2006-09-19 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC),
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 - - - 7:00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, September 19, 2006, 7:00 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 speak 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: Operation Dignity v. Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, City of Alameda,
Community Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment
Beverly oh n,u Mayor
Chair, Community Improvement
Commission, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA),
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 - - - 7:25 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM
1. Recommendation to approve an Implementation Agreement with
Operation Dignity and Resources for Community Development for
the construction of 39 Affordable Rental Units on a Portion of
the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. (Development Services)
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly John a '►r
Chair, Ala -da Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Community
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 - - - 7:27 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
1 -A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Community Improvement
Commission held on September 5, 2006. .(City Clerk) [CIC]
1 -B. Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount by $19,860 to provide additional Construction
Administration Services for the rehabilitation of the Alameda
Theater. (Development Services) [CIC]
1 -C. Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Komorous-
Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount by
$5,000 to provide additional Architectural and Construction
Administration Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage.
(Development Services) [CIC]
1 -D. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report for
Fiscal Year 2006 Fourth Quarter. (Finance) [City Council,
ARRA, and CIC]
AGENDA ITEMS
2 -A. Public Hearing to consider certification of a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, approval of a General Plan
Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement
Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition and
Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of
approved but not yet constructed office and research and
development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use,
300,000 square feet of retail use, 20,000 square feet of
health club, and up to 300 residential units in the Catellus
Mixed Use Development; and adoption /introduction of related
resolutions /ordinances. The project area if located south of
the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda
and the Bayport Residential Project, east of Coast Guard
Housing and west of Webster Street. The site is in the MX
(Mixed Use) Zoning District. (Development Services) [City
Council and CIC] To be continued to October 17, 2006
ADJOURNMENT
1
Beverly John ay ! r
Chair, Ala -da Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Community
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
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.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - - SEPTEMBER 19, 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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:25 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:27 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation declaring the week of September 17 -23, 2006 as
National Pollution Prevention Week.
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 September 5, 2006. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9 -01 -1 and
authorize request for bids for a Vehicle Tow Contract for the
Police Department. (Police)
4 -D. Recommendation to accept and authorize to record a Notice of
Completion for Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line
Demolition and Grading Improvements. (Development Services)
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to the 1986
Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. (Public Works)
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Guidelines for
Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda
Business Travel. (Finance)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolutions Reappointing Jessica Lindsey and
Appointing Alan J. Ryan to the Economic Development
Commission;
• Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Betsy E. Gammell to the
Golf Commission; and
• Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Jo Kahuanui to the
Recreation and Park Commission.
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Endorsing and Supporting the U.S.
Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. (Planning
and Building)
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider ZA06 -0001, Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment City -wide; and
• Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8 (Off- Street Parking
and Loading Space) of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations), to Add a Process for
Parking Exceptions. Continued from September 5, 2006.
(Planning and Building)
5 -D. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments
and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2
(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and
Housing), to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the
Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems. Continued from
September 5, 2006. (Fire)
5 -E. Final Passage of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Property Within the City of Alameda from Open Space (0) to
Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD) by
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property
Located at 500 Maitland Drive. (Planning and Building)
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.
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic
Development Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board
and Climate Protection Campaign Task Force.
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
Community Improvement Commission
September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Improvement Commission, Board of Housing Commissioners and City
Council
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director /City Manager
Re:
Approval of an Implementation Agreement with Operation Dignity and Resources
for Community Development for the Construction of 39 Affordable Rental Units on
a Portion of the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center
Background
On October 6, 1999, the ARRA, CIC, Board of Housing Commissioners and City Council
(collectively "the City ") approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alameda
Point Collaborative (APC) regarding the Standards of Reasonableness for Homeless Users at
Alameda Naval Air Station. The MOU was fully executed on February 22, 2000.
Several sections of the MOU address provision of a new 39 -unit affordable rental housing
project on a portion of the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). Operation Dignity
(OD), a provider of transitional housing for Veterans at Alameda Point, is the third party
beneficiary of the 39 -unit project (i.e., when the units are built, OD is entitled to operate the
project for 59 years pursuant to a Legally Binding Agreement). The original MOU required APC
to contribute $1 million to the project, with the ARRA/CIC responsible for funding the
remaining cost of the project.
In September 2001, as required by the MOU, the City notified APC that it would begin
demolition of the existing improvements at East Housing within 30 days. Based on the MOU,
this notice triggered a requirement that the City commence construction of the 39- unit project
within two years (e.g., by September 2003). Demolition of the existing improvements began in
January 2002.
In June 2002, the City, through a Request for Proposals process, selected Resources for
Community Development (RCD) a non - profit development corporation, as its development
partner to construct the 39 -unit project. As RCD began working on the project design and
construction budget, it was determined that the initial cost estimates for the project were well
Agenda Item #1
9 -19 -06 CC /ARRA/CIC /HABOC
Honorable Chair and Members of the ARRA, September 19, 2006
CIC, Housing Authority, and City Council Pg. 2 of 4
below RCD's updated projections. The MOU anticipated a project cost of $5.7 million' while
RCD estimated the project at approximately $13.4 million. Given the more detailed and updated
project cost estimates, RCD and staff began discussions with OD about modifying the project
financing structure so that RCD could pursue outside funding sources (i.e., tax credit financing)
that would allow the City to leverage its financial contribution with County, State and Federal
funds.
Unfortunately, the parties were unable to negotiate a revised financing structure ahead of the
September 2003 date to commence construction on the project. In June, 2005, OD ultimately
sued the City for breach of contract. In lieu of going to trial, staff presented a proposal from OD
that would settle the lawsuit. A requirement of the proposed Settlement Agreement is execution
of an Implementation Agreement, which is on file with the City Clerk, for construction of the 39-
unit project. An additional requirement, captured in a proposed Settlement Agreement with
APC, is a waiver of APC /OD's remaining obligation to raise $600,000 of the original $1 million
for project construction. OD has also agreed to a form of a partnership agreement for the tax
credit partnership.
Discussion
The Implementation Agreement the terms and conditions of the MOU with respect to the 39 -unit
project. The Implementation Agreement provides a structure for funding the 39 -unit project
which permits the City to pursue tax credit financing/ outside financial assistance to leverage its
own funds. This revised structure relieves the City of the burden of raising all but $1 million of
the construction cost from internal funds and allows the City to pursue a variety of funds,
including State funds through the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) and equity raised
through the sale of Federal tax credits to finance the project. The current construction budget
estimates that approximately $10 million in tax credit /outside funds will be raised and that the
City will contribute approximately $3.4 million in local funds.
The primary anticipated source of outside funds is equity raised through the sale of Federal
affordable housing tax credits. The pro forma anticipates that over $5 million will be contributed
to the project from the sale of Federal tax credits. As proposed, a tax credit partnership will be
formed with RCD as the general partner and the tax credit investors as the limited partners to
build and operate the 39 -unit project for 15 years. Because Federal tax law requires this 15 year
"recapture period" during which tax credits can be revoked if the affordable housing project is
not properly managed, OD must defer its rights to the project for that period of time.
Other outside funding sources include: $3.2 million from the State MHP, $800,000 in equity and
deferred fees from RCD, an $800,000 first mortgage, $400,000 in County HOME funds and
$200,000 in Federal Home Loan Bank Board funds.
Under the original MOU, APC was obligated to raise $1 million towards the $5.7 estimated construction cost.
APC raised $400,000 in grant funds toward this $1 million obligation, but the grant funding was revoked because of
the inability to begin construction within the grant timetable. In accordance with the original MOU, APC is excused
from raising a "new" $400,000 toward its $1 million obligation, where the grant funding was lost through no fault of
APC. There remains an existing APC obligation of $600,000 toward the cost of construction under the original
MOU.
Honorable Chair and Members of the ARRA, September 19, 2006
CIC, Housing Authority, and City Council Pg. 3 of 4
The Implementation Agreement provides consideration to OD for deferring its rights to the 39-
unit project for 15 years. The consideration includes: 1) OD will be provided rights and
responsibilities as a special limited partner in the tax credit partnership that will be formed to
construct and manage the 39 -unit project; 2) OD will receive funding from the City to provide
alternate affordable housing opportunities to its clients in an amount not to exceed $2.3 million
over 81/2 years. This funding will terminate as soon as the 39 units are constructed. If the City is
unable to construct the project in the next 81 years, 3) OD would receive an additional $1
million to permanently relinquish its rights to operate the 39 -unit project. These funds (up to $3.3
million) are required to be used by OD to expand affordable housing opportunities for OD's
clients primarily in Alameda or in Alameda County. The Implementation Agreement also
addresses RCD operations and management, the tenant selection process, the process for OD to
assume the long -term lease for the project after the 15 -year recapture period, and requirements of
the management plan and operating reserves.
If the City approves the attached Implementation Agreement, RCD, with staff assistance, will
move forward to submit an application for MHP funding for the 39 -unit project. The MEP
Notice of Funding Availability was issued in August 2006 and applications are due on October
10, 2006. If the Implementation Agreement (and its related Partnership Agreement and
Management Agreements) are not approved, the proposed Settlement Agreement will be null and
void and the law suit will proceed to trial later this fall.
Fiscal Impact
If the City /CIC /ARRA/Housing Authority approve the Implementation Agreement as part of the
proposed Settlement Agreement with OD, the CIC's funding obligation for the 39 -unit project is
substantially reduced if outside funding (e.g., tax credit financing) can be leveraged. With the
ability to access these outside funds, the City's commitment is approximately $3.4 million as an
equity contribution to the construction of the 39 units. The funding for the initial 31/2 years
($500,000) of the Implementation Agreement will come from relinquished ARRA lease
revenues. If the 39 -unit project has not been constructed within the initial 31/2 year period, the
funding for the next five years of the Implementation Agreement ($1,800,000) will come from
CIC 20% affordable housing funds. If the CIC is unable to begin construction of the project by
Jan. 1, 2015, a final $1 million payment will be made to OD from a combination of CIC 20%
housing funds and affordable housing in -lieu fees. No general funds will be used to provide
alternate funding to OD. If the CIC is unable to raise funds to construct the project, the total
commitment to OD under the Implementation Agreement is $3,300,000, plus a waiver of the
remaining $600,000 APC fund raising obligation, which would effectively buy out the interest of
OD in the 39 -unit project.
Recommendation
Approve the Implementation Agreement with OD for the construction of the 39 -unit project and
authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to execute the Agreement and related documents
on behalf of the City of Alameda, the Alameda Community Improvement Commission, the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and the Alameda Housing Authority.
Honorable Chair and Members of the ARRA, September 19, 2006
CIC, Housing Authority, and City Council Pg. 4 of 4
tfully submitte
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By:
On file with City Clerk:
Implementation Agreement
Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(06- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC
and HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC
Meeting held on August 24, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06- ) Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that
applicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at
Bayport.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired 'whether income is verified
immediately when applications are submitted, to which the
Development Services Manager responded income is verified at a
later time.
The Development Services Director continued the presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired how many income tax years are
verified.
The Development Services Director responded that Alameda
Development Corporation (ADC) did the preliminary background work;
stated ADC received three years of income tax information prior to
2005; 2005 income tax information was not available; ADC received
incomplete information because only pay stubs were received; income
tax information was not received showing all income sources for the
entire household; ADC found outside employment from the Peralta
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission 1
September 5, 2006
Community College District; only the primary employment source was
provided.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from
the primary job, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures
show approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired
whether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
W -2's have not been received from the Peralta Community College
District; $2,900 is an estimate.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for
actual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Commissioner Daysog's inquiry regarding the income
threshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager
stated the income threshold is $83,800.
Chair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in
the application package.
The Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient
information was available to determine that the Rutledge's income
was over the threshold; the Rutledge's only provided information
regarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City
inquired whether the Rutledge's wished to submit additional
information; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005
income tax returns, and W -2's would be requested if the
determination process were starting now.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security
Administration overtime communication occurred.
The Development Services Director responded the Rutledge's wanted
to dispense with any overtime in order to qualify; stated the City
requested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating
that no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the
City determined that overtime could occur.
Commissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the
first group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that
an evaluation would not be made initially.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
2
The Development Services Director responded all applicants are
evaluated; ADC sends a letter stating what is needed from the
applicants, such as W -2's checking account information, etc.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an applicant's status is
checked and re- evaluated at the end of the process, to which the
Development Services Director responded the bank would re- evaluate
the status.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the entire process could take
six months.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the process includes workshops.
Commissioner deHaan stated an applicant's status could change
within six months; inquired whether applicants are informed that
wages should include overtime.
The Development Services Director responded the application
requests gross earnings; stated overtime is a calculation of gross
earnings.
Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents (In favor of appeal): M. Daniele Adams, Social Security
Administration; Isha Brown, Alameda; Jesusita Rutledge, Appellant;
Duane Rutledge, Appellant; Hannah Israel, Appellant's dependant;
and Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal): Belinda Racklin, Alameda
Development Corporation.
There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates all speaker comments; the
Rutledge's acted in good faith throughout the application process;
rules need to be followed; rules become arbitrary without
consistency; overtime rules are applied in court every day; the
Rutledge's were given an opportunity to have the employer [Social
Security Administration] provide information stating that overtime
would not be allowed; said information was not received.
Commissioner Daysog concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the income
methodology was fair; ADC's and City staff's job is to find
information; the Rutledge's income exceeds the maximum threshold
for a family of four; the City needs to be fair to other families
Special Meeting 3
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
going through the process; urged the Rutledge's to stick with the
City throughout the next building phases.
Commissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide
information on any status change, which includes a change in the
family size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as
clear as the testimony tonight; she would have no problem
dismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided
a letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta
College income is more problematic; documentation would need to be
provided from the College.
Commissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge
would teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep
in mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application
clearly indicates what the income should include.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on
the 2006 income.
The Development Services Director responded verification was to be
provided to the ADC by December; twelve -month income was then
projected.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve -month window was
projected from the time of the application.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative;
earnings are projected forward twelve months after the application
is complete and an earning pattern is reviewed.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December
2006 income was used for evaluation purposes.
The Development Services Director responded income was to cover
March 2006 to March 2007.
Commissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter
since it is now September; an accurate income could be projected if
the Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would
occur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr.
Rutledge is on sabbatical; figures could be reviewed to see if the
income falls within the window.
Commissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at
Alameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work
with a process that is fair.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
4
Commissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important; a
paper trail is needed for the file.
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's had ample time to provide
documentation.
Chair Johnson stated the Rutledge's could continue to find ways to
change circumstances in order to qualify.
The Development Services Director stated the policy would need to
be changed if applicants were allowed to change working status to
become eligible.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another home selection would
occur, to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired when validation would be initiated for
the next draw.
The Development Services Director responded as soon as the
placement is complete for the current homes.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the application process
allows applicants to provide evidence of a change in status during
the evaluation period, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated individuals have no control over
furloughs and overtime cuts; the current process is valid and
allows people to appeal; verification is missing from the Social
Security Administration and Peralta Community College District.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the overtime calculation was used to
disqualify the Rutledge's; now opportunities are not available to
make half of the excess income.
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's would be eligible for the
next housing program because the application would be different
based upon adding a fifth person to the household.
Chair Johnson stated allowing individuals to continually change
information on the application is unfair to other applicants;
applicants could tailor information to meet the qualifications.
The Development Services Director stated the Rutledge's income was
reviewed for a five - member family and the income was still slightly
above the threshold.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
5
Legal Counsel stated the overtime issue is relevant and the
testimony is very good for the record; the past standard allowed a
written letter from someone in authority stating there would be no
overtime; an applicant taking a sabbatical has never been accepted
in order to disallow income; she is not sure whether a sabbatical
would resolve the issue.
Chair Johnson stated taking a sabbatical would be a voluntary act.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the snapshot covers the
period from March 2006 to March 2007, to which the Development
Services Director responded the snapshot covers a projection moving
forward to March 2007.
Commissioner Gilmore stated January 2006 through March 2006 was
used to project the Peralta College income.
Chair Johnson clarified that January 2006 through March 2006 was
used to project the Peralta College income from March 2006 to March
2007; inquired whether fall and winter Peralta College income was
not assumed.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated Mr. Rutledge would be obligated to advise the City if he
were going to teach.
Commissioner Daysog stated Mr. Rutledge had every expectation to
teach if enough students enrolled; reasonable assumptions were made
from the best available information.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired when the evaluation
period for the next phase of houses would take place, to which the
Development Services Director responded the evaluation is going on
now.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Rutledge's could be placed
in the next evaluation process.
Chair Johnson responded other applicants have been disqualified and
have not been put back into: the process.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner Daysog and Chair Johnson - 2. Noes:
Special Meeting 6
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, and Matarrese - 3.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of allowing the Rutledge's to
attempt to provide documentation regarding Social Security
employment status and to have staff perform an evaluation based
upon projected income from March 2006 to March 2007 to determine
whether or not the Rutledge's fit into the income category for a
five - person household.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Social Security
Administration income would be frozen if there were no more
overtime.
Commissioner Gilmore responded the income would be for overtime
earned up until September 30, 2006; overtime would be zero from
October 1 though March if the [Social Security Administration]
letter were submitted.
Chair Johnson inquired what happens if a letter is not received, to
which Commissioner Gilmore responded the Rutledge's would not
qualify.
Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added to the motion
requesting documentation on the added dependent; inquired whether
the documentation is on record and validated.
The Housing Development Manager responded the dependent has been
accepted.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants the dependent validated
and the Social Security [letter regarding overtime] validated by
the [Social Security] Finance Director.
Commissioner Gilmore suggested that the requirement be that the
letter comes from someone in authority.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the language state "the appropriate
person" and staff could get the information from said appropriate
person.
Legal Counsel stated real information is being requested; Peralta
College income needs to be counted for the fall and into 2007;
staff does not have said information.
Chair Johnson requested that the motion include that the Rutledge's
provide all necessary documentation to provide staff with actual
information.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
7
Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added into the motion
that all pay increases be projected also.
The Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the
applicant to submit the information.
Chair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
The Executive Director requested clarification about the request
for verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the
dependent as a family member.
Chair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue
Service.
The Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does
not have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family
unit.
Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge's
are required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at
the Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime
from October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all
reportable income from Peralta College and any other source be
factored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by
September 30, 2006.
Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that
motion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee
status changes and there is an increase.
Commissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to
require the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime
policy and [overtime] percentage projection.
Chair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or
is not [overtime] income.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a
letter indicating that there would be no overtime.
The Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve
the appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations.
Commissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established;
information is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission 8
September 5, 2006
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's were given ample time to
make the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the
CIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters
from non - decision makers; encouraged Commissioners to reconsider
and approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the
Rutledge's do not provide documentation from a person in authority
at the Social Security Administration.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner Daysog - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 5, 2006
9
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Re: Recommendation to Approve the Amended Contract with Architectural
Resources Group, Inc. by Increasing the Contract Amount by $19,860 to
Provide Additional Construction Administration Services for the
Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater
BACKGROUND
Over the past five years, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) has
implemented plans to rehabilitate and restore the historic Alameda Theater, in
conjunction with a multi- screen cineplex and parking structure. As part of this
implementation process, the CIC retained historic preservation architects, Architectural
Resources Group (ARG), to provide design and architectural services for the potential
historic rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater.
In November 2003, the CIC contracted with ARG to prepare preliminary cost estimates,
base drawings, code analysis, testing of interior panels and finishes, and
recommendations for interior rehabilitation. The cost of that contract was $78,890.
Since then, the CIC has amended ARG's contract five times to authorize performance
of expanded services necessary to move the proposed Historic Theater project forward:
1. In June 2004, the CIC approved a $129,200 amendment to provide additional
testing and analysis of system improvements with complete cost estimates for
potential rehabilitation of the theater.
2. In October 2004, the CIC approved a $43,550 amendment to coordinate with the
preliminary designs for the cineplex and parking structure.
3. In December 2004, the CIC approved a $320,000 amendment to produce
construction documents.
Agenda Item #1 -B
9 -19 -06 CC /ARRA/CIC
Honorable Chair and September 19, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3
4. In April 2005, the CIC approved a $44,275 amendment to provide documentation
for Section 106 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and to
provide specifications for the ADA ramp and Exit Stair Enclosure.
5. In July 2005, the CIC approved a $307,414 amendment to provide additional pre-
planning and construction administration services for the rehabilitation of the
Alameda Theater.
The total amount allocated to date for ARG's scope of work is $923,329, not including
the proposed contract amendment. The proposed contract amendment will increase
ARG's budget by $19,860 for a total contract of $943,189. (The contract and all
amendments are on file with the City Clerk.)
DISCUSSION
As indicated in the July 26, 2006 CIC staff report, which recommended approval of
construction contracts for both the historic Alameda Theater and parking structure, ARG
provided additional architectural services to assist the City in successfully negotiating a
construction contract for the rehabilitation of the historic Alameda Theater with Overaa
Construction. These services included meeting with Overaa Construction, the City's
Construction Manager, and CIC staff; evaluating the validity of value- engineering
proposals; and revising construction documents to reflect modifications to the scope of
work of the project.
The result is that the total architecture and engineering (A &E) costs for the historic
Alameda Theater of $943,329 (including the proposed contract amendment) represents
approximately 11 percent of the construction budget of $8,800,000. This is within the
industry standard of 10 to 12 percent. ARG's A &E costs included intensive research
and testing, such as microscopic analysis of paint samples, which is not typically
required for non - historic building renovations.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
This project will be funded by the 2003 Merged Area Bonds and will not impact the
General Fund. Architectural fees for this phase of work will not exceed $19,860 for a
total contract amount of $943,189.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the amended contract with Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing
the contract amount by $19,860 to provide additional construction administration
services for the Rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater.
Honorable Chair and
September 19, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3
Respectf Ily submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
ana•er, Business Develo. ent Division
Jen lifer �'tt
Dev:;opment Manager
DK/LAL /DES /JO:ry
cc: Architectural Resources Group, c/o Naomi Miroglio
On file in City Clerk's Office:
Contract and amendments
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Re: Recommendation to Approve the Amended Contract with Komorous-
Towey Architects, Inc. by Increasing the Contract Amount by $5,000 to
Provide Additional 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 contract was amended again on May 16, 2006 for additional services
related to design modifications in response to review by the State Historic Preservation
Officer for a total contract amount of $170,400. The proposed contract amendment will
increase KTA's budget by $5,000 for a total contract of $175,400. The amendment,
including a copy of the original contract, is on file with the City Clerk.
DISCUSSION
As indicated in the July 26, 2006 CIC staff report, which recommended approval of
construction contracts for both the historic Alameda Theater and parking structure, KTA
provided additional architectural services to assist the City in reducing the price for the
parking garage construction contract with Overaa Construction. These services included
meeting with Overaa Construction, the City's Construction Manager, and CIC staff;
evaluating the validity of value engineering proposals; and revising design documents to
reflect modifications to the scope of work of the project. 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.
Agenda Item #1 -C
9 -19 -06 CC /ARRA/CIC
Honorable Chair and September 19, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL 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 $5,000, for a
total contract amount of $175,400.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the amended contract with Komorous -Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the
contract amount by $5,000 to provide construction administration services for the
proposed parking garage.
Respectfully s
mitted,
Leslie. Li le
Development Services Director
By:
D i rene E. Soto
age , Business Develo • ment Division
Dev:aop ent Manager
DK/LAL /DE /JO:ry
cc: Komorous -Towey Architects, c/o Thomas J. Towey
On file in City Clerk's Office:
Amendment and copy of original contract
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Quarterly Financial Report for Period Ending June 30, 2006 (Year -End)
BACKGROUND
The unaudited year -end financial report for the fiscal year 2005 -06 for all City funds has been
completed and is attached as Exhibits A -E. Maze and Associates will audit the City's financial
records with final fieldwork scheduled for October 2006. The final audit report for the period
ending June 30, 2006 is scheduled to be presented to the Council in December.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Estimated combined revenues (all funds including Alameda Power & Telecom and Alameda
Housing Authority) totaled approximately $313,319,656. Combined expenditures for 2005 -06
totaled $313,609,800. Fund balances and bond proceeds (project funds held by trustees)
complement the revenues to meet current year expenditures.
General Fund expenditures, including transfers to other funds totaled $71,760,564 while actual
revenues were $72,884,396. Actual revenues collected were 0.9% above our revised projection of
$72,238,839. Actual expenditures were 5.7% less than the revised projection of $75,866,649. On
June 30, 2006 the City posted a fund balance of $22,170,947 an increase of $1,123,832. The
following table details estimates compared to actual for the fiscal year.
$ 1,123,832
Agenda Item #1 -D
9 -19 -06 CC /ARRA/CIC
20005/06
Revised
6/30/2006
Variance
Estimate
Actual
Amount
Variance
Revenue
$ 72,238,839
$ 72,884,396
645,557
0.9%
Expenditure
$ 75,866,649
$ 71,760,564
(4,106,085)
(5.7)%
$ 1,123,832
Agenda Item #1 -D
9 -19 -06 CC /ARRA/CIC
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
September 19, 2005
Page 2
Exhibits A -E detail, by fund category, the 2005 -06 revenues and expenditures. The detail of the
revenues and expenditures by category are found at Exhibits C and D.
General Fund Revenues:
General Fund Revenues
Categories
Actual
Percent
Actual
Percent
Actual
2005 -06
Change
2004 -05
Change
2003 -04
Property Taxes
17,618,940
7.8%
16,347,496
6.7%
15,316,019
Other Local Taxes
28,563,148
10.7%
25,807,846
6.7%
24,198,483
Licenses and Permits
4,197,440
17.8%
3,563,063
24.0%
2,873,025
Use of Money & Property
738,292
(34.0)%
1,119,288
22.5%
913,860
Fines & Forfeitures
724,241
1.0%
716,948
2.4%
699,835
Revenues from other agencies
6,683,880
17.8%
5,675,711
27.4%
4,455,578
Current Services
6,430,585
(4.2)%
6,715,779
9.1%
6,153,592
Contributions from other Funds
7,004,599
27.8%
5,479,512
(20.9)%
6,923,749
Equipment Replacement
923,271
(1.6)%
938,018
(29.1)%
1,322,479
Grand Total
72,884,396
5.6%
66,363,661
5.6%
62,856,620
The City's General Fund revenues increased by 5.6% over the prior year primarily in local taxes,
contributions from other funds, revenues from other agencies, and licenses and permits. The City
derives a significant portion of its General Fund revenues from an economically sensitive mix of
sources. Some of the more economically sensitive sources include property tax, sales tax, utility
users tax, construction related permit fees and property transfer tax.
Property tax revenues increased by 7.8% or $1,271,444, supporting the fact that Alameda
continues to be a desirable place to live and do business. The "Triple Flip" adopted with the State
Budget reduced property tax revenues by $990,741 while sales tax allocations from the county
pool added $1,384,710 for a net incremental increase of $393,969. Excluding these impacts the
year- over -year change would have been slightly lower at 7.4 %.
Other local taxes increased by 10.7% or $2,755,302, representing the largest dollar increase across
categories. The largest increase in this category is property transfer tax, posting a year- over -year
increase of $2,270,575 of which 50% is attributable to a one -time large property sale. Utility
users tax revenues increased 3.3% or $265,984, while sales tax revenues decreased 3.7% or
$175,825 from the prior year. Franchise fees were mixed with an increase of 1.0% or $51,065
overall.
The 17.8% increase in licenses and permits as compared to the prior fiscal year is due to increases
in the following revenue sources: building, electric & plumbing permits ($339,735) and Business
Licenses ($181,130).
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2005
Councilmembers Page 3
The 34.0% decrease from the prior year in use of money and property is partly a result of the
GASB 31 reporting requirements which mandate that gains and losses generated by fluctuating
market values of securities be systematically recognized. Fluctuation or changes in federal
monetary policies, money supply and demand, and the economic outlook as a whole drive market
values of securities up or down. It is important to note that market values fluctuate regularly and
that these gains and losses are not realized unless the securities are liquidated. Annually, however,
these gains and losses are netted against investment earnings. The General Fund's share of
investment income for 2006 was $0.625 million compared to $1.014 million in 2005.
The 17.8% increase in "Revenues from Other Agencies" is primarily from the increase in
subventions for vehicle in lieu fees and a federal grant for emergency services. The 27.8%
increase in contributions from other funds is primarily due to realignment of cost allocations with
ARRA the largest source.
General Fund Expenditures:
General Fund expenditures increased by 9.5% over the prior year. Equipment Replacement and
Transfers contributed the largest increase in percentage terms; however, the 13% increase in Public
Safety is the largest in dollar terms, equaling $5.6 million, and is primarily due to increases in
personnel services ($3,210,899) and other employer paid benefits ($2,238,443).
General Fund expenditures were less than appropriations by 1.57% or $1,123,832. A comparison
of General Fund expenditures by major activities is as follows:
General Fund Expenditure
Category
Actual
Percent
Actual
Percent
Actual
2005 -06
Change
2004 -05
Change
2003 -04
General Govt.
6,604,808
2.8%
6,427,414
6.0%
6,064,031
Public Safety
47,043,440
13.6%
41,395,355
2.6%
40,352,629
Planning & Bldg.
3,129,845
6.6%
2,937,265
(1.4)%
2,979,199
Public Works
5,763,933
(5.8)%
6,117,975
(1.2)%
6,192,657
Recreation and Parks
3,696,458
2.0%
3,622,842
(2.7)%
3,721,627
Depreciation
771,408
(20.5)%
970,375
(13.0)%
1,114,745
Equip. Replacement
640,470
40.6%
455,681
(32.6)%
676,076
Capital Outlay
28,009
(55.3)%
62,659
40.7%
44,539
Transf. + Non Dept
3,167,342
49.5%
2,118,875
(18.3)%
2,594,662
Debt Service
914,850
(6.1)%
973,848
4.7%
930,000
Total
71,760,564
9.5%
65,082,289
0.6%
64,670,165
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2005
Councilmembers Page 4
The following charts display the General Fund expenditures by major activities and by type for
comparative purposes.
FY06 Expenditures by Major Activities
® General Govt.
• Public Safety
❑ Planning & Bldg.
❑ Public Works
• Recreation and Parks
® Depreciation
• Equip. Replacement
0 Capital Outlay
• Transf. + Non Dept
• Debt Service
Reserves:
Expenditures by Type
® Salaries & Benefits
• Supplies
❑ Services
❑ Capital Outlay
• Debt Svc & Transfers
For the year ended June 30, 2006, $1,123,832 will be added to General Fund reserves for a total of
$22,170,947. The Council's goal of 25% of operating expenses held as reserves was met on June
30, 2006. The target for year -end is $17,940,141 while the fund balance is $22,170,947 or 30.9 %.
However, $4.1 million will need to be re- appropriated for work already in progress on capital
projects and other obligations. After these reductions, the fund balance exceeds the 25% target by
$200,000. In order to appropriate the $465,321 necessary to meet the $2.2 million infrastructure
funding target established during the budget process, the target will be missed by 0.5% or
$300,000.
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2005
Councilmembers Page 5
The City of Alameda, consistent with the requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board, has established a number of required reserves in its various funds, i.e. Risk Management
Fund, Unemployment Insurance Fund and reserves for compensated leave. The reserves reflected
in the Risk Management Fund are for reported and incurred claims.
Other City Funds:
A brief discussion of the activities of the Special Revenue Funds can be found on the attached
Exhibit A titled "Special Revenue Funds ". The corresponding financial information for all Special
Revenue Funds is contained in Exhibits F, G and H.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The attached exhibits outline the budget to actual comparison for revenues and expenditures for all
City funds. In addition, a "Summary Analysis of Funds" is attached herein as Exhibit H. It is
important to note that these are unaudited results for the 2005 -2006 fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the unaudited financial report for year ending June 30, 2006.
JB /dl
Attachments:
Respectfully submitted,
Je -Ann Boyer
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit A — Special Revenue Funds analysis
Exhibit B — Recap
Exhibit C — General Fund Revenue
Exhibit D — General Fund Expense
Exhibit E — General Fund Adjustments for Quarter 4
Exhibit F — Special Revenue Funds, Revenue
Exhibit G — Special Revenue Funds, Expense
Exhibit H — Summary of Adjustments — Other Funds Quarter 4
Exhibit I — Summary Analysis of Funds
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ANALYSES
Police/Fire Impact Fees
EXHIBIT A
Fees calculated for police and fire impacts of new construction. Fees collected and associated
interest income was $102,245, while $155,330 was expended for debt service. The fund balance at
June 30, 2006 was $294.
Construction Improvement Fund
Established to set aside monies for major capital improvement projects not otherwise provided.
Revenues were $1,019,523; $463,076 was expended leaving a fund balance of $1,569,749 at June
30, 2006.
Library Operations Fund
Revenues from the 1.75 cent property tax plus fines and other miscellaneous revenues totaled
$2,845,980 while operating costs totaled $2,875,794. The $29,814 operating deficit is covered by
fund balance resulting in an ending fund balance of $40,541 at June 30, 2006.
Gas Tax Funds
Revenues subvened by the State under Streets and Highways Code Sections 2105, 2106, 2107 and
2107.5 totaled $1,368,930. Expenditures for street maintenance and construction projects in
conformance with the Streets and Highways Code totaled $1,086,188. The fund balance at June 30,
2006 is $354,215.
Traffic Safety Fund
The City's share of receipts from moving violation citations issued by the Alameda Police
Department and associated interest income totaled $218,125. These funds were expended leaving a
zero balance at year -end.
Measure B Funds
Voter - approved November 1986.
Our pro -rata share of the one -half cent sales tax generated $14,362 in revenues,
interest income provided $10,851, and transfers from other funds provided $211,268.
The remaining fund balance is $928,385 at June 30, 2006.
Measure B 2000 (Voter- approved November 2000)
The fund is divided into seven categories with restricted uses. Uses and fund
balances are as follows:
1
Attachment
Agenda Item #1 -D
9 -19 -06 CC /ARRA/CIC
• Local streets and roads $2,042,606
• Alameda Ferry 1,144,751
• Paratransit 308,047
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements 35,969
• Sr. Transportation & Disability 9
• Capital construction projects -0-
• Gap funding -0-
Tidelands Fund
Exhibit A (cont.)
This trust fund accounts for revenues from tidelands property leases of $293,485. Expenditures of
$118,568 were made for maintenance of the properties. The fund balance was $1,078,690 as of June
30, 2006.
Narcotics Asset Seizure Fund
Revenues are derived from the sale of assets confiscated from convicted felons. This year's revenues
were $2,918 and expenditures were $2,000. The $918 contribution to fund balance slightly lowers
prior - years' cumulative deficit to $(82,355) at June 30, 2006.
Dwelling Unit Tax Fund
Enabling legislation directs 5/6 of the fees collected be used for park improvements and 1/6 to the
Library Construction Fund. Of the $192,237 in revenues, $31,696 was transferred to the Library
Construction Fund and $27,260 was expended on park maintenance and park improvements. The
fund balance is $176,121 as of June 30, 2006.
Parking In -Lieu Fund
Fees are collected against certain properties and are expended for parking projects. Interest of
$1,122 was earned but no other fees were collected. The fund balance is $73,160 as of June 30,
2006.
Parking Meter Fund
Parking meter revenues are collected from Park Street, Webster Street and other city lots. Revenues
totaled $568,146 while expenditures were $228,001 leaving a balance of $1,646,821 as of June 30,
2006.
2
Exhibit A (cont.)
Vehicle Registration Surcharge (AB 434)
This fee imposed on all registered vehicles was intended to help fund traffic management programs.
This year, only interest income of $588 was received. The fund balance as of June 30, 2006 is
$38,310.
Garbage Surcharge Fund
A surcharge on residential and commercial accounts funds the closure and monitoring of the former
dumpsite. Revenues were $197,927 and expenditures were $83,682 with a fund balance of $586,477
as of June 30, 2006.
Curbside Recycling
Interest income and recycling fees totaled $2,864 while expenditures were $19,996. The fund
balance is $171,782 as of June 30, 2006.
Waste Reduction Surcharge
This revenue is intended to reduce the volume of trash and is a combination of fees paid by the
franchise, interest income, and state and county grants including County Measure D. This year the
funds received were $937,692 and expended were $518,732 for programs related to volume
reduction. The fund balance at June 30, 2006 is $4,578,819.
Assessment Districts (Operations and Maintenance)
There are three districts and one district has seven zones. Revenues from property assessments plus
interest earnings totaled $1,392,357 while expenditures totaled $1,075,347. The sum of fund
balances was $1,249,427 as of June 30, 2006.
Athletic Trust
Participants in the recreation fee programs paid fees totaling $1,739,072 while the cost to provide the
programs was $1,554,518. The fund balance at June 30, 2006 was $635,529.
Public Art Fund
Developer contributions support the purchase and placement of public art in new commercial,
industrial, residential and municipal areas. At June 30, 2006 the fund balance was $32,918.
Senior Citizen Transportation Assistance Fund
Door -to -door transportation service for frail, elderly and/or disabled persons is provided by county
grant monies administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Revenues and
expenditures were each $125,157. The fund balance is $26,022 as of June 30, 2006.
3
Exhibit A (cont.)
Dike Maintenance
The Bay Farm Island Reclamation District has paid into this trust for the continued maintenance and
operation of various dikes on Bay Farm Island. Investment income was $4,338 and expenditures for
seawall repairs were $203,528. The fund balance is $118,974 as of June 30, 2006.
The following funds are managed by the Development Services Department and represent the major
redevelopment, economic development and community development projects and programs with
oversight by the City Council, the Community Improvement Commission and the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority.
West End Community Improvement Project
Redevelopment — incremental property taxes from the designated area are distributed to
owners, to low- and moderate - income housing and to the agency for annual operating costs.
Revenues comprised of property taxes, interest income, rental income, ERAF loan proceeds,
developer contributions, and bond proceeds total $7,970,854 with $22,150,794, expended,
including transfers for the theater /parking structure project and debt service. The remaining
fund balance is $18,260,578.
Housing — 20% of incremental property taxes are set aside for low- and moderate - income
housing projects. Revenues and expenditures were $1,054,589 and $728,614 respectively,
with the fund balance increasing to $823,541 as of June 30, 2006.
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
Redevelopment — incremental property taxes from the designated area are distributed as
follows: 20% low- and moderate - income housing, 25% passed to other taxing entities per
agreement and 55% retained by the agency for operations and projects. Revenues of
$4,652,153 supported expenditures of $4,688,468 contributing to a cumulative fund balance
deficit of $(56,081) at June 30, 2006.
Housing — the tax increment, bond proceeds and in -lieu fees produced $2,232,088 in
revenues. Partially offset by prior -year expense adjustments, expenditures for operations,
debt service and transfers were $1,760,920, with fund balance increasing to $1,611,034.
4
Exhibit A (cont.)
Alameda Point Improvement Project
Redevelopment — incremental property taxes produced $805,652 in revenues to support
$578,077 in expenditures. The cumulative fund balance deficit is $(1,318,591).
Housing — the 20% of tax increment produced $82,374 of revenues in support of $88,688 in
expenditures. The fund balance is $302,100.
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
Lease Revenue — Revenues from leases totaled $743,982 and supported operations and
capital projects totaling $382,403. The fund balance deficit is $(2,085,202).
Catellus — Revenues of $24,463,342 include developer's contributions, bond proceeds,
transfers, sale of city -owned property, and interest income. Expenditures of $26,454,218
support development projects per agreement, and transfer of the theater /parking structure
project to the Theater/Parking project fund. The deficit fund balance is $(3,041,604).
Commercial Revitalization
Rental income, bond funds made available, developer's contributions and transfer in of funds
for the theater /parking garage project comprise revenues of $9,912,783, and supported
expenditures of $1,214,548. Fund balance at June 30, 2006 is $9,207,874. However, $8.5
million of this amount is reserved for the Theatre Project/Parking Garage.
Rehabilitation Prepayment Fund
Revenues of $556,561 represent payments in connection with low interest and subsidized
loans via community development block grant funds. Expenditures totaled $430,516 leaving
a fund balance of $968,339 at year -end.
Housing Development
The fund balance is $0 at year -end.
Affordable Housing
Fees are paid by developers in support of affordable housing projects. Revenues of $222,965
supported expenditures of $43,240. The fund balance is $398,089.
Human Services
Several major programs, i.e. Social Services and Human Relations Board, are accumulated in
this fund. There are a variety of funding sources totaling $85,355. The program
expenditures totaled $65,876. The fund balance is $28,592.
5
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ANALYSES
Police/Fire Impact Fees
EXHIBIT A
Fees calculated for police and fire impacts of new construction. Fees collected and associated
interest income was $102,245, while $155,330 was expended for debt service. The fund balance at
June 30, 2006 was $294.
Construction Improvement Fund
Established to set aside monies for major capital improvement projects not otherwise provided.
Revenues were $1,019,523; $463,076 was expended leaving a fund balance of $1,569,749 at June
30, 2006.
Library Operations Fund
Revenues from the 1.75 cent property tax plus fines and other miscellaneous revenues totaled
$2,845,980 while operating costs totaled $2,875,794. The $29,814 operating deficit is covered by
fund balance resulting in an ending fund balance of $40,541 at June 30, 2006.
Gas Tax Funds
Revenues subvened by the State under Streets and Highways Code Sections 2105, 2106, 2107 and
2107.5 totaled $1,368,930. Expenditures for street maintenance and construction projects in
conformance with the Streets and Highways Code totaled $1,086,188. The fund balance at June 30,
2006 is $354,215.
Traffic Safety Fund
The City's share of receipts from moving violation citations issued by the Alameda Police
Department and associated interest income totaled $218,125. These funds were expended leaving a
zero balance at year -end.
Measure B Funds
Voter - approved November 1986.
Our pro -rata share of the one -half cent sales tax generated $14,362 in revenues,
interest income provided $10,851, and transfers from other funds provided $211,268.
The remaining fund balance is $928,385 at June 30, 2006.
Measure B 2000 (Voter- approved November 2000)
The fund is divided into seven categories with restricted uses. Uses and fund
balances are as follows:
1
• Local streets and roads
• Alameda Ferry
• Paratransit
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
• Sr. Transportation & Disability
• Capital construction projects
• Gap funding
Tidelands Fund
$2,042,606
1 ,144,751
308,047
35,969
9
-0-
-0-
Exhibit A (cont.)
This trust fund accounts for revenues from tidelands property leases of $293,485. Expenditures of
$118,568 were made for maintenance of the properties. The fund balance was $1,078,690 as of June
30, 2006.
Narcotics Asset Seizure Fund
Revenues are derived from the sale of assets confiscated from convicted felons. This year's revenues
were $2,918 and expenditures were $2,000. The $918 contribution to fund balance slightly lowers
prior - years' cumulative deficit to $(82,355) at June 30, 2006.
Dwelling Unit Tax Fund
Enabling legislation directs 5/6 of the fees collected be used for park improvements and 1/6 to the
Library Construction Fund. Of the $192,237 in revenues, $31,696 was transferred to the Library
Construction Fund and $27,260 was expended on park maintenance and park improvements. The
fund balance is $176,121 as of June 30, 2006.
Parking In -Lieu Fund
Fees are collected against certain properties and are expended for parking projects. Interest of
$1,122 was earned but no other fees were collected. The fund balance is $73,160 as of June 30,
2006.
Parking Meter Fund
Parking meter revenues are collected from Park Street, Webster Street and other city lots. Revenues
totaled $568,146 while expenditures were $228,001 leaving a balance of $1,646,821 as of June 30,
2006.
2
Exhibit A (cont.)
Vehicle Registration Surcharge (AB 434)
This fee imposed on all registered vehicles was intended to help fund traffic management programs.
This year, only interest income of $588 was received. The fund balance as of June 30, 2006 is
$38,310.
Garbage Surcharge Fund
A surcharge on residential and commercial accounts funds the closure and monitoring of the former
dumpsite. Revenues were $197,927 and expenditures were $83,682 with a fund balance of $586,477
as of June 30, 2006.
Curbside Recycling
Interest income and recycling fees totaled $2,864 while expenditures were $19,996. The fund
balance is $171,782 as of June 30, 2006.
Waste Reduction Surcharge
This revenue is intended to reduce the volume of trash and is a combination of fees paid by the
franchise, interest income, and state and county grants including County Measure D. This year the
funds received were $937,692 and expended were $518,732 for programs related to volume
reduction. The fund balance at June 30, 2006 is $4,578,819.
Assessment Districts (Operations and Maintenance)
There are three districts and one district has seven zones. Revenues from property assessments plus
interest earnings totaled $1,392,357 while expenditures totaled $1,075,347. The sum of fund
balances was $1,249,427 as of June 30, 2006.
Athletic Trust
Participants in the recreation fee programs paid fees totaling $1,739,072 while the cost to provide the
programs was $1,554,518. The fund balance at June 30, 2006 was $635,529.
Public Art Fund
Developer contributions support the purchase and placement of public art in new commercial,
industrial, residential and municipal areas. At June 30, 2006 the fund balance was $32,918.
Senior Citizen Transportation Assistance Fund
Door -to -door transportation service for frail, elderly and/or disabled persons is provided by county
grant monies administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Revenues and
expenditures were each $125,157. The fund balance is $26,022 as of June 30, 2006.
3
Exhibit A (cont.)
Dike Maintenance
The Bay Farm Island Reclamation District has paid into this trust for the continued maintenance and
operation of various dikes on Bay Farm Island. Investment income was $4,338 and expenditures for
seawall repairs were $203,528. The fund balance is $118,974 as of June 30, 2006.
The following funds are managed by the Development Services Department and represent the major
redevelopment, economic development and community development projects and programs with
oversight by the City Council, the Community Improvement Commission and the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority.
West End Community Improvement Project
Redevelopment — incremental property taxes from the designated area are distributed to
owners, to low- and moderate - income housing and to the agency for annual operating costs.
Revenues comprised of property taxes, interest income, rental income, ERAF loan proceeds,
developer contributions, and bond proceeds total $7,970,854 with $22,150,794, expended,
including transfers for the theater /parking structure project and debt service. The remaining
fund balance is $18,260,578.
Housing — 20% of incremental property taxes are set aside for low- and moderate - income
housing projects. Revenues and expenditures were $1,054,589 and $728,614 respectively,
with the fund balance increasing to $823,541 as of June 30, 2006.
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
Redevelopment — incremental property taxes from the designated area are distributed as
follows: 20% low- and moderate - income housing, 25% passed to other taxing entities per
agreement and 55% retained by the agency for operations and projects. Revenues of
$4,652,153 supported expenditures of $4,688,468 contributing to a cumulative fund balance
deficit of $(56,081) at June 30, 2006.
Housing — the tax increment, bond proceeds and in -lieu fees produced $2,232,088 in
revenues. Partially offset by prior -year expense adjustments, expenditures for operations,
debt service and transfers were $1,760,920, with fund balance increasing to $1,611,034.
4
Exhibit A (cont.)
Alameda Point Improvement Project
Redevelopment - incremental property taxes produced $805,652 in revenues to support
$578,077 in expenditures. The cumulative fund balance deficit is $(1,318,591).
Housing — the 20% of tax increment produced $82,374 of revenues in support of $88,688 in
expenditures. The fund balance is $302,100.
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
Lease Revenue — Revenues from leases totaled $743,982 and supported operations and
capital projects totaling $382,403. The fund balance deficit is $(2,085,202).
Catellus — Revenues of $24,463,342 include developer's contributions, bond proceeds,
transfers, sale of city -owned property, and interest income. Expenditures of $26,454,218
support development projects per agreement, and transfer of the theater /parking structure
project to the Theater/Parking project fund. The deficit fund balance is $(3,041,604).
Commercial Revitalization
Rental income, bond funds made available, developer's contributions and transfer in of funds
for the theater /parking garage project comprise revenues of $9,912,783, and supported
expenditures of $1,214,548. Fund balance at June 30, 2006 is $9,207,874. However, $8.5
million of this amount is reserved for the Theatre Project/Parking Garage.
Rehabilitation Prepayment Fund
Revenues of $556,561 represent payments in connection with low interest and subsidized
loans via community development block grant funds. Expenditures totaled $430,516 leaving
a fund balance of $968,339 at year -end.
Housing Development
The fund balance is $0 at year -end.
Affordable Housing
Fees are paid by developers in support of affordable housing projects. Revenues of $222,965
supported expenditures of $43,240. The fund balance is $398,089.
Human Services
Several major programs, i.e. Social Services and Human Relations Board, are accumulated in
this fund. There are a variety of funding sources totaling $85,355. The program
expenditures totaled $65,876. The fund balance is $28,592.
5
Exhibit A (cont.)
CHRPO/Lead
The State Department of Housing and Community Development provides funds for housing
rehabilitation. Revenues were $8,945 to support expenditures of $8,800. The fund balance is
$22,114.
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
Wastewater Capital Reserve
The State Water Resources Control Board requires the establishment of a reserve set -aside as a
condition of loans for sanitary sewer purposes. This fund was created to meet this requirement
with a transfer in from the sewer fund of $8,257.
Capital Improvement Fund
Funds received from a variety of sources in support of public infrastructure projects. The fund
balance is $8,825,528 as of June 30, 2006.
Marina Village Assessment District
This district was established to finance the construction and acquisition of public improvements
in the district. There was interest earned of $11,181 and expenditures of $5,480. The fund
balance is $2,635,985.
Harbor Bay Isle Assessment District
$68,554 in contributions was provided to support construction of public improvements.
Expenditures were $0, leaving a fund balance of $1 ,157,714 at year -end.
Library Construction Fund
Donations from the Alameda Free Library Foundation, Friends of the Alameda Free Library,
interest income, and transfers from the Dwelling Unit Fund provided revenues of $102,590 in
support of Library technology infrastructure projects and installed art totaling $310,140 leaving a
fund balance of $994,538.
Open Space Improvement Fund
The purpose is to support open space and recreation facilities. Revenues were $14,072 and
expenditures were $0. The fund balance is $917,558 at June 30, 2006.
6
Exhibit A (cont.)
2003 Alameda Point Bond Project
Demand Revenue Bonds sold in 2003 fund major construction and improvement projects in the
area. Interest income provided $40,279 in revenue while expenditures were $724,666. The year-
end fund balance is $597,189.
Citywide Development Impact Fees
This fee was established to fund improvement and replacement needs in parks, recreation, public
buildings, traffic and other facilities as specified in the enabling ordinance. Fees are collected by
use within geographic areas. In aggregate, total revenues were $285,220. There were no
expenditures. Fund balance at year -end was $1,333,089.
Transportation Improvement Fund
These monies are restricted to construction and improvement of traffic mitigation projects at Bay
Farm Island. Revenues were $554,159 and expenditures were $117,750. The fund balance is
$917,415 at year -end.
Urban Runoff
The Storm Water Utility Fee is collected with property taxes in order to fund programs in
compliance with federal requirements for the Clean Water Act. Revenues of $2,792,075
supported expenditures of $2,388,556 leaving a fund balance of $4,508,688 at June 30, 2006.
Community Facilities Districts
Established to finance acquisition and construction of facilities within the district:
CFD #1 (Harbor Bay) — has a fund balance of $215.
CFD #2 Paragon Gateway (Lincoln Property) — earned interest of $17,391 and had
expenditures of $1,433, leaving a fund balance of $477,221.
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Debt Service funds receive revenues from a variety of designated funding sources to pay the debt
service on the outstanding issues.
Total revenues were $6,840,011 and expenditures were $6,967,763. The fund balances in
aggregate are $11,319,629.
7
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Golf
Exhibit A (cont.)
This fund accounts for all transactions relating to the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Receipts
totaled $3,943,512 and expenditures totaled $5,068,758. The Net Asset balance is $6,539,515.
Sewer Service
This fund accounts for all transactions relating to the operation and maintenance of sewer
operations. Revenues were $5,649,078 and expenditures were $4,046,882. The Net Asset
balance is $46,125,087.
Ferry Service
This fund accounts for all transactions relating to the provision of ferry service. Revenues were
$3,020,787 and expenditures were $3,478,995. The Net Asset balance at year -end is $9,362,194.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
The purpose of Internal Service Funds is to finance and account for special activities and
services performed by one department for other departments of the City on a cost reimbursement
basis. In total the revenues were $6,777,353 and expenditures were $7,904,188. The fund
balance is a deficit of $(4,546,913). Workers Compensation Self Insurance Fund constitutes the
fund balance deficit, partially offset by other funds, and represents future claims liabilities.
These claims will mature over five to ten years.
TRUST FUNDS
Pension Fund 1079
General Fund contributions and interest earnings support payments to retirees and other reporting
expenditures. Contributions of $3,098,781 for approximately 51 retirees and qualified
beneficiaries are covered by this fund.
Pension Fund 1082
There are two retirees supported by $40,222 in contributions from the General Fund. Post
employment health benefits were also funded and paid for eligible retirees, but these costs are
accounted for in General Fund operating expenditures within the Police and Fire departments.
8
GENERAL FUND I 11 EXHIBIT BI
N OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
IOD ENDING June 30, 2006
O
O
co
O
co
N
Adopted 1
1 $ 18,665,758 1
$ 17,330,740
28,027,168
3,165,628
1,820,100
608,075
ti
co
O
r
^
00
7,648,216
4,239,059
771,408
$ 69,381,4321
$ 6,039,364
43,428,151
3,328,217
6,377,008
3,595,844
771,408
515,537
53,250
4,073,273
co
O
T
0)
0
230,200 1
$ 69,381,4321
40
$ 18,665,7581
T
L
V
Amendments 1
$ 739,577 r
CO
r 323,270 ~
1
40,032 r
1
$ 363,302
$ 241,812
404,087
17,420
5,587
65,232
1
28,000
59,544 11
1
19,000 11
$ 840,682 11
$ (477,380)11
$ 262,197
Qtr 2 1
Amendments
$ 1,641,780 1
(1,850,000)1
350,480 1
1,251,000
50,000 1
0)
co
(0
M
CO
(1,750,621)
2,084,279
1
$ 2,821,230
$ 318,181
327,440
135,357
18,098
67,883 11
1
3,724 11
23,656
1,850,000 11
(142,330)1
$ 2,602,009 11
$ 219,221 11
$ 1,861,001
Qtr 3
Amendments
p•
O
O
O
0
a
$1,149,3831,
1_ (1,139,983)1
•
•
0
0
co
O
N
(45,000)j
151,863
r
ti
M
h
00
..
E9
$ 147,3931
1 1,364,992 1
•
300,000
49,441
•
3,000
O
0
O
O
eft.
e
.
•
(O
N
co
(0 (0
e-
M
(A-
$ (3,248,563)11
$ (3,248,563)
Qtr4 -1
Amendments 1
O
0
O
co
O,
•
4,750
1
1
1
O
0
O
00
M
'
151,863 1
$ (243,387)
$143,272
O
0
(0
(0
0)
T
CO
$68,884
(143,560)1
112,240
'
0)
N
vi
0)
CO
M
(0
69.
(2,368,757)1.1
'
1
O
N
N
N
T
P
Or
-
r
IV
40).
$ (121,107)_
co
G
O
O
O
N
1 Amended
Budgeted
$ 21,047,115
$ (3,850,000)
$ 18,430,123
27,237,665
4,421,378
O
T
c5
N
O
1-
658,075
00)
M
O
Cl
ti
(0
5,502,595
6,515,234 1
923,271
$ 72,238,840 1
$ 6,888,002
47,490,726 -1
3,549,878
6,557,133
3,890,640
771,408.1
0 (00
d'
O
co
88,282 -1
0
.4
T
0)
4
826,850
0
N
01
N
$ 75,866,649 1
$ (3,627,809)
0
M
Of
r
n
T
(R
RECAPITUALTIOI
[Actual vs
Budgeted
0
O)
CO
O
co
T
94.59%
CO
0
6
O
0
N
Actual
to date
1
T
e-
C
O
TN-
$ 72,884,396
(O
O
n
$ 1,123,832 11
$ 22,170,9471
'AUDITED FUND BALANCE - June 30, 2005
ERVES - memo only *
'Cr
0)
O
N-
ti
T
CO
28,563,148
4,197,440
738,292
724,241
6,683,880
6,430,585
00)
CO
ep
co
0
ti
923,271 1
CO 0
CO
4
O
CO
(0
CA
47,043,440
3,129,845
5,763,933
3,696,458
771,408
!f
O
d
CO
O
O
O
N
CO
O
T
O
0
M
U)
CO
4
a-
O)
165,682 11
u)
Use of Money and Property
Fines and Forfeitures
Revenue from Other Agencies
Current Services
Contributions from other funds
Equipmt Replmt/Depreciation
Recreation Services
Depreciation
Equipment Replacement
Capital Outlay
Transfers *(incl reserve approp)
'CURRENT YEAR BALANCE OF 1
REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES
'ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE - JI
'APPROPRIATE RES
Property Taxes
Other Local Taxes
Licenses and Permil
City Administration
Public Safety
1Planning/Building
Public Works
Debt Service
1Non-Departmental
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
1-
Z
W
V
Q_'
W
a
COLLECTED
co
W
O
W (((1
y o
> 0
w
ORIGINAL EST.
4
0
N
F
Z F
0 0
K U.
a 0
PROPERTY TAXES (3100)
0000000 0 0000000000000 0
0 N O V OD O h i 0 i (11 U) 0 0) CY O N O CO O N CO 0 O
M O (0 (O 0) 00 4 D) O N O 0 0 OO 0 0
0) 0) N �- O O O ' i 0) 0) N O 0) O O N O O M 0) O O C
T- 0
M CD U) N. N CD U 1 00
O U) f� (+) N Is r
rn°OU`) Vn- 00 = 1
CO I
69 I 69
M CO V CO O00 cr O6- 1 Cr
U (0 N (O 0) (- r- ' Q)
O O O 0) M O CF 1 00
1- N N N 00) M � (I-
2
I n
69 i Vl
M M O O OD .- O
((00 0 O O 0 N,(0
M r
10 I- (O O (-
O h Is (D O 0) 0)
Ct M N O N
CO .= .-
69
O
0
0
O
0
69
OD Cr (00 O (0O
V N 6- N. 01
,- 0) N OO t-
h (00 co N
(6.1 69 v 01 r
(0 N. O O OD O O
N. 0) O O O (O
O Cl O 0 M 0)
N O O 0 r
Cr CD
I. 0) ^ O N N
M r T-
69
a
LL
O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N Ct (0 Is 0) 0)
M M M M CO M 0)
M
N
0
0)
O
O
O
0
O
M
00
CIF
M
69
fR
O
69
SUB TOTAL - PROPERTY TAXES
OTHER LOCAL TAXES (3200)
0) O l0 CD O U) Cr (O ' In N '
OD VO_ U) a- r- N- M O N ,- ONO
N O W O M M V M of OD
M M
69
O (0 N Cr V 0) Is O O M OD O (-
(00 0) CY 0) N 0) (O Cr (00 O W O0) O CY
O OO CY h W f- O O (0 M O N
(00 (V0 (0O M 0M) ONO M (00 N N 6-
Ct (o 0 .- N N
69
0) O h 0 0 Ci' 00 M O O OD O O (O
O O O O Cf' 0) OD O O h O O M
Cr O 0) O O (0 0 O U) O CO O O (O
6- O 0) O) O h 0) N 0) O r f'- O 0)
CD ((f Cr CD Cr N M (00 N 1.0 67 N aV
CF (0 C- N N
Ui
(O
(N0 •Y
N
0 0 M O
0 0 0 O
0 0 O O
O O N Cr
(0 0 N
Cf N
0 CD
V N
M
(O O r O O O OD 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0)
Cr O O O O O 0) O O I. 0 0 0)
0) O W 0 0 0 OD O O CO O O h
0 O 0) 0) O O W (0 0 C- O O I.
N O (O M Cr O OD (D 0 O CV
O O 0) 0) h N M U) (D N
(0 CY r: C- N N
0)
Bureau of Elec Franchise Fees
V)
N X
J (a
co
CD L c
LL >, O
LL
a)" 3
N
_N t L J
L 0 7
C a C
LL 0) N
0� 7 F
m n 0 to
H Q 2 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N M (00 (00 0 0
N M Ct (0 (n (n (0 U) U) U) (O (O
M M CV M M CV NM M M CO 0) V/ CO M 0) M
28,563,148 $
0)
O
(O
(o
n
N
N
0)
0
SUB TOTAL - OTHER TAXES
LICENSES & PERMITS (3300)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N OD M OD O U) r- O (O I
(riN-(000 405 0a
(O r 01 CV I� Cr (O N{ 01 N V Cr
(O O l0 t` 0 O) O 0
M (NO N M N CO r CV CD U)
I� w (D N- N N c0
a7 v CO c C CD v
69
0) (0 O U) M OD 0) O O
N (NO CO (M0 N 0) r O O) 40
Lc) h (00 O Cr N V
0
6- N 0 M N M
69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD
O O O O O O O O O N
(O O O N U) O O O O O
0 O O C- C- V O 10
N N V N CD
,- s-
r- N
69
0)
V
O O
O O
O O
0 (0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD
O O O O O O O O O N
CO O M N O 0 0 0 0 CO
O 0 V (0 (00 (0O (00
6- N cy . O .- 6-
(n
(0
N a)
a) a)
LL LL (0
a) .a . E E
LL C y N (q )
rn@ aa'i yC- •r 0
Y ul N
N T J U a) E d a N
H 0 E J a 0 O) 0) a)
.- E c a c
E X = o ° 'n 7 = n
m mUmc N 0-0 Fmwa2
CO Cr 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
0 0 0 0 N V Ct (00 a7 CCD
M M M M CO CO M M M M
M M M CO M M M M Cl M
W �
co et 1
CO 1
co I
N
N
4,197,440 $
4,421,378 $
69
O
(A
SUB TOTAL - LICENSES & PERMITS
FINES AND FORFEITURES (3400)
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
0 0 0 0 0
00000) I q ICI
l0 0
csi 0 CO 0
T
Fri 0 0 N I m
CO 0) 0 00 (0
(O O (O f-
• N n C
69
'Yf O ' CO a-
0) N I N
M N (NO I N
(O n
(fl
(0 O O O
N- O O O
(n O (0 O
h O O
✓ v-
E9
0
0
0
(0 O O O
N- O O O
(n O (() O
h O O
M1 O N-
Ef!
69
N
1
0
YY
(o
0
w
1—
W
LL
0
LL
Da
To
N y
O a aa) Z
.m O Q u_ LL
_O o6
> 2 Q
0 a) E ° F'
C U U Q
E o m
as
oaw`i- 0)
o _0 O o
- V V
M M M CO
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY (3500)
0 0 0 1 at 1 0 0 0 0 o o .( 0 ( 0
✓ O O I (O I N O O O
(O — O I O I 0 0 0 0 N V 0 I- co M
0) • I CO O 0 O 0 0 00 N 0)
CO 0 O 1 CO
N 0 00
0) i O
EA
I� LL7
W V
N M
V"
O
CO M ' ' 0 ' CO C CCO CD (00_ N (00 I N
o v 0 N N 0 v l ILIF
N
49 i U3
O)
N
M
r
(— O O ' O (f) n- 6- 0 co
((0 N N (U1 N (00 O n g
N N N 'd' N ONO N- (O
M , O)
Eft i 49 Ei9
O O O
O O O
O N 0
N--C4
V" O
r
O O O
O O O
O N 0)
f� N
a- 0
Efl
0)
cu
0
O C
E N
• C• O
.y
N
O C C
C- CU
O 000"'") O
CO CO M
O
O
r
O'
at
69
0
EH
O
w
f
SUB TOTAL - USE OF MONEY
REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
LO
O O O O O (O OD O (0 0 O
O N N O 000 M (00 0 0
M N NI- 0 N N O OD N
CO N O
ffl
O
O
O
0
O
O O N
O O 0)
O O O
M (. (O
0 0)
fA
O
CV
N
M
M
EA
CO
0 0 0 0 (0 00 M 0 0
Ef! 0 O O CO N (- O (O
(V O 0 CO CO (O 0 0
V O O M V 0) (0
0 0 N CV CO 0O O CO OO
(0
t9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N n CO O CO N- O r- V' 00 CV co csi
0 V 0O N 0
V" V V"
v' N CO. n 1 CO 0 CD N Ul U,
(v) v - O M co 0 in0 (0
69
O M' O) N- O) ' CO N CO r (0
CO h '�1 CO CO N CO ((O N 0 N N.
0o I N- N N. CV 0� 0 r 0)
t0 I (0 O 0 N
(O ( r
6,730,399 $
(0
0)
U
0)
0
L c
O H
E C U O
O 0) J 0)
coi E Q 2
0) (� O
0) 0) 0) `
7 U C O C ( -a 0 C re
LL
> am c ac) E aEi m "a ci c >
� (n 01 J .� C
E ce D E
7� N� O N C C U �
d d N 7 y L j 0 a) 0 J
.0 ,, n U _ U' Q
c m E LL Q' E -ow N C o F'
O = IY m 7 (, O
LL F
C o a)
m E u o N c ~L
co iO q °°,0 O
¢(7) m Ua 22a0
0)
0 a- 0 CO N 0 00) N 0 0 00)
O N N N M V' (0 00 0) 0)
(0 (0 CO CO (O (0 (O (0 CO (O (O
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
CURRENT SERVICES (3700 & 3900)
EA
CD M M Op (10) M 0- 0 (00
(0 N (0 .- N O O (0 h
V" V" CO O O (00 0 N- o
(n 0 V" N O V"
49
00
M
' O '
00
'C▪ r
69
(0 0 ' 0 0 0)
0) 0 O
N r- O CO O r M
(00 N 0 (0 n- 0 0 h
N N
09
(O O CO CO O O OD O OD 0 0
M o 00) (00 y r N 0V Ul
(f) V CO - O W N L0
(0
EA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O CO (0 0 0 0 (O 0 0 0
0) 0) 0 0 0) 0) CO 0) 0) 0)
N N- N- N- O) (- 0) (- 0) 0) 0)
O M CO CO CO CO CO CO CO N) CO CO
J
0.
Z W 1 0 0 I e
CO M CO
I CD O
- O J
M C
WJ•-
= a c0�
x
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
W
Z W I N CO I
J I n c ` N
Q 0 i : 0..
0
F
(0
O
Q 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 0. i o f o
(n0000000vcOOl�oo Moog o �oo.-
0)00000000)eo(-«io<f (0 00(0 0 0)000)
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V' (V V' O) O co 0 0 f'- O co O O N
0 I 0
o I oo
N ' ' ' ' ' (° (0 V V ' O) 0) N ' ' N. CO ' N 0 ' ' - I CO I 1s
(f) CV N- V CO V 14) CO N. CO V CO '0)
N CD CO M C0 O O '0 N O O N- i N
O W (n (O n N N O (0 C') W
CO co co co nit V' M N O ?f3)
(9 I 69
03 0
N o(°0 1 I CO
o
O s
(D
O 0
0 0
O N
(0
F J
Z F
0 0
I-
0
a 0
0)
N
I0
(C)
0)
a'
W
N
I-
0) a) Z re
LL (0) a'
o a)
O 0 C)
a • r co -J
E n O
Q co :c7) F-
w C
o >
LL O2 co
CONTRIBUTIONS FR OTHER FUNDS
10
CO ti CO CO CO 0) I. 0 (O V' CO CO CO CO O 0) N- N- (n o0 CO N CO r ' 0)
CO O LO (() N CO 0 N N CO 0 V' V' CO CO N- CO (O I'- N O h V' I 0)
L0 — h 0 CV CO CO (O s- CO O O V' (O O OD O 4, V' N O 0 .- (O O I uo.
cci O V' O OO N h OO V' O V' .- O N O O O O (r) r O V' N I s}
M O .-- N- N O OO N x- CO CO .- V CO — N CO CO 0) CO CO M M O ! .O
r a- .- 0 a-- •- N I n
71,961,125 $
V i (9
CO CO (O O N- 0 0 0 N N O N O I,- n N 0 CO O (O O
0 N' (O (O N- N CO 0 0 0 OD 00 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O(- O i M I O
2 O O N co_ CO in O O O M V' V' CO O n O CO
n O r N r V .7 (O O O
I N
V' 0) N W N N. O O O n N ?7j 2. O Ch N V' V M LO M M O -
(
N (Ci r
ti
69
0M
CO
(0 N.
CV
1'))
O
O
O
CO
O
CO.
CO
0 I'- (O CO CO O (- 0 0 0 10 I,- CO N 0 4,- I,- 0 O CO O 00 0
0 O (f) L0 r- N CO 0 0 0 t` V' O CO (O CO CO (0 N 0) I-
0 I- 0 CV CO (O 10 0 0 0 V' V' CO. CO N- OD .- CO. 0
O 0 0 ) - (0 0 0 - 0) - C ' 4 .-- O O I '- 0-
0 .- I'- N O 00 CO (n N (O 0) N .- N O CO M M
(9
CD
O
O
69
0)
N
0
O
N
t9
N
O
49
N
O
D)
N
d
Di
(A
0
N
N
N
w
M
1.
M
Co
O
N
co
N
(9
N
O
M
CO
CD
M
68,610,023 $
(9
O
0
0
0
e e
0 0)
o ao
00 00
40 V)
(9 (9
co
(9 (9
0
O
A ▪ O
co 0 Z
113 n
Z U.
a) o) 0 m J
0) c 1- p
0 • a o a t0 r a) O a) m Z • W
w a a) >> o v d
U.a00Toa mm 0§c2 > a)in� 8C] ? °c o) 2 F-- LL E W To
W o § o E o m m rn- j rna r a o p J a - MC7
m co MI- n ° w a w a J
H CS U o a U U y c ) C) H U 00 0 a) v m o (o co rn° m co m L Cl- a o a) 3 z
0UJUJJOH21- 00Ii1iOU5Mm¢0 Ocoa
Q W +-' p
E E E E E 0 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E I c F'
o
0 0 0 0 o E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O J E 0
O I- Q 0. Z
O N (0 N V) N N (/1 N N CO CO N CO CO (0 Co N N (n CO CO N CO N
0 re
I- I- I- I- I- 1= I- HI- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I-I-I- U)) I W 0
CO CO 0 0 CO 0 0 LO 0.- .M- (n N N 10 CO . ♦` r N CO CO 0 O,- (n 0 0 CO OD
OO O• NO ONO ONO ONO W ONO ONO W N (N0 ONO ON0 ONO N ONO ONO W ONO CSI ONO CO OMO O0 000 00
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO
0)
a-
.0
-
LL
I EXHIBIT DI
1 PERCENT'
EXPENDED
$ 15,884I 88.73%
95,773 I 91.61 %,
0
O
M
00
O)
0�
0
O
O
O
O
108,754 1 95.16%
66,304 1 93.81%
(9,632)1 101.19%
$ 283,194 95.89% 1
'
i
' 0/000'001•
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0 I 100.00 %I
' %00'001. I tn.
'
o
M
co
lP)
O)
o
O
CO
00
O)
0
O)
CO
r
,-
0.00%
$ 447,271 98.05%
!
'
o
co
O
O
0)
1 BALANCE
0
?
CO
$ 680,587
14,968
(648,283)
400,000
Ce
$ 447,285
i
1 EXPENDITURES
CO
C
7
G
CO
1 $ 125,122
1,045,922
353,032
1,117,412
2,138,191
1,005,411
819,718
$ 6,604,808
$ 5,571,788
18,333,596
427,253
46,088
184,395
$ 24,563,121
$ 14,895,577
1,343,181
6,241,562
O
O
M
O'
co
a
'
CO
oo
M'
O
I.
a
Adjusted
Appropriations
$ 141,006
CO
r
359,141
1,117,413
2,246,945
1,071,715
CD
$ 6,888,002
$ 5,571,803
18,333,596
427,253
46,088
184,395
$ 24,563,135
$ 15,576,164
1,358,149
5,593,278
400,000
$ 22,927,591
V).
$ 47,490,726
1 Fourth Qtr
1 Adjustments
I $ 367
O
h
C)i
co
CO
o
O
CA
o
co
CO
Co
co
N
,-
COO
o
$143,272
$ 453,875
1,899, 763
O
O
m
46,088
14,945
CA
I CO
0
v
Csi
Ea
$ 2,387,949
10,935
59,282
CO
CO
0
v
Csi
co
CO 0
n
rn
NT.
co
O ID
CO
rn
Third Qtr
1 Adjustments
141,485
5,908
$147,393
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V?
100,000
N
C)
CI)
CO
CO
400,000
$ 1,367,992
V!
$ 1,364,992
Second Qtr
Adjustments
O
O
87,018
CO
CO
O
O
O
O
O
co
N
0r
r
CO
CO
E9
00
c--
120,210
42,600
O
co
CO
I
M
15,000
Ifr
CO
V'
V►
ER
$ 327,440
First Qtr
Adjustments
L 224,384
17,428
$241,812
V?
$ 404,087
$ 404,087
Vf
$ 404,087
ORIGINAL
APPROPRIATIONS
0
10 O
O
N
$ 123,539
M
O
LO
CO
• 348,503
867,933
2,015,859
1,031,499
CO
CA
r-
$ 6,037,344
$ 4,998,914
16,317,523
315,634
O
169,450
$ 21,801,521
$ 12,652,612
1,332,214
V'
p
co
a'
O
$ 18,650,830
$ 2,975,800
$ 43,428,151
RAL FUND
dministration
1City Council
City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney
Finance
Human Resources
Information Technology
GENERAL GOVT SUB TOTAL:
Public Safety
ce Services
Bureau of Services
Bureau of Operations
Animal Shelter
Police Contract Overtime
Crossing Guards
Services
Emergency Services
Preventive Services
Advanced Life Support
Fire Station #3 Planning & Acq. Reserve
Police / Fire Pension
PUBLIC SAFETY SUB TOTAL:
W
W
C7
Q
!_'
(„�
o
�
0
O
N
0
N
N
0
M
N
0
1'
N
0
CC)
CV
o
COO
N
O
f1
0
r
M
0
N
M
0
M
O
0
M
0
O
C�)
0_
N
M
0
S1
N
C)
0
N CO
C°)
EXHIBIT DI
PERCENT'
EXPENDED
O
O
coCh
co
00
O
O
Co
o
O
O
i n
.—
0
CO
O
O
co
O
,_
83.86%
89.48%
94.74%1
O
co
N
Co
O
O
N-
O
O
O
O
co
v
co
O
O
O
C)
n
CO
i
95.47 %
O
O
0
o
to
o
O
O
N
1-
N
o
O
O
40
O
O
O
O
a
O
N
C)
'
O
O
)-
0
0
C1
i
1
BALANCE
co
$ 417,105
2,928
$ 420,033
$ (42,246)
189,814
CO
26,128
(24,884)
412,409
$ 793,200
0
49
92,269
34,250 1
o
i r
49
$ 2,137,894
I
i
EXPENDITURES
CO
o'
6
M
1 $ 3,097,774
N
O
co
$ 3,129,845
$ 423,434
986,307
894,200
2,283,454
43,747
373,494
Co
N
14)
n
$ 5,763,933
i
$ 1,446,027
1,763,385
436,071 1
50,9751
co
v
0)
co
M
4
1
$ 66,238,484 f
Adjusted
Appropriations
1 $ 3,514,878
35,000
$ 3,549,878
$ 381,189
cu
CO
n
r
r`
CO
o
o
2,410,263
69,875
348,610
1,171,704
$ 6,557,133
$ 1,514,665
1,855,653
470,321
50,000
$ 3,890,640
n
co
CC'
C)
cD
49
1 Fourth Qtr
Adjustments
$ 78,884
0
00
0
$68,884
$ 4,439
o
0
0
N
13,510
co
ov
0
0)
15,434
O
m
.-
(289,025)
$ (143,560)
$ 97,281
10,511
n
v
$ 112,240
$2,146,892 1
Third Qtr
Adjustments
409
O
O
O
0
c)
000`00£$
13,880
35,561
of
v
Vi
N
0
a-
co
CO
r
4i
Second Qtr
Adjustments
$135,357
$135,357
$4,192
o
v
Co
...
(100,282)
20,000
N
v
162,142
$ 18,098
6)
N
v
N
V)
293,743
14,439
co
0
' 00
co
49
o
0a
)
co o
00
49
1 First Qtr
Adjustments
v
r-
49
4
i`
r
fR
5,587
$ 5,587
I
N
c6
(n
51,962
$ 65,232
$ 734,138
ORIGINAL
APPROPRIATIONS
2005 -06
$ 3,283,217
45,000
$ 3,328,217
$ 372,558
1,225,498
1,086,143
co
co
o
o
N
N
52,949
347,000
993,000
$ 6,377,008
$ 1,644,413
1,485,557
465,874
O
$ 3,595,844
co
N
(6
co
h
co ci
to
RAL FUND
ng
Permit Center
Planning Annual Maintenance
Works
Administration
Capital Projects Division
Land Development & Transportation Div.
Maintenance Services
Cable Television
Street Lighting
PW Annual Maintenance
PUBLIC WORKS SUB TOTAL:
Won Services
Recreation
Parks
Mastick Senior Center
ARPD Annual Maintenance
RECREATION /PARKS SUB TOTAL:
iinq Sub -Total
Z c o
W
0 a
O
v
0
O
Co
v
o
O
N
v
o
N
v
0
N
N
v
0
V)
N
v
10
V
N
v
0
0)
N
v
0
0
()
v
4.)
0.
4)
IX
o
to
o
N
to
o
to
r-
to
o
0
0
LO
EXHIBIT DI
PERCENT
EXPENDED
31.73%
I
I
o
0
co
T
0.00 %I
0
00)
!�
100.00%
100.00 %I
0
0
O
r
0
CO
''
I
o
CCOO
,.
r
o
0
O
r
'
0.00 %I
(
COO
N
1%00.00
'
'
0
N
CO
94.54 %I
100.00 %I
0
LO
0)
BALANCE
30- Jun -06
$ 60,273
I
i
'
EA
i
I
I
00
0
o
0)
EA
64,518
0
0
0
$ 83,518
$ (88,000)1
0
0
83,021
2,330,266 1
0
(494,302)
(3,000)1
(3,585)1
$ 1,824,400
$ 4,106,085
'
fig
$ 4,106,085I
EXPENDITURES
CO CO
1 0
3 CO
0
CA
i
1
'
CO
v
r
r-
i
!
1
e
EA
$85,482
46,152
0
O
33,048
$ 165,682
I
$ 914,850 1
1,544, 565 1
0
0
891 ,208 1
65,000
494,302
3,000
3,585
$ 3,916,510
$ 71,120,094
$ 640,4701
(0
o
~
n-
EA
Adjusted
Appropriations
$ 88,282
$ 771,408
$ 19,000
150,000
46,152
00
O
33,048
$ 249,200
$ 826,850
1,544,565 1
0
83,021
3,221,474
65,000
0
0
0
$ 5,740,910
$ 75,226,179
0
rs
v!
c.4. o
EA
0)
C0
00
cri
N
EA
Fourth Qtr
Adiustments
$6,376
I
'
EA
(810,000)
(1,358,757)
(200,000)
$ (2,368,757)
0)
CO
•7
Le
N
EA
0)
0
N
0)
EA
$ (122,280)
Third Qtr
Adjustments
$3,000
1$ -
'
EA
0
0
0
O
0
M
0
0
0
O
0
Cl
r
EA
$ 3,164,826
$ 3,164,826
Second Qtr
Adiustments
$ 23,656
EA
I
i EA
$ (142,330)
1,850,000 1
$ 1,707,670
$ 2,598,285
$ 3,724
$ 2,602,009
First Qtr
Adjustments
'
ER
O
0
O
0)
EA
$ 19,000
O
cn
0)
71,474
$ 59,544
$ 812,682
$ 28,000
$ 840,682
Z
C9
IX
0
APPROPRIATIONS
2005 -06
$ 55,250
$ 771,408
'
EA
O
o
0
1°
46,152
O
0
O
33,048 1
$ 230,200
0
CO
(0
0)
fA
1,556,495 1
810,000
1,441,778
200,000
0
0
0
COO
0
0
0
$ 5,042,453
N
n
CO
CCOO
CO
00
CO
EA
$ 515,537
$ 69,381,412I
'GENERAL FUND
Capital Outlay Sub -Total
'Depreciation
epartmental
OEPBenefits for allocation
Alameda County - Tax Collection
Museum -Space Rental
Affordble Housing
cc
=
to
u)
I Sub -total - Non - Departmental
Transfers out:
Debt Service - City Hall & Jail Facility & Ca
m
.0
Risk Management
Post Retirement
Capital Improvements (PW)
Urban Runoff
0
Q
U
U
Island City Maint Zone 7
ARRA
ISub -total - Transfers Out
TOTAL - GENERAL FUND
Equipment Replacement Depr I
GRAND TOTAL - GENERAL FUND 1
0)
r
1.7.
EXHIBIT E
SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS - GENERAL FUNDS
Department & Description
Adjust equipment replacement to actual
Adjust business licenses to actual
Revise engineer service fees estimate
Revise secured property -tax estimate
Addition to 1079/1082 Public Safety Pension Contribution
City Attorney: net increase re: severance costs
Depreciation Expense: adjust to actual
Police: net increase to cover full -year actual
P &B Ann Mtce: transfer budget to office equip (Capital Outlay)
U a)
E
06
Q.
a
N )
O
a)
0)
c
E
as
a)
L
�1
L
O
4-
-o
c
4-
1—
O
L
a)
w
c
L
y-+
L
a)
cm
C
Cco
G
U
Transfer to CIP
PW Ann Mtce: prior period correction
Other departmental changes not specifically noted are due to year -end accounting allocations
of Post Employment Benefits, Risk Management charges and Public Safety 1079/1082
Pension Contributions.
Total General Fund Adjustment - Q4 June 2006
Appropriations
163,204
98,252
rn
O
N
CO-
O
44,581
(10,000)1
000)
O O N
V) O O
N O O)
N O 00
N N
$ (122,280)1
Revenue
151,863
I 4,750
O
O
O
11")
O
O
O
CD-
LO
1 $ (243,387)1
EXHIBIT F
1 PERCENT'
0
O
P7
6)
%0'006
94.3%
0
0
CO
00
I %0'00
1358.8%
0
0
O
O
0
0
N
O
O
0
O
0
co
0
O
O
0
0
O
C.')
(o
0
0
O
cr
6)
;.r.,9,
CO
6)
0)
0
0
.-
r)
N
57.4 %I
0
0
0
0
0)
0
0
(o
(o
6)
0
O
O
O
a-
%0'006
I%o-oo
0,..?..
O
O
0
v-
1%0'001.
0
0
O
O
°o
a-
0
0
O
O
I %0'006
0
0
O
O
.-
0
0
Cl
O
N-
0
0
In
0)
v-
0
0
OO
0„?.
O
O
O
I %0'006
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
O
6)
0)
I %0'006
0
0
t�
C6
0
0
0)
O
a-
0
0
0
O
0
N-
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
(o
0)
BALANCE
1 TO COLLECT
co
I�
O
277,847
1 861,120
6)
r (716,334)
O
0)
to
v
581,949
m
co
O
0
o
0
58,480
8,334
(460,049)
61,093
34,530
48,570
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o)
(3,485)
12,082
22,763
o
O
O
674 I
O
1,807,269
10,654,482
o
o
0o
0
ACTUAL
co
C
3
O
M
102,245
1,019,523
4,564,517
(783,434)
3,416,532
773,238
O
1,054,589
4,652,153
0
0
N
e-
O
O
6)
1,093,578
2,013,825
805,652
82,374
2,845,980
1,368,930
335,820
218,125
236,483
1,541,559
196,845
838,906
157,690
C)
CO
CO
15,702
293,485
2,918
192,237 I
N
568,146
23,281
453,708 I
9,459,075
(00
N
0
1,306,220
64,724
556,561 1
743,982
ADJUSTED
1 REVENUE EST
110,000
1,019,523
4,842,364
77,686
3,416,523
56,904
°
1,052,070
5,234,102
1,108,613
0
1,152,058
2,022,159
345,603
143,467
2,880,510
0
0
.4.,
335,820
218,125
236,482
1,541,559
196,845
838,906
0)
CO
a
C,) (0
CO
00))
CO
0
0
N
15,000
215,000 I
N
568,146
23,281
454,382
9,459,075
1,876,551
11,960,702
64,724
556,561
775,000
4th Qtr
Adjustment
19,523
765,220
879,358
1,512,370
!R
V
°o
C
(5,140,906)
101,585
1,890,544
291,630
14;100
99,000
381,358
I-
(
n
r00 6'L
0
co
0
O
co (ro
222,120
205,670
0
CO
CO
85,599
19,602 1
0
CO
I i
22,583 1
N
N
r
103,146
000
°)
35,461
0
O
((0
v_
0)
(325,435)
64,167
227,794
3rd Qtr
Adjustment
(801,672)
1,904,153
757,321
(6
0
.
0
1,640,801
333
152,055
0)
O
r
14,362
O
N
o
W
Co
3,400 I
557
125,435
2nd Qtr
Adjustment
75,000
450,000
O
O
O
0
N
140,000
40,000
57,500
1,876,551
2,399,004
1st Qtr
Adjustment
11,0251
Co
(0
0)
'
(SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FY2005 -06
ESTIMATED
REVENUE
35,000
550,000
3,952,144
0 0
0
00
950,485
3,343,558
816,983
1,053,058
720,000
136,367
0)
co 0
N
1,417,500
150,000
1,335,889]
180,557
753,307
138,088
O
150,000 l
15,000
175,000
O
465,000
O
356,485
O
325,435
0
CO
0
0)
0
203,332
775,000
'DESCRIPTION
'POLICE /FIRE IMPACT FEES
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT FUND
WEST END COMM. IMP PROJ.
2003 CIC TAX ALLOC 2003A1
2003 CIC TAX ALLOC 2003A2
2003 CIC TAX ALLOC 2003B
FISC /CATELLUS LAND SALE
LOW & MOD INCOME HSG - WECIP
BUSINESS & WATERFRONT CIC PROJ.
LOW & MOD INCOME HSG - BWIP
CIC- BWIP HSG 2002 BOND PROJECT
CIC - HOUSING IN -LIEU FEE
AUSD HOUSING FUND
CIC - ALAMEDA POINT
CIC APIP LOW /MOD INC HSG
LIBRARY FUND - OPERATIONS
GAS TAX FUNDS
XIX TRANS IMPROVEMENT FUND
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
MEASURE B
MEASURE B LOCAL ST & RD
MEASURE B BICYCLE PED IMP
MEASURE B TRANSBAY FERRY
MEASURE B PARATRANSIT
MEASURE B CAPITAL PROJECT
MEASURE B GAP FUNDING
TIDELANDS TRUST
ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS
DWELLING UNIT TAX FUND
PARKING IN -LIEU FUND
PARKING METER FUND
TSM/TDM
COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION
THEATRE /PARKING STRUCTR PROJ
HOME FUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOME REPAYMENT FUND
REHAB REPAYMENT FUND
FISC LEASE REVENUE BOND
FUND#
co
164
201
201.11
201.13
201.15
(o
r
r.
0
N
202
203
204
204.4
204.5
204.6
205
206
0
r
N
a-
N
212
M
e-
N
MI
N
215.1
215.2
215.3
215.4
215.5
215.6
(o
N
0
r
N
r
N
N
223
224
In
N
N
227
227.1
235
to
CO
N
248
0)
Cr
N
Co
to
N
1 EXHIBIT FI
1 PERCENT(
COLLECTED
o
0
O
O
0.0 %I
o
0
O
O)
co
o
0
V
0
39.4 %I
0
N
(()
o
0
Zr
0
I %0'001
0
0
O
r
0)
0
C�
CA
CO
0
0
r
C—
CA
0
0
r
vi
CO
o
0
N
O)
94.5 %I
0
(O
I-
0)
0
N
O
0)
i
o
0
N
(O
00
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
CO
141
68.3 %I
0
0
O)
O
O
I %0'00
0
0
O
O
O
I%0'001.
1%0'001.
0
0
IN
O
0
%0'00
I %0'001.
0
0
r
O
0
o
0
O
O
O
I %0'001.
i
0
O
O
0
I %0'001.
BALANCE
1TO COLLECT
r
`-'
0
0
CD
O)
N
0
(3,836)
(167,418)
131,208
C-.
CO
0)
CMO
(8,344)
(
CO
CO
(4
O)
...
N
r
145
250
479
0
O
(O
M
67,635
17,899
O
co
3,021 I
.-.
O
v
30,548
O
16,832
(8,257)
7,520,736 I
CO
(O
(O
,-
0
0
0
0,-
CO
N..
�..
0
0
`-'
00
0)
v
0
0
...
M
0)
01
(187)1
r
0
H.
Q
(O
O
3
O
M
24,463,342
O
588
3,836
222,965
85,355
8,945
h
N
O)
0)
2,865
N
O)
CO
0)
N
4,655
18,372
16,281
57,764
703,195
308,768
16,259
75,713
r
O
O
M
CO
0)
1,739,072
0
O)
A-
8,257
16,198,072
706,618
0)
O
0)
0
68,544
O
0)
(P)
0
14,072 (
40,279
12,682
O
N
O)
r
N
N
CO
0
O)
M
3,429 I
O
CO
0)
r
393
h
CO
243,923
((7
0)
V_
I ADJUSTED
1 REVENUE EST
24,463,341
00
O
0)
N
588
O
55,546
216,563
N
c7.1
N
."'
189,583
O
937,498
O
4,800
18,622
0
N.
(O
61,364
770,830
1-
CO
CO
M
16,650
78,734
O
221,184
1,739,072
34,750
O
23,718,808
700,000 I
O
O)
l
68,544
102,590
14,072
40,000
12,682
1,920
622
O
3,429 I
CO
O)
0
0
243,923 I
1,495
4th Qtr
Adjustment
am
,NV,
M
588
VI ?
'
ti
O
3,448
29,583
233,629
178,571
412,486
N
00
41,257
41,308
00))
0,
14,072
CO
A-
8,359
M
271
co
3,429
00)
79,132
178
3rd Qtr
Adjustment
854,975
1,436
105,755
N
O
64
2,245,706 I
510,734
61,652
27,236 1
M_
(O
28,124
4,323
1,563
351
183
164,792
M
I 2nd Qtr
Adjustment
(19,954)
165,067
15,000
165,184
17,398,123
1 1st Qtr
Adjustment
O
4,800
18,622
O
O
N.
O
r
61,3641
770,830
326,667
16,650
41,834
O
O
O
(O
u)
34,750 I
134,493
(SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FY2005 -06
1 ESTIMATED
REVENUE
�
C4)
O)
I-
T-
O
00
0
0)
0)
0)
N
O
O
75,500
48,048
O
160,000 1
0
0)
CO
M
O
C�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,900
O
O
1,560,501 1
O
O
3,528,000 l
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ID ESC RIPTION
FISC CATELLUS
FISC CATELLUS PH II
VEHICLE REGISTRATION AB434
HA SECTION 8 PROJECTS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SSHRB
LEAD ABATEMENT
GARBAGE SURCHARGE
CURBSIDE RECYCLING FEE
WASTE MANAGEMENT /RECYCLING
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST 84 -2
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 1
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 2
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 3
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 4
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 5
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 6
ISLAND CITY MTE DIST ZONE 7
MARINA COVE MAINT DT 01 -1
IRESERVE MARINA COVE 01 -01
BAYPORT AD 03 -1
H
CO
D
it
H
0
H
-ILLI
M
Q
PUBLIC ARTS
WASTEWATER CAPITAL RESV
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
FISC CATELLUS TRAFFIC FEE
MARINA VILLLAGE AD# - 89 -1
HARBOR BAY AD # - 92 -1
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION
OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT
2003 AP REVENUE BOND
CDF- WE TRAFFIC SAFETY
CDF- WE PARKS & RECREATION
CDF- WE PUBLIC FACILITIES
CDF- WE PUBLIC SAFETY
CDF- NW TRAFFIC SAFETY
CDF- NW PARKS & RECREATION
CDF NW PUBLIC FACILITIES
CDF- NW PUBLIC SAFETY
CDF- CEE TRAFIC SAFETY
CDF- CEE PARKS & REC
FUND#
256.1
256.2
259
265.1
266
267
268
270
273
274
275
275.1
275.2
275.3
275.4
275.5
275.6
275.7
276
276.1
278
280
285
N
0
0
M
310.1
312
M
M
h
CO
CO
M
328
r
r
CS
3
340.12
M
r
(0
340.14
340.21
340.22
340.23
N
CS
A
M
340.31
340.32
1 EXHIBIT Fl
PERCENT
ICOLLECTEDI
2
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
i
i
i
i
o
0
O
O
0
0
0
‘--
00
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
4
r-
a--
0
L
L17
O>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
I %0'001.
0.0 %I
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
N
n
0
o
M
CO
0
o
o
O
O
rn
I
o
0
h
V'
0)
0
0
to
CO
(0
0
C
0
0)
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I %0'001.
0
0
O
V'
0)
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
1%0'001.
BALANCE
1
TO COLLECT
r.-
(217)
0
C
(135)
uio
O
53,943
n
0)
n
82,609
v
r
(48).
61,471
o0
834,968
00000
1,533,179
217,877
12,945
0)
(0
68,388 I
Ln
0
0
cv
0)
74,074 I
000x00
74,060
00ov
ACTUAL
O
O
C
7
O
(h
V'
O
O
8,035
h
N
0
135
65
554,159
2,792,075
M
17,391
236,189
393,473
0)
V:
O
0)
O
360,424
0
O�
M
0
O
co
O)
LC)
r-'
O)
CO
0
O
O)
3,182,905
in
0)
N-
0)
3,943,512
5,649,078
125,157
0)
O
1,210,834
1,809,884
824,262
391,083 1
cr
co CO
M
t`
(0
COO
("5
O
N
1,387,254
34,241 E
50,657
1,372,366
3,098,781 1
40,222 1
CO
(0 ■
r
O
1 ADJUSTED
REVENUE EST
9,024
8,035
O
O
O
O
554,159
2,846,018
71,200
100,000
237,330
393,425
O CD
CD-
CO co
N
dr
CO
3,700
834,968
V'
O
LO
869,761
CO
00
)
3,182,905
00)
c
O
0)
CO
V'
Ln
L()
O
CO
Ln
138,102 I
O
1,279,223
2,721,889
898,336
391,083 E
713,834
CO O
CO
O
N
LS)
N
CO_
r
34,241
50,657
1,446,426
3,098,781
40,222
3,796,118
I 4th Qtr
1 Adjustment
2,901
2,537
222,159
18,100
23,424
(101,300)
13,188
42,911 I
O
CO
O_
212,384 I
42,637 I
CA
Ln
LO
N
v
127,655
59,282
0
c
132,643
(575,457)
20,112
4,648
774,958
r-
O)
co
144,118
3rd Qtr
Adjustment
co
N
_
O
5,498
0) Cal
V'
0)
CO
O
54,758 1
68,081 I
349,425 I
2,482
48,023
2nd Qtr
Adjustment
49,261
25,000
464,241
N.-
wr
(0
CO
CO
O
0)
156,700
1 1st Qtr
Adjustment
(SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FY2005 -06
1 ESTIMATED
REVENUE
0
0
0
0
0
0
332,000
2,846,018
O
N
N-
0
O
0
237,330
375,325
651,950
337,000
105,000
834,968
556,461
826,850
0
2,970,521 I
0
5,427,430 I
5,841,955
138,102
0
802,900 I
1,468,408
898,336
260,946
654,552
1,405,717
1,097,912
CO
co
O
0
O
30,545
1,441,778
2,275,800
700,000
3,652,000
'DESCRIPTION
CDF- CEE PUBLIC FACILITIES
CDF- CEE PUBLIC SAFETY
CDF- BF TRAFFIC SAFETY
CDF- BF PARKS & RECREATION
CDF- BF PUBLIC FACILITIES
CDF- BF PUBLIC SAFETY
TRANSPORTATION IMP FUND
URBAN RUNOFF
CFD #1 - HARBOR BAY
CFD# 2 - PARAGON
DEBT SERVICE - JAIL FACILITY
DEBT SERVICE - LIB & GOLF PROJ
DEBT SERVICE - LIBRARY BOND
DEBT SERVICE - 84 -3A
DEBT SERVICE - 84 -3B
DEBT SERVICE - CIC TAX ALLOC BOND
DEBT SERVICE - CIC SUB BOND
DEBT SERVICE REFINANCE CITYHALL
2003 TAX ALLOC REF BWIP
TAX ALLOC BONDS - MERGED PROJEC
2003 AP REV BOND DEBT
GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION
FERRY SERVICE FUND
HARBOR BAY FERRY - EAST
ALA/OAKLAND FERRY - WEST
CENTRAL STORES FUND
CENTRAL GARAGE FUND
TECHNOLOGY SERVICE FUND
WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST
RISK MANAGEMENT
DENTAL TRUST
UNEMPLOYMENT
POST EMPLOYMENT FUND
POLICE AND FIRE - PLAN 1079
POLICE AND FIRE - PLAN 1082
DEBT SERVICE - 89 -1
DEBT SERVICE - 92 -1
FUND#
M
CO
0
340.34
340.41
340.42
340.43
d
350
351
360
361
413
419
421
458
460
r
CO
v
462
�!
465
CO
(O
v
468
r
O
CO
602
620
r
N
CO
a-
N
t0
621.2
N
0
n
703
a
O
r
r
h
N
r
n
713
715
720
r
O
CO
802
832
CO
CO
CO
1 EXHIBIT FI
PERCENT(
COLLECTED!
o
co
O
O
I %0'001.
.
o
0)
I %0'001.
o
O
O
O
83.36 %1
BALANCE
TO COLLECT
O
O
O
O
O
0
co
N
O
O
(4,338)
$ 29,224,039
ACTUAL
t0
o
C
7
O
th
2,980,023
4,025,975
O
12,271,706
1,706,954 1
l[)
N-
N
CD
N
4,338
$ 146,357,196
ADJUSTED
REVENUE EST
2,980,023
4,025,975
0
13,477,406
vr
in
m
O
O
NI
LL)
N
W
(0
N
co
175,581,234
4th Qtr
Adjustment
880,023
121
250,000
210,954
62,275
$ 27,481,056
3rd Qtr
Adjustment
525,854
M
0
M
N
0)
V'
E3)
2nd Qtr
Adjustment
$ 24,488,324
1st Qtr
Adjustment
M
O
0)
V
E33
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS FY2005 -06
ESTIMATED
REVENUE
2,100,000
3,500,000
O
13,227,406
0
0
0
O
0)
V
206,000
O
$ 107,200,821
DESCRIPTION
1998 REVENUE BOND DEBT
1999 REVENUE BOND DEBT
ALA PT BOND PROJ FUND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPME
DEBT SERVICE - CFD #1
DEBT SERVICE - PARAGON
DIKE MAINTENANCE
(TOTAL: SPECIAL FUNDS
FUND#
835
836
856
858
860
CO
CO
876
1 EXHIBITGI
PERCENT
1 EXPENDED
65.4 %I
0
CO
1 100.9%1
1
o
0
O
O
i
i
I %0'0L
o
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
(O
0
0.0 %I
0
0
W
(O
co
0.0 %I
0
0
0
00
co
0
0
f:
co
0
0
O
CO
0
0
t`
O
CO
0
0
CO
CV
N
0
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
N,—
'
0
0)
I--
0
0
V
O
co
0
0
0
n
o
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
i
o
0
co
Co
to
0
O
O
O
0
0
■0
00
N
N
62.4 %I
0
0
CO
co
'C)
0
O
O
0
0
0
r
C�)
0
0
co
O
a-
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
n
00
0
0
M
O
, 0
0
0
O
In
BALANCE
CO
O
C
7
1 82,000
1 1,001,964
(45,468)
1 (3,332,358)
1 4,973,826
M
N.
O
312,040
(42,532)
(43,344)
O
0
O
o
to
•
t0 C)
LO
145,000
n
O
N
n
13,211
o
co
O
r
472,866
240,000
O
00
0(O
0)
CO
0o
N
O
O
0
CO
801,692
30,459 1
O
O
O
90,331 1
O
co
O,
O
N
CO
f:
CO
177,233
r
0
CO
N
n
OOO
10,739,938
co
co
346,406
(1,540,239)1
2,548,467
EXPENDITURES
CO
C
o
7
O
M
1 155,330
1 463,076
5,259,068
4,382,359
7,782,174
4,727,193
O
728,614
4,688,468
765,920
O
995,000
0
578,077
88,688
2,875,794
1,086,876
70,000
218,125
O
832,369
264,063
350,445
107,643
0)
M
00
co
CO
CO
(0
,-
O
118,568
2,000 1
CO
O
00
M
228,001
252,559 I
W
0
C0
0
69,282
1,306,220
64,724
430,516
328,403
26,003,580
450,633
Adjusted
Appropriations
237,330
1,465,040
5,213,599
O
O
O
d 0
12,756,000
O
0
1,040,654
4,645,936
722,576
500,000
0
to
VO
145,000
650,083
0
0
00
O
2,996,484
1,559,742
310,000
218,125
co
co
0)
N.
CO
1,885,047
333,803
1,152,137
0
co
168,359
15,693 I
O
0))
00
O
N
O
O
N
to
O
to
N
365,117
429,792 1
O
O
co N
0
1,876,551
12,046,158
64,724
430,516
674,809
24,463,342
O
00)
0
c.1
Fourth Qtr
Adjustments
1 (14,439)
1 304,482
co
M
M
co
M
1 (1,527,039)
0 co
0
CO
0)
co
co
CO
Lo
1,122,259
(12,352)
48,496
3,483
100,642
240,000
68,125
448,729
co
CO
co co
22,583 1
co
O
co
v
000'Z
62,200
O
O
co
0
394
64,724
105,417
11,940,614
Mind
1 Adjustments
50,000
3,331,323
L 1,527,039
co
o
0
co
M
145,000
29,545
70,000
(400,000)
o
(0
N
110,741
a
00
7,868,462
Second Qtr
Adjustments
202,330
220,000
404,647
o"
N-
O
to
O
%
V
V
(580)
(13,880)
19,376
O
440,000
20,000
O
O
40,000
135,000
57,500
to
to
2,456,742
(n0
N-
First Qtr
Adjustments
I 694,479
CO
0
(")
co
11,025
122,866
231,209
239,047
333,803
459,737
O
O
CO
M
45,806 1
46,059 I
LO
co
7
co
0
V
229,596
3ROPRIATIONS
2005 -06
O
O
co
515,000
4,504,470
O
O
O
12,756,000
O
O
981,242
3,521,177
736,028
500,000
to
tt
`-
O^
,-
ot
N
0
0
2,869,152
1,417,500
150,000
1,606,000
714,000
138,102
O
O
143,093
15,000
173,000
222,682
305,156
O
O
CO
co co
0
O
203,332
674,809
4,654,266
O
co
co
N
5-
_ FUNDS
POLICE /FIRE IMPACT FEES
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT TAX
REDEV. WECIP
CIC 2003A1 TAX ALLOCATION
!CIC 2003A2 TAX ALLOCATION
CIC 2003B TAX ALLOCATION
FISC /CATELLUS LAND SALE
LOW AND MOD INC HOUSING (WECIP)
REDEV. BWIP
LOW AND MOD INC HOUSING (BWIP)
CIC -BWIP HSG 2002 Bd Project
HOUSING IN LIEU
AUSD HOUSING FUND
CIC -APIP
LOW AND MOD INC HOUSING (APIP)
LIBRARY FUND
GAS TAX FUND
XIXB TRANS IMPROVEMENT FUND
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUNDS
MEASURE B FUND
MEASURE B FUND Local St & Rd
MEASURE B BICYCLE PED IMP
MEASURE B TRANSBAY FERRY
MEASURE B PARA TRANSIT
MEASURE B CAP PROJECT
MEASURE B GAP FUNDING
MEASURE B NEW COUNTY PROG
TIDELANDS TRUST FUND
ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS
DWELLING UNIT TAX FUND
PARKING METER FUND
COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION
THEATRE /PARKING STRUCTURE PROJ
HOME FUND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOME REPAYMENT FUND
REHAB REPAYMENT FUND
FISC LEASE REVENUE FUND
FISC - CATELLUS PH II
FISC - CATELLUS
W
O.
in
e-
et
a-
-
N
r M
r ems.',
0 0
N N
10 CO
0 0
N N
N
N
M
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
(0 10
O N
N
CO
N
0
N
a-
N
N
N
(0
N
N
N
r
O
N
N
N
M
O
N
et
N
to
N
CO
O
N
ti
O
N
(O
N
0)
N
-
N
[P
N
h
N
a-
N
N
O
N
(O
N
CO
N
O)
N
CO
N
-
O
N
N
O
N
1 EXHIBIT GI
PERCENT
1 EXPENDED
0
O
ID
28.1 %I
4.6%
0
1■
CO
%0'001
48.0 %I
0
co
(7
0
1`
0
0)
N-
53.7%
73.0%1
71.0%
0
O
O
29.5 %I
0
0
O
N
0
O
O
0
0.3 %I
0
f�
0)
100.0%1
O
O
O
0
N
M
1•
0
O
0)
CO
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
,..5„,
O
0
0
0
O
0)
0)
1 BALANCE
90-unr -0£
228,304
CO
N
co
181,970
41,012
O
561,125
220
0)
N
O)
n
.%- -
co O
63,887
57,777
243,043
101,853
30,593
83,728
143,423 I
O
18,941
1,883,768
0
0
...
(O
((0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43,150 1
0)0)00
0)).
O
500
EXPENDITURES
O
7
O
M
43,240
65,876
8,800
N CO
0
0
(00
0)
O)
518,732
0
N
2,241
13,973
13,972
CO
O
0
N-
CO
O
249,814
n
35,038
37,761 I
1,554,518
20,835,304
5,480
310,140
724,666
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
117,750
co
0
(0
0
0
co
N
1,433 E
239,514
378,264
651,450
Adjusted
Appropriations
271,544
234,092
190,770
124,694
co
0)
0)
1,079,856
O
11,520
O
O
0)
1�
77,859
124,870
O
17-
00
0)
351,667
O
(00
O
M
118,766
181,184
1,554,518
co
O
0)
22,719,072
5,480
310,140
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
160,900
3,459,505
1,433
239,514
378,264
O
(n
S.
(L)
0
Fourth Qtr
Adjustments
M
3,459
N
173,882 I
co
N
co
(0
N
tf)
000
,-
0)
N
N
d'
(342,233)
155,760
1,433
2,184
0)
00))
Third Qtr
Adjustments
L 157,912
O
O_
0
2,250,093
123,613
427,299
Second Qtr
Adjustments
4,447
182,585
32,859
O
0
O
84,000
181,184
(53,444)
17,389,123
O
O
0)
O
(v)
224,930
First Qtr
Adjustments
327,155
11,520
O
0))
77,859
L 124,870
814,710
351,667
30,600
78,734
O
0)
134,493 I
6,233
0
O
d1 (v)
'ROPRIATIONS
0
O
(0
O
O
N
267,065
48,048
O
124,694
M
a>
0)
422,397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,032
O
1,434,080 I
O
3,612,063
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
186,000
1,885,734
O
237,330
375,325
651,950
_ FUNDS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
HUMAN SERVICES /SSHRB/YOUTH COLLAE
CALIFORNIA LEAD ABATEMENT
GARBAGE SURCHARGE
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
WASTE MANAGEMENT /RECYCLING
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 1
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 2
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 3
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 4
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 5
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 6
ISLAND CITY MAINT 84 -2 Zone 7
MARINA COVE MAINT DT 01 -1
BAYPORT ASSASSMENT DISTRICT
ATHLETIC TRUST
PUBLIC ART FUND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
MARINA DISTRICT A.D.89 -1
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION FUND
2003 AP REV BD PROJ
CDF - WE
CDF - WE PARKS & RECREATION
CDF - WE PUBLIC FACILITIES
CDF - WE PUBLIC SAFETY
CDF - NW
CDF - NW PARKS & REC
CDF - NW PUBLIC FACILITIES
CDF - NW PUBLIC SAFETY
CDF- CEE
CDF- CEE PARKS & REC
CDF- CEE PUBLIC SAFETY
CDF- BF
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND
URBAN RUNOFF
CFD #2 PARAGON
1990 POLICE BLDG
Debt Service - Library and Golf Project
Debt Service - Library BD 2003
W
0.
CO
N
h
N
CO
N
O
N
M
N
st
N
LLY
N
r
N
(V
N
M
N
v
N
in
N
(O
N
n
N
(O
N
00
N
O
N
N
N
0
M
N
M
h
M
00
M
r
O
N
O
M
G
st
O
N
O
N
O C1
M
N
O
Tr
N
C
r
CO
O
N
CI
O
co
CI
G
r
et
O
O
M
r
M
r
M
0)
v
0
v
r
v est
1 EXHIBIT GI
PERCENT
1 EXPENDEDI
e
0
M
c
m
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
m
Co
94.2 %1
0
(
(O
0
m
0
O
0
o
0
0
m
0
m
0
0
V
(O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
C0
N
0)
o
0
O
O)
l'-
88.5 %I
i
0
O
O
O
o
0
N
6
m
0
0
O
O
0
I %0'00
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
I06
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
M
(0
85.4 %I
88.2 %I
BALANCE
O
C
7
C
M
2,280
O
1 834,968
O
O
O
O
a-
'
C0
(0
247,135
12,945
O
121,444
886,282
O
r
52,646
658,247
265,352
o
o
69,412 1
O
O
coo
847,552 1
128,472 1
$ 26,130,559 f
(0
(0
co
N
O
CO
E9
EXPENDITURES
C
C
7
0
co
327,720
198,380
O
556,503
828,805
835,136
2,974,807
503,284
5,068,758
4,046,882
125,157
433,748
1,214,279
1,830,969
780,001
359,474
673,892
2,619,386
2,033,652 1
O
65,417
1,372,366
3,098,781
40,222
3,499,513
2,820,918
8,331,193
10,818,021 1
1,523,725
188,180
203,528 1
$153,274,243
$ 225,034,808
Adjusted
Appropriations
O
O
O
co
co
198,380
834,968
556,503
828,805
835,136
2,974,807
503,285
5,764,949
4,294,017
138,102
433,748
1,335,722
2,717,251
780,001
359,475
726,538
3,277,632
2,299,004 1
O
65,417
1,441,778
3,098,782
40,222
3,499,515
2,820,918
8,331,193
11,665,573
1,523,725
(0
co
332,000
$ 179,404,803
$ 255,271,452
Fourth Qtr
Adjustments
M
1,955
N
4,286
172,875
0)(0
6
433,748
235,663
135,534
22,500
139
0
O
13,073
774,958
(659,778)
0)
00
4,040,012
250,439
8,973
$13,683,337
$13,561,057
Third Qtr
Adjustments
00)
O)
10
835,110
330,409
59,582
342,196
497,838
216,441
co
(97,838)
21,344 1
48,023
661,323 1
0
303
332,000
$ 19,933,520 f
$ 23,098,346
Second Qtr
Adjustments
N
.1-
46,311
473,241
906,647
O
N -
(0 O
0)
C•1
N-.
N
(0
N
m
$28,872,838
First Qtr
Adjustments
50,000
7,500 1
$5,774,912
m 0)
co
(()
O
O
69
'ROPRIATIONS
2005 -06
330,000
101,480
834,968
556,461
826,850
O
2,970,521
O
5,684,761
0)
O
m
138,102
0
O
m
O
w
1,468,408
46,500
7,500
696,538
3,323,924
2,240,003
0
O
O
(0
31,000
1,441,778
2,275,800
O
O
00
n
3,499,515 1
_m
N
CO
N
3,629,858
11,415,134
1,521,710
178,905
0
N (0
(0
co
M
,-
ER
co
(0
(7
a0
d9
_ FUNDS
Assess Dist 84 -3A
Assess Dist 84 -3B
Debt CIC Tax Allo Bd
Debt CIC Sub Bond
Refinance Cityhall
2003 Tax Allocation Refi - BWIP
2003 CIC Tax Allocation Bond
2003 AP Revenue Bond Debt
GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
SANITARY SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION
FERRY SERVICES
HARBOR BAY FERRY - EAST
ALA/OAKLAND FERRY - WEST
CENTRAL STORES
CENTRAL GARAGE
TECHNOLOGY SERVICE FUND
WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST
RISK MANAGEMENT
DENTAL TRUST
UNEMPLOYMENT
POST EMPLOYMENT FUND
PENSION FUND - 1079
PENSION FUND - 1082
Assess Dist 89 -1
1998 Revenue Bond Debt
1999 Revenue Bond Debt
ALAMEDA REDEV & REUSE AUTHORITY
ASSESS DIST CFD #1
ASSESS DIST CDF #2 PARAGON
DIKE MAINTENANCE
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS:
Total Special Funds
'GRAND TOTAL - ALL FUNDS
a
W
O.
N
CO
�10
0
(O
a-
D
N
(0
CO
O
(O
O
CO
(0
a-
(O
N
O
O
CN
a-
N
D
a-
N
(o
N N
O
N P
(0
CO
O
n
at
O
n
a-
a-
n
N
a-
h
M
a-
P
N
I.-
O
N
1.-
a-
O
Co
N
O
Co
N
M
Co
ID
M
Co
CO
M
CO
CO
N
Co
0
(O
Co
a-
0
Co
CD
h
Co
2
F-
m
X
X
w
- OTHER FUNDS
Fund / Purpose
Construction Improvement: adjust revenue to actual; transfr to CIP
WECIP: year -end adjustments for ERAF pass -thru pmts; transfers, parking structure, budget line(s) adjust
2003 CIC Tax Alloc 2003A1
2003 CIC Tax Alloc 2003A2
2003 CIC TAX ALLOC 2003B
FISC /Catellus land sale
Low & Mod Income Housing - WECIP: year -end adjust budget line(s) to actual
Business & Waterfront CIC Proj: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual.
Low & Mod Income Housing - BWIP: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual
CIC- BWIP HSG 2002 Bond Project: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual
CIC - Housing In -Lieu Fee: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual
AUSD Housing Fund: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual
CIC - Alameda Point: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual
CIC- APIP Low & Mod Income Housing: year -end budget line(s) adjust to actual
Library Fund Operations: Measure 0 funds appropriated for "opening day collection"
XIX Trans Improvement Fund: adjust revenue to actual; transfer to CIP
Traffic Safety Fund: adjust to actual
Measure B: adjust revenue to actual; trsfr to CIP and West -End Ferry
Measure B Local ST & RD: adjust to actual
Measure B Bicycle /Pedestrian Improvement: adjust to actual
Measure B Transbay Ferry: adjust to actual
Measure B Paratransit: adjust to actual
Measure B Capital Project: adjust to actual
Measure B Gap, Funding: adjust to actual
Measure B NEW County prog: adjust to actual
Asset Seizure Fund: adjust to actual
Parking In -Lieu Fund: adjust to actual
Parking Meter Fund: adjust to actual -
TSM/TDM: adjust to actual
Commercial Revitalization: adjust revenue to actual; year -end budget line(s) adjustments; appropriate deve
contrib for Target disposition and budget for GABA admin
Theater /Parking Structure Project: adjust to actual
d)
co
M'
c.1
c)
O)
co
0)
i
.
i
i
1
1
i
O
N
O
O
prig
304
M
CO
527
O
0)
57
122"
(12
48
1
100
240
68
448
57
22
(36
2
CO
CO
Cr;
CO
I.
ti O
co
co
O
N
0)
CO
35,461 l
LC)
N
c)
-71-
0) 0
M
CO
N-
f-
O
N.
CO
0
CO
r-
CO
N-
0
'Revenue
Oi
76;
879
1,512
O
r■
(5,140
101
1,890
291
14
99
381
ti~
CO
CO
c—
CO
222
O
N
16
85
.-
LC
22
1,
O
c-
19,
LO
a)
2
1
cli
2
x
w
--- - - - - --
- OTHER FUNDS
I Fund / Purpose
1
a)
E
o
U
C
E
2
2
o.
0
(p
o
0
L
0
0
C
V
>,
O
0
v,
0
as
a.
C
m
u_
a)
E
o
2
Community Development: net of year -end budget line(s) adjustments
Home Repayment Fund: adjust to actual
Rehab Repayment Fund: adjust to actual
FISC Catellus: adjust to actual revenue
Vehicle Registration AB434: adjust to actual
HA Section 8 Projects: reverse prior adjustment
Affordable Housing: reverse prior adjustment
SSHRB: donation income
Garbage Surcharge: adjust franchise tax revenue to actual
Curbside Recycling Fee: reverse prior adj; adjust to actual expense
Waste Management/Recycling: adjust to actual
Athletic Trust: adjust to actual
Capital Improvement Projects: MTC grants and trsfr from Constr Imp, Urban Runoff for Lincoln Middle School
Safe Route to Schools; net prior period adj
FISC Catellus Traffic Fees: adjust for actual fee revenue
Marina Village AD# - 89 -1: adjust to actual
Harbor Bay AD # - 92 -1: adjust to actual
Library Construction: interest allocation and other donation revenue; appropriations for balance of art installation
and library software acquisition
Open Space Improvement: adjust to actual
2003 AP Revenue Bond: Interest income; reverse prior period adj
CDF- WE Traffic Safety: adjust to actual
CDF- WE Parks & Recreation: adjust to actual
CDF- WE Public Facilities: adjust to actual
CDF- WE Public Safety: reverse prior adj
CDF- NW Traffic Safety: adjust to actual
CDF- NW Parks & Recreation: adjust to actual
CDF- CEE Traffic Safety: adjust to actual
CDF- CEE Parks & Recreation: adjust to actual
CDF- CEE Public Facilities: adjust to actual
CDF- CEE Public Safety: adjust to actual
L
u_
C
w
To
c0
w
U
0
4-
En
1
4—
c
2
4'
N
as
4-
as
O
c
N
4-
ca
c
—
C
a)
E
>
2
a
E
c
0
co
t
O
0
c
(6
1
Urban Runoff: trsfr to CIP for Lincoln School Safe Route To School
Appropriation s
394
64,724
105,417
11,940,614
32
3,459
I--
N
.a-
a-
173,882
o
O
ti
CO
O
co
186,527
.
cm
O)
N
N
N
at
(342,233)1
Revenue
(325,435)
CO
4. CO
227,794
O
co
N
at
Ce
V-
588
(1,436)
(105,755)
a.
M
29,583
(00
`-'
1 233,629
I'-
l0
V-
412,486
189,266
41,257
41,308
ti
0)
M
14,072
11,876
8,359
357
r-
f�
N
co
co
r-
3,429
co
co
0)
.—
N
co
O
CO
I-
N-
2,901
2,537
222159
2
1-
1
X
W
- OTHER FUNDS
Fund / Purpose
CFD# 2 - Paragon: adjust to actual
Debt Service - Jail Facility: adjust to actual
Debt Service - Library & Golf Project: adjust to actual
Debt Service - 84 -3A: adjust to actual
Debt Service - 84 -3B: adjust to actual
Debt Service - CIC Sub Bond: adjust to actual
Debt Service Refinance City Hall: adjust to actual
2003 Tax Alloc Refi BWIP: adjust to actual
Tax Alloc Bonds - Merged Project: adjust to actual
2003 AP Rev Bond Debt: adjust to actual
Golf Enterprise Fund: trsfr to GF annual maintenance and year -end OPEB charges
Sewer Enterprise Fund: year -end OPEB charges
Ferry Service Fund: adj to actual fixed asset depreciation charge
Harbor Bay Ferry - East: adj trsfr in from Transportation Improvement Fund
Alameda /Oakland Ferry - West: adj trsfr from Measure B Ferry
Central Stores Fund: adjust to actual
Central Garage Fund
Technology Service Fund: adjust revenue to actual; streaming video set up & svc contract
Workers Compensation Trust: interest allocation and year -end charges to depts /funds net of adj
Risk Management Fund: interest allocation and year -end charges to depts /funds net of adj
Dental Trust: adj to actual
Unemployment Insurance Fund: adjust to actual
Post Employment Fund: net adj of year -end trsfrs /charges to funds /depts
Police & Fire - Plan 1079: net adj of year -end trsfrs to actual
Police & Fire - Plan 1082: net adj of year -end trsfrs to actual
Debt Service - 89 -1: adjust to actual
1998 Revenue Bond Debt: adjust to actual
1999 Revenue Bond Debt: adjust to actual
Alameda Reuse and Development: MTC Grant, other donations and trsfr from GF for AP Station Area PIE
Debt Service - CFD #1: adjust to actual
Debt Service - Paragon: adjust to actual
Total Q4 June 2006 Other Funds Adjustment Summary
co
N
M
ti
1 1
LC
ti
p
'
CO
O
N
N.
CV
O
Cr).
00
Appropi
1'
1 4:
1:
CO
7i
CO
4,0z
2E
O
00
r
00
0) -
In
CO
CO
210,954 I
0
CO
CO
0) 0)
10
N
N-
M
r-
0)
CO
0) O
CO
I`
N-
s-
CN
'Revenue
18
23
O
x-
M
c-
N
O
r-
N
212,
42,
L(7 N
O.
I`
N
I 5c
O
O
132
(575,
20,
4,
774,
O
CO
T
880,
250
N
(0
1 Exhibit II
co
d
0
tO
m
V
a
G
N
M
CO
O
CO
LO
M
0j
ffT
CO
L
CO
O
co
N
0
v.-
N
69.
....
N
0)
V'
n
0)
O
to_
0)
N
O
OO
(O
O
N
O
N
CO
co
M
co
00
,-M
i-
to
co
O)
r
0)
h
O
7
In
Ch
N
CO
00
O
0‘-,-N
co
(O
0Q
0)
O
h
LO
.-
N
N
N
In
(n
CO
0)
O
N
^
O
fh
0
O
N
O
CO
7
In
O
'
(O
N
-
CO
CO
0
N
CO
u,
CO
N
0
(0
0000,4-
c
CO
N
O)
CO
CO
N
V
O
N
0)
O
u
M
V'
1-
O
- 00
0
CO
0
0)
0
0
CO
6,;.666,-6
I--
O
r
2
M
N
�-
i-
O
CO
,—
N
CO
CO
r
V
M
CO
a
OO
I.
r-
f.
8,497,0861
co
O
tom
O
V
a
1 Net Change
$ 841.031
282.800
1 $ 1,123,832
CO M
O
v
O
(�
^
LO
(O
CO
1�CO0
���
tt
CO
M
LC)
Cn
D)
OO
n
0
C()
M
O
M
363.587
O
• O
0)
98.578 1
N
00
M
p
N
227.5751
"
.M
CO
N
282.0541
OOMO
N
CO
(O
N
CO
V
CO
N
0)
rN
_. )
O
:�
O1`
CO
.:1-
00
V'
V
CD
O
^OnO
O
v
0)O)N
d'
r
O
cO
N
N
e-�N
—
O
0
CV
c0
(M
N
aco
V
-0
0
N
CO
h
0)
V
OO
Estimated
1 Fund Balance
(0
0
N
O
M
(0
g=a -f
$ 14,613,447
1 2,805,858
$ 17,419,305
(73,951)
567,785
1 2,013.745
1 4,855.498
1 10,144,501
4,800.652
O
508,982
568,400
519,255
co
N
m
434,100
1,877,159
(1,850,646)1
349,9821
(0
(70,081)1
O
248,4471
0)
0)
M
01
343,0591
277.5881
0
O
(70,273)
d)
_N
O
O
co
t`
O
0)
O
`-
41.584
534.2291
8,497,075
1 2005 -06
Estimated
Net Change
C
11
w
$ (3,910,610)
282,801
$ (3,627,810)
($127,330)
(445,517)
(371,235)
(972,314)
(9,339,477)
56,904
O
(0
588,166
386,037
(485,900)
ti 0)
(0(
M N.
co.4.
,_
(304,480)
41,568 1
(115,974)
(142,242)
25,820 I
O
(443,456)1
(343,488)1
(136,958)1
(313,231)
19,588
(110,721)1
O
0 0
0
M
07),-.1.
COO
0
N
203,029
23,281
24,590
n
O
0)
CO
Expenses
^O
$71,120,094
1 640,470
1 $71,760,564
$ 155,330
463,076
5,259,068
4,382,359
r-
4,727,193
O
_V
O
4,688,468
765,920
O
995,000
0
578,077
88,688
2,875,794
1,086,876
70,000 1
218,125
O
832,369 1
264,063
350,445
107,643
168,359
15,693
118,568
2,000
(0
0)
CM[)
O
228,001 C
O
252,559 C
0)
0)
(O
d)
1 Appropriations
a
$ 75,226,179
640,470
$ 75,866,649
$ 237,330
L 1,465,040
5,213,599
1,050,000
12,756,000
O
O
1,040,654
4,645,936
722,576 1
500,000
1,146,591
145,000
650,083
0)
co_
O
2,996,484
1,559,742
310,000
218,125 1
00
OM)
0
(0
1,885,047
333,803 1
1,152,137
138,102
168,359
c oo
CO
(�7
208,899
2,000
259,059
365,117 1
429,792 1
O
N
0)
1 Actual
Revenue
N
17
923,271
1 $72,884,396
$ 102,245
1,019,523
4,564,517
(783,434)
3,416,532
773,238
O
1,054,589
4,652,153
1,129,507
O
O
O
1,093,578
2,013,825
805,652
82,374
2,845,980
1,368,930
335,820
218,125 1
236,483
1,541,559
196,845
838,906
157,690
M
co
1-
LO
O
h
6
293,485
2,918
192,237
N
568,146
23,281
453,708
N
O
0) in
0)
l Estimated
Revenue
$ 71,315,568
923,271
1 $ 72,238,839
O
O
O
(i)
1,019,523
4,842,364
(0
(O
r-
3,416,523
56,904
0
0
O
IN
0
5,234,102
1,108,613
p
-
1,152,058
2,022,159
345,603
143,467
2,880,510
1,417,500
335,820
218,125
236,482
1,541,559
196,845 1
00)
b
W
157,690
co
r
to
co
290,000
15,000
215,000
1,122
568,146
23,281
454,382
9,459,075
Audited
Fund Balance
en
O
O
N
O
M
(O
V
$ 18,524,058
2,523,058
$ 21,047,115
$ 53,379
1,013,302
2,384,980
5,827,812
19,483,978
4,743,748
0
497,567
(19,766)
133,217
578,016
428,633
0
(1,546,166)
308,414
70,355
72,161
0
0
NO
0
1,333,417
103,186
656,290
258,000
N
f-
O
`
0
903,773
(83,273)
42,840
72,038
1,306,675
18,303
509,639
O
1SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS
FY 2005 -06
As of June 30, 2006
o
O.
0
Cr)
G
Fund Group:
(General Fund
Equipment Replacement
Total General Fund
tevenue Fund Group:
Const Improvement Fund
CIC -WECIP
2003 CIC Tax Alio 2003A1
2003 CIC Tax Allo 2003A2
2003 CIC Tax AIIo 2003B
FISC /Catellus Land Sale
CIC -WECIP Housing
CIC -BWIP
CIC -BWIP Housing
CIC -BWIP Hsg 2002 Bond Proceeds
CIC- Housing In -Lieu Fee
AUSD Housing Fund
C
o
=
as
mod, d,
C)C1
0 V
Alameda City Library Fund
Gas Tax Fund
XIXB Trans Improvement Fund
Traffic Safety Fund
County Measure B Fund
Measure B - Local St & Rd
Measure B - Bicycle Ped Imp
Measure B - Transbay Ferry
Measure B - Para Transit
Measure B - Capital Projects
Measure B - Transp Sr & Disab
Tidelands Fund
Narcotics Asset Seizure
Dwelling Unit Fund
Parking In -Lieu Fund
Parking Meter Fund
TSM/TDM Fund
Commercial Revitalization
Theatre Project/Parking Garage
I FUND
'General
001
0)
r
e-
(O
)"
,-
0
N
r
O
N
a-
�-
O
N
r In CO r N (h O
T ■0 0 •
O O N N O
N N N
[f •
O
N
O CO
tt d'
O O
N N
O (O
O O
N N
O •,
e-
N N
N
N
CO
N
I
N
•
H
N
N
(N
r/-
N
M
(n
N
N
T-
N
N
Il)
N
t0
'4)
1-
N
(O 0)
.- .-
N N
r C0
N N
N N
'V
N
N
N
N
N
h
N
N
1
1 Exhibit II
Unaudited
1 Actual Balancel
CO
0
0
CI
O
0)
(O
000
968.3391
(2.085.202)1
—
I's
0)
' O
Cr)
0
; nj
(450.633)1
`oo
r
co
' O
M
108.5731
398,089
28.5921
22.1141
586,477
171,782
4.578.8191
rtoorrn
0)
O)
O
0
N
co
CO
CO
0)
co
r
CO
CO
00
rn
M
307.5551
0
CO
0
0)
41.7671
CO
7
CO
to
Cr
208.5371
0)
N
to
to
CO
32.9181
ON
N
O
0
N
6.463,234
118.9741
$ 50,769,080 1
M
M
-
69
CO
O
to
o
n
r
Cal
CV
O
r
0
r
2,635,9851
p
O
Actual
1 Net Change
o0o
126,045
415,579
1 (1,540,239)
(450,633)
588
Om
CO .
M
179,724
0)
I'
rn
145
114,245
Or
v.-
00)
00
232
v0)co�
V'
CV
M
V
co
N
N
M
47,5281
58,954
16,2511
40,6751
0
co
CO r
N
184,554
17,8531
oocoo
O
Ch
V
r
0)
r
0))
$ 1,560,0901
r
0
N
O
69
(4,637,232) 1
•corn
CEO
(O
O
Ir
r--
O)
Estimated
1 Fund Balance
co
0
N
0
M
CO
g =a -f
O^
1 (85.456)
'O
968,339
(2,400,590)
(1,050,733)
•O
38,310
O
104,736
r
CO
co
N
V,
r
537,121
r
rn
(0
r
4,017,500
765
3,471
v
LO
M
O)
CO
0
M
(14,309)
132,147
212,6471
CO
CO
to
r
80,0251
44,9451
N
0
co
a)
635,529
rn
O
co
co co
0
26,0221
M co
$ 48,481,9561
0
,_
CO
13,365,474 1
1,090,4041
to
0)
to
co
N
2005 -06
1 Estimated
1 Net Change
v
a
II
w
O
1 (85,456)
O
1 126,045
r
0
v
0
588
0
0
(215,998)
(17,528)
(17,858)
64,889
CO
o)
of
(142,358)
O
N
r
cr
(60,468)1
0
m
(909'£9)
(127,880)
(25,000)1
(13,950)
(40,032)
0
40,000
184,554
15,744 1
0
O
CO
(MO_
r
0
r
(332,000)1
$ (727,034)
CO
r
of
0)
700,000
0)
v
r
°)
Expenses
N
co0
(O
1 1,306,220
1 64,724
1 430,516
328;403
26,003,580
450,633
O
0
43,240
CO CO
C(00
8,800
83,682
CO
O
W
518,732
(220)
2,241
13,973
13,972
cc)
0)
CO
655,667
249,814
r
35,038
O
37,761
1,554,518
(0 to
0
125,157 f
10,818,021
203,528 1
$ 81,395,695
1
69
20,835,304
O
5,480
Appropriations
L 1,876,551
12,046,158
64,724
430,516
0)
0 co
r-
co
L 24,463,342
00
rn
rn
N
0
0
0
L 271,544
234,092
190,770
124,694
(0
0
rn
rn
1,079,856
0
11,520
O
0)
77,859
124,870
898,710
351,667
30,600
118,766
0
181,184
1,554,518 1
CO
co
rn
0
138,102 f
11,665,573
332,000
$ 101,418,592
Ef3
22,719,072 1
0
5,480
Actual
Revenue
69,282
1,306,220
64,724
556,561
743,982
24,463,342
O
588
O
3,836
222,965
85,355
to
00))
rn
r
rn
rn
r
2,865
N�
CO
M
0)
4,655
18,372
16,281
57,764
703,195
308,768
0)
N
,_
75,713
0
CO
CO
00)
r
1,739,072 1
CO
0)
co
r
.-
N
r
o
Or
n
N
N
4,338
$ 82,955,785
$ 8,257
N
O
00)
r
CO
00
CO
0
r
0
CD
0
.-
Estimated
Revenue
1,876,551
11,960,702
64,724
556,561
775,000
24,463,341
00
0)
a)
N
588
0
0
55,546
216,563
172,912
189,583
O
937,498
0
009'1
18,622
0
co O
r
-
61,364
770,830
co
c6
N
0)
16,650
78,734
O
221,184
1,739,072
34,750
O
0
c6
co
r
v_
r
V
M
O
$ 100,691,558
CA
23,718,808
00
0
0
r
102,909 1
1 Audited
Fund Balance
N
O
o N
0
M
CO
CO
0
0
0
842,294
(2,500,781)
(1,050,732)
0
37,722
0
104,736
218,365
M
.-
,_
O)
21,970
472,232
188,883
4,159,858
765
O
63,622
64,788
49,197
N-
c.1
co
O
0
N
237,647
25,516
120,057
44,945
55,662
450,975
15,065
26,022 1
5,009,549
318,164
$ 49,208,990 1
$ 8,135
12,365,738
390,404
2,538,556
I SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS
40
O
O
N
>.
4.
IAs of June 30, 2006
1DESCRIPTION
(Home Fund
CDBG
Home Repymt Fund
Rehab Repayment Fund
FISC Lease Revenue Fund
FISC - Catellus
FISC - Catellus Ph II
Vehicle Registr. AB434
Housg Developmt -HA Reimb
HA Section 8 Projects
Affordable Housing
Human Services
CHRPO /LEAD
Garbage Subcharge Fund
Curbside Recycling
Waste Reduction Subcharge
Island City Maint 84-2
Island City Maint 84-2 Z1
Island City Maint 84-2 Z2
Island City Maint 84-2 Z3
Island City Maint 84-2 Z4
Island City Maint 84-2 Z5
Island City Maint 84-2 Z6
Island City Maint 84-2 Z7
Marina Cove Maint Dist 01 -1
Reserve Marina Cove 01 -01
Bayport AD 03 -1
Athletic Fund
Public Art Fund
Equip. Acquisition Fund
Sr Citizen Transportation
Alameda Reuse & Redevelop
Dike Maintenance Fund
Total Special Revenue Fund
roiect -Fund Group:
Capital Improvement Proj.
FISC Catellus Traffic Fee
Marina Village A.D. 89 -1
1 FUND
235
236
248
249
256
256.1
256.2
259
265
265.1
266
267
268
270
273
274
275
275.1
275.2
275.3
275.4
275.5
275.6
275.7
276
276.1
278
280
285
298
620
858
876
1 310 1
310.1
N
M
1 Exhibit II
'p
r
C
N
0
C
M
(0
m
10
7
V
.cc
0
O
O
N
0
(O
I-
n
LO
CO
CO
tO
TF
O)
O
OD
L()
LD
0
O
CO
.-
O)
lt)
O
C�)
00
N
M
Ln
CD
N
et
O
—
f\
h
CO
n
r--
O
CA
O
M
.-
V
cr
Ln
M
N
N
cr
OD
V
O
N
‘-
N
cr
CO
l
N
h
N
N
'—
Ln
T-
c-
cY
CO
N
V)
(0
M
N
CO
N
T-
N.
tt
O
a-
A
CO
n
N
7
CO
LO
N
O
Tr
M
O
OD
O
O
N
TF
In
Cr
CA
OD
O
CO
00
O
L)
LC7
N
N
N
Ir
I-
V
M
LM
O
M
(y
N
E9
CO
^
O
N
E9
0
CO
CA
C�)
CO
CA
LO
Tr
N
CA
M
O
M
O)
CO
I`
Tr
Ln
M
V^
M
M
n
(0
LC)
V
)
7
O
N
0
A
N
V
V
Ln
O)
0
n
O)
O)
0
N
O
0
M
T-
E9
O
c)
G
CC
1 Net Change
O
O
ON
5
LO
n
1 14,072
r
O
CO
cr
CO
N
O
CO
N
�
O
N
O)
Cl
N
CO
O
0
co
O)
N
V
M
O
O
O)
M
0
M
n
W
r
243.923
(0
O)
V
r
v
N
0
(n
Ln
M
0
W
n
r
N
O
h
LA
M
Ln
CO
O)
O
CD
ctv
O
N
In
M
M
00
LO
0)
M
Ch
0)
v
O
M
v
O)
O
N
lq
�O
^
o
O
O
cr
r
M
r�CONv
CO
LC)
O)
O
10
N
O
lD
(A
CA
O
W
O
000
Ln
I�
ti
CI
Estimated
1 Fund Balance
(D
O
N
O
M
VD
g =a -f
1,155,714
994.538
917,558
O
Ln
co
e-
532.830
10,426
15,577
12,692
223,544
129,484
25,2491
12.030
264,115
12.3551
O
N
.-
0
O)
13,959
45,546
CO
O
CO
r
V
874.2651
3,491.6811
71.4121
559.8301
$ 27,817,558
$ 231.897
631.940
453,4301
O
547,693
1,573,343
1,515,474
4,429.9201
_
CA
W
M
MO
2005 -06
Estimated
Net Change
f=b -d
68,544
(207,550)
14,072
40,000
12,682
1,920
622
O
3,429
a)
0)
l
0
0
243,923
(0
V
,-
9,024 I
8,035
O O
O
O
393,259
(613,487)
71,200
�
(0
00
CA
$ 1,944,887
V
00
N
V3
CO
LC)
O
O
13,146
40,956
65,024
208,098
(405,890)1
Expenses
O
1 310,140
O
1 724,666
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
O
117,750
2,388,556
O
M
V
r'
$ 24,383,3291
$ 239,514
378,264
651,450
O
556,503
828,805
835,136
I-
co
V
I-.
0)
N
503,284
M QD
R
CO
0
CO
1 Appropriations
L (d)
o
OV
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
160,900
3,459,505 1
O
1,433 1
$ 26,656,530
$ 239,514
378,264 1
651,950 1
834,968
556,503
828,805
835,136
2,974,807
503,285 1
$ 7,803,233
1 Actual
Revenue
68,544
102,590
14,072
40,279
12,682
o
0)..
622
398
3,429
co
0)
393
187
243,923
O
-
9,024
8,035
n o
(Nn
135
L()
(D
554,159
2,792,075
M
17,391
0
a)
N
fA
$ 236,189
393,473
590,479
O
O) O
a) r- CO
0)Dio
(0 CO 0
3,182,905
L(i
C))
R
rn
c-
o
cr
O
bq
1 Estimated
Revenue
68,544
102,590
14,072
40,000
12,682
N
0
622
O
3,429
X
0
0
0
243,923
0)
V
9,024
8,035
O O
O
O
554,159
2,846,018
O
N
r-
O
.O
C)
$ 28,601,417
$ 237,330
393,425
651,950
834,968
V0' (p CCOO
CO h,—
0)0io
CO
Op 0)
3,182,905 1
N
M
R
°)
$ 7,737,5421
Audited
Fund Balance
1 6/30/2005
l9
1,087,170
1,202,088
CD
Cr OD
M
c.
CA
CD
rs.
VI
co
N
520,148
8,506
14,955
12,692
220,115
127,498
25,249
12,030
20,192
CD
CO
O
()
OO)
N
N
CD
O
,--
13,959
45,546
CO
COO
Cu
4,145
481,006
4,105,168
212
461,263
$ 25,872,671 1
$ 234,081
0
CO
O
453,430
0
534,547
1,532,387
1,450,450
4,221,822
2,403,885
$ 11,447,381
e tuna - group:
ISUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS
FY 2005 -06
une 30, 2006
Z
0
F-
a
W
D
H.B.I. 92 -1 Assessmt Dist
Library Construction Fund
Open Space Improvement Fund
2003 AP Rev Bond Project Fund
CDF -WE Traffic Safety
1CDF -WE Parks & Rec
CDF -WE Public Facilities
CDF -WE Public Safety
CDF -NW Traffic Safety
CDF -NW Park & Recreation
CDF -NW Public Safety
CDF -NW Public Safety
CDF -CEE Traffic Safety
CDF -CEE Parks & Recreation
CDF -CEE Public Facilities
CDF -CEE Public Safety
CDF -BF Traffic Safety
CDF -BF Parks & Recreation
CDF -BF Public Facilities
CDF- BFPublic Safety
Transportation Impmt. Fund
!Urban Runoff
CFD #1 Harbor Bay
CFD #2 Paragon Gateway
Total Capital Project Fund
rice Fund Group:
Debt Svc - Library/Golf Proj
Debt Svc- Library Bond 2003
Debt Svc -Debt Sery CIC Tx All Bd 1
Debt Svc -CIC Sub Bond
Debt Svc -Refin CityHall 2002
Debt Svc 2003 Tax Allo Refd BWIP
Debt Svc 2003 CIC Tax AIIoc Bd
Debt Svc 2003 AP Rev Bond
Total Debt Service Fund
I FUND
co P
r'
M M
00 02
V' Cl
M M
e-
O
3
N
e-
O
A
M
T
O
3
Ni.
O
M
r
N
C
3
N
N
O
M
M
N
7
M
et
N
G
M
e-
M
d
M
N M
M co
O G
a
M M
co
O
3
. N
Tr d'
6 O
M a
M
cr
O
3
Tr
O
O
N
M
e-
N
M
O
(D
M
e-
(D
M
D)
e-
v
,-
N
v
r
D
v
N et
(D (D
v
(D
(D
00
O
w
.2
ll.I
Unaudited
I Actual Balance
m
o
cc)
co
Lo
co
to
CO
1 46,125,0871
om
O
N
6i
35,120
119,207
0
N
O
CNo
$ 81,515
78,880
316,890
(5,455,110)
420,454
0
10.469'1
0
$ (4,546,913)1
$ 652.449 1
o
rn
0
v
6,484,439
320
20,879,531
23,036.632
3,236.984
co
O
n
$ 56,012,431 1
$ 220,131,504 1
IIo
co
O
1 }L
Actual
1 Net Change
CO
N
Cr)
N
Vf
1,602,196
1 (433,679)
(3,445)
(21,085)
$ 18,742
$ 44,261
31,609
N�
a
O
CO
(615,730)
(646,398)
34,241
COO
N..
V
v
O
$ (1,126,835)
$ 32,7041
W
(O
4.
CA
O
O
00
CO
CCi
CA
N
159,104
(4,305,218)
183,230
80,095
$ (3,748,155)1
$ (5,793,216)1
1 Estimated
1 Fund Balance
CO
O
O
N
0
M
CO
g =a -f
1 $ 7,376,503
1 46,095,829
1 9,207,798
(17,935)
144,930
$ 62,807,124
$ 155,588
78,879
264,244
(6,113,357)
155,103
O
`-'
10,459
4,648
$ (5,444,435)
CA
O
O
a
CO
ER
O
(A
,-
F
`-'
O
6,484,436 1
CO
co
20,879,531
23,036,632
3,236,983
1,710,886 I
$ 56,010,141
$ 218,473,341
2005 -06
Estimated
Net Change
u
$ (288,258)
` 1,572,938
(433,748)
(56,500)
4,638
O
$ 118,335
31,608
(12,704)
(1,273,976)
(911,749)
34,241
COO
r`
4,648
$ (2,024,357)
$ 30,424
(194,680)1
296,603 1
O
159,105
(4,305,218)
183,229
80,094
$ (3,750,445)
a
co
T
r•
Appropriations Expenses
a..
—
$ 5,764,949 1 $ 5,068,758
4,294,017 1 4,046,882
433,748 1 433,748
1,335,722 1 1,214,279
2,717,251 1 1,830,969
I115
$ 14,545,687 $ 12,594,636
$ 780,001 $ 780,001
359,475 1 359,474
726,538 673,892
3,277,632 1 2,619,386
2,299,004 1 2,033,652
O
o
65,417 65,417
1,441,778 1 1,372,366
$ 8,949,845 $ 7,904,188
$
330,000 $327,720
198,380 198,380
3,098,782 3,098,781
40,222 1 40,222
3,499,515 1 3,499,513 1
O
0
2,820,918 2,820,918
8,331,193 8,331,193
1,523,725 1 1,523,725
188,181 1 188,180 1
$ 20,030,917 1 $ 20,028,633
$ 255,271,452 $225,034,808
$ 27,246,100 1 $ 25,190,259
69,640,728 _ 63,384,73
$ 313,609,800
$ 352,158,280
Actual
Revenue
M
M
5,649,078
1,210,834
1,809,884
II
$ 824,262
391,083
713,834
2,003,656
1,387,254
34,241
50,657
1,372,366
$ 6,777,353 1
$ 360,424
M
3,098,781
40,222
3,796,118 1
2,980,023
4,025,975
1,706,954
268,275
V
N CO
CO
Efl
$219,241,592 1
N
CA
CO
to
EA
68,408,853
CCO
O
rN M
fR
Estimated
Revenue
_
$ 5,476,691
5,866,955
O
1,279,223
2,721,889
1 $ 15,344,757
$ 898,336
391,083
713,834
CO
a
M
O
N
i
1,387,255
34,24
50,657
1,446,426
$ 6,925,4881
$ 360,424
O
O
M
3,098,781
40,222
co
_
CO ai
M
O
2,980,023
4,025,975
1,706,954
268,275
$ 16,280,472 1
$ 247,820,0741
$ 26,532,930
69,658,047 1
$ 344,011,0511
1 Audited
Fund Balance
6/30/2005
�.
CO
r-
co
co
HJ
44,522,891
9,641,546
38,564
140,292
$ 62,008,054
$ 37,253
47,271
276,948
(4,839,381)
1,066,852
N
M
Unemployment Insurance ( 25,219
Post Employment Fund 0
Total Internal Service Fund $ (3,420,078)1
mencv Fund Group:
Co
O
O
69
205,870
O
6,187,833
20,720,426
27,341,850
3,053,754
N
W
M
CO
CO
to
COO
r`
CA
Efl
$ 225,924,720
I SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS
0
Csi
lAs of June 30, 2006
1 DESCRIPTION
Golf Course Fund
Sewer Service Fund
Ferry Service Fund
East End Ferry
West End Ferry
Total Enterprise Fund
Service :Fund Group:
`Central Garage Fund
Techology Sery Fund
Worker's Comp Self Insur
Risk Management Fund
Dental Insurance Fund
Debt Svc for 510 84-3B
Police /Fire Pension 1079
Police /Fire Pension 1082
Debt Svc for 512 89 -1
Debt Svc for 513 92 -1
1998 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
836 1999 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
860 Assessment District CFD #1
861 Assessment District CFD #2
Total Trust & Agency Fund
GRAND TOTAL
Memo only:
Housing Authority
Alameda Power & Telecom
lAII Inclusive Total
I FUND
601
602
621
I 621.2
Internal
702
704
711
712
713
715
720
Trust &
458
460
801
802
832
833
835
1
Whereas,
beauty and support a clean and safe environment; and
Whereas, the people of the City of Alameda support and deserve a clean and safe environment in
which to raise our children; and
Proclamation
the people of the City of Alameda take great pride in the City of Alameda's natural
Whereas, the benefits of pollution prevention are well documented and achieved through more
efficient use of raw materials, energy and other resources; and
Whereas, pollution prevention occurs when less harmful substances are substituted for hazardous
ones, and when toxic substances are eliminated from the production process, and when
reducing waste at its source, or where this is not feasible, recycling; and
Whereas, pollution prevention measures can improve environmental conditions and the health and
safety of workers in the workplace while increasing commercial competitiveness; and
Whereas, pollution prevention can increase industrial and energy efficiency and commercial
competitiveness, thus saving businesses money and help to make the state become more
environmentally, economically and socially sound; and
Whereas, through increased use of pollution prevention, the City of Alameda can meet the
challenge of having ecologically healthy communities, efficient government, and a
vigorous business environment for its citizens; and
Whereas, Pollution Prevention Week will be observed by other communities and other
organizations throughout the nation and this recognition is an opportunity for
government to work together with business, industry, environmental groups, community
organizations, and citizens for a prosperous and sustainable future.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby recognize the
week of September 17 -23, 2006 as
National Pollution Prevention Week, 2006
and urge all citizens, businesses, civic groups, government agencies and other organizations to
participate in local and regional celebratory and educational activities, including, but not limited to, a
Bay -safe mercury thermometer exchange. This program will be available at the Versailles Pharmacy
and Webster Street Pharmacy in the City of Alameda.
f
Beverly J. Johnson
Mayor
Agenda Item #3 -A
9 -19 -06
's
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 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 Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations:
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees
Association,.and Executive Management Group.
(06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Zornes v. City of Alameda et al.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on
the status of negotiations with Alameda City Employees Association,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and
Confidential Employees Association and no action was taken;
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council received a
briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction on settlement of
this matter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 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
September 5, 2006
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 10:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06- ) Proclamation expressing thanks to Contra Costa Newspapers
and Its Employees, Gary Kidwell and Michael Switzer.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Kidwell
and Mr. Switzer.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Proclamation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the news racks have made a huge difference in
the business districts.
Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated former
Councilmember Karin Lucas raised the issue years ago; the City has
attractive newspaper racks thanks to everyone's efforts.
(06- ) Proclamation declaring September 17, 2006 as Alameda
Legacy Home Tour Day in the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judith Lynch,
Historical Advisory Board (HAB) Member, and Richard Knight, HAB
Member.
Councilmember deHaan noted the home tours have been held for at
least 32 years.
(06- ) Presentation by West Alameda Business Association
regarding the Peanut Butter and Jam festival.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
1
Ed Clark, WABA, stated the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival would be
the best ever; invited everyone to attend; stated WABA is losing
Sheri Stieg as Executive Director; introduced the new Executive
Director, Kathy Moehring; presented Council with jars of Skippy
Peanut Butter.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, stated that she would
continue where Ms. Stieg left off; encouraged everyone to attend
the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival and outlined the event.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Moehring to explain why the event is
named the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival, to which Ms. Moehring
responded Skippy Peanut Butter was invented on Webster Street.
Mr. Clark noted Skippy contributed over $15,000 worth of free
Peanut Butter.
Mayor Johnson congratulated Ms. Moehring; stated Ms. Stieg did a
great job.
Councilmember deHaan suggested that Council present Ms. Stieg with
a proclamation; stated Webster Street has a new vitality.
(06- ) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing Open Market
Purchase [paragraph no. 06- ], Resolution Authorizing Sale of
Emergency Generators [paragraph no. 06- ], Resolution Amending
Exhibit A - Compensation Plan [paragraph no. 06- ], and Public
Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance [paragraph no. 06-
] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *06- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on August 15, 2006. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
2
( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,047,654.18.
( *06- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. Accepted.
( *06- ) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Agreement with
Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope of
work and price for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library
Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01. Accepted.
( *06- ) Recommendation to reject Bids for the Modular
Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park.
Accepted; and
( *06- A) Resolution No. 14006, "Authorizing Open Market
Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda
City Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site
Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05- 06 -17, and Authorizing
the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement for $650,000,
Including a 10% Contingency." Adopted.
(06- ) Resolution No. 14007, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase
of Twelve Vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an Amount Not to
Exceed $251,230.00." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the staff report indicates the
alternate fuel vehicle policy was considered but alternate fuel
vehicles are not recommended; inquired whether the use of mini
pickups was analyzed; stated a mini pickup was used for a recent
dedication ceremony and an electric flatbed could have been used.
The Public Works Director responded use is reviewed and discussed
with departments; stated the Recreation and Parks Director
indicated a flatbed could not have been used at the dedication
ceremony based on bed size; the vehicles being replaced carry
equipment, tools, parts and chemicals for pool maintenance, which
could not be accommodated by the size of the electric flatbed;
Public Works mini trucks travel outside of the City; the most
reliable electric flatbeds on the market only travel 25 miles per
hour, which would not work for travel out of Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the level of detail provided
by the Public Works Director be included in staff reports in the
future; inquired whether diesel fuel was evaluated for the one ton
dump trucks and three quarter ton pickup trucks.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
diesel is more expensive, which is one reason diesel was not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
3
selected; that he is working on converting three existing vehicles
to biodiesel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a use policy should be considered to
separate whether use is determined based on necessity or the way
things were always done.
Vice Mayor Gilmore complimented the Public Works Director for
buying the vehicles in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson noted vehicles have not been purchase in Alameda for
sometime.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff is getting rid of
excess [surplus] vehicles.
The Public Works Director responded eight vehicles have been
recommended for surplus; stated the vehicles would be disposed of
by the end of the fiscal year.
Councilmember Daysog inquired about the plans for the $14,800 in
savings; inquired whether there is a fund for alternative fuel
vehicles.
The Public Works Director responded all vehicles are purchased from
the same fund; stated five electric vehicles would be purchased by
the end of the fiscal year; the savings return to the vehicle
replacement fund.
The City Manager stated the purchase is the result of the new
approach to manage vehicle replacement; savings remain in the fund
along with vehicle sales revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06- ) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electric Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000. Not adopted.
Hadi Monsef, Alameda, urged Council to reject the recommendation;
stated $1 million of public funds would be given away; the
situation of the world could impact the supply of electricity to
the City; the future is too unstable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether potential generator uses could arise
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
September 5, 2006
and whether the generators could be used in the event of a disaster
or if the City's power supply were cut off; further inquired
whether the generators at the former Base make the generators
[proposed for sale] unnecessary.
The Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) General Manager responded
there is not a zero probability that the generators never would be
used; stated combustion turbines near Alameda Point would serve all
of the load assuming customers were not furiously using
electricity; typically people are responsible during emergencies;
parts of the system might be down in the event of a major emergency
and the entire load would not be served.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the generators would be helpful if
power lines were down in an area.
The AP &T General Manager responded possibly; stated currently the
generators are permitted as stationary; moving the generators is
not a simple task; the system has to be tested; the process takes
96 to 100 hours assuming roads are passable.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City's emergency response
group has reviewed the asset to determine whether it is part of
disaster preparation.
AP &T General Manager stated AP &T has a smaller unit, which is very
portable and can be hooked into smaller service areas very easily.
The Disaster Preparation Officer stated any asset would be an
adjunct to the infrastructure; however, the equipment is semi -
permanently mounted; the two turbines [near Alameda Point] would
provide 50 -60% of normal demand; the Public Utilities Board's
recommendation seems prudent; having something more mobile would be
more appropriate; other types of equipment are more suitable for
mobile generation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the generators are included
in the disaster relief plan.
The Disaster Preparation Officer responded in the negative; stated
the combustion turbines would be used to provide back up power to
the City in the event of a power disruption; mobile units would
better serve specific areas of the City; the City would be better
served with additional mobile units.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps the generators could be sold and
mobile units could be purchased.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
5
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the units were purchased in 2001 for $1.8
million; inquired whether, including depreciation, the units are
being sold for the amount they are worth.
The AP &T General Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what the money would be used for if the
units were sold.
The AP &T General Manager responded the money would be used for
other infrastructure needs; stated one capital project in mind is a
second feeder to Coast Guard Island.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would be the cost of a mobile
unit, to which the Disaster Preparation Officer responded that he
does not know the amount.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the units have a 10 -year
useful life period.
The AP &T General Manager responded the units have a 10 or 20 year
life period; stated maintenance staff indicated the life of the
generators is rapidly declining.
Councilmember Daysog stated the price is good if the life is 10-
years; said information would be useful; the conversation should be
from the vantage point of the objective that the City would achieve
from selling the generators; more information is needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to know the impact on
disaster preparedness and whether proceeds should be used to
purchase mobile generators to make the City better prepared in the
event of a disaster; that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog
that more information is needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember
Daysog about understanding the goal; homeland security money should
be pursued for a second line to Coast Guard Island; the money from
the sale should replace the original use; more information on the
goal is needed.
The AP &T General Manager stated the units were purchased for
rolling blackouts; AP &T's portfolio has been properly planned and
the City should not be subject to rolling blackouts; the generators
are quite cumbersome and would not be best for disaster response;
there are costs for maintenance and fuel.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether keeping the units in stand by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
September 5, 2006
mode costs $30,000.
The AP &T General Manager responded the cost covers fuel and does
not include labor and maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the total cost is closer to
$50,000, to which the AP &T General Manager responded the cost is
around $50,000 to $60,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the amount might be reasonable for
disaster preparation; the generators have not been used very much;
the viability of using the units has not been discussed; the matter
should be researched further to better understand the asset.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $30,000 is spent only
when the generators are operated, to which the AP &T General Manager
responded the money is spent on testing.
The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back with
additional information.
Councilmember deHaan stated the additional information should
include more detail on whether the units could be made mobile,
whether the City should look into alternative, smaller generators
that are more mobile, and whether the units [proposed for sale]
have a place in disaster preparation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like information on the
useful life and evaluation from an economic perspective.
The AP &T General Manager noted only line workers can move the
generators.
Councilmember deHaan stated perhaps easier connection points could
be set up in various spots throughout the City; the matter should
be researched further.
(06- ) Resolution No. 14008, "Amending Exhibit A - Compensation
Plan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by
Resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five -Day Workweek
Alternative with a Corresponding Salary Range for the
Classifications of Library Director and Recreation and Parks
Director." Amended (including title) and adopted;
(06- A) Resolution No. 13009, "Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principle
Executive Assistant, Purchasing and Payables Coordinator and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
September 5, 2006
Supervising Animal Control Officer." Adopted; and
(06- B) Resolution No. 13010, "Amending the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the
Salary Range for the Classification of Transportation Coordinator."
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Deputy City Manager
discussion be addressed at the next Council meeting and the
remainder of the resolutions be adopted tonight.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor Johnson clarified the motion is to adopt the resolutions,
with the exclusion of the Deputy City Manager position.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( *06- ) Resolution No. 14011, "Appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the
Bay Area Library Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board."
Adopted.
( *06- ) Ordinance No. 2951, "Approving and Authorizing the Lease
of City -Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur M.
Jawad and Julia Jawad." Finally passed.
(06- ) Public Hearing to consider Ordinance Reclassifying and
Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from Open
Space (0) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM -PD) by
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property Located
at 500 Maitland Drive. Introduced.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City owned the property
and whether the property flipped over into the Harbor Bay
development area when Maitland Drive was changed.
The Planner III responded in the affirmative; stated over and acre
of City land on the other side of Maitland Drive moved to the
southwest side when Maitland Drive was realigned; the City sold the
land to Harbor Bay and amended the General Plan designation shortly
after; provided the exhibit to the Ordinance.
Mayor Johnson stated the proceeds of the sale went into an open
space fund.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
8
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the new owner is proposing.
The Planner III stated the existing self- storage and RV storage
facility is proposing expansion; most of the land is zoned
Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development like the rest of the
business park; however, the over one acre area was never rezoned;
the Planning Board approved all entitlements and recommends
approval of the rezoning.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the entire amount of the
addition, to which the Planner III responded five acres.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the gun range used to be
located on the site, to which the Planner III responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site is clean.
The Planner III responded there was discussion of lead radiation;
he could review the record.
Councilmember deHaan stated the area is a gateway; furthering the
use of a storage yard does not improve eye appeal; he is concerned
about contamination.
The Planner III stated paving over lead in the dirt would contain
contamination.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board addressed
the matter; to which the Planner III responded the Planning Board
did not discuss lead contamination, but did discuss the area as a
gateway, landscaping requirements, adjacent landscaping and paths.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the property was transferred
as open space with the assumption it would remain open space.
Mayor Johnson responded the assumption was not that the property
would remain open space; the tradeoff was that a small, not very
useful open space parcel would be exchanged for $1 million that
would be designated to buy open space or support more useable open
space projects; the intent was always to allow commercial use.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some of the proceeds went towards the
purchase of land adjacent to Towata Park.
Mayor Johnson stated the money was a proposed local match for an
Estuary Park grant that the City did not receive; the City is now
considering using the money to purchase the Beltline.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
September 5, 2006
Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter
because he voted against having an RV park on the West End and to
be fair he did not want to support expansion of an RV park on
Harbor Bay.
Mayor Johnson noted the original RV park was a requirement the City
put on the developer.
The Planner III stated expansion was also part of the original
requirement.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of the alteration of more than thirty
percent of the value of historically designated single- family homes
at 1530, 1532, and 1532 Ninth Street; and adoption of related
resolution.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated three duplexes are being created;
inquired whether the square footage of the lot complies with
Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether variances are not needed, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether some of the four outstanding
issues outlined in the staff report have been resolved.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated trim
replacement has been resolved; new windows would be needed for
energy conservation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the hardboard siding issue has
been resolved.
The Reconstruction Specialist II responded that she has been in
extensive conversations with Chris Buckley and the Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
September 5, 2006
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS); stated an agreement has
been reached on three of the four items, with the exception of the
walkway; there is also agreement on the items in the most recent
letter AAPS submitted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the walkway is a Design Review
item that is not within the purview of the Historical Advisory
Board (HAB).
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
HAB's purview is alteration of historic structures.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Design Review would be
completed at the staff level, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current square footage of each
structure.
The Reconstruction Specialist II responded 1530 and 1532 Ninth
Street are 1100 square feet and would be increased to 3106 square
feet; 1532 % Ninth Street is 1066 and would be increased to 2632
square feet.
Councilmember Daysog requested an explanation of the "Golden Mean."
The Supervising Planner responded the Golden Mean was accepted by
Council as part of the residential design guidelines and creates a
proportion for Victorians with the upper level larger than the
lower level; the upper level has to be 60 %.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long the Golden Mean has been in
place, to which the Supervising Planner responded less than two
years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site would be re- graded
to comply with the Golden Mean, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the level of the
walkways, to which the Supervising Planner responded the walkways
would be level with the entry; retaining walls would be used.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be higher [than
the walkways], to which Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the [grading] approach has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
September 5, 2006
been used before, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether precedence would be set;
inquired about the driveway width.
The Supervising Planner stated the driveway is eight feet.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal): Li -Sheng Fu, Architect.
Opponents (Opposed to appeal): Candace Fitzgerald, Alameda.
Neutral: Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Richard W. Rutter, AAPS; and
Mark Irons, Historical Advisory Board (provided handout).
Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
* * *
(06- ) Following Mr. Buckley's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
* * *
Mayor Johnson stated the house reminds her of a house on Pacific
Avenue; she would like more detail to make the buildings'
appearance look like the original character of the house; the side
views are not attractive; she is concerned with the size of the
structures.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project provides the key to
compromising the Golden Mean; further stated the project done with
the City's help on San Jose Avenue is disproportionate with the
rest of the community; in addition to the Golden Mean, the width of
the driveway is of concern.
Mayor Johnson clarified although AAPS is not supporting the
project, its position is not opposed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Golden Mean is a visual
presentation based on aesthetics; achieving the Golden Mean by
grading is a legitimate approach; squeezing in the number of units
and parking spaces seems difficult; however, the project cannot be
turned down if it meets the Code; the Code should be changed if
Council does not like the way the Code works; that he would prefer
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
September 5, 2006
the front path to go straight to the door; the project is not
simple and is massive.
Mayor Johnson stated Design Review is not being considered; that
she agrees with the HAB that the alterations as proposed would
adversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings; the
compromises reached are not enough to maintain the historic
character of the buildings; review of the historic nature should
not be limited to the front.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would support sending the
matter back to see if the HAB can work out a solution to meet the
goal of maintaining the historic integrity as much as possible.
Councilmember Daysog stated a decision could be made on design
issues that the HAB reviewed; the main issue is the Golden Mean;
the Golden Mean is based on nature, such as trees and seashells;
digging down might satisfy the ratio on paper, but he is worried
and would like the HAB to review the matter further.
Mayor Johnson stated size is an issue and relates to historic
character.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she has concerns with size, massing,
and the width of the driveway; however, the structures meet the
zoning regulations; the zoning regulations need to be changed or an
overlay needs to be added that applies to Victorians and historic
structures if Council does not like the way the project looks; the
project should not be penalized because Council does not like the
way it looks; sides of Victorian structures tend to be plain; the
structure is old and has not been cared for; someone is willing to
"rehab" the structures; being strict on every project might keep
people from attempting to fix historic structures; questioned
whether allowing historic structures to decay is better; stated
someone has to pay for the project; three of the four outstanding
issues have been resolved; the walkway is not under the HAB's
purview; that she supports overturning the HAB's decision and would
provide direction to staff to negotiate with the architect and
receive input from AAPS on the front walkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has additional authority because
demolition of a historic structure is being requested; the proposal
is to almost triple the size of three adjacent structures;
concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to send the
matter back to the HAB; stated relative size to the neighborhood
should be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
September 5, 2006
projects on Pacific and San Jose Avenues are disproportionate and
stretched the envelope; the project drops 18 inches to get into the
lower level; there has to be another way; he is concerned with mass
and the eight -foot driveway; the Fire Department should review the
driveway.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to clarify whether the
eight -foot driveway meets code.
The Supervising Planner stated the existing driveway can be
retained; further stated the minimum code for driveways now is
eight and a half feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated relation to other houses in the
neighborhood is a planning and design issue.
Mayor Johnson stated more work needs to be done; size is relevant
to the historic character of the house; approving the demolition is
an extraordinary act and historic preservation should be expected
in return; the duplexes are going to be larger than some houses in
Alameda; limiting the size and requesting more details would
preserve the historic character.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to the
HAB to review the impact of the expansion on the historic nature of
the structures and review additional detail to bring the structures
closer to original form.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that one
of the structures could be moved closer to the property line, which
could change the opportunity of making the project work and change
access points.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are examples of
remodels that have gone wrong; the project meets Code but no one
likes the look; questioned when the Code would be changed; stated
people trying to do projects should have a better idea about what
is acceptable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the big issue is the 30%
[demolition] or else the project should go forward.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City should be vigilant; City
funding is going into the project.
The Supervising Planner noted that the houses are covered in
asbestos shingles and the detail would not be known until the
shingles are removed; therefore, the drawing is devoid of some
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
September 5, 2006
details; the shadow line would be found to determine trim detail.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not notice a provision that
requires restoration of trim detail.
The Supervising Planner stated a condition requires the project be
completed to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
Mayor Johnson stated trim might help; hopefully something else can
be done to the side of the buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified the intent of the motion is to
have the HAB come up with a solution and not send the matter back
to Council; requested staff to convey that the HAB should work with
the architect and owner to come up with a solution and address the
issues of: mass relative to the historic proportions of the
buildings and visual appearance from the street to ensure the
buildings are rehabilitated to look like Victorians, not something
else.
Mayor Johnson stated size is important to her; duplexes, with each
unit bigger than many homes in Alameda, are not needed.
Ms. Fitzgerald noted the average house size on Mastic Court is 850
square feet.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council would be pleased
with something short of complete restoration if the matter were
sent back to the HAB.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not expect complete restoration
and does not mind some increase in size.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants something to work; the
buildings are not attractive, are deteriorating and need to be
upgraded in a timely manner; requested the matter be placed on the
next HAB Meeting agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see how the
Golden Mean could be met without the grading option; all
alternatives should be exercised; the grading option might work
without handicap access.
The Planning and Building Director stated staff would work with the
architect and AAPS; since the buildings are not on the historic
list, the HAB review is only whether the building can be altered,
not all the details of restoration.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
15
Mayor Johnson stated the HAB has authority to make the finding that
the project, as proposed, would adversely affect the historic
significance of the dwelling; further stated there has to be a
commitment that what is built maintains the historic significance
as the tradeoff to allow demolition.
Councilmember deHaan stated the buildings were constructed in the
1800's; the property is important even though the buildings are not
on the historic list.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the intention of the motion is to
have the HAB look at alternative plans to address the issue of mass
and the appearance from the front; that he does not want the
direction construed as a restoration critique; the Council wants
the project to appear that it belongs, people to know the buildings
are Victorians by looking at the buildings, and does not want the
buildings turned into something else; the HAB has to focus down
with input from AAPS, the architect and owner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the HAB reviewed the grading
issue, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan restated that he seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and
Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
(06- ) Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution
Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline
the Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments Fee
Schedules. Continued.
The City Manager suggested that the matter be continued for 30
days.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the matter for
30 days.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments
and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2
(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing), to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
September 5, 2006
Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire
Extinguishing Systems. Continued to September 19, 2006.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of continuing to matter for two
weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06- ) Public Hearing to consider ZA06 -0001, Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment City -wide; and
(06- A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8 (Off- Street Parking and
Loading Space) of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions.
Continued to September 19, 2006.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the matter for
two weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(06- ) Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated the Santa Clara Avenue
and Willow Avenue transit shelter and the Santa Clara Avenue and
Walnut Street canopy need maintenance; graffiti is present at both
transit shelters.
Councilmember deHaan stated vandalism increases if condoned;
graffiti has not been brought down to a working level; efforts need
to be made to clean up graffiti immediately.
(06- ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Mayor Johnson for sticking
up for the historic preservation aspect of the Ninth Street
property and Commissioner Matarrese for coming up with a solution
on the Rutledge appeal.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06- ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic
Development Commission, Golf Commission, and Recreation and Park
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Jessica Lindsey and Alan J. Ryan for
appointment to the Economic Development Commissioner, Betsy E.
Gammell for appointment to the Golf Commission, and Jo Kahuanui for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
September 5, 2006
appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission.
(06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the Tube lighting has been on
the board for at least three years and CalTrans has deferred the
projet for two years; he would like the issue to be tracked; the
project needs to move forward.
(06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the Central Avenue
[crosswalk] embedded lighting is not functioning; inquired when the
Park Street embedded lighting would be done near Boniere Bakery.
(06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that Park Street trash
receptacles overflowed from the weekend; trash pick up should be
brought under control within the City before the rainy season.
(06- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated repairs are being made on
Lincoln Avenue and Park Street overhead wires; half of the weed -
filled triangle near Tilden Way has been shaved away; inquired
whether the other half could be shaved and landscaped.
The City Manager responded the issue would be addressed.
(06- ) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Long's Drug
Store was supposed to do some landscape upgrades.
The City Manager stated she should look into the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some
landscaping on the corner across from City Hall.
(06- ) Mayor Johnson stated that large weeds have grown at the
Otis Drive median off the Bay Farm Bridge.
The City Manager stated she would talk to the Public Works Director
about the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006
18
September 14, 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
1'51836 - 152416
E15515 - E15640
EFT 246
EFT 247
EFT 248
EFT 249
EFT 250
EFT 251
EFT 252
EFT 253
Void Checks:
Amount
3,626,535.65
77,560.65
240,312.44
999,145.29
31,692.75
3,129,503.75
2,385,063.74
138, 369.05
93,115.00
12,943.50
142231 (32.00)
142463 (223.38)
142901 (413.01)
150920 (189.00)
152099 (944.00)
GRAND TOTAL 10,732,440.43
Respectfully submitted,
3aa j. S�
mela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 09/19/06
BILLS #4 -B
09/19/06
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Specification No. MSP 9 -01 -1, and
Authorize Request for Bids for a Vehicle Tow Contract for
Emeraencv Tows for the Police Department
BACKGROUND
The current towing service contract with Ken Betts Towing will expire September
30, 2006. The current service provider has agreed to continue to provide
services until a new contract is approved by Council. We propose to solicit
formal bids for tow services for the period of October 1, 2006 through September
30, 2011, a five -year contract that will include emergency tow services other than
for abandonment for the life of the contract.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Alameda Journal is the official newspaper of the City for legal advertising for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. With Council authorization, the City Clerk
will publish a notice in the Alameda Journal stating Council will receive bids up to
the hour of 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 10, 2006, for a Vehicle Tow Contract
for the Police Department. The specifications are identified and numbered No. 9-
01 -1.
The schedule for the bid process is:
September 19, 2006
September 20, 2006
October 10, 2006
October 17, 2006
Council authorizes release of tow services
specifications
Bid documents and specifications available for
pickup by potential bidders
Deadline for submitting bids, 2:00 P.M.
Council, if approved, awards bid
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
September 19, 2006
Page 2 of 2
The costs associated with the Police Department ordered tows for vehicles
abandoned, dismantled, or inoperative on public streets are charged to the
registered owner of the vehicle. If not paid, the vehicle is lien sold by the tow
company to recoup losses. Vehicles abated from private property under A.M.C.
8 -22 are by law dismantled and not reconstructed or made operable. The tow
company recoups the cost of removal from the owner of the parcel law of land
pursuant to 8 -22.11 A.M.C.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the specifications and authorize request for bids for a five -year vehicle tow
contract for the Police Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter B. Tibbet
Chief of Police
Attachment MSP 9-01 -1
EXHIBIT A
SPECIFICATION MSP 9 -01 -1
SCOPE OF WORK:
Contractor shall provide twenty -four (24) hour tow services, on call as directed by the City
of Alameda Police Department.
Contractor shall provide indoor and outdoor secured storage for towed vehicles as
explained later in this specification.
Contractor and his /her operators shall fully cooperate with and assist Police Department
representatives in removing hazards and /or vehicles as directed by the Police Officer at the
scene. The Contractor will assist in obtaining vehicle identification numbers, motor
numbers or other identifying information as requested.
QUANTITY OF WORK:
The City makes no guarantee whatsoever, expressed or implied as to the number of tows
which the Police Department shall request during the contract period. With the exception of
aborted tows and tow services performed on City -owned vehicles within normal working
hours, the City of Alameda shall not be liable for any charge or charges for towing or any
other related service unless expressly agreed to in written form by the Chief of Police
and/or his representative. It being expressly understood and agreed that the Contractor
shall make all charges to the owner or owners of the vehicles to which the service is
rendered.
ALTERNATE TOWING COMPANIES:
It is also expressly stated and agreed that this tow contract shall not abrogate in any way
the right of the vehicle owner or owners or driver of any vehicle to specify a towing service
of any automobile association or motor club of which the vehicle owner or driver is, or is not
a member.
ASSIGNABILITY:
Any assignment of this contract without the prior written consent of the City shall be void.
SUBCONTRACTORS:
The Contractor shall perform all functions of this contract award without the use of sub-
contractors
Attachment
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
9 -19 -06
1
INSPECTIONS:
The City reserves the right to periodically inspect the Contractor's storage facilities and tow
vehicles, have vehicles towed and stored by the Contractor at no charge for the purpose of
observing the conduct of the Contractor's employees towards the public, and to evaluate
procedures to guard against theft or damage to towed vehicles exercised by the Contractor.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES:
Except as herein provided, the Contractor shall not make any other charge unless
specifically authorized by the vehicle owner or his/her authorized representative.
In addition, no charge will be made by the Contractor if the vehicle to be towed is removed
prior to the arrival of the towing truck.
If, however, the tow truck has arrived, the owner of the vehicle will be subject to a service
charge as described under the definition of an "aborted tow," described on page 4 in lieu of
the towing charge when the vehicle is not towed to the storage area.
All police initiated tows shall be charged at the basic tow rate as indicated below:
The method for calculating time begins when the driver arrives at the scene and
ends when the driver leaves with the towed vehicle.
A. TOWING CHARGES
Rate For Normal Tows:
1. The rate for towing of any vehicles requiring one hour or Tess from time of
arrival of tow truck until tow truck moved with vehicle in tow is $110.00.
2. The rate for towing services requiring more than one hour at the site of the
tow, prorated in 15 minute intervals after the first one hour period is $30.00.
3. The rate for towing services from within Alameda to a point outside the City
of Alameda but within a 10 mile radius of central Alameda (intersection of
Central Avenue and Grand Street) and not applicable to Police Tows is
$110.00.
4. Tows further than the ten mile radius will be billed at the contractor's regular
rate.
2
B. RATE FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR COMPLICATED TOWS:
Equipment charges shall be based on the size of equipment required to perform the
work. The successful bidder may substitute heavy equipment to perform a normal
tow at the normal equipment tow rate.
1. The rate for tows requiring use of a heavy tow truck or more than one tow
truck, towing any vehicle requiring one hour or less from time of arrival of tow
truck(s) until tow truck(s) move with vehicle in tow is $250.00.
2. The rate for the above, but for towing services requiring more than one hour
at the site of the tow prorated in 15 minute intervals after the first one hour
period is $75.00.
3. The rate for towing services from within Alameda to a point outside the City
of Alameda but within a 10 mile radius of central Alameda (intersection of
Central Avenue and Grand Street) and not applicable to Police Tows is
$250.00.
4. Tows further than the ten mile radius will be billed at the contractor's regular
rate.
C. ABORTED TOWS:
The service charge for an Aborted tow is $45.00.
D. CITY OWNED VEHICLES:
1. Towing of City owned vehicles will be at no charge to the City.
2. Services calls such as tire changes or jumper starts on City owned vehicles
outside the normal working hours of the City's Maintenance Service Center
shall be a professional courtesy and without charge.
STORAGE CHARGES:
A. Storage charges for each licensed vehicle shall be $36.00 for the first twenty-four
(24) period with a minimum one day charge. Additional hours beyond 24 hours will
be charged at $6.00 per hour with a maximum of $42.00 per day.
B. A gate fee of $36.00 may be charged for granting access to the storage yard outside
of normal working hours (8 AM and 6 PM Monday through Friday) or when access is
not incidental to claiming or removing a vehicle. Access for Police Department
representatives will be at no cost.
3
POLICE TOWS:
A police tow is to be defined as any tow ordered by the City of Alameda Police Department.
Tows, however, may include City owned vehicles as specifically requested.
Police tows will not include the towing of abandoned vehicles unless they pose a problem
or danger. If any abandoned vehicle is found to be illegally parked, the Contractor may be
directed by the Police Department to move the vehicle into a legally parked position for a
later tow by any other firm designated to tow abandoned vehicles. It is not the intent of this
contract to include the normal towing of any abandoned vehicle except as otherwise herein
provided.
If in the normal performance of services under this contract any vehicle becomes
abandoned, the Alameda Police Department shall furnish a low cost vehicle appraiser
pursuant to the provisions of the Califomia Vehicle Code and all other legal requirements in
order to expedite the removal or disposal of any such described vehicle by the Contractor.
ABORTED TOWS:
An aborted tow is defined as a police tow where a tow truck is dispatched but no tow is
made.
In the event that a police tow is dispatched but no tow is made (an Aborted Tow), the
Contractor will be allowed to collect a service charge in lieu of the towing charge from the
vehicle owner or owners. If the Contractor is unable to collect the aborted tow service
charge from the vehicle owner or owners, the Contractor may submit billing to the City of
Alameda, together with assignment to attempt to collect for the charges. Such billing and
assignment to the City must be made within a maximum period of One Hundred Eighty
(180) days from the date of the aborted tow service, but in any case the Contractor is
required to make every effort to collect from the vehicle owner and the billing and
assignment to the City will follow only after a minimum of One Hundred Twenty (120) day
collection period effort by the Contractor computed from the date of the aborted tow
service.
In addition, billing and assignment of attempt to collect to the City will be allowed only after
it is shown that the tow truck responded to the original call within the minimum response
time as shown in this specification. Where the initial response time is longer than the
minimum response time, no billing or assignment to the City will be allowed.
RESPONSE TIME:
Contractor shall dispatch equipment and personnel to arrive at the location prescribed by
the Police Department within an average of twenty minutes from receipt of order from the
Police Department. Average response time will be measured over time. The Contractor
will be evaluated periodically and advised of the results.
4
STORAGE:
All vehicles which are Police Tows may be stored in an outdoor or indoor facility meeting
the following conditions:
A. Outdoor storage must be fenced and adequately protected from unauthorized entry.
The fencing shall provide security and be of a type to provide adequate screening so
as not to present an unsightly appearance.
B. Indoor storage for a minimum of five (5) vehicles must be provided for Police
Department evidentiary purposes. This is a Police Storage Area and is not to be
considered a public access area.
24 HOUR OPERATION AND PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY:
Contractor shall be required to have facilities available to the public for removal of towed
vehicles on a 24 -hour basis and the Contractor shall post all of the following information
conspicuously at all office locations open to the public:
A. Schedule of fees authorized by this contract.
B. Notice that copies of the contract and specifications are available at the offices of
the tow contractor for public inspection by any interested party.
C. Check cashing and credit card policy of the contractor.
D. Notice of 24 -hour operation, open to the public.
PROTECTION OF VEHICLE CONTENTS:
Contractor will, when assuming custody of a vehicle towed or stored by Police order,
inventory the contents of the vehicle including property in all unlocked storage
compartments. This inventory will be made jointly by the Contractor's operator and the
Police Officer ordering the tow or storage and shall be on forms approved by the Chief of
Police and shall, in addition, certify that any seals affixed by the Police Department are
intact. Notation will be made of any locked compartment. By signature on this inventory,
the Contractor acknowledges acceptance of any and all legal responsibility through the
action of his/her employees, or him/herself for the safe and proper tow and storage of the
vehicle and for the security of the inventoried personal property.
All vehicles which are ordered held for evidentiary purposes by the Police Department shall
be kept in the indoor storage facility until the Police Department has released the
evidentiary hold. These vehicles shall be handled by the tow personnel in such manner so
as to preserve evidence.
5
Contractor shall have secure indoor storage space, under lock and key and under 24 -hour
security for at least five (5) vehicles.
RELEASE OF TOWED VEHICLES:
The Contractor shall have one dedicated telephone number that the public or Police
Department may call for information on vehicles towed pursuant to this contract.
Contractor's personnel answering such telephones shall be courteous and provide
complete information regarding the location of the vehicle and method of obtaining its
release, including adequate directions to the location to effect the release, full
documentation required, exact charges to be paid and terms of payment. Sufficient
telephone lines, equipment and personnel shall be employed to provide public services at
all times without unreasonable delay.
The Contractor will follow the guidelines for releasing stored vehicles as stated below:
A. Claimants shall be required to provide identification and evidence satisfactory to the
tow firm representative that they are entitled to receive the vehicle. They must have
a copy of a vehicle release from the Alameda Police Department. Legal
responsibility for release of the vehicle to a person without such evidence fall fully on
the Contractor.
When necessary, the Police Department will provide the Contractor with reasonable
assistance in verifying vehicle registration information, except those vehicles towed
as abandoned during the normal course of performance under this contract.
When the Contractor's representative is satisfied that the requester is entitled to the
vehicle, the fees provided in this contract award shall be collected and the requester
promptly provided possession of the vehicle. If the vehicle is stored at a location
other than the one where the fees are paid, transportation to the vehicle will be
provided by the Contractor without any charge and within a reasonable period of
time. If transported in a tow truck, Contractor shall take reasonable precautions to
avoid any inconvenience and/or soiling of the Claimants clothing and accessories.
C. Police Evidence Holds: In the event the towed vehicle has been identified as a
Police Evidence Hold, the vehicle cannot be released by the Contractor without
written authorization from the Police Department. During the period that the hold is
in effect, no charges for storage shall be made to the City or owner of the vehicle for
48 hours. The City will pay storage charges in excess of 48 hours at the rate of
$10.00 per day of storage. After the Evidence Hold is removed, the storage rate will
begin at the full rate.
6
REPAIR OR ALTERATION OF VEHICLES:
Contractor shall not make any repairs or alterations to any vehicle without the express
authorization of the registered or legal owner, and the owner's insurance carrier.
Contractor may make only emergency alterations in order to tow the vehicle; however, no
charge may be made to the owner of the vehicle.
TWO -WAY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT:
Each tow truck shall be equipped with equipment capable of communications between the
Contractor's dispatching office and the tow truck.
ERROR OR OMISSIONS:
When any vehicle has been ordered towed by the Police Department and it appears that
the tow was in error through a mistake of fact, the Contractor shall release the vehicle to
the owner at no cost to the owner. In the event of a clerical error or oversight on the part of
the Police Department wherein a vehicle is stored for a period longer than it should have
been, the Contractor shall release the vehicle to the owner at no storage cost for such
excess storage period.
In the above cases, if the tow or excess storage charges resulted from an error of the
Alameda Police through a mistake of fact or a clerical error the Contractor may charge the
City at the rate of 50% of the towing and 50% of the storage charges per day of storage
beyond the owner's responsibility. Provided, however, that if the circumstances were
beyond the control of the Police Department, neither the City nor the vehicle's owner shall
be liable for such charges.
The Chief of Police and/or his /her designee shall make the determination as to errors or
mistakes of fact and shall notify the Contractor in writing.
ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACT:
The administration of the contract, after award, is assigned to the Police Department.
Any appeals of decisions made by the Chief of Police may be made to the City Manager of
the City of Alameda ten (10) days of the determination by the Chief of Police. Any appeals
of decisions made after this ten (10) day period shall be deemed null and void. Any
decision by the City Manager for the City of Alameda shall be final and without further
appeal.
7
City of Alameda
Inter - office Memorandum
September 19, 2006
• To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From:
Subject:
Background
Debra Kurita
City Manager
Recommendation to Accept and Authorization to Record a Notice of
Completion for Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line Demolition and
Grading Improvements
Catellus Development Corporation was selected as the Master Developer for the
approved East Housing/Fleet Industrial Supply Center ( "FISC ") mixed -use development
in 2000. Pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement, Development
Agreement, Joint Implementation Agreement, and Construction Reimbursement
Agreement, between the Master Developer, City and CIC for the Bayport Project,
Catellus Construction Company ( "CCC ") serves as the General Contractor for the
demolition and construction of major backbone infrastructure improvements. The
Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk line demolition project and grading improvements are
part of the backbone infrastructure improvements.
The scope of work for the Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line Demolition and
Grading Improvement contract with FERMA Corporation included the following major
activities at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) property:
1. Abatement of hazardous materials, demolition, and crushing operations for the
removal of the second bay of Warehouse Nos. 1 and 2 to make way for the storm
water outfall structure improvements; and
2. Demolition and rough grading related to the removal of Warehouse No. 3.
The project was competitively bid on August 12, 2004, based on plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department. The project was phased to completion over a
two year period due to accommodate remediation, stockpile management and
environmental due diligence and coordination with the State Department of Toxic
Substance Control.
Agenda Item #4 -D CC
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and Members of the September 19, 2006
City Council Page 2
Discussion
The engineer's estimate for the project was $1,681,200.00. The total final project cost is
$1,409,279.00, which is $271,921.00 lower than the original engineer's estimate. Work
related to the improvements was performed in accordance with the approved Master Plan;
Master Grading, Demolition and Improvement Plans; Site -wide Landscape Improvement
Plans; Site Management and Air Monitoring Plan; Demolition Plan; Traffic Management
Plan; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; Health and Safety Plan; Construction
Debris Management Plan; Utility Abandonment Plan; Marsh Crust Ordinance and AP &T
plans and specifications. A certificate of final completion was issued by the project
engineer on August 2, 2006, and is acceptable to the Public Works Department.
As the CIC's General Contractor, CCC has requested final payment of the amount of
funding held in retention. Pursuant to the Construction Reimbursement Agreement with
Catellus, Harris & Associates, acting as the City Engineer for the Project, approved final
completion of the improvements on December 15, 2005, recommends that the City
Council formally accept the improvements as substantially complete in order to release
the contractor's retention in the amount of $173,712.20.
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact
The costs for demolition and grading contained in the Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk
Line Demolition and Grading Improvement project are included in the Catellus / Bayport
Project Budget approved by the CIC and City Council in April 2005, and have been
funded with CIC project revenues generated from the Catellus / Bayport Project.
Municipal Code/Policv Document Cross Reference
Demolition and grading plans and specifications have been prepared and implemented in
accordance with the Alameda Municipal Code.
Environmental Review
Work related to the improvements has been performed in accordance with the approved
Master Plan, Master Grading, Demolition and Improvement Plans. No additional CEQA
review is required.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the September 19, 2006
City Council Page 3
Recommendation
Accept the Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line Demolition and Grading
Improvements and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the
Improvements.
R- p dully submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
ouglas . Cole
Redevelopment Manager
DC: dc
On File with the City Clerk's Office: Certification Documentation
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to the 1986
Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan
BACKGROUND
In 1986, Alameda County voters authorized a half -cent transportation sales tax, commonly
referred to as Measure B, to finance improvements to the County's transportation infrastructure.
The approved Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan identified the Route 238
Hayward Bypass, the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements, and the Route 84
Realignment Project, as one integrated project. In actuality, these projects have been funded and
delivered as separate projects. On November 15, 2005, City Council adopted a resolution
approving the first amendment to the Expenditure Plan. This amendment replaced the Hayward
Bypass Project with alternative improvements and kept the Mission Boulevard Improvements
Project and the Route 84 Realignment Project as one project.
DISCUSSION
The Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA), working with Caltrans and the Cities of
Hayward, Union City and Fremont, has developed separate alternatives to the Mission Boulevard
and the Route 84 projects. ACTA proposes to amend the Expenditure Plan to allow the
substitute projects to proceed. Since amendments to the Expenditure Plan require approval from
a majority of the City Councils in Alameda County, ACTA requests the City of Alameda's
approval. The proposed amendment also includes additional project implementation guidelines.
The specifics of the proposed amendment to the 1986 Expenditure Plan are included in the
attached Expenditure Plan Amendment.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed action does not affect the City's General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
September 19, 2006
Adopt the resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to the 1986 Alameda County Transportation
Expenditure Plan.
Respect submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by,
Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
Attachment
ale(40
cc: ACTA
Measure B Watchdog Committee
Expenditure Plan Amendment (Amendment No. 2)
to Replace the Route 238 and Route 84 Project
with the
Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Spot Improvements Project — Hayward Segment,
the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Spot Improvements Project — Union City Segment,
the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Spot Improvements Project — Fremont Segment,
and
the Option 2 East -West Connector Project between I -880 and Mission Boulevard (Route
238) in Fremont and Union City
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In 1986, Alameda County voters authorized a half -cent transportation sales tax to finance
improvements to the County's overburdened transportation infrastructure. This tax expired in
2002. A detailed Expenditure Plan guides the use of those funds. The 1986 Expenditure Plan
authorized the expenditure of local transportation funds to extend BART to Dublin/Pleasanton,
open 22 miles of carpool lanes on I -880, and maintain and expand bus service throughout the
county. In addition, the 1986 Plan funds special transportation services for seniors and people
with disabilities. The Plan also provided congestion relief throughout Alameda County by
adding lanes to I -880 overpasses, improving the I -580/1 -680 interchange in Dublin and
Pleasanton which included widening sections of I -580, reconstructing the Route 13/Highway 24
interchange, extending Route 84 in Livermore to remove highway traffic from the downtown
area, improving access to the Oalcland International Airport, and upgrading surface streets and
arterial roadways. Most of the 10 major projects authorized by the 1986 Expenditure Plan have
been completed or are under construction, and those that are still in the design and environmental
review stage are scheduled to begin construction in the next few years.
Specifically, the 1986 Expenditure Plan included Measure B funds for the widening of Route
238 (Mission Boulevard) between Industrial Parkway and existing Route 84, and the
construction of a new Route 84 along a previously adopted alignment where rights of way had
been acquired to intersect with I -880. The alternative that followed that previously- adopted
alignment became known as the Historic Parkway. In the Expenditure Plan, Caltrans was named
as the project sponsor. The Route 238 widening from Industrial Parkway to the south and the
new Route 84 were intended to complement another project included in the 1986 Expenditure
Plan to improve the existing Route 238 on a new expressway alignment to bypass downtown
Hayward, from Industrial Parkway north to I -580 in Hayward. This project was commonly
referred to as the Route 238 Hayward Bypass Project. After decades of controversy while the
Bypass project was being developed, Amendment No. 1 to the 1986 Expenditure Plan replaced
the Hayward Bypass Project with alternative improvements.
Alameda County Transportation Authority
1
Attachment
Agenda Item #4-E CC
9 -19 -06 CIC
June 2006
Since the passage of Measure B, the widening of Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) between
Industrial Parkway and existing Route 84 has been partially implemented in three segments: one
in Hayward, another in Union City and the third in Fremont. The resultant widening is not
continuous along Route 238 (Mission Boulevard), but provides congestion relief through
widening along certain stretches and at key intersections.
Like the Hayward Bypass Project, the Route 84 Historic Parkway Project has been on the books
for decades and embroiled in controversy during its lengthy history. Caltrans first identified the
need for the project back in 1958. Rights of way were acquired and/or zoned for the Historic
Parkway during the 1960's and 70's and the approval of the Expenditure Plan in 1986 made
funding available to develop the project. Six alternatives were analyzed as part of the
environmental studies and the Historic Parkway was identified as the preferred alternative. A
Final Environmental Impact Report/Study ( EIR/S) was completed and approved by Caltrans in
2002. The Federal Highway Administration would not certify the EIR/S due to continuing local
opposition, thereby effectively suspending the Historic Parkway Project until consensus could be
reached.
Since 2002, the Alameda County Transportation Authority has worked with the Cities of Union
City and Fremont and Caltrans to establish consensus on an alternative set of improvements to
act as an east -west connection between I -880 and Route 238 to replace the Historic Parkway. In
May of 2006, the Alameda County Transportation Authority Board voted to approve and include
the alternative set of improvements in the 1986 Measure B Expenditure Plan, replacing the Route
84 Historic Parkway Project.
The proposed replacement for the Route 84 Historic Parkway Project is the I -880 to Route 238
East -West Connector Project, which includes the following major features:
• A combination of new roadways along preserved rights of way and improvements to
existing roadways and intersections along Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre
Parkway, Alvarado -Niles Road and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard);
• New roadways designed in accordance with local roadway standards of the
corresponding municipality;
• Widening along existing roadways consistent with the corresponding municipality's
adopted plans;
• A minimum of two through lanes in each direction on new roadways; and
• Mitigation for impacts identified and approved in the environmental studies phase.
Alameda County Transportation Authority
2
June 2006
PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 1986 EXPENDITURE PLAN
Thus, pursuant to the enabling legislation of Measure B, under Public Utility Code Sections
131304 and 131050, which allows for the Authority to add, delete a project, or to make changes
of major significance, Amendment No. 2 to the 1986 Alameda County Transportation
Expenditure Plan has been approved to reflect the following:
1. Delete the Route 238 and Route 84 Project currently included in the Expenditure Plan's
Essential Transportation Project List as shown below:
Project: Routc 238 and Route 84
Cost: $77 million
Sponsor: Caltrans
Dcser ,,t;o
L _ .G _ _LT nL.1I f
Note (2)
Sales tax contribution: $67 million
to intersect with 880.
come from other sources; i.e., local assessment districts, thus providing
the $10 million. If it is not forthcoming, the project will not be built. (2)
Cost break out is as follows:
A) Rtc. 238 through Union City
Widening existing Mission Blvd. to 6 lanes 15M
B) Rtc 84 4 lane freeway
C) Enginccring /Design
Total
Alameda County Transportation Authority
3
55M
7M
77M
June 2006
2. Add the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements Project — Hayward Segment as
follows:
Project: Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements Project — Hayward Segment
Cost: $ 6.7 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $6.4 million
Sponsor: Alameda County Transportation Authority and the City of Hayward
Description:
HAYWARD Legend
Proposed Improvement/
Reoortstruclton
--- -- Existing street
*
€�\
MISSION BOULEVARD
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS: HAYWARO
The Hayward Segment of the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements
includes widening Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) and Industrial Parkway
along the approaches to the intersection between the two roads and other
intersection improvements.
Alameda County Transportation Authority
June 2006
3. Add the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements Project — Union City Segment as
follows:
Project: Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements Project — Union City Segment
Cost: $8.5 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $7.0 million
Sponsor: Alameda County Transportation Authority and the City of Union City
Description:
I.1AYWARt)
,
Legend .,.._
Proposed Improvemen)/ q
Reconstruction 9
Existing Street
t.FNION CITY
MISSION BOULEVARD
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS - UNION Cr
NN 20 SUMO. FumxgMrntamaorsrdrid1 mly
The Union City Segment of the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements
includes widening Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) from north of Whipple Road
to south of Decoto Road and improving the intersections at Mission
Boulevard /Whipple Road and Mission Boulevard /Decoto Road.
Alameda County Transportation Authority
5
June 2006
4. Add the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements Project — Fremont Segment as
follows:
Project: Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements Project — Fremont Segment
Cost: $47.0 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $45.0 million
Sponsor: Alameda County Transportation Authority and the City of Fremont
Description:
Legend
Propose0 Improvement/
Rociahahttc1on
ezisitig Siteat
Retuiliinp Wan
1krd11Kr
muN
unumumn
ours
MISSION BOULEVARD
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS - FREMONT
Not to Scare. For co .loaf understand, , on
The Fremont Segment of the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements
includes widening Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) from north of Henderson
Court to south of Orchard Drive, replacing two railroad crossings and the
crossing over Alameda Creek, and replacing a drainage pump station. The
project also includes intersection improvements at Mission Boulevard and
Route 84 (i. e. Niles Canyon Road to the east and Mowry Avenue to the west)
and Orchard Drive.
Alameda County Transportation Authority
6
June 2006
5. Add the Option 2 East -West Connector Project as follows:
Project: 1 -880 to Route 238 East -West Connector
Cost: $107.0 million ACTA Measure B Sales tax contribution: $88.0 million
Sponsor: Alameda County Transportation Authority, Union City and Fremont
Description:
UNION CITY
Not to *mkt. For eoneeptual understanding only.
Legend
Existing Main Road or highway
Existing Street
Proposed Option 2Alignment
Superceded
Historic Parkway Alignment
FREMONT 1'.
Forsmar,rr°
ROUTE 84 FREMONT & UNION CITY
1-880 TO RTE 238
NEWARK
Construct an improved east -west connection between 1 -880 and Route 238
(Mission) comprised of a combination of new roadways along preserved
rights of way and improvements to existing roadways and intersections along
Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado -Niles
Road and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard).
Alameda County Transportation Authority
7
June 2006
6. Modify Implementing Guidelines (as adopted pursuant to Amendment No. 1) to provide
the following:
a. The goal of the Amendments to the Expenditure Plan is to complete the projects
described in the each Amendment in a timely manner. All added projects will be given
five years from the date of the final approval of this the applicable Expenditure Plan
Amendment to obtain environmental clearance, approval from all agencies having
jurisdiction over the proposed improvements, support from the community, and full
commitment of funds from all sources required to develop and construct the project.
Projects that cannot meet this requirement may appeal to the Authority for extension(s)
of one year duration.
b. Should an added a project added by an Amendment become infeasible or unfundable in
whole or part, due to circumstances unforeseen at the time of the Amendment, funding
may be applied to other projects in the original Expenditure Plan by the Authority.
c. Should one or any combination of the projects added by an Amendment be
implemented in a manner that fulfills the purpose of the project and requires less than
the amount of Measure B funding identified in the Amendment, any remaining Measure
B funds may be applied to other projects in the Expenditure Plan by the Authority.
e d. Under no circumstance may Measure B funds in the an Amendment be applied to any
purpose other than direct transportation improvements in Alameda County. The funds
may not be used for any projects or studies other than those specified in the
• - - Expenditure Plan (as amended), without an additional
specific amendment to the Expenditure Plan.
d e- Project costs in excess of the amount of Measure B funding identified in the an
Amendment will be the responsibility of the Project Sponsor. Measure B funding for
the added projects are capped at the amounts identified in the Amendment, unless
authorized by the Authority Board and subject to future annual Strategic Plan Updates.
Alameda County Transportation Authority
8
June 2006
co
m WHEREAS, the Route 238 Hayward Bypass Project was ruled ineligible
c 0 for Measure B funds and the Route 238 /Mission /Foothill /Jackson Corridor
aImprovement Project was developed as an alternate project; and
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 1986
MEASURE B ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE
PLAN
WHEREAS, in 1986 Alameda County voters approved Measure B and
authorized a half -cent transportation sales tax to finance improvements to the
County's transportation infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the approved Expenditure Plan identified Route 238
Hayward Bypass, the Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) Improvements, and the
Route 84 Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Authority proposes to
amend the Expenditure Plan to allow the alternate project to proceed and to
include additional project implementation guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2005 the Council of the City of Alameda
approved Amendment No. 1 to the 1986 Measure B Alameda County
Transportation Expenditure Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Authority proposes to
amend the Expenditure Plan to reflect separate alternatives to the Mission
Boulevard and the Route 84 projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of
Alameda does hereby approve the proposed amendment No. 2 to the 1986
Measure B Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to
forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Alameda County Transportation
Authority.
Resolution #4 -E CC
9 -19 -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
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem
Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel
BACKGROUND
The City Charter for the City of Alameda, Article XXII, Section 22.7 provides that:
"Traveling expenses shall not exceed cost of transportation, plus a reasonable per
Diem allowance, the latter to be fixed annually by the Council uniformly for all
officers and employees. Traveling expenses, except for routine duties, shall be
allowed only if authorized by Council."
Historically, travel expenses have been reimbursed at actual costs with mileage at the business
expense reimbursement rate set by the IRS each January. Per Diem amounts have been updated
by resolution as needed in conformance with the IRS rates for the San Francisco Bay Area.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Expense Reimbursement, Compensation and Ethics Training Policy and administrative
procedures refer to the Per Diem amount adopted by Council resolution. The current per diem
rate is $46 per day or actual expenses up to $46 per day. This is intended to cover breakfast
($10.00), lunch ($12.00) and dinner ($24.00). Should the meeting not be for a full 24 -hour
period or if the registration fee for a meeting covers certain meals, an adjustment to reduce the
per diem claimed is necessary.
The IRS Publication 1542 details the Per Diem rates employers may use without treating part of
the per diem allowance as wages for tax purposes. This publication is amended as the Federal
General Services Administration announces new rates based upon their data surveys. The rate
currently reported for San Francisco is $64 per day ($13, $19, $32 respectively).
Agenda Item #4 -F CC
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2006
Councilmembers Page 2
Historically, the per Diem rate has been updated on an ad hoc basis upon staff recommendation.
To avoid confusion and maintain the rate at the most current, approved IRS rate, a resolution
referring to the rate established in IRS Publication 1542 is appropriate. With the adoption of
each budget, the effective IRS per Diem rate and mileage reimbursement rate would be
annotated for reference.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The increase from $46 to $64 while adding to reimbursements will be managed within existing
budget allocations during FY 2006 -2007.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to establish guidelines for reimbursement of per diem allowance for City of
Alameda business travel.
Respectfully submitted,
le -Ann Boyer
Chief Financial Officer
JAB:dl
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
PER DIEM ALLOWANCE
FOR CITY OF ALAMEDA BUSINESS TRAVEL
WHEREAS, Section 22 -7 of the Charter of the City of Alameda requires
that the Council annually fix the per Diem allowance for traveling expenses of
officers and employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service publishes its recommended
per Diem rates for travel within the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the per Diem allowance for all officers and employees of the City
of Alameda while attending to official duties, both within and outside the City
limits of the City of Alameda, shall not exceed the amount of the actual expense
incurred by such officer or employee, in addition to the costs of transportation
actually incurred; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the per Diem allowance for meals will
be that rate established in Internal Revenue Service Publication 1542 "Per
Diem Rates" as promulgated at various times; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such expenditures shall be repaid to
such officer or employee by the City of Alameda upon submission of a
statement of such expense in from satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer of
the City of Alameda.
Resolution #4 -F CC
9 -19 -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
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REAPPOINTING JESSICA LINDSEY AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(RETAIL /COMMERCIAL SEAT)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that
pursuant to Section 2 -14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No.
12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JESSICA LINDSEY is hereby
reappointed to the office of Retail /Commercial Member of the Economic
Development Commission of the City of Alameda, commencing September 19,
2006 and expiring on August 31, 2010 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 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 said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolutions #5 -A
9 -19 -06
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING ALAN J. RYAN AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(REAL ESTATE /LAND DEVELOPMENT SEAT)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that
pursuant to Section 2 -14.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No.
12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor, ALAN J. RYAN is hereby appointed to
the office of Real Estate /Land Development Seat Member of the Economic
Development Commission of the City of Alameda, commencing September 19,
2006, and expiring on August 31, 2010 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 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 said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REAPPOINTING BETSY E. GAMMELL AS A MEMBER
OF THE CITY GOLF COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
Sections 2 -9.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor,
BETSY E. GAMMELL is hereby reappointed to the office of member of the Golf
Commission of the City of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing October 1,
2006 and expiring on September 30, 2010 and to serve until her successor is
appointed and qualified.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutionn was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda 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 said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION. NO.
REAPPOINTING JO KAHUANUI AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
Section 2 -7.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor,
JO KAHUANUI is hereby reappointed to the office of member of the Recreation
and Park Commission of the City of Alameda commencing October 1, 2006 and
expiring on September 30, 2010, and to serve until her successor is appointed
and is 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 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 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: September 19, 2006
Re: Adoption of a Resolution Endorsing and Supporting the U.S. Conference of
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
BACKGROUND
It is the Mayor's request that the City Council of the City of Alameda consider a pledge to
take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of
climate change and endorse and support the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement.
DISCUSSION
On June 13, 2005 the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously passed the Mayors'
Climate Protection Agreement, which is currently supported by mayors representing over
47 million Americans. The Agreement requests that local government influence the
community's emissions by exercising its powers over land use, transportation, construction,
waste management, and energy management and take actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and increase energy efficiency. The community would . benefit locally by
decreased air pollution, job creation, reduction in energy expenditures, and money savings
for the local government, its businesses and its residents.
On July 18, 2006 the City Council adopted a Resolution to become a member of
International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) - Local Governments for
Sustainability and agreed to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)
Campaign and, as a participant, pledged to take a leadership role in promoting public
awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change. The City Council's actions
regarding ICLEI support and further the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. The CCP
Campaign is underway and the City has already provided ICLEI with data to create an
emissions baseline for Alameda. The Local Action Plan Task Force will be formed within
the next month and work will begin to set goals to reduce emissions in Alameda.
Agenda Item #5 -B
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2006
Councilmembers Page 2 of 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this endorsement.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The Resolution does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Endorsement of an agreement is not defined as a project under the CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution endorsing and supporting the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement.
By:
Cynttiia Eliason
Supervising Planner
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy oodbury
Planning and Building Director
•
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF
MAYORS' CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, scientific consensus has developed that Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere have a
profound effect on the Earth's climate; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, at the request of the Administration, the National
Academy of Sciences reviewed and declared global warming a real problem
caused in part by the actions of humankind; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 Third Assessment Report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2000 U.S. Global Change
Research Program's First National Assessment indicate that global warming
has begun; and
WHEREAS, 162 countries including the U.S. pledged under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, in 2003 the American Geophysical Union adopted a
statement noting that human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's
climate and that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in near -
surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century; and
WHEREAS on February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol took effect in the
141 countries that ratified it; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2005 the Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement was passed unanimously by the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and
WHEREAS, as of July 14, 2006, Mayors representing over 47 million
Americans have supported the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, local governments influence communities' emissions by
exercising key powers over land use, transportation, construction, waste
management, and energy management; and
WHEREAS, local government actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and increase energy efficiency provide multiple local benefits by
decreasing air pollution, creating jobs, reducing energy expenditures, and
saving money for the local government, its businesses and its residents; and
Resolution #5 -B
9 -19 -06
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2006, the City Council of the City of Alameda
adopted a Resolution to become a member of the International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and agreed to participate in the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign and, as a participant, pledged to take a
leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of
climate change; and
WHEREAS, the City Council's actions regarding ICLEI support and
further the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda pledges to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness
about the causes and impacts of climate change and endorses and supports
the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement.
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: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider ZA06 -0001, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
City -wide and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Revising Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8, Off - Street Parking and Loading
Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions
BACKGROUND
The City has initiated a Parking Demand and Management Study to assess existing and
future parking demands in the core commercial areas of the Park and Webster Street
districts. The purpose of the study is to identify parking opportunities and constraints,
evaluate parking requirements and financial considerations, and identify implementation
strategies to maximize the use of parking in the core commercial areas. The study will
include a review and recommendations regarding the City's parking -in -lieu fees, on street
parking practices and parking requirements.
Due to its comprehensive nature and the potential recommendations to be evaluated,
completion of this study and adoption of the implementation actions that may result is not
anticipated before the end of fiscal year 2006/2007. However, there is a need to address
parking issues related to new construction and for new businesses on Park and Webster
Streets at this time.
Through a joint workshop of the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission,
staff was directed to consider the creation of a parking exception process for new and /or
expanding businesses in these corridors. More recent development codes for urban areas
have provisions for reducing parking requirements through parking exceptions when it can
be shown that the proposed use demands less parking than that required by code. Staff
reviewed the ordinances of Albany, San Leandro, South San Francisco and San Carlos to
create the ordinance that was considered by the Planning Board. At the July 10, 2006
meeting, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of a parking exception process
for the C -C, (Community Commercial) zoning district.
Agenda Item #5 -C
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 19, 2006
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would establish a process for reviewing exceptions
to the parking requirements for new uses or construction on Park and Webster Streets
within the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The proposed process would
require Planning Board approval based on a parking study specific to the property and use.
When requesting a modification to the required parking, the applicant would be required to
submit a parking study prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer. The Public Works Director
would approve the scope and extent of the study, including the data to be collected. The
parking study would include but not be limited to an on- street and off - street parking survey
specific to the project site and the proposed use to determine the peak on- street and off -
street parking demand. It would also address the impacts to the surrounding
neighborhoods. Findings in support of the parking exception would depend on a parking
study that satisfactorily demonstrates that the parking demand would be less than the
general parking standards for that use over the lifetime of the use. The parking exception
would be subject to Planning Board approval.
The AMC presently does not provide for a parking exception process that would allow
applicants to propose minor changes to their parking requirement based on the parking
demand of their unique business or circumstances. A parking exception process for the C-
C (Community Commercial) Zoning District would allow applicants the opportunity to
propose such changes where they are deemed appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts Minor Alterations to Land Use
Limitations.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
No additional funding would be required to implement the amended ordinance.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This ordinance will amend Section 30- 4.9A.g.8 the Alameda Municipal Code to create a
new provision and will have no effect on any existing provisions.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by revising subsection 30-
4.9A.g.8, Off - Street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone
of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations), to add a process for Parking Exceptions.
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers September 19, 2006
By:
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy /t oodbury
Planning and Building Director
Cynthia Eliason
Supervising Planner
Attachments
1. July 10, 2006 Planning Board Staff Report and attachments
2. Draft Minutes of the July 10, 2006 meeting
ITEM NO.:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
9 -A
ZA06 -0002 Zoning Text Amendment — Citywide. Zoning
Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8. Off -
street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community
Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to add a process for parking exceptions.
Community Commercial
The project is Categorically Exempt from review under
CEQA Guidelines, 15305
Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval
ACRONYMS: AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution
state
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would establish a process for reviewing exceptions to
the parking requirements for new uses or construction on Park and Webster Streets within the C-
C (Community Commercial) Zoning District. The proposed process would require Planning
Board approval based on a parking study specific to the property and use, and on findings.
II. BACKGROUND
The City is initiating a Parking Demand and Management Study to assess existing and future
parking demands in the core commercial areas of the Park and Webster Street districts. The
purpose of the study is to identify parking opportunities and constraints, evaluate parking
requirements and financial considerations, and identify implementation strategies to maximize
the use of parking in the core commercial areas. The study will include a review and
recommendations regarding the City's parking -in -lieu fees, on street parking practices and
parking requirements.
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 10, 2006
Attachment #1
Agenda Item #5 -C
9 -19 -06
Due to its comprehensive nature and the potential recommendations to be evaluated, completion
of this study and adoption of the implementation actions that may result is not anticipated before
the end of fiscal year 2006/2007. However, there is a need to address parking issues related to
new construction and for new businesses on Park and Webster Streets at this time.
More recent development codes for urban areas have provisions for reducing parking
requirements through parking exceptions when it can be shown that the proposed use demands
less parking than that required by code. The City's Development Regulations presently do not
provide for a parking exception process that would allow applicants to propose minor changes to
their parking requirement based on the parking demand of their unique business or
circumstances. A parking exception process for the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning
District would allow applicants the opportunity to propose such changes where they are deemed
appropriate.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality
Act Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The Zoning Text Amendment
would provide a process for the approval of a reduction in the parking required for a proposed
use at a specific location.
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
Discussion:
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would establish a process for reviewing exceptions to
the parking requirements the C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which includes
both Park and Webster Streets. A parking exception would be considered for businesses
expansion or new construction where it can be demonstrated that the parking demand for the
proposed use would be less than the required parking. This is different from payment in lieu fees
where it has been established that the business demands all the parking required by code, but
cannot physically provide it, and therefore must pay an alternative amount of monies towards
transit. With approval of a parking exception, no additional fees would be required. However, it
is possible for a project proponent to request both a parking exception and payment of parking
in -lieu fees in order to comply with the parking requirement.
When requesting a modification to the required parking, the applicant would be required to
submit a parking study prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer. The Public Works Director
would approve the scope and extent of the study, including the data to be collected. The parking
study would include but not be limited to an on- street and off - street parking survey specific to
the project site and the proposed use to determine the peak on- street and off - street parking
demand. It would also address the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Findings in support of the parking exception would depend on a parking study that satisfactorily
demonstrates that the parking demand would be less than the general parking standards for that
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 10, 2006
2
use over the lifetime of the use. The parking exception would be subject to Planning Board
approval.
Findings:
1. The project will have no effect on the integrity of the General Plan.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements the General Theme of the General Plan to
de- emphasize the automobile.
2. The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the
community.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the
community, in that it will further implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster
Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report.
3. The proposal is equitable.
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is equitable in that it will apply to the entire C -C
(Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial areas
along Park and Webster Streets.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the City Council that they:
1. Find the project Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental
Quality Act, and
2. Approve the Zoning Text Amendment to add a process for parking exceptions in the C -C
(Community Commercial) Zoning District, based on the findings contained in the draft
Resolution.
G:\ PLANNING\ PB\Reports\2006 \06- 26- 06\Parking Exception.doc
Alameda Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of July 10, 2006
3
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A PROPOSED ZONING
ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE CREATION OF A PARKING EXCEPTION
PROCES S
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2006, the Planning Board directed staff to consider a Zoning
Text Amendment for creation of a parking exception process and
WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application on July 10, 2006, and has
examined pertinent maps, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings relative to this proposed Zoning Text
Amendment:
1. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements one of the General Themes of the
General Plan by de- emphasizing the automobile; and
2. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of
the community as it will assist in the implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster
Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report; and
3. The project is equitable in that it will apply to the entire C -C (Community Commercial)
Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial areas along Park and Webster Streets.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
ZA06 -0002 described in Exhibit A.
Attachment 1
DRAFT
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 30- 4.9A.g.8 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
SPACE OF THE C -C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE OF
CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), TO ADD A
PROCESS FOR PARKING EXCEPTIONS
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements one of the General
Themes of the General Plan by de- emphasizing the automobile; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive effect on the
general welfare of the community as it will assist in the implementation of the Downtown
Vision Plan, the Webster Street Specific Plan and the Retail Strategy Report; and
WHEREAS, the project is equitable because it will apply to the entire C -C
(Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core commercial
areas along Park and Webster Streets.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8. Off - Street Parking And Loading Space of the C -C Community
Commercial Zone as follows:
30 -4.9 (g)(8) Off - Street Parking And Loading Space: As regulated by Section 30 -7 unless
a parking exception is granted.
(a) A parking exception may be approved reducing the number of parking spaces
to less than the number specified in the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6 provided the
following findings are made by the Planning Board:
(i) The parking demand will be less than the requirements in Section 30-
7.6, and
(ii) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure based
on its design will not generate additional parking demand.
(b) A parking exception granted by the Planning Board shall be limited to the
specific structure and use. Any future alterations to the building or changes in the use
shall require a new parking exception or shall be required to meet the parking supply
requirements of the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6.
Attachment 2
DRAFT
Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of
Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or
unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
9 -A. ZA06 -000X Zoning Text Amendment — Citywide (CE). Zoning Text Amendment to
amend Subsection 30- 4.9Ag.8. Off - street Parking and Loading Space of the C -C Community
Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to add a process for parking
exceptions.
Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report, and recommended adoption of this amendment.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Michael Krueger, 2145 Santa Clara Avenue, Apt. E, spoke in support of this item. He believed
that many of the City's parking requirements were developed in suburban areas with no public transit,
developed to handle a worst -case scenario. He believed that other cities copied those standards, and
suggested that they be changed to reflect the use and location of a retail establishment. He noted that
Portland, Oregon, had exceptions for sites well - served by public transit (within 500 feet of the site).
He noted that both Park and Webster Streets met those criteria. He added that the parking structure
would also merit reexamination of the off - street parking requirements.
Mr. David Kirwin, 1416 Seminary Avenue, noted that one bus pullout has been lost on Park Street,
leading to auto and delivery truck congestion. He noted that uses may change and that auto -
dependence related to that business may change.
Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, agreed with Mr. Krueger's comments. He noted that he
shopped on Park Street by bike frequently. He strongly supported using alternative methods of
transportation, and was very concerned about the environmental effects of driving cars.
The public hearing was closed for Board discussion.
Vice President Cook believed the parking requirements should be applied intelligently, taking the
retail use into account.
In response to an inquiry by Member McNamara on whether the parking exemptions would be
defined by the applicant or the traffic study, Ms. Eliason replied that detailed guidelines from Public
Works and Development Services would be sought by staff. She noted that a mixed -use office
(office /residential), assisted care and hotel facilities would be likely candidates for this policy.
Member Lynch noted that parking in lieu fees are a way for communities to generate fees to develop a
nexus for that project. He added that government is also reticent to relinquish a revenue source, and
noted that a balance between a revenue stream and such a parking policy must be struck. He was
reluctant to require each applicant to produce a costly parking demand study, especially in a C -C
district that was already described in a City map. Attachment #2
Planning Board Minutes Agenda Item #5 -C Page 7
July 10, 2006 9 -19 -06
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior
to approval by Planning Board
Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the timing of this issue, and noted that she had
attended the EDC meeting where the parking and traffic study was introduced. She was reluctant to
take further steps before the results were present, and she believed that some of the information may
be very useful for new businesses. She inquired whether there were certain businesses that staff was
imminently concerned with.
Ms. Eliason confirmed that there were specific businesses that were very interested.
Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned about losing the revenue from the lost parking in -lieu fees. She
also supported use of alternate transportation, but was dismayed at the paucity of bicycle parking in
Alameda.
Member Kohlstrand noted that because of the mix of uses, it was not reasonable to expect each
business to provide independent parking spaces, which would provide too much parking. She
supported looking at shared parking opportunities, which she believed was a more rational approach
to downtown parking.
M/S Kohlstrand/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -06 -23 to
approve a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Subsection 30- 4.9Ag.8.Off- street Parking and Loading
Space of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter X (Development Regulations) to add
a process for parking exceptions.
AYES — 6 (Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0
President Cunningham called for a five - minute recess.
Planning Board Minutes Page 8
July 10, 2006
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 30- 4.9A.g.8 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND
LOADING SPACE) OF THE C -C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
ZONE OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), TO
ADD A PROCESS FOR PARKING EXCEPTIONS
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment implements one of
the General Themes of the General Plan by de- emphasizing the automobile;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Text Amendment will have a positive
effect on the general welfare of the community as it will assist in the
implementation of the Downtown Vision Plan, the Webster Street Specific Plan
and the Retail Strategy Report; and
WHEREAS, the project is equitable because it will apply to the entire
C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, which encompasses both core
commercial areas along Park and Webster Streets.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by
amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8. Off - Street Parking And Loading Space of
the C -C Community Commercial Zone as follows:
30- 4.9A.g.8 Off - Street Parking And Loading Space: As regulated by
Section 30 -7 unless a parking exception is granted.
(a) A parking exception may be approved for new construction or existing
buildings converted to new uses reducing the number of parking spaces to less
than the number specified in the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6 provided
the following findings are made by the Planning Board:
(i) The parking demand will be Tess than the requirements in
Section 30 -7.6, and
(ii) The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure
based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand.
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -C
9 -19 -06
(b) A parking exception granted by the Planning Board shall be limited to
the specific structure and use. Any future alterations to the building or changes
in the use shall require a new parking exception or shall be required to meet the
parking supply requirements of the parking schedule in Section 30 -7.6.
Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City
Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so
construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of
this ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda 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
said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
Date: September 19, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re:
Introduction of an Amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code by
Amending subsection 13- 2.2(e), (Modifications, Amendments and
Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda
Building Code) of Chapter 13 (Building and Housing) to Incorporate
Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems
BACKGROUND
Over the course of the past several months, the Fire Department staff has researched
the impact of a number of potential amendments to the Municipal Code sections related
to the installation requirements for fire sprinklers. As a result, staff recommends
implementing several changes to the Code.
DISCUSSION
The existing fire sprinkler ordinance in the City of Alameda requires fire sprinklers in
newly constructed buildings that are: (a) two stories or taller, (b) buildings that are 5,000
square feet or larger, and (c) remodeled buildings when the remodel costs exceed 50%
of the assessed valuation of the structure. The existing ordinance does not require the
installation of fire sprinklers for new residential single - family or residential double -
occupancy structures or new commercial construction with fewer than 5,000 square
feet.
The recommended Municipal Code changes would require the installation of fire
sprinklers in all newly constructed commercial and residential buildings and in existing
commercial and residential apartment structures that are being remodeled if the
construction costs exceed 25% of the current value of the building. However, these
proposed changes to the Code would include the following exceptions to the fire
sprinkler installation requirements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Remodeled single - family homes.
Remodeled duplex apartments.
Detached Group U Occupancies (private garages) less than 300 square
feet.
Agenda Item #5 -D
9 -19 -06
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2006
Councilmembers Page 2 of 3
(4) When the floor area of a temporary building (as defined in the Uniform
Building Code) is less than 1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance
from any point is less than 50 feet.
(5) When the floor area of a Group B (businesses), Group F (assembly and
fabrication shops), and Group S (storage facilities) occupancies are fewer
than 300 square feet.
The research indicates that there will be additional costs to property owners or property
developers if the proposed changes are adopted. Staff conducted a survey of four local
fire sprinkler installation contractors to determine the average cost of fire sprinkler
installations. In new residential construction the costs range from $2.35 to $2.95 per
square foot. In new commercial construction, the costs range from $1.60 to $5.50 per
square foot, and for retrofitting $1.60 to $6.00 per square foot. Cost estimates do not
include costs for underground work, which can be considerable depending on the
project.
A key element of this proposal to amend the fire sprinkler installation requirements will
be a public education and outreach effort designed to explain the costs and benefits of
these proposed changes. The Fire Department met with developers, business
associations and the residential community to inform them of these anticipated
changes, to respond to questions, and to solicit feedback. The feedback was positive
from all the stakeholders.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The additional construction cost associated with the installation of fire sprinkler systems
will be borne by the developer or property owner. There will be no impact to the general
fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This Municipal Code change affects Chapter 13 Building and Housing, Section 13 -2
Alameda Building Code, Subsection 13 -2 -2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions
to the California Building Code. Each section has been thoroughly analyzed and found
to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This ordinance is exempt under State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3), which is
the "general rule" that CEQA does not apply where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Honorable Mayor and September 19, 2006
Councilmembers Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed Amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code by amending
subsection 13- 2.2(e), (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California
Building Code) of Section 13 -2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter 13 (Building and
Housing) to incorporate specific requirements for the installation of fire extinguishing
systems.
Respectfully submitted,
mes Christiansen
Fire Chief
By: Michael Fisher
Fire Marshal
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 13- 2.2(e) (MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS AND
DELETIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING. CODE) OF SECTION
13 -2 (ALAMEDA BUILDING CODE) OF CHAPTER XIII (BUILDING
AND HOUSING), TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, given that Alameda is an island that could render it
isolated in the event of a disaster, the installation of fire sprinklers in
buildings is one of the City's long term fire protection strategies to
reduce the Toss of life and property due to unwanted fires; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing several scientific studies, the City
has determined that the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings often
reduces the Toss of life and property when fires do occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the
City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by
amending Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the
California Building Code):
13- 2.2(e). Section 904.1.1 of the California Building Code, 2001
Edition, is amended to read as follows:
Section 904.1.1 General. Fire extinguishing systems required in this Code
shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Fire
hose threads used in connection with fire - extinguishing systems shall be
National Standard hose threads or as approved by the Fire Department. In
buildings used for high -pile combustible storage, fire protection shall be in
accordance with Fire Department findings. The location of all Fire
Department hose connections and the main control valve (i.e. Post
Indicator Valve) shall be approved by the Fire Chief.
All automatic sprinkler systems, other than those installed in detached
single and two- family dwellings defined as Group R Division 3 occupancies
and Group U occupancies in this Code, shall be provided with supervision
of all control valves and flow alarm signal devices. Valve supervision and
flow alarm signals shall be transmitted to an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed Central Station.
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -D
9 -19 -06
Installation, inspection, and maintenance of the fire alarm system required
by this Section shall be in conformance with Underwriters Laboratory and
the National Fire Protection Association Standards established in the
National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA -72, 1996 Edition, including amendments
thereto, as may be made from time to time.
Section 904.1.2. Standards. Fire - extinguishing systems shall comply with
California Building Code Standards Number 901, 902 and applicable
National Fire Code Standards for type of system being installed. The
minimum hazard classification shall be designed to meet "Ordinary Hazard,
Group 2."
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Automatic sprinkler systems may be connected to the domestic
water supply main when approved by the Fire Chief, provided the domestic
water supply is of adequate pressure, capacity, and sizing for the combined
domestic and sprinkler requirements. In such cases, the sprinkler system
connection shall be made between the public water main or meter and the
building shutoff valve. There shall not be any intervening valves or
connections. The Fire Department connection may be omitted when
approved by the Fire Chief.
Section 904.2 Automatic Fire - extinquishinq Systems.
Section 904.2.1 Where required. An automatic fire - extinguishing
system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in
this section.
Section 904.2.2 Occupancies requiring automatic sprinkler
systems; exceptions. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in all newly constructed occupancies regardless of occupancy
group type or building's moved into or relocated within the City and shall
comply with NFPA Standard 13 and 13 -R, and the following:
Bathrooms, regardless of size, and spaces under stairs used for the
storage of combustible materials.(2) When an existing building is added
to, repaired or remodeled, if the cost of addition, repair or remodeling, is
over 25% of the current value of the building. The value shall be based on
the International Code Council Building Valuation Data. Area separation
walls do not exempt this requirement for an automatic sprinkler system.
EXCEPTIONS:
Detached Group U Occupancies (utility) less than 300 square feet.
An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of
a temporary building as defined in the California Building Code is less than
1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance from any point is less than 50
feet.
An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of
a Group B (Business), Group F ( Factory), and Group S (Storage)
Occupancy is less than 300 square feet, as determined by the Fire Chief.
Existing Group R, Division 3 occupancies are excluded from the automatic
sprinkler requirements of section 904.2.2 (2).
An automatic fire - extinguishing system in Group R, Division 3 occupancies,
including but not limited to one and two- family dwellings and mobile homes,
shall comply with NFPA Standard 13 -D and the following:
All fire extinguishing systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard
13 -D shall be tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at
200 psi for a two -hour duration or at 50 psi above static pressure in access
of 150 psi for two -hour duration.
(2) Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection
systems shall have a single indication -type control valve, arranged to
shut -off both the domestic and sprinkler systems and a separate
shut -off valve for the domestic system only. The location of the
control valve shall be approved by the Fire Chief. A separate shut-
off valve is not required for the domestic water supply in multi-
purpose piping systems.
(3)
Local water flow alarms on residential type sprinkler systems
(Standard 13 -D) shall be powered from the kitchen refrigerator
circuit.
Attached garages, bathrooms, attic spaces regardless of size, and
spaces under stairs used for the storage of combustible materials.
In the event that another section of the Alameda Building Code is more restrictive,
then that section will apply.
Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City
Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so
construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this
ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda 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 said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
WITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FROM OPEN SPACE (0) TO
COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(CM -PD) BY AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1277, N.S.
FOR THAT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 MAITLAND DRIVE
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. Section 11 -116 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., is hereby
amended by reclassifying all the real property situated within the City of Alameda,
County of Alameda, State of California, consisting of the Parcels 109 -2 and 109 -4
as shown on the attached survey plat from Open Space (0) Zoning District to
Commercial Manufacturing - Planned Development (CM -PD) Zoning District.
Section 2. The above amendment shall be known as and referenced
to as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No. 199 to Ordinance No. 1277,
N.S.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Presiding Officer of the Council
Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -E
9 -19 -06
Lr N 2094185.421
`ue E 6060298.837
MON. "MALT -FIT"
N 2093035.257
E 6061023.021
R= 355.00
L=33 '47 59-
8
,\1•1'
Zo L= 209.42 hC
j� `1 ue 4Z- 0
cr ' OF I A
BK 6 245 PG 2g3
N
L
O
PARC`I MAP -I/YAWL-L-7
AND CERTIFICATE .OF
CDI\dPLLABCF-- :9137 1-313,94
CITY OF X11 Aj1 A
25,101 sq.ft.
PORT OF
OAKS N_D
PARC F 1� 3
PM 5504
Mme. '44751
PARCEL 4
PM 5604
Al e-34 -61
GRAPHIC SCALE
50 100 200
PARCE 1 5
PM. 4013
MB. 133-5 ,
�� h J_
300
NOTE;
. IN FEET
1 INCH 100 FT.
CrY OF ALAMEDA
PARCEL. 2
PM 7025
AE. 232-Da
PARCEL 109 -2
This map is based on NA0 83, 1984 adjustment, published in 1986, as shown on Record of Sury
990, which is filed in Book 18 of Records of Survey at pages 50 -60, Alameda County Records.
All distances shown hereon cre grid distcnces_ Multiply grid distances by 1.0000707 to convert t
Ground distances.
DRAWN SY: OCV
CHECKED 7Y: cm 1AiTACHMENTS:
FILE LOC.> 106..305.01c \oIct109- 2_Revt
?OPT OF OAKLAND
LAND SURVEYS AND MAPPING
5.30 Water Street
Oakland, Cal;romia
N
SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION
MO Area to be rezoned to CM -PD
CITY OF ALAMEDA
DATE: 4 -24 -00
SCALE: 1= 100'
Wrk. Ord: 605022
Field ek:
REVISION: 1(ern)
REV OA E:1/15/1
SHEET 1 OF I
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda 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
said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN TASK FORCE
FOUR VACANCIES
Ruth C. Abbe
Joe S. Abraham
Bill Boscacci
David J. Burton
Christopher H. Calfee
Pat C. Colburn
Marvin R. Hamon
Sean P. Luedke
Suzanne H. Marquis
Joyce L. Mercado
Kathryn L. Polak
Gregory A. Reichert
Stanley M. Schiffman
Ron Silberstein
Tina Silverstein
John P. Spafford
Srikant Subramaniam
Lizette Weiss
Re: Agenda Item 7 -A
09 -19 -06
Arshad A. Ahmed
Robert A. Bonta
Mark Breazeal
James A. Edison
Frederic F. Hollister
William C. Russell
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Banking/Finance Seat
Re: Agenda Item 7 -A
09 -19 -06
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD
THREE VACANCIES
Dr. Jerry B. Healy
Reginald L. James
Richard A. Lagesse
Cathy Nielsen
Jonathan D. Soglin
Henry B. Villareal
Re: Agenda Item 7 -A
09 -19 -06