 209 EFT 210 EFT 211 Void Checks: Amount 1, 309, 991.35 76,592.35 595,485.05 6, 305, 385.11 6,200.00 140988 (749.50) 148043 (44.90) 147127 (466.65) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibley Cr Council Warrants 05/16/06 8,292,392.81 BILLS #4 -B 05/16/06 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: May 16, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Quarterly Sales Tax Report For the Period Ending March 31, 2006 BACKGROUND This report relates to the sales tax transactions during October through December 31, 2005. These tax transactions are the basis for sales tax revenues received during the January through March 31, 2006, time period. These transactions and resulting revenues occurred within the context of a state economy that continues to grow. During this period, the Bay Area experienced 5.2 percent growth while statewide growth was 6.2 percent. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The sales transactions for this period increased by 1.9 percent or $25,860 from the same quarter of the prior year. The key gains were in food products (4.3 percent or $13,491) and transportation (3.5 percent or $12,379). The key declines came from construction ( -2.9 percent or $1,567) and miscellaneous ( -24 percent or $1,834). The top 25 businesses represent 47 percent ($645,000) of the quarter's sales transactions. The top 100 businesses represent 74 percent ($1,006,862) of the quarter's sales transactions. Report 4 -C 5 -16 -06 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers A comparison of the key economic categories follows: May 16, 2006 Page 2of3 The transportation category, while increasing overall, experienced decreases in auto parts /repair and new auto sales. These decreases were more than offset by an increase in Miscellaneous Vehicles (primarily yacht sales) of 67.3% ($36,755). The business -to- business category experienced no change. However, the decreases in office equipment and electronic equipment were offset by the increases in light industry and leasing. A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter of 2005 as compared to the same period in 2004 follows. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Total Sales Transactions 4th Quarter 2005 4th Quarter 2004 Percent Change Economic Category Total Percent of Total Total Percent of Total 3.5% Transportation $371,143 27.3% $358,764 26.9% 4.3% Food Products $327,362 24.0% $313,871 23.5% 0.9% General Retail $325,718 23.9% $322,764 24.2% 0% Business -to- Business $273,076 20.1% $272,980 20.4% (2.9)% Construction $52,215 3.8% $53,782 4.0% (11.1)% Miscellaneous $11,934 0.9% $13,427 1.0% 1.9% Total - Quarter $1,361,448 100.0% $1,335,588 100.0% The transportation category, while increasing overall, experienced decreases in auto parts /repair and new auto sales. These decreases were more than offset by an increase in Miscellaneous Vehicles (primarily yacht sales) of 67.3% ($36,755). The business -to- business category experienced no change. However, the decreases in office equipment and electronic equipment were offset by the increases in light industry and leasing. A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter of 2005 as compared to the same period in 2004 follows. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Percent Change Total Sales Transactions Geographic Areas 4th Qtr 2005 Total Percent of Total 4th Qtr 2004 Total Percent of Total (8.2)% Park — North of Lincoln $251,326 18.5% $273,694 20.5% (5.4)% Park — South of Lincoln $155,736 11.4% $164,641 12.3% 0.4% Alameda Towne Centre $272,720 20.0% $271,624 20.4% 4.2% Webster — North of Lincoln $79,847 5.9% $76,649 5.7% (6.8)% Webster — South of Lincoln $30,986 2.3% $33,257 2.5% 10.7% All Other Areas $570,833 41.9% $515,723 38.6% 1.9% Total - Quarter $1,361,448 100.0% $1,335,588 100.0% It is important to note that Alameda Towne Centre and Park St. both had major construction work in progress during the fourth quarter of 2005. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT Sales tax revenues received in the third quarter of FY06 as compared to the third quarter of FY05 decreased by five and one half percent. The payments by the State Board of Equalization are advanced based on estimated sales tax reports with a balancing payment at the end of the quarter which creates a lag in reported revenues for the City. The sales tax projections for the 2005 -06 Budget have taken into consideration these trends and appear to be on track. We continue to monitor this revenue source closely. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending March 31,2006. J B/d I G:\ FINANCE \COUNCIL\2006 \022106 \Sales Tax 4th Quarter.doc Respectfully submitted, uelle -Ann Boyer Chief Financial Officer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: May 16, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita, City Manager Re: Recommendation to Allow the City Manager to Enter into a Contract in the amount of $173,075 with EIP Associates, Inc. for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report BACKGROUND In 2005, the City entered into a City /Developer agreement with Harbor Bay Associates, Inc. for expedited processing and environmental review for a proposed General Plan Amendment/ Rezoning and Development Agreement Amendment. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In 2004 the City received two responses to a request for proposals for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, one from Lamphier & Associates and the other from EIP Associates, Inc. Based on the original proposals, staff selected EIP Associates, Inc. due to their familiarity with noise issues associated with the Oakland International Airport and their lower cost. The processing of the project was suspended while the City and the developer engaged in extended discussion regarding the applicability of the existing Development Agreement to the proposed project. Harbor Bay associates have now elected to proceed with the proposed reimbursement. Staff and the consultant have refined the proposal, which now includes additional noise and traffic analysis. The contract amount is $173,075 and includes a scoping session, preparation of the draft and final documents and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. It is anticipated the environmental review process will be completed by December 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This contract is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Report 4 -D 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Page 2 May 16, 2006 Harbor Bay Associates, Inc. has entered into a City /Developer agreement to reimburse the Planning and Building Department for the contract and associated staff time. No additional funding would be required. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract in the amount of $173,075 with EIP Associates, Inc. Attachment: Contract By: Cynfhia Eliason Supervising Planner Respectfully submitted, Cathy oodbury Planning & Building Director cc: Tim Hoppen, Harbor Bay Associates, Inc. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CONSULTANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of May, 2006, by and between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and EIP Associates, a California corporation whose address is 1200 Second Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein. D. City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for the environmental review of Village 6: Residential Development on North Loop Road, Harbor Bay Business Park upon the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the day of May, 2006, and shall terminate on the 28th day of February, 2007, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT: Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount set forth in Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the City, to be taken from the Building Services deposit account, GPA04- 0002. 4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE : Consultant and City agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall not be responsible for delays which are beyond their reasonable control. 5. STANDARD OF CARE: Consultant agrees to perform all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco Bay Area and agrees that all services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the City nor have any contractual relationship with City. 6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES: City and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from City to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA): Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable IRCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any noncompliance of this provision by Consultant. 8. NON - DISCRIMINATION: Consistent with City's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated. Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 9. HOLD HARMLESS: Indemnification: Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards, commissions, officials, employees, and volunteers ( "Indemnitees ") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "), arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not be obligated to defend or indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. 10. INSURANCE: On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of Alameda by certified mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to City and licensed to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the City as additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates. A. COVERAGE: Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: (1) Liability: Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate - all other Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above. (2) Automotive: Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum limits: Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence or Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence B. SUBROGATION WAIVER: Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he /she has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. C. FAILURE TO SECURE: If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have not been paid. D. ADDITIONAL INSURED: City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability and workers' compensation insurance, required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured. An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE: The insurance limits required by City are not represented as being sufficient to protect Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine adequate coverage for Consultant. 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain governmental decisions or serve in a staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section 18700 of the California Code of Regulations. 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant from City under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly furnished to City by Consultant. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL: Unless prior written consent from City is obtained, only those people and subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall be subject to each provision of this Agreement. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES: Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, a City Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 15. REPORTS: A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of City. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute appropriate documents to assign to City the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this Agreement. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall become the property of City, and all publication rights are reserved to City. B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by City in execution or implementation of: (1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired; (2) Completion of the original Project by others; (3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or (4) Other City projects as appropriate. C. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original, which shall be single sided. E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by Consultant without prior approval by City. 16. RECORDS: Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of City or its designees at all proper times, and gives City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by City's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the City's supplemental examination or audit of the records discloses a failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse City for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit. 17. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda CA 94501 Attention: Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: John Steere Senior Project Manager EP Associates 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 -3621 18. TERMINATION: In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 19. COMPLIANCES: Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 20. CONFLICT OF LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those authorities.) Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of Alameda, State of California. 21. ADVERTISEMENT: Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from City to do otherwise. 22. WAIVER: A waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 23. INTEGRATED CONTRACT: This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 24. INSERTED PROVISIONS: Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party. 25. CAPTIONS: The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF ALAMEDA A Municipal Corporation By City Manager RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By _ %/ Cathy , ' odbury Planni g & Building 1 irector APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney G:\ PLANNING \ADMIN \CONTRACT\2006\EIP contract.doc CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California r�n� ^^ 11 County of <�"' On ft personally Date ? 2a-)6 appeared before me, Vt'41D tit) Name and Tiae of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Note/Public") ,,,forriAt. ANTONIO LOCATELLI .wo,-. Comm. #1457347 r^ ;S i U NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA V' ell City & County of San Francisco trraan My Comm. Expires Jan. 18.2008 Place Notary Seal Above Name(s) of Slgner(s 1(fY,j ❑ personally known to me roved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence Ito be the person(s) whose nam - �,. re subscribed to the within instrument and ack owledged to me that he /they executed the same it( er /their horized capacity{ies) and that by er /their signaturee,(,$) -on the instrument the perso i-(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed the instrument. WITNE my and and offici OPTIONAL seal. Signature o Notary Public Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here G:`✓: �✓ L�✓ S�✓: �✓: �✓ 2�✓: �✓ i�✓: �✓ �✓ 4�✓: �✓': �✓ 4�✓ 6�. ii�6` ri: �✓: �✓ i�✓ i�✓ G�✓': �✓ i�✓ i�✓ i�✓: ��!: �✓ i�✓ G�✓> �✓ i�✓ 2�✓ 4� ✓:�✓:�✓$�✓G�✓L�s�✓:�✓G�✓<� ✓G� © 2004 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313 -2402 Item No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free 1- 800 - 876 -6827 Ms. Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner Mr. John Torrey, Contract Planner City of Alameda Community Development Department April 21, 2006 is email) Proposal for CEQA Services for the Harbor Bay Residential Development on North Loop Road Dear Cynthia and John: EIP Associates is pleased to have the opportunity to submit this fifth revised proposal to provide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) services for the Harbor Bay Residential Development on North Loop Road in Alameda. This revised proposal is based on our prior knowledge of the project area and comparable projects, five sets consultations with you to refine the scope, and comments recently furnished by the V. Pattel of the City's Public Works Department (March 21). Revisions to the original edition of this proposal and work plan are based on City staff comments and are provided in tracked changes mode for easy comparison. Our extensive experience with similar projects, as well as prior environmental review services for this project, will allow us to complete the necessary documents in a timely, complete, and cost - effective manner. EIP Associates offers an impressive track record for preparing environmental documents in the San Francisco Bay Area. Our multidisciplinary technical skills including noise and air quality expertise, and our experienced professional staff enable us to deal with a broad spectrum of environmental issues. Since our establishment in 1968, we have been privileged to work on hundreds of projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, many for repeat clients. EIP has conducted environmental review for multiple housing projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the past three years alone, we have completed or are working on a Mitigated Negative Declaration /Environmental Assessment for the HOPE VI Coliseum Gardens residential project in Oakland, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alliance for West Oakland residential project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mandela Gateway residential project in Oakland, a Supplemental EIR for a residential project at the El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Sierra Vista Townhouses in Mountain View, and about ten multifamily residential projects in San Francisco. In addition, we prepared the Lakeshore Avenue Noise Report for Alameda County (examining construction impacts from installation of a replacement pipeline), the BART - Oakland Airport Connector EIS /EIR, and the UCSF Long Range Development Plan EIR that included a proposed Harbor Bay campus site in Alameda. Finally, EIP recently completed a peer review of Noise and Air Quality Analysis for the Airport Development Plan for the Oakland International Airport SEIR, including the proposed project site, and are thus intimately familiar with environmental issues in the project site and vicinity. City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 2 Our proposal for the Harbor Bay Residential Development includes a description of the Project Team; Understanding of the Project; Scope of Work; Environmental Review Process; Cost Estimate; and Schedule. UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT Harbor Bay Isle Associates is proposing the development of 104 single - family residential units on the north side of North Loop Road. The 12.2 -acre site is located on the southwest side of Bay Farm Island in the City of Alameda. The proposed project would consist of 30 by 70 -foot lots containing two- story, detached units of approximately 1,800 to 2,600 square feet. Each unit would be equipped with two parking spaces in an enclosed garage, along with visitor parking designed to meet City parking code requirements. Access to the residential units would be provided via private roads extending from North Loop Road. The project would also include a small open space area with children's play equipment. The project site is located within the Harbor Bay Business Park and is approved for development in compliance with conditions of Planned Development for the Park Portion of Tract 4500, according to the City of Alameda Planning Board Resolution No. 1203 and the City of Alameda Planning Board Resolution No. 1533. The project site is currently zoned Commercial- Manufacturing combined with Planned Development (C- M -PD). As part of the proposed project, the project sponsor would apply for a General Plan Amendment and a zoning change to allow for residential uses on the site. The project sponsor would also request an Amendment to the 1989 Development Agreement for Harbor Bay Isle, in order to amend entitlements and conditions for the proposed project site that currently stipulate the site for Business Park uses as part of future buildout for all remaining land in Harbor Bay Isle. In addition, the project sponsor would obtain an Amendment to the 1980 Agreement with the Port of Oakland to permit residential uses in an area that was previously restricted to non - residential use, due to its proximity to the Oakland Airport. Lastly, the project would entail obtaining an Amendment to the codes and restrictions of the Harbor Bay Business Park to de -annex the area from the Harbor Bay Business Park. The site currently consists of 11- parcels and would need to be subdivided to accommodate the 104 residential lots, open space, and private roadways for implementation of the project. Project construction would occur in a single phase following receipt of the necessary planning approvals and building permits. C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 3 SCOPE OF WORK The project sponsor has requested a scope and budget to provide environmental clearance for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In accordance with this request, EIP has prepared this scope assuming all environmental topics from the CEQA Environmental Checklist will be addressed, with each topic covering baseline conditions, potential changes to those baseline conditions from adoption of the proposed project, and recommendations to mitigate project- related changes that are considered significant. In addition, the EIR will present and evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives in order to provide the City with an understanding of the environmental tradeoffs among project alternatives. Conclusions regarding the potential traffic impacts would be based on the traffic study prepared by Abrams Associates for the project sponsor; and conclusions for acoustic and air quality impacts would incorporate prior review of site air quality and noise conditions completed by EIP for the Oakland Airport SEIR. In addition, other relevant information from the Oakland Airport SEIR and information provided by the project sponsor and the project sponsor's attorney will be integrated where applicable. Major efforts for the EIR will focus on land use changes and general plan policy implications, acoustic impacts, and air quality impacts. We are committed to producing a highly defensible CEQA document, with particular attention to the noise and land use policy impacts as attested by the enclosed work plan. Preparation of the EIR will include the following tasks, that are keyed to those in the attached cost estimate: Task 1. Scoping, Startup and Meetings A kickoff meeting of the project team, including City staff, EIP and Harbor Bay Isle representative(s) team will be held to discuss this scope of work, affirm the key issues, identify data sources, and review the City's procedures for implementing CEQA, including significance criteria, process for administrative reviews, and number of public meetings during the review of the draft document and during approval of the EIR. EIP assumes three additional team meetings throughout the process, for a total of four team meetings. EIP will also participate in one public scoping meeting, the purpose of which is to give public agencies and the community an opportunity to identify environmental concerns that should be addressed in the EIR. Input from the scoping meeting, in combination with the responses to the Notice of Preparation, will provide direction and priorities for the environmental analyses. . Deliverables: Scoping meeting; draft and final NOP. C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Flarbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 4 Task 2: Prepare Project Description Based on a preliminary Project Description and discussions with City staff, and our kickoff meeting, EIP will prepare a draft project description for the project. This description, per CEQA requirements, will address the following topics: Project Location; Project Overview and Background; Project Objectives; Project Characteristics; and Project Approvals. Deliverables: Draft Project Description Task 3. Administrative Draft EIR EIP will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR for review by City staff. The document will be prepared pursuant to the CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and any implementing guidelines from the City of Alameda. The EIR must analyze each issue required by the City at a level adequate to fully assess the potential effects and, if necessary, to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact to a level of non - significance. As noted by the applicant, an EIR, as compared to an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND), provides more comprehensive coverage of environmental issues because it documents baseline conditions, considers alternatives to the proposed project, and allows for longer public scrutiny of the draft document. As such, the burden of proof that the document is inadequate lies with project opponents. With an IS /MND, project opponents need only make a "fair argument" that there may be a significant impact to cause the IS /MND to be elevated to an EIR. The following topics will be discussed in the EIR: Transportation — A revised Draft Transportation Study will be prepared by Abrams Associates for the proposed project in consultation with the City. EIP will review and summarize the findings of the transportation study (see Transportation Work Plan, Attachment 2), update information as necessary and incorporate all relevant information into the EIR. It is expected that the study will address key intersection levels of service (applying both the City and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency standards of significance, the latter for facilities of regional significance) for existing conditions, project conditions (including existing conditions plus approved projects plus the proposed project), and future cumulative conditions. In addition, the study should evaluate construction - related impacts, parking impacts, effects on alternative modes of travel (bus, ferry, bicycles, and pedestrian facilities), ingress /egress and internal circulation design issues, and transportation impacts of the various alternatives. Finally, the study should provide traffic input to the air quality and noise analyses by EIP; this would include intersection approach volumes, average daily traffic volumes and speeds along roadways of interest, and fleet mix. Potential mitigation measures should be identified for all potentially significant transportation impacts. C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 5 Land Use, Plans and Zoning — EIP will provide a discussion of uses on the project site and in the vicinity and the effects of the proposed land use changes. EIP will identify the General Plan policies applicable to the site and City Planning Code requirements related to the proposed project. The consistency of the proposed project with these policies and regulations will be evaluated. Given that the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and would introduce housing into an area traditionally viewed as commercial and light manufacturing, the assessment of the project's direct and indirect effect on future land use will be particularly important. In this vein, it will be necessary to comment on the likelihood for the project to induce other lands in the area to convert to residential uses. As part of this analysis, EIP will also assess the project relative to the applicable policies and standards from the Oakland Airport Land Use Plan, and report on reviews /comments offered by the Airport Land Use Commission. The City's Planning Board has expressed concerns about compatibility of new residential development with existing and proposed light industrial uses including Cheese Works and a Peet's Coffee plant. Noise — The noise setting will briefly summarize acoustical terminology and the physical characteristics of sound, the nature of environmental noise, and the relevant federal, state and local standards for assessing noise impacts. It will also present information on the existing noise environment on /around the project site gathered through site- specific noise monitoring. The number and duration of the short -term noise measurements taken by EIP will be sufficient to characterize the ambient noise levels on /around the site and to provide calibration data for the traffic noise model. Monitoring locations will be selected based on the location of present and future noise- sensitive receptors (e.g., existing and proposed residences, recreational areas, etc.). Construction- related activities will be evaluated for their potential to substantially disturb nearby sensitive noise receptors, such as existing residences and schools adjacent to the proposed project site. EIP will quantitatively evaluate potential noise impacts from construction based on the construction schedule /phasing and available data on construction equipment noise generation. Significance will be determined by relating project construction impacts to the requirements of the City's General Plan noise policies and City Noise Ordinance. Measures to minimize construction noise impacts will be proposed. For the purpose of determining aircraft noise impacts, noise measurements, noise contours, and single -event noise analyses from the Oakland International Airport Development Program SEIR and other relevant studies will be used to characterize existing and future ambient noise conditions in the project area. Similarly, any information on aircraft vibration effects presented in these sources will be summarized. EIP will also review the aircraft noise study conducted for the project sponsor by C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 6 Charles M. Salter Associates and will use factual data it presents to supplement information obtained from other sources. No additional noise measurements or computer modeling will be conducted with regard to aircraft noise impacts. Using traffic volumes on the major thoroughfares around the site from the project transportation study, the US Department of Transportation's Traffic Noise Model (TNM) will be used to estimate traffic noise at residential and other noise - sensitive uses in the project area. Potential noise impacts from existing stationary sources of noise in the project vicinity will also be assessed. . The combined noise impacts of vehicles and aircraft will also be evaluated. EIP will use the following specific source documents as references: • Oakland International Airport Development Program SEIR (September 2003) and 2006 Oakland Master Plan Noise Studies • Harbor Bay Village Six — Noise Exposure Assessment (Salter Associates Oct. 13, 2005) • Oakland Airport's Analysis of Single Event Nighttime Noise and Sleep Disturbance (Airport Noise Symposium, March 1, 2004) • Quarterly Noise Monitoring Reports (Port of Oakland; available from their website) • Community Noise (World Health Organization 1995) • General Health Effects of Transportation Noise, (US DOT, June 2002) We will also refer to other relevant EIRs, noise studies, aircraft noise exposure data from SFO and SJC airports (available from their websites), and records of public complaints for past five years . Noise levels will be compared to the appropriate federal, state and local noise standards. Information obtained from published scientific research on the short- and long -term public health effects of aircraft noise will also be presented and the expected project aircraft noise levels will be interpreted in the light of such findings. Where significant impacts are found, appropriate mitigation strategies (e.g., sound barriers /berms, increased landscaping buffers, increased sound insulation, alterations to building massing and orientation) will be developed where feasible Mr Quality — The air quality setting will incorporate by reference other air quality sections from recently certified EIRs in the area and summarize regional and local meteorological C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 7 conditions, ambient measurements from the nearest air monitoring station, and the state and federal policy and regulatory framework for air quality planning. The impact analysis will consist of a review of effects caused during construction phases; analysis of new emissions caused during occupation and use of the project; and a discussion of potential effects of toxic air contaminants associated with airport operations. The Oakland Airport SEIR and peer review of the SEIR air quality analysis will be used to discuss the potential effects of toxic air contaminants on future residents as a result of airport equipment. In all cases, the method of analysis and selection of significance thresholds will rely on methodologies that are documented in the Bay Area Aix Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, revised in 1999. Estimates of the new motor vehicle emissions associated with project trips will be prepared using the Abrams Associates final transportation study and the Air Resources Board's URBEMIS 2002 model. This model will provide a quantitative assessment of project emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), small particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen (a precursor to ozone) from all motor vehicle trips generated by the project. The results will be compared to the BAAQMD's quantitative thresholds for significant impacts. An analysis of local ambient carbon monoxide impacts will also be conducted (if heavily congested traffic would occur; that is, if intersection levels of service were at LOS D or worse). Up to four intersections would be evaluated for changes in ambient CO concentrations for the 1 -hour and 8 -hour averaging periods (fewer than four intersections would be studied if fewer intersections are projected at LOS D; if more than four intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or worse, the four worst intersections in terms of critical volumes, delays, and proximity to sensitive receptors would be assessed). The projection of future CO concentrations at nearby intersections will be derived using the state - approved CALINE4 air dispersion model. The results will be compared to state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. Aesthetics — EIP will describe the visual setting in the project vicinity, focusing on existing views from residences and schools adjacent to the proposed project site. Photographs will be used to characterize the visual setting and development pattern in the project area. The City's General Plan will be consulted to identify any significant viewsheds or scenic corridors in the project vicinity. Given the pending development of Business Park uses in the surrounding area, the project would not be expected to significantly change or impede view corridors or vistas from public areas. This characterization will be documented in the EIR and substantiated with site visits and information from existing data developed for the project area. Cultural Resources — The EIR will discuss the potential for the proposed project to disturb prehistoric, historic archeological, and historic resources based on data from previous EIRs for the area. The Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State will be consulted for an archival and literature search of potential cultural resources in the vicinity. C: \Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 8 The EIR will propose standard mitigation measures to address the accidental discovery of cultural resources during project construction. Hazardous Materials — On the basis of information available from the City of Alameda and previous EIRs completed in the project vicinity, the EIR will discuss the potential for public health risks at the site from groundwater or soil contamination from past and existing land uses and /or poor hazardous materials "housekeeping" practices at the site or from nearby uses. This information will be augmented by any Phase I environmental site assessments that may have been prepared for the project site and can be made available to EIP. In addition, EIP will consult the State Cortese list to identify whether there are any hazardous waste disposal facilities in the vicinity that could expose future project site residents to public health impacts. As required by the CEQA Environmental Checklist, this section of the EIR will also address potential safety impacts from aircraft operations at the nearby Oakland Airport. The Airport Land Use Plan and the Airport Master Plan SEIR contain discussions of airport safety zones and suitable land uses in the vicinity of the airport; these discussions will be summarized in the EIR. Geology and Soils — The EIR will evaluate soil conditions in the project area based on readily available information from the City of Alameda, the California Geological Survey, and previous EIRs completed in the project area. The Geology and Soils section would also include a discussion of regional seismic hazards related to the San Francisco Bay Area and to localized seismic hazards affecting Alameda, such as liquefaction and settlement. Development standards contained in the California Building Code serve to assure an acceptable level of risk in areas subject to seismic or geotechnical hazards. Furthermore, geological reports required of subdivisions recommend detailed measures to address site - specific soil and geotechnical conditions; these measures are typically included as conditions of project approvals. The combination of adherence to the California Building Code and incorporation of geologic report recommendations as conditions of project approval serve to mitigate most, if not all, potential soil, geotechnical, and seismic risks. A statement regarding the absence of farmland and the absence of suitable agricultural soils, based on the County's Faun land Mapping Program, will be included to acknowledge that the proposed project would not result in the loss of farmlands, the conversion of agricultural soils, or the premature conversion of lands under Williamson Act land contracts. Water Resources /Quality — The EIR will evaluate hydrologic conditions in the project area based on readily available information from the City of Alameda, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and previous EIRs completed in the project area. The Water Resources and Water Quality section would also include a discussion of flood hazards from storms and tsunami run -ups, based on information from C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 9 the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ABAG, and the Office of Emergency Services. Changes in the site's impervious surface characteristics will be identified and estimates of stormwater runoff will be developed. Since stormwater drainage facilities are already in place in the project area, stormwater capacity will be documented and compared to the additional runoff that would be attributable to the proposed project. Potential impacts to water quality from construction activities and pollutant loading in the stormwater runoff will also be discussed. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting requirements that call for preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that incorporates Best Management Practices will be presented and are expected to reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant. In addition, EIP will document and compare stormwater capacity along North Loop Road, assuming that supportive documentation is available. We will also discuss pertinent RWQCB "c3" requirements and will provide treatment mitigation measures to ensure compliance with these requirements (per the City's O &M agreement for Urban Runoff) to the extent that site specific design information is available. Biological Resources — Given previous environmental review of resources on the site, wetlands and endangered /threatened species are not likely present. Data from previous EIRs completed in the project area, a site visit by a qualified biologist, and appropriate consultations with the resource agencies, the California Native Plant Society, and the Audubon Society will form the basis for the biological setting. To the extent that the project site contains trees, the State Fish and Game Code provisions to protect birds and nests and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be summarized. Potential impacts to birds covered by these laws and regulations, as well as to trees that might be protected by local preservation ordinances will be presented, along with appropriate mitigation measures. Population and Housing — A brief discussion of the City's demographic profile will be presented. The change to the existing population base and the current housing stock as a result of the proposed project will be described. Particular emphasis will be placed on the extent to which the project may directly or indirectly induce substantial growth into this area of the City. Public Services — The proposed project involving 104 single family residential units at the site would increase demand for public services, particularly for fire protection services, police services, schools, libraries, parks and other community facilities. EIP planners will interview the local service providers to identify existing service levels, proposed improvements to existing public facilities, and factors to estimate future public service demand. The estimates of demand will be reviewed with the service providers to determine the need for new or altered facilities, the construction of which could pose a significant environmental impact. Utilities — The proposed project involving 104 single family residential units at the site would increase demand for public utilities, particularly for water, wastewater, solid waste, C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 10 and gas and electricity. EIP planners will interview the local utilities (i.e., East Bay Municipal Utility District, Alameda County Waste Management, and Pacific Gas & Electric) to identify existing service levels, proposed improvements to the existing infrastructure, and factors to estimate future utility demand. The estimates of demand will be reviewed with the utilities to determine the need for new or altered facilities, the construction of which could pose a significant environmental impact. Sanitary Sewage, flow quantity contributor versus existing zoning usage (Harbor Bay Business Park) will be compared. Other CEQA Topics — As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion in this section of the EIR will address significant and unavoidable effects, cumulative effects, growth- inducing effects, and effects found not to be significant. Alternatives — CEQA requires an assessment of project alternatives that can reduce potentially significant effects identified for the proposed project and feasibly attain most of the project objectives. The determination of these alternatives is appropriate once the initial assessment is complete, and there is an understanding of those impacts that are considered significant. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a reduced project alternative that recommends fewer units. An environmentally responsive alternative may be considered that weighs multi - family residential development to reduce the footprint of urbanization and potential re- design elements that may reduce project noise impacts. Finally, CEQA requires that a No Project Alternative be evaluated, which assumes that the general plan designation and zoning remain the same and that the site would be developed as a business park. For purposes of the cost estimate, four alternatives, including 1) a No Project Alternative, 2) a reduced development alternative, 3)a mixed use alternative, and a 4) Noise and Site Responsive Alternative have been assumed.. Deliverables Ten (10) copies of the ADEIR with appendices and an electronic version of the same. Task 4. City Staff Review /Draft EIR The Administrative Draft EIR prepared pursuant to Task 2 will be forwarded to City staff for their review and comment. EIP will revise the document to address staff's comment and prepare a screencheck City staff review. This version will include the Summary, which will not be included as part of the Administrative Draft. Following incorporation of staffs final revisions, EIP will prepare a camera -ready public review Draft EIR in hard copy and in digital format on a CD for printing and distribution by the City. Appendices that are typically attached include the NOP and responses to the NOP and various technical studies that the City feels is important for the public and the decisionmakers to have readily available for review. C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLKI4\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 11 Deliverables. 50 bound copies and one copy ready master of the DEIR with appendices and an electronic version of the same. Task 5. Public Review and Public Hearing Following release of the Draft EIR, a minimum 45 -day review period is required to permit citizens and agencies with an opportunity to comment on the document. During or shortly after the review period, it is expected that the City will hold a public meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIR. At the public meeting, EIP Associates will be available to make a brief presentation, supporting staff's report to the Planning Commission, and to respond to questions from the Commissioners. Task 6. Administrative Draft Responses to Comments EIP will prepare responses to comments received during the public review period. The "Responses to Comments" document will contain sections introducing the purpose of the report, listing the written and oral commentors, reproducing the comments and offering responses, and identifying revisions to the Draft EIR, if necessary. EIP will assume primary responsibility for drafting the responses, although Abrams Associates will address most of the transportation- related comments and the City may be asked to assist with policy or procedural comments. Deliverables. Ten (10) copies of the AFEIR and an electronic version of the same. Task 7. City Review /Final Responses to Comments The Administrative Draft Responses to Comments will be provided to City staff for review and comment. Based on staff's comments, the responses will be finalized. This document combined with the Draft EIR constitutes the Final EIR; EIP does not intend to reproduce the Draft EIR with the modifications in response to comments incorporated. EIP will provide the City with a camera -ready hard copy and a digital version on a CD for printing and distribution. It is expected that the City will perform all the necessary noticing and filings. Deliverables 50 bound copies and one copy -ready master of the FEIR with appendices and an electronic version of the same. Task 8. Certification Hearings and Mitigation Monitoring Plan It is assumed that EIP will attend up to two public meetings (one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council) to approve the environmental document. C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 12 As part of the project approval, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must be prepared. EIP will prepare this program in a tabular format, identifying the proposed mitigation measures from the Final EIR, monitoring actions to ensure that the measures are implemented, the party(s) responsible for implementing the mitigation measure, and the timeframe or milestone by which time the measure shall be implemented. Deliverables. One copy ready master of the MMRP and an electronic version of the same. Task 9. Team Meetings throughout the Process EIP will attend up to four team meetings with the City staff and with other member of the project team to discuss project issues, milestones, schedule or strategy. EIP and City staff will determine the exact timing of project meetings. Task 10. Project Management and QA /QC The Project Manager will be responsible for project coordination activities and will maintain QA /QC requirements for document preparation, and will monitor schedule and performance for all EIR work tasks. Project management subtasks also include maintaining internal communications among EIP staff and subconsultants and with the Client and other team members through emails and frequent phone contact, as well as the preparation of all correspondence. He will coordinate internal staff responsibilities, project guidance and analysis criteria. Subtasks also include project administration activities. COST ESTIMATE We are providing the City with this fourth revised cost estimate for the EIR. We have discussed with City staff revisions to the October 2005 work plan that centered on providing a more robust noise, land use, water resources /quality, and alternatives analysis. We also noted that the prior scope lacked a project management task and cost estimate. Revisions to the prior scope relative these issues are shown in tracked changes mode in this letter and by highlighted cells in the enclosed Cost Estimate. Assumptions: The amount of time and effort required for the project still depends on a number of variables, some of which are outside of EIP's control. For example, the length of time the City staff takes to complete their review could reduce or extend the project timeline. Similarly, changing the project description or introducing new issues mid- project can also affect time and cost. Cost assumptions are provided below. • The scope of the environmental document will be consistent with the issues discussed in this proposal. • The project description is firm and unchanged during the preparation of the EIR. C: \Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\ -Iarbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 13 • Camera -ready graphics for the project description are provided by the project applicant. • EIP will attend up to four team meetings with the City, with the client and its representatives, are assumed in our estimated cost. Additional meetings will be provided on a time- and - materials basis as needed. • Discussions with City staff leading up to the delivery of the administrative drafts sufficiently inform staff of the key issues, the analytic methodology, significant criteria, and results, such that staff reviews do not involve substantive revisions. • City staff will be responsible for producing, noticing, and distribution of documents. • The public review process will involve a moderate level of comment (up to 50 discrete, non - repeating comments) focused on key issues. • Only those aircraft noise data /issues specifically identified in this scope of work will be evaluated. If requests are received for consideration of additional issues or data, a scope augmentation will be requested. • EIP will attend three public meetings and one scoping session. We are confident that we can continue to maintain a cost - effective approach to the project. SCHEDULE The Administrative Draft EIR can be produced within three months of notice to proceed and provision of a complete project description to EIP. Assuming a two -week review period by City staff of the Administrative Draft EIR, the Draft EIR will be published within four weeks of City staff comments. (This period includes the production and review of the screencheck draft.) Following the 45 -day review period, the Administrative Responses to Comments document will be provided to staff within three weeks provided that the assumption about the number of comments is reasonable. Assuming a two -week review period by City staff of the Administrative Responses to Comments, the Final EIR is projected to be completed within three weeks of receipt of staff comments. Public meetings to certify the EIR could occur with one month. The entire process, assuming things progress smoothly, would be completed in approximately nine months. Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this proposal. We are looking forward to working with your team in the coming months. Please feel call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc City of Alameda April 21, 2006 Page 14 John Steere Senior Project Manager Attachments (Budget spreadsheet and schedule) CC: Charles Abrams. C:\Documents and Settings\21509\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK14\Harbor Bay Proposal - 5th revise.doc Prepared by EIP Associates 5/9/2006 Cost Estimate and Assumptions (5th Revised: 4- 21 -06) Green: reduced budget; Yellow: Increased 11seJedlso� 1 .n V fA $ 4,360 m ao 69 $ 12,580 0 0 N f9 0 0 m fA (00 04 CO 63 $ 5,4601 $ 3,520I $ 23,5601 $ 143,470 N t:�`0, 0 0 '� 00, 8 V � N bsyt. - 1 KYi�� "+ l` w^�«3Y to 1` in O ti Assigns Jed)soo 00 0 w m r N— V fA to 69 $ 14,450 $ 5,900 $ 2,240 $ 3,670 $ 2,320 000000000 0-N — NN f9 fA OD on co NO0 0 N ,-N0 CO 69 69 69 cA fA di 00 ON O N fA EA 0 CO N 69 000 w' 0 b'i 0 0 N 01 co 0 fA EA EA 00 00 01ck N N tH FA $ 3,520 $ 23,560 $ 143,470 $ 143,470 @;.x0 0)0 01. '''.'411 U al, ..F: Nsel Jed sJnOH NCV a N N- 0N <0 0, V ,- N' N0 0 CO 0 d0n(00 N0 N N N 00 N oddng /solyde 11 angeJ)slulwpy N O N CV V N O o N, 69 to 6wssaooJd pJOM 11 angeJISEUlwpy 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 OS en ss >? �a- R6O1O1g ISgU81O$ ale!OOSSy N 0 0 O 0 o N 69 69 IeUO!SSO)OJd leluaouoJnu3 V V N 0 ON 0 0 V C9 CV 0 0 0 NNE 0 V N�� N N N V N V O NNN O O 0 N �-- 0 0 000 69 69 , ..; (lsl6oloJP ,4y OV /aS!ON) lsguaPS JOluag N 0O CO NI. N V CO N N 0 En CV 69 cry Ja6eue' loafad ' o c N N 0 0 N N N N N N N V N N N CO N .- V N CO N .- N .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V N '0 ' q JOPOJ14 4OafOJd Cl N V N N V CO V N V CO N CO 0 OD 0 0 CO CO 69 0 Task 2 Project Description Administrative Draft EIR Noise Air Quality Traffic Land Use Visual Quality Cultural Resources Biology Geology Hydrology Community Services Utilities Other Topics Altematives Internal Review /Production Public Review Draft Screencheck based on City Comments Draft EIR Public Review and Public Hearing Administrative Responses to Comments Bracket/assign comments Draft Responses Internal Review /Production Final EIR Certification /Hearings /MMRP Hearings (2) MMRP Team Meetings Throughout Process _ Project Management (15-20% of labor budget Total Hours Hourly Rate Total EIP Labor Experts S g��s"sr . z4 "A Supptes/Copies/Miscellany ` / I -( ANN WTI o Cfr� x *r�,- t • r fix✓ Abrams anaraec l 4 [EIP Administration Fee (15 %) Total Budget a N H 0 10 1- 0 N 1- n 0 1- 0 0 I- 0 0 IT ° y IT Prepared by EIP Associates 5/9/2006 EIP ASSOCIATES HOURLY BILLING RATES AND JOB CLASSIFICATIONS Principal $160 - $240/hour Technical Director / Program Manager $150 - $190 /hour Senior Manager / Senior Scientist /Senior Engineer $110 - $155/hour Senior Planner / Senior Administrator Associate Manager / Associate Scientist / $85 - $120/hour Associate Planner / Associate Administrator Environmental Professional / Planner / Scientist / Administrative $65 - $95/hour Technician/Analyst / Clerical $45 - $60/hour Mileage is charged at $.445 /mile Photocopies are charged at $.15 /page Direct costs (i.e., travel, meals, lodging, auto rentals, printing, graphic materials, specialized computer charges, etc.) and subcontractor fees are subject to a 15% administration charge. 1. This schedule is effective from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007, and subject to revision thereafter. 2. Invoices will be submitted by Consultant monthly. Client will notify Consultant, in writing, of any objections to an invoice within ten (10 days) of the date of invoice. Otherwise, the invoice shall be deemed acceptable by the Client. Amounts indicated on invoices are due and payable immediately upon receipt. The Client's account will be considered delinquent if Consultant does not receive full payment within thirty (30) days after the invoice date. 3. A service charge will be applied at the rate of 1.0 percent per month (or the maximum rate allowable by law) to delinquent accounts. Payment thereafter will be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid by the Client. 4. EXPERT TESTIMONY. For situations requiring expert testimony, services will be provided at 1.5 times the standard hourly rates listed, with a minimum of four hours. Time spent in preparation and review of testimony will be charged at standard rates. Documentl CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 16, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Appropriate $16,000 from the Curbside Recycling Fund and Award A Contract in the Amount of $72,582, Including Contingencies, to AJW Construction for Installation of Rubberized Sidewalks, No. P.W. 02 -06 -05 BACKGROUND On March 21, 2006, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized call for bids for Installation of Rubberized Sidewalks, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. The project consists of the installation of 3,950 square feet of rubberized sidewalk at 29 locations throughout the City, where roots from the street tree have raised the concrete sidewalk. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive prices, specifications were provided to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal. Bids were opened on Thursday, April 20, 2006. Bidders for the lowest to the highest for total project cost is as follows: Bidder Location Bid Amount MW Construction Oakland, CA $69,125.00 Sposeto Engineering, Inc. Union City, CA $76,630.00 J.A. Gonsalves & Son Construction, Inc. Napa, CA $82,950.00 J.J.R. Construction, Inc. San Mateo, CA $84,727.50 Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to MW Construction for a total cost of $72,582, including a five percent contingency. The City will purchase the material for $34,125 and supply it to the contractor for their use. The total cost for the project is estimated at $110,000, including $3,293 for staff inspection and contract administration. This contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The project is budgeted as CIP# 82 -02 with $94,000 available from a Recycled Product Purchase grant administered by the County of Alameda. The additional $16,000 required to fully fund the project is available in the Curbside Recycling Fund (Fund 273). Report 4 -E 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action will not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Page 2 May 16, 2006 Appropriate $16,000 from the Curbside Recycling Fund and award a contract in the amount of $72,582, including contingencies, to AJW Construction for installation of rubberized sidewalks, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by, Pete J. Cari�.i Public Works Superintendent MTN:PC:gc G: \pu bworks \pwadmin\ COUNCIL\ 2006 \051606\rubbrsdwlkaward. doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 16, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $436,000, Including Contingencies, to SpenCon Construction, Inc for Fiscal Year 2005 -06 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, No. P.W. 03 -06 -06 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute up to Four Additional Contract Extensions BACKGROUND On March 21, 2006, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized call for bids for Fiscal Year 2005 -06 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, No. P.W. 03- 06 -06. The project will provide 7,500 linear feet of sidewalk related repairs and improvements throughout the City, where roots from the street tree have raised the concrete sidewalk, including a pilot program to develop a comprehensive approach to repair sidewalk, curb, gutter, street restoration, and root pruning of street trees. The bid documents also included "Add Alternate A" to determine a cost for the removal of five street trees, should the pilot program determine tree removal was required to adequately repair the sidewalk and any tree to be removed would be replaced by the City. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive prices, specifications were provided to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal. Bids were opened on Thursday, April 27, 2006. Bidders for the lowest to the highest for total project cost is as follows: Bidder Location Base Bid Add Alternate A Total Bid Amount (Base + Add Alt. A) SpenCon Construction, Inc. Foster City $396,235 $7,280 $403,515 Sposeto Engineering, Inc. Union City $689,815 $3,600 $693,415 Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the base bid only, for a total price of $436,000, including a 10% contingency. Award of "Add Alternate A" is not recommended. The contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. As with the previous Report 4 -F 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May 16, 2006 annual sidewalk repairs project, the construction contract for this project allows the City Manager to authorize up to four contract extensions, with an automatic adjustment for inflation, based on the satisfactory performance of the Contractor. The ability to extend the construction contract will enable the City to expedite sidewalk repairs as funds become available. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The project is budgeted as CIP# 82 -02, with funds available in the Fiscal Year 2005 -06 capital improvement budget. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action will not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Award contract in the amount of $436,000, including contingencies, to SpenCon Construction, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2005 -06 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, No. P.W. 03 -06 -06 and authorize the City Manager to execute up to four additional contract extensions, with an automatic adjustment for inflation, based on the satisfactory performance of SpenCon Construction, Inc. Respect 1p,� submitted, Matt ew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by, C.W. Chung Associate Civil Engineer MTN:CC:gc G : \pubworks \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2006 \051606 \portlandcementaward.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 16, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Resolution to Request Allocation by Metropolitan Transportation Commission of $219,186 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funding for the Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements Near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11 -02 -15 BACKGROUND On May 3, 2006, the City Council adopted amended plans and specifications and authorized call for bids for Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements Near Lincoln Middle School (SR2S), No. P.W. 11- 02 -15. The project consists of construction of landscaped planter extensions to replace the existing flexible orange traffic delineators, extension of bike lanes from Encinal Avenue to Washington Street, elimination of existing right turn and concrete median at the southwest corner of Fernside Boulevard intersection with Encinal Avenue, installation of in- pavement lights at the school crosswalk across Fernside Boulevard at San Jose Avenue, construction of sidewalk and corner extensions including new wheelchair ramps and truncated domes at new corner extensions, installation of new irrigation system, reconstruction of the failed areas including grinding and overlay with asphalt concrete of Fernside Boulevard from the Encinal Avenue intersection to Washington Street, and traffic signal relocation at the southwest corner of Encinal Avenue intersection with Fernside Boulevard. DISCUSSION The Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements Near Lincoln Middle School project is included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) list of final projects for Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funding. This funding source is available for projects that benefit pedestrians and bicyclists. Public Works staff has reviewed the project scope and determined that approximately forty percent of the project will exclusively benefit pedestrians and bicyclists and recommends that the City request allocation of $219,186 from our TDA Article 3 allocations. A resolution is required for this allocation request. Re: Reso 4 -0 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Page 2 Mayl 2006 The project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Section 15301 minor changes to existing facilities BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This project is funded under CIP 02 -98, with funds available from a Safe Routes to School grant and Measure B funds. Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds will provide additional funding required for the project. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to request allocation by Metropolitan Transportation Commission of $219,186 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funding for the Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements Near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11- 02 -15. Respectfully ,u. fitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Prepared by, Barbara Iawkins City Engineer MTN:BH:gc G:\pubworks\pwadmin\COUNCIL\2006\051606\MTC.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REQUESTING ALLOCATION BY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF $219,186 IN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 FUNDING FOR THE FERNSIDE BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS NEAR LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL (SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL), NO. P.W. 11 -02 -15 WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the E benefit and /or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional rrz transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC co — ® Resolution No. 875, Revised, entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of "TDA Article 3" funding; and 1- WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, the CITY OF ALAMEDA desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and /or use of pedestrians and /or bicyclists. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda: 1. that the CITY OF ALAMEDA declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code; 2. that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the CITY OF ALAMEDA to carry out the project; 3. that the CITY OF ALAMEDA attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and 4. that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of COUNTY OF ALAMEDA for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim. Resolution #4 -G CC 5 -16 -06 Attachment A REQUESTING ALLOCATION BY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF $219,186 IN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3 FUNDING FOR THE FERNSIDE BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS NEAR LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL (SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL), NO. P.W. 11 -02 -15 Findings 1. That the CITY OF ALAMEDA is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the CITY OF ALAMEDA legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in "Attachment B" of this resolution. 2. That the CITY OF ALAMEDA has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B. 3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right -of -way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s). 4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right -of -way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested. 5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). 6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s). 7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the CITY OF ALAMEDA within the prior five fiscal years. 8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.). 9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a "Class I Bikeway," meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual. 10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are ready to commence implementation during the fiscal year of the requested allocation. 11. That the CITY OF ALAMEDA agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public. Attachment B TDA Article 3 Project Application Form Fiscal Year of this Claim: 2006/2007 Applicant: City of Alameda Contact person: Barbara Hawkins Mailing Address: 950 West Mall Square, Room 110, Alameda, Ca 94501 E -Mail Address: Bhawkinsci.alameda.ca.us Telephone (510)749 -5863 Secondary Contact (in event primary not available) Wali Waziri E -Mail Address: wwazirie.ci.alameda.ca.us Telephone: (510) 749 -5853 Short Title Description of Project: Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements Near Lincoln Middle School Amount of claim: $ 219,186 Functional Description of Project: Pedestrian's access and safety to Lincoln Middle School and surrounding neighborhood will be improved by creation of wider sidewalk, corner extensions, and installation of new in- pavement lights on Fernside Boulevard at San Jose Avenue. Similarly deletion of the free right turn and the island at the southwest corner of Fernside Boulevard intersection with Encinal Avenue enhances the pedestrian and bicyclists safety and better vehicular maneuverability at this location. Bike lanes addition to both sides of Fernside Boulevard between Encinal Avenue and Washington Street provides for the bicyclists safety and bike lanes continuity. Overall, the project will significantly enhance pedestrians and bicyclists access and circulation. Financial Plan: List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, environmental, engineering, right -of -way, construction, inspection, contingency, audit). Use the table below to show the project budget. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. If the project is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for the other segments. Project Elements: TDA funding is requested for the construction elements of the project Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals TDA Article 3 YES $219,186 YES E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction). $219,186 list all other sources: YES G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name: YES 1. SR2S $331,663 $331,663 2. Measure B $156,851 $156,851 Totals $ 488,514 $219,186 $707,700 Project Eligibility: YES ? /NO A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date approval is anticipated). YES B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. YES C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the Internet via: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov). YES D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation). YES E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction). YES F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project (month and year) September 2006 YES G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name: YES I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: May 16, 2006 Re: Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2006 -07 and Set a Public Hearing for June 6, 2006 BACKGROUND On May 17, 1989, the City Council established a Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the Park and Webster Street business districts. The City contracts with the Park Street and West Alameda Business Associations (PSBA and WABA) to administer BIA funds collected from businesses in their respective areas. DISCUSSION The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 requires the Council to appoint an advisory board to make an annual report and recommendations to the Council on the proposed expenditure of BIA revenues. The appointment of the advisory board is accomplished through annual adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment in which PSBA and WABA are appointed as 2006 -07 advisory bodies for their respective geographic zones of the BIA. PSBA and WABA have prepared this year's reports pursuant to their existing BIA agreements with the City. The reports include itemized activities, revenue and estimated costs for FY 2006 -07 (Attachments A and B). Attachment C provides information that will enable business owners to determine the amount they will be assessed. After report approval, the Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for FY 2006 -07. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The renewal of the BIA for another year supports both the goals of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Vision through continued operation of the two business associations as per written in the A.M.C. Sec. 6 -7 et seq. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT BIA billing is done concurrently with Business License billing. Revenues from the BIA directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the Re: Reso 4 -H 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 16, 2006 Page 2 promotion of business and similar eligible activities. The impact on the General Fund will be in the form of Finance Department staff costs to process BIA billing and expenditure. This impact will be absorbed through Finance Department staffing proposed for funding in the FY 2006 -07 budget. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy an annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2006 -07; and 2. Set a public hearing for June 6, 2006. DK/LAL /DES /SGR:ry Attachments Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Businesspev r Sue G. R ss ell evelop cc: Economic Development Commission Park Street Business Association West Alameda Business Association nator pment Division Business Association April 18, 2006 Sue Russell Management Analyst Economic Development Division 950 West Mall Square, Room 215 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Russell: ATTACHMENT A As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA Report and accompanying 2006/2007 budget for our Association. We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2006/2007. We have provided a description of the activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget. This proposed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted this week and will be confirmed at the May 31, 2006 meeting. Based on revenue received to date, we anticipate 06 /07BIA revenue of $81,350 and a carryover of $9,000 resulting from cost containment by PSBA. This brings our 06/07 BIA budget to $90,350. We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material. Sincerely, Lars Hansson President Park Street Business Association 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, Suite 302 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 523 -1392 A California Main Street Program FAX (510) 523 -2372 PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007 INTRODUCTION: The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is recommending a BIA budget of $90,350 for the Park Street Business District for fiscal year 2006/2007. This recommendation is based on the estimate of the income derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 05/06 as well as a carryover from the 05/06 budget. The formulas, budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly Board of Director and committee meetings between December, 2005, and April, 2006. BUDGET: The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other three sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the Landscape and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development Services Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones, that are in line with the California Main Street Four -Point plan for revitalizing Main Street Cities. BOUNDARIES: We are not proposing any changes this year. ACTIVITIES: Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2006/2007. These activities are designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the vitality of the District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members' businesses, attract new businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in the Park Street District. Several projects are continuations from the 2005 /2006 fiscal year. PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2006/07 Membership Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Conduct Meetings a. Mixers b. Special Election Meeting (October) c. Informational Meetings at half of the meetings d. Holiday Party 2. Awards a. Continue current awards program (recognizing PSBA members and city staff) 3. Welcome New Members a. Update New Member Packet b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members c. Greet new members to the District with packets as they move into their business 4. Newsletter a. Continue mailing newsletter every month b. Update mailing list 2006/07 Design Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Design Guidelines a. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria b. Write Guidelines c. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval d. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council 2. Streetscape Phase II a. Work with City staff to plan Phase II b. Implement Phase II in the spring of 2007 3. Sign Ordinance a. Work with City Staff to ensure enforcement 4. News Rack Ordinance a. Work with City Staff to ensure enforcement 5. Promote Facade Grant Program a. Newsletter articles b. Outreach by Committee PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2006/07 Econ -Revi Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Assist with Business Recruitment a. Identify empty storefronts b. Work with City Staff and contract staff to promote the District as a positive business destination 2. Ordinances a. Vacant Buildings — begin discussions with City Staff to beef up ordinance b. Parking overlay to exempt developers in the District from in lieu parking fees. 3. Maintenance Continue current level of service — 7 days a week 2006/07 Promotions Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Continue Special Events a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend) b. Art & Wine Faire (last weekend of July) c. Classic Car Show (2' Saturday in October) 2. Promotions a. Shopping Guide produced once a year b. Continue to upgrade and update our Web Site 3. Print Advertising a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages b. Continue Holiday campaign c. Continue Alameda/Oakland Magazines campaign 4. Cable Advertising a. Continue ads for special events b. Continue ads for Holiday Program 5. Holiday Promotions a. Cable ads two weeks prior to Christmas b. Free parking all weekends after Thanksgiving c. Continue print ads in Chronicle, Journal, Sun, Alameda and Oakland Magazines METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget: See Exhibit A CONCLUSION PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development, Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic Business District. Exhibit A Park Street Business Association 2006/2007 BIA Budget Submission INCOME: BIA Projection Accumulated Carryover Total Income: EXPENSES: $81,350 $9,000 $90,350 Personnel Services Staff Benefits $25,000 Worker's Comp $17,300 Payroll Taxes $13,650 Sub Total $55,950 Membership Services Meetings /Training $2,500 Supplies $2,000 Printing $500 Postage $2,800 Sub Total $7,800 Indirect /Overhead Accounting/Audit $8,000 Rent $12,000 Utilities $1,600 Insurance $5,000 Sub Total $26,600 Total Expenses $90,350 ATTACHMENT B WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 523 -5955 west alameda@vahoo.com www.WestAlamedaBusiness.com PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2006 - JUNE 30, 2007 INTRODUCTION The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for the Webster Street Business District for fiscal year (FY) 2006 -2007. The formulas, budgets and proposed activities are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The Business Improvement Area (BIA) Budget was presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting April 19, 2006. PROPOSED CHANGES WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area. ACTIVITIES The following is a summary of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2006 -2007. These activities have been discussed at various Board and committee meetings. WABA's mission is to use these activities to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve Webster Street's historic character. We seek to generate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote members' businesses and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda. The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. It is estimated that there will be no carry forward from the 2005 -2006 budget. The estimated BIA revenue for 2006 -2007 is $32,000. The following are activities proposed for 2006 -2007. Several projects are continuations from previous fiscal years. 1 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING • Facilitate development of high - potential properties • Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses • Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects • Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity • Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda • Work with the City and others to implement the Strategic Economic Development Plan, including parking plan, catalyst project and business attraction strategies • Continue business retention activities DESIGN • Identify projects for facade improvements • Develop beautification program • Continue helping members with the Storefront Assistance Program • Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects • Work with City to implement recent changes to sign ordinance • Finish implementing the newsrack district • Fulfill public art requirements • Work with the City in accomplishing Phase II of the Webster Renaissance Project SPECIAL EVENTS • Participate in July 4th events • Produce advertising for the Association and businesses • Produce year -round Farmers' Market • Produce Thursday night Farmers' Market during summer months • Produce Concerts at the Cove • Produce Webster Street Wine and Dine Nights • Produce annual Halloween event • Produce 5th annual Peanut Butter Jam • Produce holiday bazaar and visit from Santa PUBLIC RELATIONS • Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda • Maintain contacts with key media representatives • Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses 2 • Continue implementing strategic marketing plan, including branding strategy, website, weekly columns and calendar of events, cooperative advertising program and business attraction strategy ORGANIZATION • Manage the administrative activities of the organization • Expand community and business participation with WABA • Develop and implement a fundraising plan, including Community Benefit District • Organize and host business and community events for members • Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff • Produce and distribute WABA newsletter • Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents • Distribute information door -to -door • Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in WABA's activities • Implement enhanced volunteer program, including recruitment, volunteer appreciation activities and training • Continue implementing enhanced maintenance program, including clean -up events, keeping up appearances awards and collaboration with City maintenance staff to resolve issues such as illegal dumping , littering and public health hazards METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget, see Exhibit A Assessment, see Attachment C CONCLUSION WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services, Public Works, Planning and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. Please visit the WABA website, www.westalamedabusiness.com, to see the many ways WABA promotes the West End. The BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West Alameda's historic business district. 3 West Alameda Business Association BIA BUDGET 06 -07 INCOME BIA Projection Accumulated Carryover Total Income EXPENSES PERSONNEL SERVICES PR Tax/Benefits SUBTOTAL MEMBERSHIP SERVICES Supplies Printing Postage Newsletter /website /Marketing Committees Equipment 32000 0 32000 1,000 3,000 1,000 9,000 1,000 0 SUBTOTAL 15000 INDIRECT /OVERHEAD Accounting/Audit Utilities Insurance Contingency SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL 4,000 5,000 7,500 500 17,000 32000 Exhibit A EXHIBIT C LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area: Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St. Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 odd/even Webster St. Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. 2501, 2521 Park St. Eagle Ave. 633 -707 odd/even Webster St. Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Haight St. 629 -728 odd/even Webster St. Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 odd /even Webster St. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St. Pacific Ave. 626 -730 odd/even Webster St. Park Ave. 1300 -1399 odd only Park St. 1400 -1499 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St. odd/even San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 odd/even Park St. Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2599 odd/even Park St. Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St. Times Wy. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 odd/even Park St. Page 1 of 2 G :\BUSASSOC\BIA\2006- 07 \LISTA &B- EXHIBIT C.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2006 -07 Webster St. 1345 -1999 odd/even Webster St. Memo: Benefit Area `B" Zone Only Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St. odd/even, 1600 -1999 Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd/even Park St. Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St. Page 2 of 2 G :\BUSASSOC\BIA\2006- 07 \LISTA &B- EXHIBIT C.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2006 -07 ATTACHMENT C ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON - RETAIL FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients and/or do not operate retail stores. Accountant Advertising Ambulance Answering service Architect Attorney Building maintenance Business services Construction Consultants Contractors Counselor Credit Unions with restricted membership Decorator Electrician Employment Engineer Gardener Graphic arts Handyman Health/Medical professions Importers Insurance Landscape Mail order Manufacturer Manufacturer's /sales reps Mortuary Newspaper publishing Nursing facility Painters Pest control Plumber Property management Real estate School /Instruction Security Stockbrokers Tax consultants Travel Veterinary Wholesalers Misc. professional /office BIA06- 07.doc 1 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE AREA A = $ 119.00 AREAB =$ 78.00 PRO -RATED FEES A $119.00 119.00 109.00 99.00 89.00 79.00 69.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 B $ 78.00 78.00 71.00 65.00 58.00 52.00 45.00 39.00 32.00 26.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service. Alarm and fire extinguisher service Appliance service Athletic/Health Club Auto glass Auto upholstery Auto wash/parking Auto repair Barber Beauty Cleaners Electronics service Furniture repair Hotel/motel Keys /Locksmith Laundromat/laundry Marine service Pet services Photography studio Printing Shoe service Storage Tailor Tattoo Upholstery BIA06- 07.doc 2 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 119.00 MAXIMUM = $1,576.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 78.00 MAXIMUM = $774.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $119.00 $78.00 119.00 109.00 99.00 89.00 79.00 69.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 78.00 71.00 65.00 58.00 52.00 45.00 39.00 32.00 26.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product. Alcoholic Amusement Antiques Appliances sales Art Auto dealer Auto stereo Auto supply Bakery Bar Bicycles Books Clothing Coin Computer sales Drug/variety Electronics sales Fishing Floor coverings Florist Food Furnishings Furniture Gasoline stations Gift Hardware Hobby Jewelry Magazines /newspaper sales Marine sales Market Medical supplies Music Nursery Office supplies /equipment Optical supplies Pet supply Product rentals Restaurant Shoe sales Sporting goods Thrift /used merchandise Theater /club BIA06 -07. doc 3 AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 237.00 MAXIMUM = $1,576.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 119.00 MAXIMUM = $ 791.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $237.00 $119.00 JULY 237.00 AUG 217.00 SEPT 198.00 OCT 178.00 NOV 158.00 DEC 138.00 JAN 119.00 FEB 99.00 MAR 79.00 APR 59.00 MAY 40.00 JUNE 25.00 119.00 109.00 99.00 89.00 79.00 69.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 Video Other retail goods ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS /UTILITIES FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 Banks Savings and Loans Credit Unions operating to the general public Utilities BIA06 -07. doc 4 AREA A & B = $ 791.00 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2006 -07 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 6, 2006 E o WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda LL. w Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City o Z of Alameda (hereinafter "Area "); and O a 1- WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, •a , included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this O Resolution as Exhibit A and C, respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C, respectively; and WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include the general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events which are to take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any public place in the Area, the furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the acquisition, construction or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City ") and the Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA ") and the West Alameda Business Association (hereinafter "WABA ") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business Improvement Area (hereinafter "BIA ") funds for their respective geographic zones of the BIA; and WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2005 -06 and describing the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2006 -07. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2006 -07; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit areas or change in boundary for June 6, 2006, at which time written or oral protests may be made; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing. Resolution #4 -H CC 5 -16 -06 ■ R•1 EXHIBIT A: Park Street geographic zone ! -3-PD 1 �^i zx ;741W4.-7=114111. e �(1 47 i trr� i r t°7444.Pw anti i i !>'E 111 II�IIIIlllG1�Il11Nl�1 = Cisun llIUI111I111 mart t Iiffl!1111HIIri nintal PARK STREET COMMERCIAL AREA A: Benefit Area A B: Benefit Area B r C., • • N.L M•2•PD ,. „°„ 11411111___ t . . a �j1n,-1lgllli -4., , III �IIII - � for ,-, if: I pI �IIIII11eg a y -�� ifilliliti -11 11'7' 1111 ninlI I!, I� . 116.411 4443 • \N EXHIBIT B: Webster Street geographic zone AI-1-PD If Fr '.•.•�µ? tia. rtal arc aFTDrm„ m.� 0 WEBSTER STREET CIAL AREA A :. Benefit Area. A B: Benefit Area B EXHIBIT C LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area: Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St. Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 odd/even Webster St. Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. 2501, 2521 Park St. Eagle Ave. 633 -707 odd/even Webster St. Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Haight St. 629 -728 odd/even Webster St. Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 odd/even Webster St. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St. Pacific Ave. 626 -730 odd/even Webster St. Park Ave. 1300 -1399 odd only Park St. 1400 -1499 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St. odd/even San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 odd/even Park St. Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St. 2300 -2599 odd/even Park St. Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St. Times Wy. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 odd/even Park St. Page 1 of 2 G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2006 -07\EXI-IIB C LIST OF ADDRESSES.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004 -05 Webster St. 1345 -1999 odd/even Webster St. Memo: Benefit Area "B" Zone Only Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St. odd /even, 1600 -1999 Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd/even Park St. Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St. Page 2 of 2 G: \BUSASSOC\BIA\2006 -07\EXHTB C LIST OF ADDRESSES.DOC F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2004 -05 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Interoffice Memorandum May 16, 2004 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Re: Background Debra Kurita City Manager Ordering Vacation of Abandoned Easements within the former East Housing and FISC Annex Property and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Bayport Residential Project) [ID No. 16 & 17] In May 2000, the City certified by Resolution No. 13216, the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed -Use Development ( "Project "). Pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, existing underground easements that run through the former East Housing and FISC Property need to be vacated in order to construct the second and third phase of the Bayport Residential Project. Discussion BKF Engineers of Pleasanton has prepared the plat and legal description for the vacation of each easement shown Attachments 1 and 2. BKF also prepared the design and construction documents and specifications for the removal of each storm drain and sanitary sewer system, which have already been removed. Harris Associates, the designated City Engineer on this Project, has reviewed and approved the legal description and plat map for the storm drain easement vacation. 15 ' Storm Drain Easement The abandonment of this easement is required in order to remove the encumbrance from title for a portion of Lots 96, 123, X, Y, AA and CC of Tract 7512 to the underlying fee interest. Title is presently vested in the City of Alameda and will be transferred to the Master Developer (FOCIL -BP, LLC) as part of the final residential land conveyance scheduled for June 2006. The easement, which previously served the interim detention basin, is no longer a necessary to the City and can be vacated. 10' Sanitary Sewer Easement The abandonment of this easement is required in order to remove the encumbrance from title for a portion of Lots S and T of Tract 7511 to the underlying fee interest, Title is presently vested in the City of Alameda and will be transferred to Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC. Re: Resos 4 -1 5 -16 -06 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 16, 2006 Page 2 Budget Consideration /Financial Impact There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating either easement. Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference The subject action conforms to the General Plan, Catellus Master Plan, Development Agreement and Disposition and Development Agreement. Environmental Review The subject action conforms to the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development. No additional CEQA review is required. Recommendation Adopt Resolutions ordering the vacation of the following abandoned easements: 1. 15' Storm Drain Easement Within Assessor Parcel No. 074 -1360- Portion of (24,25, 27, 29, 125 and152) and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Bayport Residential Project) [ID No. 16]; 2. 10' Sanitary Sewer Easement Within A.P.N. 074 -1356- Portion of (12 & 13) and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Bayport Residential Project) [ID No. 17], and Authorize the City Manager to execute, file, and record all necessary documents required to vacate and quitclaim the above referenced easements and remove the encumbrance from title to the underlying fee interest held by the City of Alameda. DK/LL /DC:dc Attachments: eslie A. Little, mitted, ment Services Director uglas H. C Redevelopment Manager 1) 15' Storm Drain Easement Quitclaim Deed 2) 10' Sanitary Sewer Easement Quitclaim Deed ATTACHMENT NO. 1 15' Storm Drain Easement Within Assessor Parcel No. 074 -1360- Portion of (24,25, 27, 29, 125 and152) Bayport Residential Project [ID No. 16] Quitclaim Deed RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Attention: City Clerk Recorded for the Benefit of The City of Alameda Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY A.P.N. 074 -1360- Portion of (24,25, 27, 29, 125 and152) QUITCLAIM DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, as of May 16, 2006, the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (the "City "), does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to: (a) - the COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body, corporate and politic, of the State of California, exercising governmental functions and powers, and organized and existing, under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) (the "CIC "), with respect to the CIC's underlying fee interests, all of its rights, title and interest in and to that certain temporary 15' storm drain easement affecting portions of Lots 96, 123, X, Y and AA, title to which is presently vested in City, situated in the City and County of Alameda, State of California, as shown on that certain tract map entitled Tract 7512 — Bayport, recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County, California on October 14, 2005 in Book 285 of Maps at Pages 86 through 98, inclusive, more particularly shown on Exhibit A attached hereto; and (b) FOCIL -BP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "FOCIL "), with respect to FOCIL's underlying fee interests, all of its rights, title and interest in and to that certain temporary 15' storm drain easement affecting a portion of Lot CC, title to which is presently vested in City, situated in the City and County of Alameda, State of California, as shown on that certain tract map entitled Tract 7512 — Bayport, recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County, California on October 14, 2005 in Book 285 of Maps at Pages 86 through 98, inclusive, more particularly shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this instrument to be executed the day and year written first above. ATTESTATION: CITY OF ALAMEDA By: By: Name: Debra Kurita Title: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Name: Title: This is to certify that the real property conveyed by this Quitclaim Deed to the CIC with respect to its underlying fee interest, is hereby accepted herein by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the CIC pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of CIC adopted on , 2006, and the CIC hereby consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: CIC: , 2006 Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda By: Attestation: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Dedicated Easement (Temporary 15' Storm Drain Easement, Tract 7512 - Bayport) [Attached] ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 255 Shoreline Drive Suite zoo Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 www.bkf com March 23, 2006 BKF Job No. 20010174 -30 15 ;FOOT WIDE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, Alameda County, State of California, being all of that certain 15 foot wide Storm Drain Easement, lying within Lot 123, Lot Y, Lot AA, Lot X, Lot CC and Lot 96, as shown on that certain Tract map entitled "TRACT 7512 - BAYPORT" filed for record on October 14, 2005 in Book 285 of Maps at pages 86 through 98, inclusive, in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of said Lot 123; thence along the easterly line of said lot, South 15 °17'49" East, 11.47 feet to the northeasterly corner of said easement and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said easterly line and the easterly line of said easement, South 15 °17'49" East, 15.00 feet; thence leaving the easterly line of said Lot 123 and continuing along the easterly line of said easement, South 74°42'11" West, 5.84 feet; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 2 °04'40" West, 59.99 feet; thence along the southerly line of said easement, North 87 °55'20" West, 618.32 feet; thence continuing along said southerly line, South 2 °04'40" West, 174.96 feet; thence continuing along said southerly line, South 55 °18'24" West, 59.37 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 96; thence along said southerly line of said easement and said Lot 96, North 87 °55'20" West, 25.06 feet to the most westerly corner of said easement; thence leaving said southerly line and along the westerly line of said easement, North 55 °18'24" East, 71.92 feet; thence continuing along said westerly line, North 2 °04'40" East, 182.45 foot to the northwesterly corner of said easement; thence along the northerly line of said easement, South 87 °55'20" East, 618.32 feet; thence continuing along said northerly line, North 2 °04'40" East, 56.01 feet; thence continuing along said northerly line, North 74°42'11" East, 16.87 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing an area of 13,980 square feet, more or less. A plat showing the above - described easement is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. Billy Ma in, PLS 5797 Expires: 06/30/2006 SAND BILLY MARTIN EXP. 6/30/2006 No. 5797 K:\MAIN12001 \010174 \0S Survey \Legals \ Abandonment \I5'SDE.doc "Exhibi Page 1 of 1 OF,CA0 .. /Zr v ecrw of Oe/ei Dated rv�- t- 162 1 " =80' TRACT 7'3E37 27] J\JJ J-J34 SILLY Mf 'TIN ? cA 0/2006 ... No. 5797 CAU6 a..0/ No. Bearing Length L1 S1517'49 "E 11.47' L2 S1517'49 "E 15.00' L3 S74'42'11 "W 5.84' L4 N87'55'20 "W 25.06' L5 N74'42'11 "E 1 6.87' 1.1-3,11KF Emma 11 nn MAXIM 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 LOT CC 112 NO2'04'40 "E 182.45' S02'04'40 "W 174.96' 113 114 LOT Z 111 110 109 r 0 X 115 116 117 LOT AA 15' STORM DRAIN --N1 EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED 106 105 104 103 J 97 107 108 LOT BB 102 101 100 98 255 SHORELINE DR SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 650 - 482 -6300 650 - 482 -6399 (FAX) 99 M„ OZ,g .L9N TRACT 118 2E35 J \jj ,Z213 1.9 119 120 121 or 122 LOT W 123 133 132 131 i.75,i2 2 130 X36 -9 129 128 127 126 125 124 POINT OF BEGINNING .( e102'044440 "E MPS� a �9' 99— 1 1 w` Stl�j so2`04 40"W TRUE POINT OF P,�1 BEGINNING Subject S.D.E. TO BE ABANDONED EXHIBIT B Job No 20010174 -30 By MK Date 03/23/06 Chkd.CC SHEET 1 OF 1 Parcel name: 15` S.D.E. North: 471728.6511 Line Course: S 15 -17 -49 E North: 471714.1825 Line Course: S 74 -42 -11 W North: 471712.6418 Line Course: 5 02 -04 -40 W North: 471652.6913 Line Course: N 87 -55 -20 W North: 471675.1091 Line Course: 5 02 -04 -40 W North: 471500.2642 Line Course: S 55 -18 -24 W North: 471466.4717 Line Course: N 87 -55 -20 w North: 471467.3803 Line Course: N 55 -18 -24 E North: 471508.3160 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 471690.6461 Line Course: 5 87 -55 -20 E North: 471668.2282 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 471724.2013 Line Course: N 74 -42 -11 E North: 47 1728.6520 East : 1483561.3632 Length: 15.00 East : 1483565.3205 Length: 5.84 East : 1483559.6874 Length: 59.99 East : 1483557.5124 Length: 618.32 East : 1482939.5989 Length: 174.96 East : 1482933.2555 Length: 59.37 East : 1482884.4409 Length: 25.06 East : 1482859.3974 Length: 71.92 East : 1482918.5308 Length: 182.45 East : 1482925.1457 Length: 618.32 East : 1483543.0592 Length: 56.01 East : 1483545.0899 Length: 16.87 East : 1483561.3622 Perimeter: 1904.10 Area: 13,980 sq. ft. 0.32 acres Mapcheck closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0013 Course: N 47 -07 -59 W Error North: 0.00091 East : - 0.00098 Precision 1: 1,464,700.00 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 10' Sanitary Sewer Easement Within A.P.N. 074 - 1356- Portion of (12 & 13) Bayport Residential Project [ID No. 17] Quitclaim Deed RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Attention: City Clerk Recorded for the Benefit of The City of Alameda Pursuant to Government Code Section 6103 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY A.P.N. 074 - 1356- Portion of (12 & 13) QUITCLAIM DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, as of May 16, 2006, the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (the "City "), does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "Bayport Alameda "), with respect to Bayport Alameda's underlying fee interests, all of its rights, title and interest in and to that certain sanitary sewer easement affecting portions of Lots S and T, title to which is presently vested in City, situated in the City and County of Alameda, State of California, as shown on that certain tract map entitled Tract 7511 — Bayport, recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County, California on July 9, 2004 in Book 277 of Maps at Pages 1 through 19, inclusive, more particularly shown on Exhibit A attached hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this instrument to be executed the day and year written first above. ATTESTATION: CITY OF ALAMEDA By: By: Name: Debra Kurita Title: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Name: Title: EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Dedicated Easement (Sanitary Sewer Easement, Tract 7511 - Bayport) [Attached] EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT All that certain real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: BEING a portion of LOT "S" and LOT "T ", as said lots are shown on that certain map entitled "TRACT 7511 — BAYPORT ", filed for record on July 9, 2004 in Book 277 of Maps at Pages 1 through 19, inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEING that portion of the 10' wide Sanitary Sewer Easement (10' S.S.E.) as shown on that certain map entitled "TRACT 7387 — BAYORT ", filed for record on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at Pages 1 through 34, inclusive, Alameda County Records, lying within said LOT "S" and LOT "T ", as shown on said map entitled "TRACT 7511 — BAYPORT ". A plat showing the above- described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Randall L. Heiken, P.L.S. 5756 License Expires: 6 -30 -2006 K: \Main11998 \980221 \Legals \vacate 1 O'SSE.DOC \Ap,L LANpsG 4/0 qG� CZ- LIC. No. 5756 (.6/30/2:6, Page 1 of 1 4.2g•o� Dated: -O 0 LEGEND APN - ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER M - MAP O.R. - OFFICIAL RECORDS S.S.E. - SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT - EASEMENT LINE LOT LINE oNt. LANDs & vc- co Q' 2 p. LIC. No. 5756 a) EXP. 6/30/2006 1 4- OF CAl • TRACT 73E37 BAYRCFrr 271 i\i1 1-34 -- rRAC -r 15J1- BAYPORT 277 j\>> 1-.j9 F3EMANDER F'ARCEL APN: 074 - 0905 -042 -1 1:41.9! II N TRACT 1511- rAYPORT 277 i\jJ 1-J19 SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PORTION OF 10' S.S.E. 271 M 1 -34 0 LOT Q HAILE STREET In F- 0 J LOT T LOT 47 1-- 0 J LOT 41 ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 4780 CHABOT DR., SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925/396 -7700 (TEL) 925/396 -7799 (FAX) K: \Sur9B\ 980221 \Dwc \PLA1S \vacatelO'SSEdwg 4/28/2006 0:10:56 AM POT EXHIBIT "B" SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT Drawn: RL Checked: WS Job No.:20010174 -30 Date:04 /26/06 Approved:RLH Sheet: 1 of 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF AN ABANDONED 15 FOOT STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 074 -1360- PORTION OF (24, 25, 27, 29, 125 AND152) AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS /BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 16] E o WHEREAS, the subject 15' Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. u. w 074 -1360- Portion of (24,25, 27, 29, 125 and152) (also being a portion of Lots o z 96, 123, X, Y, AA and CC, as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7512 — '°'' o Bayport, filed on October 14, 2005 in Map Book 285, pages 86 through 98, inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); itc and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for vacation of the existing storm drain easement in order to construct the third phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the existing storm drain easement which previously served the interim detention basin is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 -1360- Portion of (24,25, 27, 29, 125 and152) be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deed and plat and legal description to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 -1360- Portion of (24,25, 27, 29, 125 and152) and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. * * * * ** Resolutions #4 -I CC 5 -16 -06 nal BkF ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 255 Shoreline Drive Suite zoo Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 www.bkf.com March 23, 2006 BKF Job No. 20010174 -30 15 FOOT WIDE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, Alameda County, State of California, being all of that certain 15 foot wide Storm Drain Easement, lying within Lot 123, Lot Y, Lot AA, Lot X, Lot CC and Lot 96, as shown on that certain Tract map entitled "TRACT 7512 - BAYPORT" filed for record on October 14, 2005 in Book 285 of Maps at pages 86 through 98, inclusive, in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly corner of said Lot 123; thence along the easterly line of said lot, South 15 °17'49" East, 11.47 feet to the northeasterly corner of said easement and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said easterly line and the easterly line of said easement, South 15 °17'49" East, 15.00 feet; thence leaving the easterly line of said Lot 123 and continuing along the easterly line of said easement, South 74°42'11" West, 5.84 feet; thence continuing along said easterly line, South 2 °04'40" West, 59.99 feet; thence along the southerly line of said easement, North 87 °55'20" West, 618.32 feet; thence continuing along said southerly line, South 2 °04'40" West, 174.96 feet; thence continuing along said southerly line, South 55 °18'24" West, 59.37 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 96; thence along said southerly line of said easement and said Lot 96, North 87 °55'20" West, 25.06 feet to the most westerly corner of said easement; thence leaving said southerly line and along the westerly line of said easement, North 55 °18'24" East, 71.92 feet; thence continuing along said westerly line, North 2 °04'40" East, 182.45 foot to the northwesterly corner of said easement; thence along the northerly line of said easement, South 87 °55'20" East, 618.32 feet; thence continuing along said northerly line, North 2 °04'40" East, 56.01 feet; thence continuing along said northerly line, North 74°42'11" East, 16.87 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing an area of 13,980 square feet, more or less. A plat showing the above - described easement is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. LAND Billy Maf-tin, PLS 5797 Expires: 06/30/2006 K:\MAIN12001 \0 1 0 1 7410 8 Survey \Legals \Abandonment \15'SDE.doc BILLY MARTIN EXP. 6/30/2006 No. 5797 �G 0 "Exhibi Page 1 of 1 /Zr v�ecsv 2' Zeus' Dated 1"=80' rRACr 73 B7 27] J \J] j -'34 BILLY 9Uit,'Til� 0/2006 r No. 5797 or No. Bearing Length L1 S1517'49 "E 11.47' L2 S1517'49 "E 15.00' L3 S74'42'11 "W 5.84' L4 N87'55'20 "W 25.06' L5 N74'42'11 "E 16.87' 96 1 94 93 NO2'04'40 "E 182.45' S02'04'40 "W 174.96' 92 112 113 114 LOT Z 111 110 109 91 r- 0 X 90 115 89 116 117 LOT AA 15' STORM DRAIN --*-1 EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED 106 105 104 103 97 107 108 LOT BB 102 101 100 98 99 M„ OZ,99.L9N am 00 N ,ZC'9l9 3„ OZ,99.L9S r 0 H LOT W rriA CT 118 285 J \JJ 119 120 121 122 123 56;01' 10704 40"E S02'04'40"W E. I vri IP1R t 255 SHORELINE DR SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 650 - 482 -6300 650 - 482 -6399 (FAX) 88 87 LOT CC 133 132 131 75.12 130 129 128 127 126 124 POINT OF BEGINNING 125 TRUE POINT OF L3 BEGINNING Subject S.D.E. TO BE ABANDONED EXHIBIT B Job No. 20010174 -30 By MK Date 03/23/06 Chkd CC SHEET 1 OF 1 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF AN ABANDONED 10 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 074 - 1356- PORTION OF (12 & 13) AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEEDS (CATELLUS /BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 17] WHEREAS, the subject Sanitary Sewer Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 1356- Portion of (12 & 13) (also being a portion of Lots S and T, as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7511 — Bayport, filed on July 9, 2004 in Map Book 277, pages 1 through 19, inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for vacation of the existing sanitary sewer easement; and WHEREAS, the existing sanitary sewer easement is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 1356- Portion of (12 & 13) be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deed and plat and legal description to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 1356- Portion of (12 & 13) and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. ( c' sr' l ( EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT All that certain real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: BEING a portion of LOT "S" and LOT "T ", as said lots are shown on that certain map entitled "TRACT 7511 — BAYPORT ", filed for record on July 9, 2004 in Book 277 of Maps at Pages 1 through 19, inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEING that portion of the 10' wide Sanitary Sewer Easement (10' S.S.E.) as shown on that certain map entitled "TRACT 7387 — BAYORT ", filed for record on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at Pages 1 through 34, inclusive, Alameda County Records, lying within said LOT "S" and LOT "T ", as shown on said map entitled "TRACT 7511 — BAYPORT ". A plat showing the above- described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Randall L. Heiken, P.L.S. 5756 License Expires: 6 -30 -2006 K: \Main11998 \980221 \Legals \vacate 10'SSC.DOC Page 1 of 1 4.26 062 Dated: LEGEND APN — ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER M — MAP O.R. — OFFICIAL RECORDS S.S.E. — SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT — EASEMENT LINE — LOT LINE oM- LAND n o Q 2 0 a- LTC. No. 5756 EXP. 6/30/2006 -O� a OF cm:\>Cts 4. Za rrr TRACT 73a7- BAYPOFfl 271 j\j1 1-34 TRACT 1511- BAYPCFFF 277 iM1 1-19 REMAINDER PARCEL APN: 074 - 0905 -042 -1 i■:41 II TFiACT 75J1 - BAYPORT 277 M 1-1J 'o SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PORTION OF 10' S.S.E. 271 M 1 -34 LOT Q HAILE STREET LOT T LOT 47 0 1- 0 J LOT 41 ENGINEERS 1 SURVEYORS 1 PLANNERS 4780 CHABOT DR., SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925/396 -7700 (TEL) 925/396 -7799 (FAX) K : \Sur98 \080221 \DWG \PLATS\ vacatelo'SSEdwg 4/28/2006 0:10:58 AM PDT EXHIBIT "B" SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT Drawn: RL Checked: WS Job No.:20010174 -30 Date:04 /26/06 Approved:RLH Sheet: 1 of 1 i I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: May 16, 2006 Re: Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Schedule BACKGROUND The Memorandum of Understanding for the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) was adopted in 2002 and covers the period September 9, 2002 through December 31, 2004. The proposed resolution establishes the biweekly salary range on the MCEA salary schedule for the new classification of Web Technical Producer. DISCUSSION Alameda Power & Telecom's business and overall departmental business processes continue to evolve, requiring Alameda Power &Telecom to evaluate the benefits of either outsourcing or performing functions in- house. The Web Technical Producer position is required to bring the function of website maintenance and development in -house from the current third party provider. The Web Technical Producer position will have overall technical production responsibility for the Alameda Power &Telecom website and its associated subsites, and maintain around the clock reliability. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The Alameda Power & Telecom Enterprise Fund will pay the funds required to cover the recommended salary range of the Web Technical Producer classification. Funding has been authorized by the Public Utilities Board for this position. There is no financial impact to the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) salary schedule by establishing the salary range for the classification of Web Technical Producer. Re: Reso 4 -J 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RespectfyIly submitte Karen Willis Human Resources Director May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (MCEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF WEB TECHNICAL PRODUCER BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) is hereby amended by establishing the salary rates, salary ranges, salary steps and benefits for the classification of Web Technical Producer designating those as applicable to this classification in the service of the City of Alameda. CITY OF ALAMEDA MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Effective May 28, 2006 *Indicates classification with thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour original workweek. Resolution #4 -J CC 5 -16 -06 BI- WEEKLY Code Classification Step Step Step Step Step EXEMPT 1 2 3 4 5 7319* Web Technical Producer $2507 $2632 $2764 $2902 $3047 *Indicates classification with thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour original workweek. Resolution #4 -J CC 5 -16 -06 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING JEANETTE L. COPPERWAITE AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (HISTORIC EXPERIENCE SEAT) IC" > �- w BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to z Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the o Mayor, JEANETTE L. COPPERWAITE is hereby appointed to the office of co cco Historic Experience seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolutions #5 -A 5 -16 -06 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING KENNETH I. DORRANCE AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (REALTY /PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL SEAT) z BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to cc Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the ® Mayor, KENNETH I. DORRANCE is hereby appointed to the office of F° Realty /Property Management Professional seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and > expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING DAVID J. DUFFIN AS A MEMBER OF THE _ ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (FILMNIDEO INDUSTRY SEAT) 0 LL.. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to cc Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the ® Mayor, DAVID J. DUFFIN is hereby appointed to the office of FilmNideo i... - Industry seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, • for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING LIAM GRAY AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (ARTS /CULTURAL SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to w Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the z Mayor, LIAM GRAY is hereby appointed to the office of Arts /Cultural seat cc ® member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until his successor is >. appointed and qualified. 1 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING ORIN D. GREEN AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (FILMNIDEO INDUSTRY SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Ili Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the o � Z Mayor, ORIN D. GREEN is hereby appointed to the office of FilmNideo Industry ® seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, for a a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING PATRICIA A. GREY AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (FILM/VIDEO INDUSTRY SEAT) _ cc for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to staggered term BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the LL w Mayor, PATRICIA A. GREY is hereby appointed to the office of FilmNideo o Industry seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, _1 p requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. o 1 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING TAMAR LOWELL AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (WATER/MARINA BASED EXPERIENCE SEAT) o >- BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to `1 ▪ Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the a 1 Mayor, TAMAR LOWELL is hereby appointed to the office of Water /Marina p Based Experience seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of - Alameda, for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to • staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until >- his successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING THEATTE (TEDDY) B. TARBOR AS A MEMBER OF THE ALAMEDA FILM COMMISSION (COMMUNITY -AT -LARGE SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2 -18.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, THEATTE (TEDDY) B. TARBOR is hereby appointed to the office of Community -at -Large seat member of the Alameda Film Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing May 16, 2006 and expiring pursuant to staggered term requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: May 16,2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriations Limit) for Fiscal Year 2006 -07; and Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2006 -07 BACKGROUND Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, was approved by the California electorate in November 1979. The purpose of the constitutional provisions and the implementing legislation is to restrict growth of tax - funded programs and services by limiting the appropriations of the proceeds of taxes to the 1978 -79 base year limit, adjusted annually for changes in the population and inflation. Proceeds of taxes in excess of the limit, with limited exceptions, must be returned to the taxpayers within two years by refund or reduction in tax rates unless extension of the limit is approved by majority popular vote. Proceeds of taxes include (1) all tax revenues, (2) proceeds from licenses and user fees to the extent that such fees exceed costs of providing services, (3) interest earnings from investment of tax revenues, and (4) discretionary state subventions. All other revenues, i.e. federal funds, enterprise fund revenues, and user fees that do not exceed the cost of providing services are excluded from the limit. The voters approved Proposition 111 in June 1990. This proposition allows for new adjustment formulas for the required appropriations limit that are more responsive to local growth issues. The proposition also requires review by an independent auditor in conjunction with the annual financial report of the limit calculations. The significant changes to the original Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) and its implementing legislation (Chapter 1205/80) as modified by Proposition 111 and SB 88 (Chapter 60/90) are as fol lows: A. Beginning with the 1990 -91 Appropriations Limit, the annual adjustment factors changed. Instead of using the lesser of the California Per Capita Income or U.S. CPI to measure inflation, each city may choose: a. Growth in the California Per Capita Personal Income or b. Growth in the non - residential assessed valuation due to new construction within the city. Re: Public Hearing and Reso 5 -B 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers May 16, 2006 Page 2 B. Additionally, instead of using only the population growth of the city, each city may choose to use the population growth within its county. These changes in population and inflation are both annual elections. DISCUSSION The revised annual adjustment factors have been applied to arrive at Alameda's 2006 -07 Limit. The following exhibits detailing the adjustment factors are attached: 1. Exhibit A: adjustment factors for calculation of the City's Annual Appropriations Limit 2. Exhibit B: revenue sources and estimated proceeds from taxes for 2006 -07 3. Exhibit C: State Department of Finance January 1, 2006 Population Estimates for cities within Alameda County. The Per Capital Personal Income change year- over -year is 3.96 percent as provided by the State Department of Finance. This factor and the County Population Change were selected as the incrementing factors for FY 2006 -07. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT The City's estimated proceeds of taxes constitute approximately 68.05 percent of the adjusted appropriations limit. The City's population posted a growth of 0.28% over the prior year while the County posted a growth of 0.66 %. Personal per capita income percentage change over last year was 3.96 %. These factors (County population change and personal per capita income change) were used to compute the Appropriations Limit for 2006 -07 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2006 -07 in the amount of $74,177,671. JB:di Attachments (3) G: \FINANCE \COUN C I L\2005 \051705 \PROP4.05. doc Respectfully submitted, Juelle -Ann Boyer Chief Financial Officer ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ALAMEDA ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS Fiscal Year 1985 -86 1986 -87 1987 -88 1988 -89 1989 -90 1990 -91 1991 -92 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 Original Appropriations Limit $25,964,962 27,125,274 28,380,866 29,843,020 31,960,066 33,658,624 36,804,086 Adjusted Appropriations Limit Population Increase Within City Population Increase Within County Per Capita Income Increase $27,125,274 28,442,612 30,217,535 32,361,149 34,182,194 36,804,086 37,307,224 39,111,414 39,798,751 42,206,554 44,553,109 47,445,167 50,476,545 53,501,816 56,734,946 62,254,356 62,244,474 64,287,304 66,873,978 70,884,290 74,177,671 . 2.12% 1.12% 0.47% 1.81% 1.06% 3.39% 2.02% 2.06% 1.04% 0.14% 0.34% 1.74% -1.32% 0.60% 0.12% 1.77% 1.25% 0.95% 0.48% 0.17% 0.28% 2.26% 1.34% 1.51% 1.35% 1.36% 1.48% 1.58% 1.55% 0.97% 1.27% 0.85% 1.74% 2.15% 1.40% 1.08% 1.62% 1.62% 0.82% 0.72% 0.70% 0.66% 2.30% 3.47% 4.66% 5.19% 4.21% 4.14% -0.64% 2.72% 0.71% 4.72% 4.67% 4.67% 4.15% 4.53% 4.91% 7.82% -1.27% 2.31% 3.28% 5.26% 3.96% Fiscal Year Adjusted Appropriations Limit Estimated Proceeds of Taxes Taxes as a Percentage of Limit 1986 -87 1987 -88 1988 -89 1989 -90 1990 -91 1991 -92 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 2006 -07 G: \FINANCE \Prop4 \PROP4applimit $27,125,274 28,442,612 30,275,280 32,422,989 34,247,514 36,874,417 37,307,224 39,111,414 39,798,751 42,206,554 44,553,109 47,445,167 50,476,545 53,501,816 56,734,946 62,254,356 62,459,439 64,509,323 67,104,930 70,884,290 74,177,671 $19,150,006 21,171,824 22,237,185 23,980,762 26,248,017 28,129,049 29,585,533 29,674,315 29,692,284 31,586,117 32,343,115 32,390,148 34,936,993 37,799,889 40,451,148 42,282,136 44,457,196 42,485,083 40,953,416 46,681,034 50,477,217 70.60% 74.44% 73.45% 73.96% 76.64% 76.28% 79.30% 75.87% 74.61% 74.84% 72.59% 68.27% 69.21% 70.65% 71.30% 67.92% 71.18% 65.86% 61.03% 65.86% 68.05% CITY OF ALAMEDA PROPOSITION 4 CALCULATION FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007 NON REVENUE PROCEEDS PROCEEDS SOURCES FROM TAXES FROM TAXES PROPERTY TAXES General "Triple Flip" Subsidy OTHER LOCAL TAXES Sales Tax Property Transfer Tax Utility Users Tax Transient Occupancy Tax PG &E Franchise Fees Garbage Franchise Fees Cable Franchise Fees Taxi Franchise Fees $ 19,174,898 4,716,314 5,582,504 8,177,170 987,000 Housing Authority In Lieu Fees 210,000 In Lieu Fees 1,298,856 Golf Surcharage 321,111 Construction Improvement Tax * 1,020,341 $ 1,658,598 541,500 202,000 1,830,101 624,980 2,500 LICENSES & PERMITS Permit Tracking Fee 220,000 Communtiy Planning Fee 200,000 Business Licenses 1,479,953 Taxi Permits 1,000 Bicycle Licenses 300 Building Permits 2,000,000 Encroachment Permits - Electrical Permits 160,000 Plumbing Permits 165,000 Concrete Permits Miscellaneous Permits (Police) 1,000 Fire Code' 110,000 USE OF PROPERTY Rents 111,100 Concessions FINES & FORFEITURES General 661,850 Traffic School Fees 70,000 REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES State Highway Maintenance 44,200 State Mandate Reimbursement 173,000 Booking Fees Reimbursement 200,000 POST Reimbursements 71,164 County Reimbursemetns Motor Vehicles In Lieu 6,323,003 Park Fund Conributions 85,000 Other Donations 26,500 State Grant Public Services 110,160 County Measure B 24,603 Abandoned Vehicle Surcharge 95,000 CURRENT SERVICES General CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER FUNDS Transfers In As a percent of Total ATTACHMENT B $ 20,833,496 25,514,377 4,337,253 111,100 731,850 7,152,630 6,523,098 6,523,098 9,235,199 9,235,199 $49,315,753 $ 25,123,250 $ 74,439,003 66.25% 33.75% Allocation of Investment Income $ 1,160,261 $ 591,079 $ 1,751,340 $ 50,476,014 $ 25,714,329 $ 76,190,343 Special Fund t tT c, A. ., • / • Z W 1111 Cl DEPARTMENT OF °4&,FDR$' FI NAN C E ATTACHMENT C ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR May 2006 Dear Fiscal Officer: Subject: Price and Population Information Appropriations Limit 915 L STREET • SACRAMENTO CA • 95E114-3706 • WWW.DOF.CA.GOV RECEIVED APR 2ri nn"". . BY THE CITY OFA FINANCE DEPA ' .: ENT The California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2227, mandates the Department of Finance (Finance) to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2006, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2006 -07. Enclosure I provide the change in California's per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2006 -07 appropriations limit. Enclosure II provides city and unincorporated county population percentage changes, and Enclosure IIA provides county and incorporated areas population percentage changes. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations, as noted. Population Percent Change for Special Districts Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. Consult the Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2228, for the various population options available to special districts to assess population change in their district. Article XIII B, Section 9, of the State Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. No State agency reviews the local appropriations limits. Population Certification The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller's Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 2, 2006. Please Note: City population estimates are controlled to independently calculated county population estimates. Due to county estimates revisions; prior year's city population estimates may have also been revised. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323 -4086. Sincerely, MICHAEL C. GENEST Director By (i.j/(•Z14-- VINCENT P. BROWN Chief Deputy Director Enclosure May 2006 Enclosure I A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost -of- living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost -of- living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the . percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage. change to be used in setting the 2006 -2007 appropriation limit is: Per Capita Personal Income Fiscal Year (FY) Percentage change over prior year 2006 -2007 3.96 B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2006 -2007 appropriation limit. 2006 -2007: Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 3.96 percent Population Change = 1.21 percent Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: Population converted to a ratio: 3.96 +100 = 1.0396 100 1.21 +100 = 1.0121 100 Calculation of factor for FY 2006 -2007: 1.0396 x1.0121 =1.0522 Enclosure II Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions ( *) January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 and Total Population, January 1, 2006 Total Percent Change - -- Population Minus Exclusions - -- Population County City 2005 -2006 1 -1 -05 1 -1 -06 1 -1 -2006 ALAMEDA ALAMEDA 0.28 72,725 72,931 74,405 ALBANY 0.11 16,662 16,680 16,680 BERKELEY 1.28 104,049 105,385 105,385 DUBLIN 5.12 37,680 39,610. 41,907 EMERYVILLE 3.84 8,221 8,537 8,537 FREMONT 0.35 209,421 210,158 210,158 HAYWARD 0.74 145,322 146,398 146,398 LIVERMORE 1.39 80,326 81,443 81,443 NEWARK -0.02 43,494 43,486 43,486 OAKLAND 0.35 410,330 411,755 411,755 PIEDMONT -0.03 11,002 10,999 10,999 PLEASANTON 0.82 67,321 67,876 67,876 SAN LEANDRO 0.03 81,046 81,074 81,074 UNION CITY 1.16 70,339 71,152 71,152 UNINCORPORATED 0.24 138,716 139,048 139,048 0.66 1,496,654 1,506,532 1,510,303 COUNTY TOTAL ( *) Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters' residents in state mental Institutions, and state and federal correctional institutions. Page 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -07 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Alameda is required to establish an "Appropriations Limit" for fiscal year 1997 -98; and LL- j WHEREAS, the Appropriations Limit has been determined in accordance o with uniform guidelines for Article XIIIB of the California Constitution; and .,cc y 0 WHEREAS, the voters approved Proposition 111 in June, 1990, which .4 allows for new adjustment formulas for the appropriations limit calculation that is >„ responsive to local growth issues. The adjustment factors used to arrive at the 2006 -07 limit are as follows: 1990 -91 County Population increase of 1.36 %; CPI of 4.21 % 1991 -92 City Population increase of 3.39 %; CPI 4.14% 1992 -93 City Population increase of 2.02 %; CPI of -0.64% 1993 -94 City Population increase of 2.06 %; CPI of 2.72% 1994 -95 City Population increase of 1.04 %; CPI of 0.71 % 1995 -96 County Population increase of 1.27 %; CPI of 4.72% 1996 -97 County Population increase of 0.85 %; CPI of 4.67% 1997 -98 City Population increase of 1.74 %; Per Capita Personal Income 4.67% 1998 -99 County Population increase of 2.15 %; Per Capita Personal Income 4.15% 1999 -0 County Population increase of 1.40 %, Per Capita Personal Income 4.53% 2000 -01 County Population increase of 1.08 %, Per Capital Personal Income 4.91% 2001 -02 City Population increase of 1.77 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of 7.82% Resolution #5 -B 5 -16 -06 2002 -03 County Population increase of 1.62 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of —1.27% 2003 -04 City Population increase of 0.95 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of 2.31 % 2004 -05 County Population increase of 0.72 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of 3.28% 2005 -06 County Population increase of 0.70 %, Per Capita Personal Income change of 5.26% 2006 -07 County Population increase of 0.66 %, Per Capital Personal Income change of 3.96% NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby establishes the Appropriations Limit in the amount of $74,177,671 for fiscal year 2006 -07. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: May 16, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Debra Kurita City Manager Re: Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees Via the Property Tax Bills BACKGROUND City of Alameda Ordinance No. 2655 added Section 5 -7.2, entitled "License a Debt" and enacted several amendments and additions to the business license provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code. Specifically, the ordinances provided for the collection of delinquent business license fees and charges via the property tax bill. In order for this assessment to be valid, it must satisfy the basic requirements of due process. The owners must be given fair and adequate notice regarding the assessment and an opportunity for a hearing. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Finance Department continually pursues collection of business license tax from owners and /or managers of commercial and multi - family residential rental properties with no current business licenses. Although the Business License Ordinance states that a notice or bill is not required, property owners are notified by mail using the last mailing address shown in the County tax records and are given ample time to respond prior to sending the final notices. This year the final notices were mailed on April 19, 2006. There were originally 68 rental properties identified as not having current licenses. In the interim, 30 parcels have paid with 38 parcels still unpaid. As in past years, payments will be accepted up through June 30, 2006, the date of filing with the County Tax Collector. Those parcels for which licenses and fees are paid will not be placed on the tax roll. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT Business license fees are due and payable on July 1st of each year and are deemed delinquent if not paid by July 31st of each year. Collection efforts ensued from August 2005 through April 2006. The total uncollected license fees are $5,629.28. Ten percent penalty is imposed for every month the fee is delinquent up to a maximum of 60% of the annual fee. The total late charge included in the amount due as shown in the attached list is $3,907.49. Re: Public Hearing 5 -C 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Authorize collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills. JB:di G:\ FINANCE \COUNCIL\2006 \051606 \DeIBusLic.doc Attachment Respectfully submitted, jr Juelle -Ann Boyer Chief Financial Officer 2006 Business License Attachments License Fee+ 'Late Charge 439.20 1 168.00 1 0 co 565.52 256.00 192.00 224.00 256.00 128.00 160.00 384.00 1 0 Oo 0-) 152.00 1 cm 0) 128.00 1 320.00 1 128.00 1 00 0 C) 128.00 416.00 480.00 192.00 o 0 (0 T 128.00 1 0 co O r 320.00 1 505.60 1 320.00 220.00 1 0) r 0)) 216.00 140.00 Oo 00)) r License Fee 'Late Charge 121.20 88.00 24.00 565.52 96.00 0 0 N r- 84.00 96.00 48.00 60.00 144.00 36.00 72.00 0 O (O co 48.00 0 O O N r 48.00 0 O CO CO 48.00 156.00 0 O O CO r 72.00 1 0 O O CO 48.00 1 60.00 120.00 1 O CO 0) CO r 120.00 1 0 000000 O N r 0 N N 0 (0 CO 0 r CO 0 O CO 0 N N- 1Amount Due 318.00 80.00 40.00 0 0 O 0 0 O CO r 0 0 O N r 140.00 0 O O CO r 80.00 0 o O 0 r 240.00 60.00 80.00 0 O O CO 80.00 200.00 80.00 0 O O 80.00 260.00 0 O O 0 CO 120.00 100.00 80.00 100.00 200.00 316.00 0 0000 O 0 N 0 O 0 r 0 O N r 0 O CO 135.00 1 80.00 1 0 O O N r Garden Road 'Bay Street Broadway Harbor Bay Parkway Pacific Avenue Buena Vista Avenue Lincoln Avenue Lincoln Avenue Taylor Avenue Buena Vista Avenue Cedar Street Lincoln Avenue Cypress Street Clinton Avenue Haight Avenue Fernside Blvd. Encinal Avenue Central Avenue Pacific Avenue Limerick Lane Central Avenue Chestnut Street Briggs Avenue Broadway Buena Vista Avenue Minturn Street Lincoln Avenue Chestnut Street Santa Clara Avenue Walnut Street Union Street Pacific Avenue Pacific Avenue Lincoln Avenue Location 0) (0 LC) CO r 1362 d' r r 729 CO r 0) r 0 N N- 2127 LC) 0 0) 1025 855 LC) d- CO 323 2004 CO 0 (0 3217 0) N CO r 451 r 0) (C) r 741 12105 0 N N r 3264 d- CO CO r 2023 0) N LC) r C0 r N r r N 0) r CO d' LC) r r CO r r 0 N r 2303 2004 N CO 0) 1Owner's Name (Alameda Autoworks 1Beering, Frank K. & Lori Berg, Torbjorn Chavez, Marco Chin, Sam Dang, Con P. & Cam V. Davis, Rupert & Linda DeCelle, Walter & Holly Dich, Cuong A. Dinh, Nam V. & Crystal P. Doherty, John M. Doulabi, Kathy Eng, Paula Hall, Darrell Holder, Marcus & Rebecca Hsiao, Chiali Huie, Jennifer Khoo, Soon H. Koka, Esther Mitchell, Daniel 7 CB Z Navid, (raj Nicol, Robert & Susann Oh, Myong & Soon Parker, Paul A. & Tonya Peralta, Lourdes Ravet Properties Rushing, Dillard B. & Della M. Shelly, Michael Skilling, Shawna E. Stickles /Mattos Stone, Frederick & Terry Tran, Luu & Cuon Trinidad, Corazon and Yang, Lynne 1 Parcel # 174- 1035 -47 172-373-7 1 70- 152 -52 174- 1339 -24 c0 N r d' (`') f` 171 -261 -4 73- 419 -40 71- 233 -19 co d' .- 0) Ch CO r- 73- 383 -10 74- 1230 -57 -1 74 -463 -4 74- 458 -14 74- 1235 -71 74- 428 -17 69- 109 -149 (O LC) N- N .- r- 74- 446 -9 -5 J 0) 0) N (0 N ti 74- 1329 -29 71- 235 -21 71- 246 -24 co LO CO f� O) CO d' 0) LC) r O ti 71- 253 -15 72 -300 -5 72- 367 -12 71 -259 -4 74- 442 -40 71 -233 -4 72- 304 -21 1 71- 200 -22 1 71- 250 -31 1 73- 390 -24 1 CO N 0 1011262 1026212 1020745 1016548 025149 004710 Q Z 1016982 008843 008620 010256 028676 022019 (0 N O Q Q Z 022095 Z 028518 300840 005137 016895 022758 Q Z 029623 Q Z 025132 003479 N CO 0 o Q Z 025527 I 024926 028555 024919 r c 0 0 r N CO d• 1.0 CO N- CO O O r r r N r M r d' r LC) r CO r r- r (70 r 0) r O N r N N N CO N d N (0 N CO N ti N CO N 01 N O co r co N co CO co d' co 2006 Business License Attachments 661.25 643.20 128.00 446.00 9,536.77 1 r- co) ti v N 241.20 48.00 o q w cp v 0 0) M 413.28 402.00 80.00 1 365.00 1 5,629.28 TS- 0 Park Street Park Street Lincoln Avenue Sanderling Court 1- 1424 1532 1630 CO Wittenau, Michael Von Wittenau, Michael Von Wourms, William F. Wu, Stephanie 70- 188 -14 -2 70- 190 -22 72 -318 -7 74- 1352 -61 008764 008763 008707 020050 M CO M CO City of Alameda Interoffice Memorandum May 16, 2006 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Re: Background Debra Kurita City Manager Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $1,050,505.00 to McGuire and Hester, and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $105,100.00, for the Construction of Bayport 4 -acre Park On January 17, 2006, the City Council authorized the solicitation of bids for Bayport Alameda Park Project No. 83140100. Following a bid protest on April 4, 2007, the City Council authorized staff to re -bid the project. Discussion The Project was re -bid on April 7, 2006 and re- advertised for 25 days. To solicit the maximum number of bids and obtain the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 18 separate Building Exchanges throughout the Bay Area, including Building Exchanges which provide construction reporting, online databases, education, resources and other services for the construction industry. In addition, a notice of bid was published in the Alameda Journal, and a link to ebidboard. com through the City's website was established. A total of eight contractors attended the mandatory pre -bid meeting, which was held on April 13, 2006. Bids were opened on May 2, 2006. Two contractors submitted bids as follows: Bidder Location Total Bid McGuire & Hester Oakland $1,050,505.00 Cleary Brothers Landscape, Inc. Danville $1,057,000.00 The engineer's construction estimate for the 4 -acre park and related improvements ranged between $1,150,850.00 and $1,268,800.00. The 4 -acre park bid includes ball fields, a youth play area, picnic area, restrooms, and off - street parking. Staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to McGuire and Hester, the apparent low bidder for construction of the park and related improvements. The contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Report 5 -D 5 -16 -06 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Budget Consideration /Financial Impact May 16, 2006 Page 2 The project budget for the park is included in the Catellus / Bayport Project Budget approved by the CIC and City Council in April 2005, and will be funded with CIC project revenues generated from the Catellus / Bayport Project. The maintenance of the park will be paid from funds collected through the "Supplemental Community Facilities District Special Tax" established for the Bayport residential project. This project will not require any supplemental appropriations or have any fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference The Project Plans and Specifications and the call for bids have been prepared in accordance with the Alameda Municipal Code. Environmental Review The new park and school were included in the original environmental review for the Catellus Mixed - Use Project and are in compliance with the approved Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan and Site - wide Landscape Development Plan. No additional CEQA review is required. Recommendation Award the contract in the amount of $1,050,505.00 to McGuire and Hester, authorize a ten percent contingency in the amount $105,100.00, for the Bayport Alameda Park Project and authorize the City Manager to execute the Contract for Construction and related documents. LAL\DC: dc On File with the City Clerk's Office: Contractor Agreement, Insurance & Bonds Re:pec ply submitted eslie A. Little Development Services Director ouglas H. C s' e Redevelopment Manager DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 2, 2006- -7:31 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:46 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (06- CC /06- CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting held on April 18, 2006. Approved. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes Councilmembers /Board Member /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore - 1. AGENDA ITEM (06- CC /06- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2006 Third - Quarter Financial Report and approve Budget Adjustments. The Finance Director provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired what was the booking fee reimbursement which results in a $200,000 reduction. The Finance Director responded that the State appropriates a reimbursement for fees that the City pays to the County for booking prisoners; the State took the reimbursement fee out of the General Fund budget during Fiscal Year 2006; the reimbursement fee will be included in the Fiscal year 2007 budget. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission May 2, 2006 1 Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06- CC /06- CIC) Discussion of City Attorney /General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT (06- CC) There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the special joint meeting in sympathy and respect for the family of Fire Captain Rick Zombeck at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission May 2, 2006 2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY- -MAY 3, 2006- -6:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Absent: Commissioner Daysog - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Community Improvement Commission v. Cocores Development Company. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced the Commission received a briefing regarding the existing litigation and gave direction to legal counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission May 3, 2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: May 16, 2006 Re: Recommendation to Approve the Amended Contract with Komorous- Towey Architects, Inc. by Increasing the Contract Amount by $27,200 to Provide Additional Architectural and Construction Administration Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage BACKGROUND The City of Alameda retained Komorous -Towey Architects (KTA) to develop revised designs for the facades of the proposed parking garage and cineplex located in the Park Street Business District at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue in September 2005. On December 6, 2005, the CIC amended KTA's contract to provide additional support to the City for bid packet preparation for the garage and limited construction administration services as the designer of the garage for a total contract amount of $143,200. The proposed contract amendment is for $27,200, resulting in a total contract amount of $170,400. The amendment, including a copy of the original contract, is on file with the City Clerk. DISCUSSION In response to comments received from the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), KTA was utilized to modify the cineplex and parking garage facades. This work exhausted the funds remaining in KTA's contract budget. As a result, additional budget is required for KTA to fulfill their previous scope of work pertaining to the limited construction administration services for the garage. The City will also utilize KTA to review construction drawings for the cineplex in response to a recommendation made by the City's Section 106 consultant and to attend and prepare a submittal for the June 12, 2006 Planning Board meeting related to KTA's already prepared lighting, landscaping, and signage plans for the garage. These plans for the garage were prepared in response to a condition of Design Review Approval for the project on March 21, 2006. Staff has also summarized the City's total actual and projected expenditures on professional architectural services for both the historic Theater and parking garage and compared them to projected construction costs in the attached Table 1. The City is expecting to expend $1.8 million in design services, which includes urban design planning and entitlement expenditures funded early in the pre - development process by Report 1 -B Special Joint Meeting 5 -16 -06 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3 annual tax increment, instead of bond proceeds. These urban planning expenditures are not typically included in a calculation of construction related architectural fees. Additionally, these design expenditures include Komorous -Towey Architects costs of re- designing the fa9ade of the cineplex and the amount proposed in this contract amendment. These pre - development design expenditures represent 12 percent of the projected construction costs for the rehabilitation of the theater and the parking garage. Architectural fees typically range from 10 to 12 percent as a percentage of hard construction costs, and these fees are well within industry standards. Under a separate contract, KTA will also be preparing a 3 -D physical massing model of the proposed Alameda Theater project and its surrounding area (see attached site plan) for approximately $30,000. The model will be constructed to a scale of 1116 "= 1' -0." The base of the model will be approximately 9' -3" by 6' -3" and may include six or more pieces for ease of handling. The base will be of a rigid board approximately '/" thick, and the buildings will be high- density white foam. The model will be complete for public review by June 20, 2006. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT This project will be funded by the 2003 Merged Area Bonds and will not impact the General Fund. Architectural fees for this scope of work will not exceed $27,200 for a total contract amount of $170,400. RECOMMENDATION Approve the amended contract with Komorous -Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the contract amount by $27,200 to provide additional architectural and construction administration services for the proposed parking garage and cineplex projects. R -spe4j Ily sub It eslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission DK/LAUD ES /JO: ry Attachments cc: Komorous -Towey Architects, c/o Thomas J. Towey G: \econdev\Jennifer \Parking Structure \KTA \CIC 05 -16 -06 KTA Amendment.doc May 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3 r Ott D el ► pment Manager V O 0. 4- d H c O C O O N d i 'O 01 0. c K W .N 0 20 0) O L a co d 7 .Q ++ co H Q 4- O z 0 1- E Design Expenditures c O O U 7 c (1) >+ O C c c CO CO O 0 U a)• U 0) c 2 0 C -00 U 0) N m m c a CD N c Y 7 cd -0 Cli 0 a3 a C co co U 7 c T X 2 .o as �a U a '0 0) O •CL c Oc u ro O 9 p O O •O cz m 0.. 0 L N C C a) a) a 5 0 g d 5 c0 X C 0 0 N 0 L"' O co C x O N O c 6 <75 a) `O 0 -0 0 c a) 7 C O ' c 0) N U a3 O Q N ur p O T "0 c To a) U a) O N d CD ` O til U U — c a) c O .�' c Q O 0 5 0 0 0 a c0 -0 V) CO V a) CO y O O a) w u) a) . 0 -o D _c o a E C. 0 C 0 W W rn 0 co n 0 0 CO 0 CO N. CO r CV N- 00 00 0 C .6.9. N aro M r Sri z-9. 47). T Proposed KTA Contract Amendment 0 0 U 0) O d Total Design Expenditures Construction Costs Design as % Construction CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: To: May 16, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Council Members Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Honorable Chair and Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita City Manager/Executive Director Re: Resolution Adopting an Expense Reimbursement, Compensation and Ethics Training Policy BACKGROUND In response to the results of audits of some public entities which showed unreasonable expenditures by public officials, the State adopted legislation designed to increase accountability for reimbursement of members of local legislative bodies and to require certain elected and appointed officials to receive ethics training. Compensation provisions were included with regard to special districts. DISCUSSION In 2005, the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1234 (the "Local Government Sunshine Bill ") that imposes new restrictions on the manner by which members of the legislative bodies of local government agencies may receive reimbursement for expenses. In addition to new restrictions imposed upon expense reimbursement AB 1234 requires members of local legislative bodies to receive specific ethics training at least once every two years. In Alameda, Assembly Bill 1234 affects the City Council, the Community Improvement Commission, the Housing Authority and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority as well as all other appointed City Boards and Commissions and the elected auditor and treasurer. The bill also placed restrictions on compensation for special district officials. AB 1234 Expense Reimbursement Requirements AB 1234 requires the adoption of an expense reimbursement policy for local elected or appointed officials that specifies the type of activities that will be reimbursable. If an activity is not specifically listed within the policy as reimbursable, the member of the legislative body has the option of seeking prior approval for such reimbursement from the legislative body at a public meeting. Local agencies must use expense report forms and all expenses must be documented with receipts and be submitted Re: Reso 2 -A Special Joint Meeting 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May 16, 2006 within a reasonable time. These documents are public records subject to disclosure. The law also requires members of legislative bodies to provide a report, either orally or in writing, on those events attended at public expense at the next meeting of the legislative body. AB 1234 Ethics Training Requirements In order to further implement the objectives of ensuring good government practices and the transparency of public sector operations, AB 1234 also requires ethics training for certain government officials. The new law requires that any member of a local legislative body who receives reimbursement or compensation take two hours of ethics training every two years. In addition, AB 1234 requires that the local agency maintain public records documenting the dates each local agency official received the required ethics training as well as the identity of the entity providing the training. The legislation specifies that, at a minimum, the content of the ethics training must include: the laws related to personal gain by public officials, including conflict of interest and bribery; laws related to claiming prerequisites of office, including gift and travel restrictions; government transparency laws, including financial interest disclosure and open government laws; and laws related to fairness of processes, including common law bias, due process requirements, incompatible offices, competitive bidding requirements and disqualification from participating in decisions affecting family members. Proposed Expense Reimbursement, Compensation and Ethics Training Policy 1) Reimbursement of Expenses The proposed Expense Reimbursement, Compensation and Ethics Training Policy (the "Policy") provides that a member of the City Council or any other legislative body, may receive reimbursement for expenses incurred for any of the following activities: A) Communicating with representatives of regional, state, national or local government and their various agencies on Agency adopted positions or policies; B) Attending educational seminars designed to improve Agency members skill and information levels; C) Participating in regional, state, national or local organizations related to the Agency's mission; D) Attending events recognizing service to the Agency; E) Attending local events which are related to the mission of the Agency F) Implementing an Agency- approved strategy for attracting and retaining business to the City, which typically involve at least one staff member; G) Charitable events for institutions which have a purpose directly related to the Agency's mission; and H) All other expenditures, including international travel, with the prior approval of the legislative body of the Agency. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 May 16, 2006 The personal portion of any trip, political contributions or events, family expenses, entertainment expenses, non - mileage automobile expenses and personal losses are specifically non - reimbursable. The Policy also imposes controls on the costs of reimbursable items such as travel and lodging. Specifically, the Policy requires that reimbursable costs for air travel be based upon the shortest and most direct flights, in "coach" class, and utilizing government or group rates when available, unless approved by the legislative body prior to travel. For local travel, the use of City -owned vehicles is encouraged. For the Mayor and Members of the City Council, the City Treasurer and City Auditor, past mileage data has indicated that a flat mileage allowance based upon an assumption of 167 miles traveled per member per month for travel within the nine- County Bay Area is the most appropriate reimbursement methodology. For private vehicle travel for all other members of legislative bodies and for travel by City Council members outside the nine County Bay Area, reimbursement shall be based on the lesser of the least cost round -trip air travel available or the allowable mileage reimbursement rates as set by the Internal Revenue Service. Necessary rental car expenses are reimbursed at rates that are equal or less than the rates available through the State of California's travel program. Taxi fares are reimbursable and include a 15% gratuity. Tolls are reimbursable as well. Lodging is reimbursable provided the travel is outside a 50 -mile radius of Alameda or the event to be attended starts before 8:00 a.m. or ends after 10:00 p.m. The rates for reimbursement for lodging cannot exceed the rate published by the conference or event sponsor, where applicable, and where not applicable, the rate established by the Internal Revenue Service for the community in which the activity takes place. Government lodging rates should always be requested. In addition to travel and lodging, members of local legislative bodies are entitled to reimbursement for meals consumed during the period of the event or activity equivalent to the per diem rate provided to Alameda employees, so long as the member produces receipts. Members who host meals in conjunction with Agency related business shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of the meal in accordance with the Internal Revenue Service rate for the community where the activity or event is taking place. The actual cost for telecommunications services (FAX, Internet up to $15 per day and telephone costs) is also reimbursable. Members may request cash advances sufficient to cover the anticipated cost of expenses while traveling or doing business for the Agency. However, the member must keep receipts for such expenditures and return any cash requested which is above the amount of the total in the submitted receipts. To receive reimbursement for allowable expenses, the member must submit to the Finance Department a Travel and Expense Form and Report within a reasonable time after incurring the expense but in no event greater than 30 days. Finally, the Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 4 May 16, 2006 Policy provides that the use of an Agency issued credit card for reimbursable expenses is permissible providing that the credit card may at no time be used for personal expenses even if the member subsequently reimburses the agency. Violations of the Policy, including the falsification of expense reports, may result in the loss of reimbursement privileges, demand for restitution to the agency and any other applicable state or federal penalties including criminal prosecution. The Agency shall only consider the revocation of a members reimbursement privileges or a demand for restitution to the Agency at a public meeting. 2) Ethics Training The Policy provides that in addition to the Mayor, City Council Members and members of all other legislative bodies within Alameda, the City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Clerk shall also be required to obtain the ethics training. The Agency shall maintain records of the required training for five years after the training is received and those records shall be considered public documents under the Public Records Act. 3) Compensation The compensation for the Mayor and Members of the City Council is set forth in the City Charter. The compensation for other Agency legislative board members is set forth in State law. No other compensation may be provided. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT It is estimated that there will be a minimal impact on the current year budget in order to accomplish the required ethics training. As a more exact cost is known, adjustments will be brought to the Council during a quarterly budget review. There are no perceived budgetary impacts on the other non - general fund budgets as a result of this policy being imposed on those legislative bodies. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed policy is in compliance with the various Charter sections (2 -1.1, 2.4, 3 -7(1) and 6 -4) authorizing compensation for the Mayor and City Council. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 5 May 16, 2006 Approve the Resolution Adopting an Expense Reimbursement, Compensation and Ethics Training Policy as presented. JAB/DB:dl Attachment Respectfully submitted, Juelle-Aim Boyer Chief Financial Officer EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT, COMPENSATION AND ETHICS TRAINING POLICY I. Policy Statement The City of Alameda and its related Agencies recognize the constructive value of professional conferences, seminars, meetings and training and provides travel funds for officials, who attend such official events. Agency members shall be entitled to reimbursement for their reasonable, actual and necessary expenses associated with travel, meals, lodging and other actual and necessary expenses associated with attending such events in a manner and in the amounts as set forth in this policy. This policy shall apply to the City Council and members of the Community Improvement Commission, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. It shall also apply to the members of the following municipal legislative bodies: Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Economic Development Commission, Film Commission, Golf Commission, Historic Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Pension Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Park Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission. This policy is formally adopted by the City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and any changes thereto shall also be adopted by the Agencies. II. Definitions For purposes of this policy, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Agency" shall include the City, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. B. "Member" shall include members of City Council, the Community Improvement Commission; the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and municipal legislative bodies, i.e. Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Economic Development Commission, Film Commission, Golf Commission, Historic Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Pension Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Park Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission. 1 III. Authorized Expenses Agency funds, equipment, supplies (including letterhead), titles, and staff time may only be used for authorized Agency business. Expenses incurred by Members engaging and/or participating in the following activities and/or events constitute authorized and reimbursable expenses (as long as other requirements of this policy are also met): A. Communicating with representatives of regional, state, national and local government and their various agencies and entities on Agency adopted or authorized policy positions; B. Attending educational seminars designed to improve Agency members' skill and information levels, including ethics training to fulfill the requirements of AB 1234; C. Participating in regional, state, national, and local organizations related to the Agency's mission; D. Recognizing service to the Agency, e.g. thanking a longtime employee with a retirement gift or celebration of nominal cost; E. Attending local events which are directly related to the mission of the Agency e.g. Chamber of Commerce; F. Implementing an Agency- approved strategy for attracting or retaining businesses to the City, which will typically involve at least one staff member; G. Charitable events for institutions which have a purpose directly related to the Agency's mission; and H. All other expenditures, including international travel, with prior approval of the legislative body of the Agency. IV. Unauthorized Expenses The following expenditures incurred by Members in the course and scope of their official duties shall not be reimbursed without prior Agency approval: A. The personal portion of any trip; B. Political contributions or events; C. Family expenses, including those of a spouse /domestic partner when accompanying Member on official business, child or pet care; D. Entertainment Expenses, including theater, shows, movies (either in -room or at the theater), sporting events, golf, spa treatments, or other cultural events, etc. E. Non - mileage personal automobile expenses including repairs, insurance, gasoline, traffic and parking citations; F. Personal losses incurred while on Agency business. 2 V. Cost control To conserve Agency resources and keep expenses within community standards for public officials, expenditures should adhere to the following guidelines. In the event that expenses are incurred which exceed these guidelines, the cost borne or reimbursed by the Agency will be limited to the costs that fall within the guidelines, unless prior approval from the Agency is obtained at a public meeting. A. Transportation All travel on Agency business shall be planned to provide for the most economical mode of transportation reasonably available. Reasonable travel modes include: Air, private car and city -owned car. Travel expenses shall be allowed or reimbursed for days actually spent on Agency business, for programmed days of a conference or meetings, and for time spent in travel to and from these events. Expenses shall be computed for the days of the conference or event attended and for travel days not to exceed one day before and after the event and shall be allowed only if time and/or travel schedules prohibit travel at reasonable hours on the actual beginning and ending days of a conference. Reasonable hours are defined as between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Reimbursement for more than one day of travel to and from the destination must be approved in advance by the Agency. 1. Air Travel Allowable costs for air travel shall be calculated by using the shortest and most direct route with the least number of en -route stops. All air travel shall be booked as far in advance as possible, so as to receive the lowest fares possible except where the lowest fare is for an overnight flight, which may be chosen by the individual but is not required. Members shall use government and group rates for travel offered in conjunction with the event when available. A Member shall not be reimbursed for the cost of first class air travel except in extraordinary circumstances and approved by the Agency. 2. City Car Use of a city -owned car by Member is considered more economical than a private car. However, such use is limited to the availability of a pool car and is not mandatory. There shall be no allowance or reimbursement for transportation when a City -owned vehicle is used. However, any out -of- pocket expenses, including gas or maintenance costs incurred in operating the vehicle shall be 3 reimbursed upon presentation of receipts attached to the Travel and Expense Claim Form and Report. 3. Use of Private Vehicle a. Official duties of the Mayor and City Council Members require travel within the nine bay area counties. Based on mileage data, the amount of 167 miles is deemed reasonable for reimbursement on a monthly basis. The present Internal Revenue Code rate will be used to calculate the dollar amount. b. For travel by other Members or outside the nine bay area counties, if a personal vehicle is used for travel, reimbursement shall be based on the lesser of the following two costs: 1) The least cost round -trip air travel available, or 2) The allowable per mile cost, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code (with annual adjustments in the Internal Revenue Code), from Alameda. c. Car Rental If a car rental is necessary, reimbursement will be at rental rates that are equal or less than those available through the State's travel program (www.catravelsmart.com). d. Taxis /Shuttles Taxis or shuttles fares may be reimbursed, including a 15 percent gratuity per fare, when the cost of such fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for time - efficiency. e. Miscellaneous costs. Bridge fares and road tolls, etc. are also reimbursable. B. Lodging 1. Local Accommodations Except where necessary and where approved in advance by the Agency, when possible, at a publicly noticed meeting, the Members will not be reimbursed for hotel expenditures incurred for events occurring within a 50 -mile radius of Alameda except where the event begins before 8 a.m. or ends after 10 p.m. In the event reimbursement is warranted, such reimbursement shall be only for the reasonable rate of said accommodations as set forth below. 2. Non -local Accommodations All Members traveling outside the 50 -mile radius of Alameda shall be reimbursed the reasonable cost of the lodging and may either receive funds in advance, use a City- issued credit card, or be reimbursed for personal funds expended upon return from the trip. 4 Reimbursable days for lodging requests should correspond to the foregoing travel policy regarding dates of arrival and departure. Members are authorized for reimbursement for hotel accommodations for single occupancy. 3. Reasonable Rates for Lodging Where the lodging is in connection with a conference or other organized educational activity, reimbursable lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the conference or activity sponsor, providing that lodging at the group rate is available at the time of booking. If the group rate is not available, the Member shall be entitled to reimbursement for actual costs of lodging that is comparable in location and quality. Government rates must be requested. Where lodging is necessary for an activity that is not related to a conference or other organized educational activity, reimbursement shall be provided at the rate established by the Internal Revenue Service for the community in which the activity takes place unless there are no lodging facilities in reasonable proximity to the activity which offer that rate at the time of booking. In the event there are no such lodging facilities available at the IRS reimbursement rate, reimbursement shall be at the actual lodging rate so long as the activity has been approved by the Agency. In the event there is not enough time to seek prior approval of the activity by the Agency, approval shall be sought and received as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. In the event the Agency does not approve the activity for which the expenditure was made, the Agency member shall not be reimbursed therefore. VI. Miscellaneous Expenses Associated with Travel Outside Alameda Members shall be entitled to reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and in the course and scope of their activities as Members and which are reasonably related to Agency business including: A. Actual cost of telecommunication and fax charges when Members are away from an Agency worksite. B. Actual cost of telephone expenses, however, Members should endeavor to use Agency - provided calling cards or Agency- issued cell phones, if possible. If personal telephone or cell -phone bills are submitted for reimbursement, reimbursement will be calculated based on a percentage of total calls. C. If Internet access is necessary for Agency - related business, reimbursement will be at a maximum of $15 per day. 5 D. Reasonable laundry and/or dry cleaning charges when necessarily related to the activity while traveling on City business. E. Other miscellaneous charges reasonably related and necessary to the activity, including gratuities, parking, shuttle and taxi charges. VIII. Meals Members shall be entitled to reimbursement for meals and associated gratuities in an amount equivalent to the per diem rate provided to Agency employees, however, they shall be required to submit actual receipts documenting the expense as set forth below. Where the community standards and/or prevailing restaurant costs of the area exceed the per diem rate, Members shall be reimbursed for the actual costs of such meals and associated gratuities. Alcohol and bar expenses shall not be compensated without prior approval by the legislative body of the Agency. Where Members are attending a conference or other organized educational activity, and a meal or meals are provided as part of the activity, Members shall not be reimbursed for any separate meal unless dietary needs require that the Council member purchase a different meal and/or city - related business necessitates that the Agency member miss the hosted meal. Members who host a meal or meals in conjunction with an Agency - related business activity, shall be reimbursed for the actual costs of the meal and associated gratuities in accordance with the IRS schedule for the community in which the meal is eaten. VIII. Miscellaneous Expenses The Mayor and Council Members may be supplied with various communication equipment and services including but not limited to cellular phones, facsimile connections and Internet connections. These services are deemed necessary for the public purposes of the Agency. IX. Cash Advance Policy From time to time, it may be necessary to request a cash advance to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business for the Agency. Such request for an advance should be submitted to the City Manager's Office, at least 14 days prior to the need for the advance with the following information: A. The purpose of the expenditure(s); B. The benefits of such expenditures to the community; C. The anticipated amount of the expenditure(s) by type (for example, hotel rates, meal costs, transportation, etc.); and, D. The dates of the expenditure(s). 6 Any unused advance must be returned to the Agency treasury within two business days of the Member's return, along with an expense report and receipts documenting how the advance was used in compliance with this expense policy. In the event there is uncertainty as to whether a request complies with this policy, a resolution will be sought from the Agency. X. Expense Reports In order to receive reimbursement Members shall complete and submit to the Finance Department a Travel and Expense Claim Form and Report ( "Expense Report") within a reasonable time after incurring the expense and in any event no later than 30 days thereafter. The expense report shall be accompanied by all receipts documenting each expense, including those acquired by the use of an Agency credit card or through any cash advance. The Member shall verify that the expenses for which reimbursement is sought were incurred on behalf of the Agency in the performance of official duties and that they meet the policies established in this policy. Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the expense being borne by the Member. All expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy. Members shall provide a brief report on meetings attended at the expense of the Agency at the next regular meeting of the relevant legislative body of the Agency. If multiple Members attended the same event, a joint report may be made. All documents related to reimbursable expenditures, including but not limited to the Expense Report and actual receipts are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Any personal information including credit card numbers contained on any receipts may be redacted before publicly releasing such records. XI. Credit Card Use Use of an Agency- issued credit card shall be permissible for the reimbursable expenses listed herein. The credit card may not be used at any time for personal expenses, even if the Member subsequently reimburses the Agency. XII. Policy Violations Violations of this policy including falsifying expense reports may result in any or all of the following: (1) loss of reimbursement privileges, (2) demand for restitution to the Agency, (3) any other applicable state and federal penalties, including criminal prosecution. The Agency shall consider (1) or (2) above only at a publicly noticed Agency meeting at which a hearing shall be held to determine whether or not a Member has violated the policy and what the appropriate penalty shall be. The determination as to whether or not to hold such a hearing may be made only after a vote of a majority of the Agency members present at any meeting during which the matter is considered. The hearing shall not be a full adversarial evidentiary hearing, and there shall be no direct or 7 cross examination of witnesses except by the Members of the Agency. The Member who is being accused of violating the policy shall be entitled to present any evidence to the Agency as to the validity and propriety of expenditures for which reimbursement was sought. The Member being accused of violating the policy shall not participate in either the decision to hold the hearing or the decision on the hearing. XIII. Compensation The compensation of a Member of an Agency is set forth in the City Charter, or for any Agency not governed by the Charter, by action of the Agency at the amount authorized by state law. No other compensation shall be provided. XIV. Ethics Training In addition to the Members required by AB 1234 to obtain ethics training, the Agencies shall require the following employees to meet the ethics training requirements of AB 1234: City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Every person who completes the training shall record the date of training and the entity that provided the training. The Agency shall maintain records for five years. These records are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. 8 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO. ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING POLICY OF CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT, COMPENSATION AND ETHICS TRAINING FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATIVE BODY MEMBERS WHEREAS, the City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority and ARRA take stewardship over the use of its public resources seriously, and WHEREAS, public resources should only be used when there is a substantial benefit to these agencies, and WHEREAS, such benefits include: 1. The opportunity to discuss the community's concerns state and federal officials; 2. Participating in local, regional, state and national whose activities affect the agencies; 3. Attending educational seminars designed to improve and information levels; and 4. Promoting public service and morale by recognizing and with regional, organizations officials' skill such service, 5. Attending local events directly related to the purpose of the agency, and WHEREAS, 1) legislative and other local, regional, state and federal agency business is frequently conducted over meals; 2) sharing a meal with local, regional, state and federal officials is frequently the best opportunity for a more extensive, focused and uninterrupted communication about the agency's policy concerns; and, 3) each meal expenditure must comply with the limits and reporting requirements of local, state and federal law, and Resolution #2 -A Special Joint Meeting CC, ARRA, CIC, HABOC 5 -16 -06 WHEREAS, this policy provides guidance to elected and appointed officials on the used and expenditure of agency resources, as well as the standards against which those expenditures will be measured, and WHEREAS, this policy will satisfy the requirements of Government Code sections 53232.2 and 53233.3 in the event such requirements could be constitutionally applied to charter cities, and WHEREAS, this policy supplements the definition of actual and necessary expenses for purposes of state laws relating to permissible uses of public resources, and WHEREAS, this policy also supplements the definition of necessary and reasonable expenses for purposes of federal and state income tax laws, and WHEREAS, this policy also applies to any charges made to a City of Alameda credit card, cash advances or other line of credit. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and ARRA Board hereby adopt the Alameda Expense Reimbursement, Compensation and Ethics Training Policy for Elected and Officials Appointed to Other Legislative Bodies as attached and as may be amended by the agencies from time to time. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT, COMPENSATION AND ETHICS TRAINING POLICY I. Policy Statement The City of Alameda and its related Agencies recognize the constructive value of professional conferences, seminars, meetings and training and provides travel funds for officials, who attend such official events. Agency members shall be entitled to reimbursement for their reasonable, actual and necessary expenses associated with travel, meals, lodging and other actual and necessary expenses associated with attending such events in a manner and in the amounts as set forth in this policy. This policy shall apply to the City Council and members of the Community Improvement Commission, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. It shall also apply to the members of the following municipal legislative bodies: Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Economic Development Commission, Film Commission, Golf Commission, Historic Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Pension Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Park Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission. This policy is formally adopted by the City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and any changes thereto shall also be adopted by the Agencies. II. Definitions For purposes of this policy, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Agency" shall include the City, Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. B. "Member" shall include members of City Council, the Community Improvement Commission; the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and municipal legislative bodies, i.e. Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Economic Development Commission, Film Commission, Golf Commission, Historic Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Pension Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Park Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission. 1 III. Authorized Expenses Agency funds, equipment, supplies (including letterhead), titles, and staff time may only be used for authorized Agency business. Expenses incurred by Members engaging and/or participating in the following activities and/or events constitute authorized and reimbursable expenses (as long as other requirements of this policy are also met): A. Communicating with representatives of regional, state, national and local government and their various agencies and entities on Agency adopted or authorized policy positions; B. Attending educational seminars designed to improve Agency members' skill and information levels, including ethics training to fulfill the requirements of AB 1234; C. Participating in regional, state, national, and local organizations related to the Agency's mission; D. Recognizing service to the Agency, e.g. thanking a longtime employee with a retirement gift or celebration of nominal cost; E. Attending local events which are directly related to the mission of the Agency e.g. Chamber of Commerce; F. Implementing an Agency- approved strategy for attracting or retaining businesses to the City, which will typically involve at least one staff member; G. Charitable events for institutions which have a purpose directly related to the Agency's mission; and H. All other expenditures, including international travel, with prior approval of the legislative body of the Agency. IV. Unauthorized Expenses The following expenditures incurred by Members in the course and scope of their official duties shall not be reimbursed without prior Agency approval: A. The personal portion of any trip; B. Political contributions or events; C. Family expenses, including those of a spouse /domestic partner when accompanying Member on official business, child or pet care; D. Entertainment Expenses, including theater, shows, movies (either in -room or at the theater), sporting events, golf, spa treatments, or other cultural events, etc. E. Non - mileage personal automobile expenses including repairs, insurance, gasoline, traffic and parking citations; F. Personal losses incurred while on Agency business. 2 V. Cost control To conserve Agency resources and keep expenses within community standards for public officials, expenditures should adhere to the following guidelines. In the event that expenses are incurred which exceed these guidelines, the cost borne or reimbursed by the Agency will be limited to the costs that fall within the guidelines, unless prior approval from the Agency is obtained at a public meeting. A. Transportation All travel on Agency business shall be planned to provide for the most economical mode of transportation reasonably available. Reasonable travel modes include: Air, private car and city -owned car. Travel expenses shall be allowed or reimbursed for days actually spent on Agency business, for programmed days of a conference or meetings, and for time spent in travel to and from these events. Expenses shall be computed for the days of the conference or event attended and for travel days not to exceed one day before and after the event and shall be allowed only if time and/or travel schedules prohibit travel at reasonable hours on the actual beginning and ending days of a conference. Reasonable hours are defined as between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Reimbursement for more than one day of travel to and from the destination must be approved in advance by the Agency. 1. Air Travel Allowable costs for air travel shall be calculated by using the shortest and most direct route with the least number of en -route stops. All air travel shall be booked as far in advance as possible, so as to receive the lowest fares possible except where the lowest fare is for an overnight flight, which may be chosen by the individual but is not required. Members shall use government and group rates for travel offered in conjunction with the event when available. A Member shall not be reimbursed for the cost of first class air travel except in extraordinary circumstances and approved by the Agency. 2. City Car Use of a city -owned car by Member is considered more economical than a private car. However, such use is limited to the availability of a pool car and is not mandatory. There shall be no allowance or reimbursement for transportation when a City -owned vehicle is used. However, any out -of- pocket expenses, including gas or maintenance costs incurred in operating the vehicle shall be 3 reimbursed upon presentation of receipts attached to the Travel and Expense Claim Form and Report. 3. Use of Private Vehicle a. Official duties of the Mayor and City Council Members require travel within the nine bay area counties. Based on mileage data, the amount of 167 miles is deemed reasonable for reimbursement on a monthly basis. The present Internal Revenue Code rate will be used to calculate the dollar amount. b. For travel by other Members or outside the nine bay area counties, if a personal vehicle is used for travel, reimbursement shall be based on the lesser of the following two costs: 1) The least cost round -trip air travel available, or 2) The allowable per mile cost, as defined in the Internal Revenue Code (with annual adjustments in the Internal Revenue Code), from Alameda. c. Car Rental If a car rental is necessary, reimbursement will be at rental rates that are equal or less than those available through the State's travel program (www.catravelsmart.com). d. Taxis /Shuttles Taxis or shuttles fares may be reimbursed, including a 15 percent gratuity per fare, when the cost of such fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for time - efficiency. e. Miscellaneous costs. Bridge fares and road tolls, etc. are also reimbursable. B. Lodging 1. Local Accommodations Except where necessary and where approved in advance by the Agency, when possible, at a publicly noticed meeting, the Members will not be reimbursed for hotel expenditures incurred for events occurring within a 50 -mile radius of Alameda except where the event begins before 8 a.m. or ends after 10 p.m. In the event reimbursement is warranted, such reimbursement shall be only for the reasonable rate of said accommodations as set forth below. 2. Non -local Accommodations All Members traveling outside the 50 -mile radius of Alameda shall be reimbursed the reasonable cost of the lodging and may either receive funds in advance, use a City- issued credit card, or be reimbursed for personal funds expended upon return from the trip. 4 Reimbursable days for lodging requests should correspond to the foregoing travel policy regarding dates of arrival and departure. Members are authorized for reimbursement for hotel accommodations for single occupancy. 3. Reasonable Rates for Lodging Where the lodging is in connection with a conference or other organized educational activity, reimbursable lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the conference or activity sponsor, providing that lodging at the group rate is available at the time of booking. If the group rate is not available, the Member shall be entitled to reimbursement for actual costs of lodging that is comparable in location and quality. Government rates must be requested. Where lodging is necessary for an activity that is not related to a conference or other organized educational activity, reimbursement shall be provided at the rate established by the Internal Revenue Service for the community in which the activity takes place unless there are no lodging facilities in reasonable proximity to the activity which offer that rate at the time of booking. In the event there are no such lodging facilities available at the IRS reimbursement rate, reimbursement shall be at the actual lodging rate so long as the activity has been approved by the Agency. In the event there is not enough time to seek prior approval of the activity by the Agency, approval shall be sought and received as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. In the event the Agency does not approve the activity for which the expenditure was made, the Agency member shall not be reimbursed therefore. VI. Miscellaneous Expenses Associated with Travel Outside Alameda Members shall be entitled to reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses incurred in the performance of their duties and in the course and scope of their activities as Members and which are reasonably related to Agency business including: A. Actual cost of telecommunication and fax charges when Members are away from an Agency worksite. B. Actual cost of telephone expenses, however, Members should endeavor to use Agency - provided calling cards or Agency- issued cell phones, if possible. If personal telephone or cell -phone bills are submitted for reimbursement, reimbursement will be calculated based on a percentage of total calls. C. If Internet access is necessary for Agency - related business, reimbursement will be at a maximum of $15 per day. 5 D. Reasonable laundry and/or dry cleaning charges when necessarily related to the activity while traveling on City business. E. Other miscellaneous charges reasonably related and necessary to the activity, including gratuities, parking, shuttle and taxi charges. VIII. Meals Members shall be entitled to reimbursement for meals and associated gratuities in an amount equivalent to the per diem rate provided to Agency employees, however, they shall be required to submit actual receipts documenting the expense as set forth below. Where the community standards and/or prevailing restaurant costs of the area exceed the per diem rate, Members shall be reimbursed for the actual costs of such meals and associated gratuities. Alcohol and bar expenses shall not be compensated without prior approval by the legislative body of the Agency. Where Members are attending a conference or other organized educational activity, and a meal or meals are provided as part of the activity, Members shall not be reimbursed for any separate meal unless dietary needs require that the Council member purchase a different meal and/or city- related business necessitates that the Agency member miss the hosted meal. Members who host a meal or meals in conjunction with an Agency - related business activity, shall be reimbursed for the actual costs of the meal and associated gratuities in accordance with the IRS schedule for the community in which the meal is eaten. VIII. Miscellaneous Expenses The Mayor and Council Members may be supplied with various communication equipment and services including but not limited to cellular phones, facsimile connections and Internet connections. These services are deemed necessary for the public purposes of the Agency. IX. Cash Advance Policy From time to time, it may be necessary to request a cash advance to cover anticipated expenses while traveling or doing business for the Agency. Such request for an advance should be submitted to the City Manager's Office, at least 14 days prior to the need for the advance with the following information: A. The purpose of the expenditure(s); B. The benefits of such expenditures to the community; C. The anticipated amount of the expenditure(s) by type (for example, hotel rates, meal costs, transportation, etc.); and, D. The dates of the expenditure(s). 6 Any unused advance must be returned to the Agency treasury within two business days of the Member's return, along with an expense report and receipts documenting how the advance was used in compliance with this expense policy. In the event there is uncertainty as to whether a request complies with this policy, a resolution will be sought from the Agency. X. Expense Reports In order to receive reimbursement Members shall complete and submit to the Finance Department a Travel and Expense Claim Form and Report ( "Expense Report") within a reasonable time after incurring the expense and in any event no later than 30 days thereafter. The expense report shall be accompanied by all receipts documenting each expense, including those acquired by the use of an Agency credit card or through any cash advance. The Member shall verify that the expenses for which reimbursement is sought were incurred on behalf of the Agency in the performance of official duties and that they meet the policies established in this policy. Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the expense being borne by the Member. All expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy. Members shall provide a brief report on meetings attended at the expense of the Agency at the next regular meeting of the relevant legislative body of the Agency. If multiple Members attended the same event, a joint report may be made. All documents related to reimbursable expenditures, including but not limited to the Expense Report and actual receipts are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Any personal information including credit card numbers contained on any receipts may be redacted before publicly releasing such records. XI. Credit Card Use Use of an Agency- issued credit card shall be permissible for the reimbursable expenses listed herein. The credit card may not be used at any time for personal expenses, even if the Member subsequently reimburses the Agency. XII. Policy Violations Violations of this policy including falsifying expense reports may result in any or all of the following: (1) loss of reimbursement privileges, (2) demand for restitution to the Agency, (3) any other applicable state and federal penalties, including criminal prosecution. The Agency shall consider (1) or (2) above only at a publicly noticed Agency meeting at which a hearing shall be held to determine whether or not a Member has violated the policy and what the appropriate penalty shall be. The determination as to whether or not to hold such a hearing may be made only after a vote of a majority of the Agency members present at any meeting during which the matter is considered. The hearing shall not be a full adversarial evidentiary hearing, and there shall be no direct or 7 cross examination of witnesses except by the Members of the Agency. The Member who is being accused of violating the policy shall be entitled to present any evidence to the Agency as to the validity and propriety of expenditures for which reimbursement was sought. The Member being accused of violating the policy shall not participate in either the decision to hold the hearing or the decision on the hearing. XIII. Compensation The compensation of a Member of an Agency is set forth in the City Charter, or for any Agency not governed by the Charter, by action of the Agency at the amount authorized by state law. No other compensation shall be provided. XIV. Ethics Training In addition to the Members required by AB 1234 to obtain ethics training, the Agencies shall require the following employees to meet the ethics training requirements of AB 1234: City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. Every person who completes the training shall record the date of training and the entity that provided the training. The Agency shall maintain records for five years. These records are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. 8 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the day of , 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said Commission this day of , 2006. Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission Beverly Johnson, Chair Community Improvement Commission I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the said Commission this day of , 2006. Mike Pucci, Executive Director /Secretary Beverly Johnson, Chair Board of Commissioners I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Governing Board of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the said Authority this day of , 2006. Irma Glidden, Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 2, 2006 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Chair and Members of Community Improvement Commission Chair and Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority From: Carol A. Korade City Attorney /General Counsel Re: Legal Services Provided by City Attorney and General Counsel and Discussion of Staffing Options Background Alameda's legal needs are unique among the 438 cities in California. It is the only city under 100,000 population, in which all of the following are true: • It has a closed military base in its jurisdiction for disposition and redevelopment • It has a Housing Authority, providing affordable housing opportunities • It has an active redevelopment agency, with ongoing development projects • It owns a public utility company2 • It has lands held in the Tidelands Trust for the public interest • It owns a municipal (public) golf course • It has a full - service police, fire and paramedic service The City's complex legal needs are provided by and through the City Attorney.3 In this capacity, the City Attorney's Office provides over 10,000 formal and informal legal opinions, contracts, transactional work and prepares all the legislation for each legislative body each year. The City Attorney defends the City entities against claims and lawsuits and initiates litigation on behalf of the City entities when directed to do so by the legislative body. The City receives an average of 126 claims a year and has averaged 16 active litigation cases per year for the past 15 years. The City is self - insured for all claims and lawsuits and workers' compensation matters. Since 1997, with the closure of the Naval Air Station Alameda, expansion of AP &T, and increased City redevelopment, the City's demand for legal services has more than doubled. 1 There are only nine other cities in the state, including, San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Vallejo, Long Beach, Oxnard and Fairfield, which include most of these criteria. 2 Alameda is the only city in California which provides electric, Internet and cable television services to its citizens. 3 In addition to serving as legal advisor to the City Council, 26 City Boards, Commissions and Committees, the City Manager and City's Clerk's Offices and 13 City Departments, the City Attorney is also General Counsel to Alameda Power & Telecom, Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC "), Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA ") and the Housing Authority. No changes to report. Held over from 5/6/06 City Council Meeting. Report 2 -B Special Joint Meeting 5 -16 -06 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Community Improvement Commission Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 2, 2006 Page 2 Current Organizational Model and Staffing Pattern for City Attorney's Office The present composition of the City Attorney's Office is the City Attorney plus four full - time in -house assistants and /or deputies, supplemented with various outside counsel support. Even with City Attorney staffing of five full -time attorneys, the workload of each attorney has increased more than 30% since 1997, due to the increased demand for legal services. All in -house attorneys work 40 -50 hours each week. The current budget for the five attorney staff of the City Attorney's Office is $894,170 (including cost of benefits). This budget reflects an average hourly rate of $76.00 (which includes the cost of benefits) based on a 45 hour work week for the five full -time municipal attorney staff.4 The City Attorney staff supervises the work of all outside counsel and no staff attorney has less than 10 years experience. By comparison, the average hourly rate of outside counsel is $276 —over three and 1/2 times more expensive than a staff attorney.5 The organizational model of permanent in -house attorney staffing, supplemented by discrete outside counsel services, is a model which is used by many cities. Attachment 1, a comparison of East Bay city attorney costs and staffing patterns, reflects that Alameda's City Attorney budget is on par with comparable cities. In addition to the City Attorney's in -house staffing, the City Attorney has access to an outside counsel budget for the various City entities it represents. The outside counsel budgets function like a reserve or "contingency" fund for each entity, and is used to fund litigation and discrete areas of transactional expertise. Attachment 2 summarizes the City's current outside counsel budgets, and also shows expenditures to date. The existing outside counsel budgets were approved for FY 05/06 by the legislative body, as recommended by the City Manager. The City Council and other legislative bodies also adopted procedures and limitations on the City Attorney's expenditures from all outside counsel budgets, the imposition of monthly financial reporting requirements and restrictions on use of outside counsel from an outside counsel panel, chosen through an RFQ process. The outside counsel budgets for the City, ARRA and the Housing Authority have remained relatively constant for 10 -15 years. Historically, the City Attorney's Office has expended less than 88% of its outside counsel funds, with an average annual cost savings of more than 12 %. With my departure on June 30, 2006, the City Attorney's Office will be operating with only two of its budgeted attorney positions, which is 40% of its legal staff (due to the Toss of two staff attorneys last month), and 28% of its FY 04/05 professional staff (loss of two staff attorneys plus a laid off Management Analyst). Five in -house attorneys have been working at least 45 hours per week in order to meet the legal demands of the 4 Based upon a 36 hour work week, the average hourly rate is $95 (includes cost of benefits). 5 Based on average of hourly rates of outside legal services panel established in December 2005, through RFQ process. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Community Improvement Commission Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 2, 2006 Page 3 City (approximately 1,000 total working hours a month each month). With only two attorneys in place, the City would suffer a Toss of over 600 working hours a month to provide necessary legal services. It is not possible for the City Attorney's Office to provide necessary legal services with only an Acting City Attorney and one staff attorney starting July 1. Additionally, two in -house attorneys are insufficient to supervise this level of back -fill work by outside counsel. In order to avoid the loss of significant legal services on July 1st, we are currently creating eligible lists from which to choose replacement of two vacant staff attorney positions, subject to Co uncil direction on the staffing options.6 As part of the budget process for FY 06/07, the City Attorney's office analyzed the legal needs of the City based on input from the 13 City Departments and the City Manager's Office regarding the projects anticipated for the upcoming fiscal year. This information has been previously provided to the Council.7 Staffing Options for the City Attorney's Office Attachment 3 is a chart reflecting four staffing options for the City Attorney's Office, with a comparison of function and cost for each Option summarized below: Option One, is the existing staffing pattern of one City Attorney and four staff attorneys. The total budgeted personnel costs for this option is $894,1470. Option One includes retaining the outside counsel budgets at their existing reserve levels, as shown in Attachment 2. Option One provides sufficient staffing to: • Provide experienced and high level in -house attorney work at a good value ($76 /hour) • Provide necessary supervision to outside counsel litigation and transactional work to continue to keep outside counsel costs controlled • Maintain synergy between City departments through in -house attorney consistency and institutional knowledge • Provide maximum risk shifting and risk avoidance through proactive legal work 6 Recruitment is likely to be made more difficult due to a professional perception of instability in the City Attorneys Office, with my departure on June 30th and lack of a permanent City Attorney appointment (It Is important for professional personnel to know who their boss will be, when deciding on a career move which will include a period of probationary employment.) 7 The past few years have seen an unprecedented request for legal services outside the municipal area. A portion of these include the Navy negotiations /base transfer issues; litigation and transactional issues on the Bridgeside condemnation and transfer and Alameda Theater; the new main library; legal support for growth of AP &T and significant litigation; ferry issues; the Alameda Beltline litigation; Harbor Island Apartments litigation; Measure A issues and litigation; transactional and litigation services to complete the Navy transfer of the FISC site and the Catellus development; environmental /remediation issues, to name only a few. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Community Improvement Commission Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 2, 2006 Page 4 Option Two shows a reduced attorney staff pattern of one City Attorney and three staff attorneys. It is recommended that with the Option Two reduced attorney staffing, that the remaining staff attorneys be high level and capable of complex legal work. This Option shows a $143,298 or 16% salary/benefit savings over Option One. Outside counsel budgets would be maintained at their existing reserve levels. Option Two provides in -house attorney staffing to: • Provide experienced and high level in -house attorney work at a good value ($76 /hour) • Provide supervision to outside counsel litigation and transactional work, but increase expenditures from outside counsel budget or limit legal services • Maintain synergy between City Departments through in -house attorney consistency and institutional knowledge • Provide some risk shifting /risk avoidance, but less proactive legal work and more "triage" in approach Option Three shows a reduced attorney staff pattern, plus the addition of a Management Analyst. Management of claims and resulting litigation must be coordinated with and supervised by the City Attorney's Office. In the FY 05/06 budget cycle, the City Attorney's Office had to lay -off. a Management Analyst as part of an overall budget cut of $330,000. "Option Three" is the same staffing pattern as Option 2, but includes restoring a full -time Management Analyst. This Option shows a $32,965, or 4% salary savings over Option One. Option Three compares with Option Two above, but permits better risk shifting /risk avoidance and proactive legal work with reinstatement of personnel to provide in -house claims management. Option Four is the retention of existing attorney staff only —one City Attorney and two staff attorneys, and providing the additional legal work required by the City, ARRA, CIC and Housing Authority through the use of outside counsel resources. The existing outside counsel budget would be insufficient to provide necessary legal services for this Option, given the cost differential between in -house attorney staffing ($76 /hour average) and outside counsel staffing ($276 /hour average). We are sensitive to the fact that outside counsel costs have been a source of public discussion and that the City Council has expressed a desire to keep these outside counsel costs controlled. Option Four is the least cost effective and least efficient model: • Provides a salary/benefit savings of approximately $331,577, but increases the outside counsel budget by the same amount for no net cost savings • Outside counsel costs are over 3 1/2 times higher than in -house staffing, and therefore, only 30% as efficient • In house attorneys work at least 45 hours a week (equivalent to 35 "billable" hours a week), with an annual billable rate of 1,820 hours each (times two attorneys). At an average outside counsel billable rate of $276 times 3,640 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Community Improvement Commission Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 2, 2006 Page 5 hours, the potential cost of outside counsel to replace the work of two staff attorneys is over $1,000,000; even if the outside counsel budget was enhanced by the $331,557 salary savings of two unfilled attorney positions, there would still be a deficit of over $600,000 in costs necessary to fund this option. • Provides insufficient in -house attorney staffing to maintain synergy and legal continuity between departments (many City projects have implications for multiple departments, such as affordable housing projects between Development Services, Housing Authority and Planning and Building, or development and redevelopment projects between Development Services and Public Works) • Provides insufficient in -house attorney staffing to supervise outside counsel work, therefore likely to lead to error and inconsistency in the legal product • Provides Tess access to legal support by departments, given the "pay as you go" model of outside counsel services • Increases costs by paying outside counsel to "learn Alameda" repeatedly (lack of continuity) • Increases risks of litigation costs, where same outside counsel firm providing transactional advice also provides resulting litigation services Fiscal Impact There would be no fiscal impact by maintaining the current City Attorney staffing pattern. This budget was approved in July 2005. A FY 06/07 budget based on the current City Attorney staffing pattern will not result in any overall budget increase from FY 05/06. Option Two — reduced staffing pattern of one City Attorney and three staff attorneys. The salary/benefit cost for this attorney staffing pattern is $750,880, which is a savings of $143,290 in salary/benefits over the current budget. Option Three — reduced staffing pattern of one City Attorney and three staff attorneys, but restoring a Management Analyst. The salary/benefit cost for this staffing patterns is $861,205, which is a savings of $32,965 in salary/benefits over the current budget. Option Four — reduced staffing pattern of one City Attorney and two staff attorneys with a corresponding increase in outside counsel budget to back -fill legal services —would not result in any cost savings over FY 05/06 budget and could potentially be more expensive (up to an additional $600,000 in outside counsel costs, even with a transfer of $331,557 in salary savings to the current outside counsel budget), due to the three - to -one expense comparison of outside counsel /contract attorney costs vs. in -house attorney costs. Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Community Improvement Commission Members of Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 2, 2006 Page 6 Recommendation Option One is recommended as the optimum City Attorney staffing pattern; • However, with greater risk assumption by the City, Options Three or Two can be recommended, in increased order of risk assumption . • Option Four is not recommended, due to its high cost, inherent inefficiencies and increased risk exposure Attachment Oak VmiLL Carol A. Korade City Attorney /General Counsel A A . 49 ey y� .._.. at a • x x x x x • x x x • x k x v, 0 • H 0 g $ _` X x x. x x x x h o °gamy o p of San Mateo • x x x x x x v b 4 H •. . H Lit Leandro X x x g ". H 0 ° 1..>� A Rich moat . x x x x x � H c0. I a 1 0 • �{ E1 x • x x x. N • 0 b .l •`.� p Palo Alto >4 x x x x x . x i- > e H 000'oos $ ICITY ATTk- 11IEY"S OFFICE COST COMPARISON Aft. View X .. x x x. x x y c. o H • �q° A P. Jfavward >e x x • . e a • Daly City . - o°o n H r 1 +71 A. .w d A. I lain da' x x x x x x x x x x. K. x <n ,a oo H o H ..111 O '.� 2. p. a ,J�� +' o a 1 2 w Do you provide legal services to a munioipally -owned telecom provider? Do you provide legal services to a local reuse authority for purposes of acquiring or redeveloping a closed military base within your jurisdiction? Does your city have full in -house police staffing, as opposed to contracting for public safety services with your county? Does your citf have full in -house fire staffing, as opposed to contacting for public safety services with your county? Does your City own amunicipal golf course for which you provide legal services? Do you provide legal services for She construction of a new municipal parking structure? Does your city have anbistorio preservation district and do you provide legal services for the preservation of historic structures? Do you provide 1ega1•services to a ferry system? 1 • Do you provide legal services to your city regarding the Coastal Conservancy Act or Tidelands Trust (Le., if your city is Iocated adjacent to $re coast or 'a public waterway)? ce O I 1 1,41 e 1 a1 How many authorized irttorneypositions do you have in your office? • • (inhaling salaries and overhead for attorneys, support staff; materials/conferences /office equipment, etc.) • What is your City Attorney's Office fiscal year outside counsel budget? 1 1 - °f "I Q SUMMARY OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL BUDGET AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006 *City's Outside Legal budget funds City initiation of litigation and litigation defense and specialty transactional work. This budget has remained relatively constant for 15 years. Approved Maximum Legal Fees /Costs g Legal Fees /Costs Expenditure Paid thru 2/28/06 Remaining Available Balance as of 2/28/06 City Legal* $ 465,000.00 $ 189,032.00 $ 275,968.00 AP &T Electric ** $ 200,000.00 $ 35,057.21 $ 164,942.79 AP &T Telecom * ** $ 200,000.00 $ 12,268.30 $ 187,731.70 ARRA * * ** $ 484,000.00 $ 108,671.75 $ 375,328.25 HA * * * ** $ 41,520.00 $ 2,660.50 $ 38,859.50 $ 1,390,520.00 $ 347,689.76 $ 1,042,830.24 25% 75% *City's Outside Legal budget funds City initiation of litigation and litigation defense and specialty transactional work. This budget has remained relatively constant for 15 years. * *AP &T Electric Outside Legal budget funds AP &T litigation and specialty transactional work pertaining to electric utility distribution and regulation. This budget varies from year to year, depending on projected project or litigation needs of the AP &T electric. * * *AP &T Telecom Outside Legal budget funds AP &T litigation and specialty transactional work pertaining to telecommunications. This budget varies from year to year, depending on projected project or litigation needs of AP &T telecom. * * * *ARRA Outside Legal budget funds ARRA litigation and specialty transactional work pertaining to federal regulations (BRAC process), environmental remediation, negotiation of specialty environmental insurance products and leasing /redevelopment. This budget has remained relatively constant for 10 years. * * ** *Housing Authority Outside Legal budget funds Housing Authority litigation, such as unlawful detainer actions and disputes with HUD. This budget has remained relatively constant for many years. There is no CIC outside counsel legal budget reserve. Legal costs of various redevelopment projects are part of the "project costs," largely funded by the project development (e.g., the Alameda Theater project and litigation costs flowing from the Alameda Theater project.) Option 1 Option 2 Current Attorney Staffing Reduced Attorney Staffing CA $ 231,008 CA $ 231,008 ACA II $ 183,624 ACA II $ 183,620 ACA II $ 183,624 ACA I $ 168,126 DCA II $ 147,957 ACA I $ 168,126 DCA II $ 147,957 $ 750,880 $ 894,170 Savings $ 143,290 16% Option 3 Option 4 Reduced Attorney Staffing/ Further Reduced Attorney Staffing Restored Risk Professional with Increased Outside Counsel Budget CA $ 231,008 CA $ 231,008 ACA 11 $ 183,620 ACAII $ 183,620 ACA I $ 168,126 ACAI $ 168,126 ACA 1 $ 168,126 Outside Counsel Increased MA $ 110,325 $ 861,205 • Savings $ 32,965 Savings None 4%