Loading...
2004-02-17 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - - - 6:35 P.M. Time: Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 6:35 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Kozinchik v. City of Alameda. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 2200A Central Avenue. Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Unified School District. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - - - 6:55 P.M. Time: Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 6:55 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: CONFERENCE WITH PROPERY NEGOTIATOR Property: Alameda Theatre (2315 -2319 Central Avenue) and Longs Drugs (2314 Santa Clara Avenue) . Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Cocores Development Company and Longs Drugs. Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, February 17, 2004, 7:20 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -A. Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held February 3, 2004. Acceptance is recommended. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Board of Commissioners Meeting February 17, 2004 Page 2 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Approving Refinancing Plan for Complexes. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1. Refinance the Bonds and notes for Parrot Village, Eagle Village, and China Clipper Plaza; 2. Enter into an agreement with the Community Improvement Commission for a loan or loans totaling no more than $6 million for these three housing complexes; and 3. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute all documents related to this transaction. 3 -B. Recommending Pursuit of Additional Federal Funding for Housing Assistance Payments. The Chief Executive Officer recommends that the Board of Commissioners authorize the Housing Authority to continue its aggressive pursuit of additional federal funding and or a transfer of additional Section 8 Vouchers to prevent termination of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments contracts and, if additional funds are needed, to amend the Housing Authority's budget as appropriate. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 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. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Commission meetings. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Changers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of February 3, 2004. AGENDA ITEM 1. Public Hearing to consider proposal for redevelopment of property bounded by Park Street, Eagle Avenue and Clement Avenue, including Ron Goode Toyota proposal; selection of a Master Developer for the site; and consideration of a Disposition and Development Agreement with said developer. ADJOURNMENT 1 Bever ' J.hn on, Chair CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AND ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave. and Oak St. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board on agenda items or business introduced by Council /Board Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council /Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 1. A. Adoption of Resolution Approving Public Utilities Board Action and Authorizing Negotiation, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale Financing Documents to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic - Coaxial Broadband Telecom System, and Authorizing, Ratifying and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. [City Council] B. Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Negotiation, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale Financing Documents with Alameda Power & Telecom (As the Bureau of Electricity Acting By and For the City of Alameda) to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. [Alameda Public Improvement Corporation] C. Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Negotiation, Issuance, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes (Alameda Power & Telecom) and Related Agreements and Instruments to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. [Alameda Public Financing Authority] ADJOURNMENT Beverly John CI:-. 1:7!!!:::r AGENDA Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority * * * * * * ** Alameda City Hall Council Chamber, Room 391 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 1. ROLL CALL 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Meeting will begin at 7:29 p.m. City Hall will open at 7:14 p.m. Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 -A. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute a ten year lease for Hangar 21 with St. George Spirits, Inc. 4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ADJOURNMENT This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15. The next regular ARRA meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 3, 2004. Notes: Please contact ARRA Secretary, Emily Parodi at 749 -5800 or 522 -7538 at least 72 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. • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Emily Parodi, ARRA Secretary, or Development Services at 749 -5800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. • Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print. AGENDA TUESDAY CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 17, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:35 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 6:55 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY 7:20.P.M. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:27 P.M. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORTATION AND ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:29 P.M. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Presentation by the Bay Area Commuters for Transportation Solutions on the Regional Measure 2, which will be on the March 2, 2004 ballot. [Related to Agenda Item No. 4 -I] 3 -B. Proclamation recognizing Toastmasters International's 80th anniversary and declaring the week of February 21 -28, 2004 as Toastmasters Week in the City of Alameda. 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 Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting held on January 27, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting held on January 28, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 3, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher and Burk for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 24, No. P.W. 07- 03 -14, and allocate $185,000 from Traffic Congestion Relief Funds for the project. 4 -C. Recommendation to terminate the Contract of Thomas D. Eychner Company, Inc., approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16. 4 -D. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending December 31, 2003, including approval of midyear adjustments; and • Recommendation to amend Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program to include additional projects. 4 -E. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2003. 4 -F. Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment Policy. 4 -G. Recommendation to name the Ball Field in Lower Washington Park in memory of former Recreation and Parks Commissioner, Toby Chavez. 4 -H. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to Execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties. 4 -I. Adoption of Resolution in Support of Regional Measure 2, Regional Traffic Relief Plan. [Related to Agenda Item No. 3- A] 4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Four (4) Vehicles Using the State of California Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. 4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 84 -2. 4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for City of Alameda Maintenance District 01 -1. 4 -M. Bills for ratification. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Nancy Gormley as a Member of the Housing Commission. 5 -B. Recommendation to send a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 744. [Councilmember Kerr] 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Support for Measure C - Alameda Unified School District Bond Measure for Alameda School Repair - March 2, 2004. [Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese.] 5 -D. Adoption of Resolution Supporting a Statewide Ballot Initiative to Require Voter Approval Before State Government May Take Local Tax Funds. 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) 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board. 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 Memorandum Date: February 9, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Special Community Improvement Commission, Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and Alameda Public Financing Authority, and Special Meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Transmitted herewith are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Special Community Improvement Commission, Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and Alameda Public Financing Authority, and Special Meeting of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special Meeting held February 3, 2004. The Board Secretary has presented for approval the Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special Meeting held February 3, 2004. REGULAR AGENDA 3 -A Approving Refinancing Plan for Complexes. In reviewing options for refinancing bonds for Parrot Village, Eagle Village and China Clipper Plaza, seven options were explored. It is recommended that the bonds be refinanced, enter into a loan agreement with the Community Improvement Commission for no more than $6 million for the three complexes, and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute all documents to accomplish this transaction. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers February 9, 2004 3 -B Recommendation to Approve Expenditure of Section 8 Administrative Fee Reserve Fund for Housing Assistance Payments. It is recommended that Housing Authority staff continue seeking federal funding and or a transfer of additional Section 8 Vouchers to prevent termination of Section 8 HAP contracts. It is further recommended, that the Housing Authority's budget be amended if additional funds are needed. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA 1. Public Hearing to consider proposal for redevelopment of property bounded by Park Street, Eagle Avenue and Clement Avenue, including Ron Goode Toyota proposal; selection of a Master Developer for the site; and consideration of a Disposition and Development Agreement with said developer. This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on the proposal to redevelop a portion of Park Street between Eagle and Clement. After the public hearing has been concluded, it is recommended that Ron Goode Toyota be selected as the master developer for the site and that the Executive Director be authorized to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement with Ron Goode Toyota. JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AND ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA ITEM 1. A. Adoption of Resolution Approving Public Utilities Board Action and Authorizing Negotiation, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale Financing Documents to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System, and Authorizing, Ratifying and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. [City Council] B. Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Negotiation, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale Financing Documents with Alameda Power & Telecom (As the Bureau of Electricity Acting By and For the City of Alameda) to Be Delivered in Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers February 9, 2004 Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. [Alameda Public Improvement Corporation] C. Adoption of Resolution Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Negotiation, Issuance, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes (Alameda Power & Telecom) and Related Agreements and Instruments to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. [Alameda Public Financing Authority] Three resolutions are provided, one for each governing body to consider, which will accomplish refinancing Series 2000B Certificates of Participation to finance the telecom system infrastructure. It is proposed that Bond Anticipation Notes be issued with a principal repayment date of March 1, 2009. It is projected by FY 2008 that cash flow from the Telecom system will be sufficient to meet the repayment date. ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR 3 -A Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute a ten year lease for Hangar 21 with St. George Spirits, Inc. It is recommended that the ARRA Board authorize the Executive Director to enter into a 10 -year lease with St. George Spirits, Inc. for Hangar 21 at Alameda Point. CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Presentation by the Bay Area Commuters for Transportation Solutions on the Regional Measure 2, which will be on the March 2, 2004 ballot. (Related to Agenda Item #4 -I) At this time, Bay Area Commuters for Transportation Solutions will make a presentation seeking support for Regional Measure 2 which will appear on the March 2, 2004 ballot. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers February 9, 2004 3 -B. Proclamation recognizing Toastmasters International's 80th anniversary and declaring the week of February 21 -28, 2004 as Toastmasters Week in the City of Alameda. At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation recognizing Toastmasters International's 80th anniversary and declaring the week of February 21 -28, 2004 as Toastmasters Week. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting held on January 27, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting held on January 28, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 3, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting held on January 27, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting held on January 28, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 3, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher and Burk for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 24, No. P.W. 07- 03 -14, and allocate $185,000 from Traffic Congestion Relief Funds for the project. It is recommended that Council accept the work of Gallagher and Burk for Phase 24 Street resurfacing and allocate $185,000 from the Traffic Congestion Relief Funds for this project. This allocation will allow Measure B funds to be utilized for other projects. 4 -C. Recommendation to terminate the Contract of Thomas D. Eychner Company, Inc. and approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. 08- 03 -16. Due to recent discoveries of concentrations of asbestos in the Linoaks building and projected high costs of mitigation, it is recommended that the contract with Thomas D. Eychner be terminated and the project for demolition be rebid. 4 -D. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending December 31, 2003, including approval of midyear adjustments; and The Quarterly Financial Report has been presented for the period ending December 31, 2003. The report shows revenues received to date for all funds and associated expenditures. The status of all funds can be found on Exhibit C, pages 39 -41. As Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 5 Councilmembers February 9, 2004 noted, the mid -year adjustments are necessary as a result of the State taking money through the VLF backfill and realignment of VLF to the County will be accommodated from Operating reserves and undesignated reserves. • Recommendation to amend Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program to include additional projects. In conjunction with the Mid -Year Adjustments, it is recommended that Council approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 03 -04 Capital Improvement Program, including additional projects and funds. These adjustments do not impact the general fund. 4 -E. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2003. The Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending December 31, 2003 has been presented for approval. The report shows total investments of $100,970,040, along with various interest rates and yields. The average rate of return is 2.18% and the projected General Fund interest income for FY 03 -04 is $1,600,000. 4 -F. Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment Policy. In accordance with the State Government Code, the City's Investment Policy is presented for Council's annual review and approval. As noted, there has been one minor change in language in Section VI (E). 4 -G. Recommendation to name the Ball Field in Lower Washington Park in memory of former Recreation and Parks Commissioner, Toby Chavez. It is recommended that Council name the ball field in Lower Washington Park in memory of former Recreation and Parks Commissioner Toby Chavez based on his tireless dedication to our community and its recreational programs. 4 -H. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to Execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties. It is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to execute an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties for redevelopment of the Ballena Isle Marina as fully described in the report provided. 4 -I. Adoption of Resolution in Support of Regional Measure 2, Regional Traffic Relief Plan. [Related to Agenda Item # 3 -A] Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 6 Councilmembers February 9, 2004 This resolution supports Regional Measure 2 Traffic Relief Plan which comes before the voters on March 2, 2004. 4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Four (4) Vehicles Using the State of California Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. This resolution approves the purchase of four vehicles using the State of California competitive bid award procedure. This purchase was included in the approved 2003 -04 budget appropriations. 4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 84 -2. This resolution appoints the City Engineer and City Attorney as engineer of work and attorney for the Island City Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 84 -2. 4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Maintenance District 01 -1. This resolution appoints the City Engineer and City Attorney as engineer of work and attorney for the Maintenance District 01 -1. 4 -M. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Nancy Gormley as a Member of the Housing Commission. This resolution appoints Nancy Gormley to the Housing Commission. 5 -B. Recommendation to send a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 744. [Councilmember Kerr] It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to send a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 744. If approved, this bill would allow an appeal of local land use decisions to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, taking local control away from cities. 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Support for Alameda Unified School District Measure C - School Repair Measure. [Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese.] Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 7 Councilmembers February 9, 2004 At the request of Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese, this resolution supporting the School District's Measure C bond issuance scheduled to appear on the March 2nd ballot has been presented for approval. 5 -D. Adoption of Resolution Supporting a Statewide Ballot Initiative to Require Voter Approval Before State Government May Take Local Tax Funds. This resolution supports a State -wide Ballot Initiative which would require voters to decide whether or not the State could take, confiscate, shift, divert or otherwise use funds earmarked for cities for State operations. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board. At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Planning Board. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2004 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:43 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson. Absent: None. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Daysog moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Kerr seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Community Improvement Commission and the Board of Commissioner meeting held November 18, 2003. Minutes were accepted. *2 -B. Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held December 16, 2003. Minutes were accepted. *2 -C. Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2003. The audit report for the year ending June 30, 2003 was accepted. *2 -D. Recommending Approval of Cycle Painting Contract. The Board of Commissioners authorized the Executive Director to enter into a contract with B ella P ainting i n t he amount of $88,820. 3. AGENDA None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Minutes # 2 -A (HABOC) 2 -17 -04 Minutes of February 3, 2004 Special Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 2 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Beverly Johnson, Chair Attest: Michael T. Pucci Executive Director / Secretary Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 Date: February 6, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Approving Refinancing Plan for Complexes Background: On November 18, 2003, the Housing Commission's recommendation to authorize the refinancing of Parrot Village, Eagle Village, and China Clipper Plaza was presented to the Board of Commissioners and the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) in a joint meeting. The recommendation was to enter into an agreement with the CIC for a new loan of up to $6 million and to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute all documents related to this transaction. The Board requested additional information before making a final decision. The Housing Commission received additional information at its meeting on January 21, 2004, and has reconfirmed its recommendation. Discussion: Staff has explored several other options for refinancing in addition to a loan from the CIC. The options are: 1. Fixed Rate Loan from a private lender. 2. Adjustable Rate Loan from a private lender. 3. Housing Authority- issued Bonds. 4. Housing Authority- issued Bonds backed by the CIC and /or City. 5. CIC and Housing Authority Shared bond issuance. 6. Loan from City's General Fund. 7. Loan from the CIC (original recommendation). Staff will make a presentation to the Board of Commissioners explaining the advantages and disadvantages of each of the options. Report # 3 -A (HABOC) 2 -17 -04 "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service " Honorable Chair and Members February 6, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 3 Fiscal Impact: Option 1: Up front costs such as appraisals, title insurance, legal and loan fees could be as high as $120,000. The interest rate would be about 6.75 percent with a 30 -year term. Savings would total nearly $89,000 per year. Option 2: Up front costs, as mentioned above, would be $120,000. The loan rate would have a floor of 4.05 percent, but is adjustable, indexed to the prime rate (- 1.75 %). There is no ceiling rate. Reviewing the history of the prime rate, the interest rate could rise to about 10 percent. The loan would be amortized over 25 years, but would have a 15 -year term. The result would be a balloon payment at the end of 15 years of more than $3 million, which would likely have to be refinanced. Savings could be as high as $175,000, but if interest rates rose, the savings could disappear and a cost could be involved. This option could make budgeting more difficult. This loan would be from a smaller private lender and they are reluctant to make this large of a loan. Option 3: Up front costs of the bond issuance would be around $250,000. The interest rate would be about 5.5 percent. Annual savings would be $139,000. Option 4: Up front costs would be around $250,000. Interest rate would be about 5 percent for a total annual savings of $163,800. Option 5: There would be lower up front costs than the options mentioned above as the Housing Authority's costs would be pro -rated with the entire costs of the CIC's bond issuance. Bond issuance would be contingent upon obtaining bond insurance. Interest would be about 5 percent, the same as Option 4. Because the up front cost is lower, the annual savings would increase to about $174,000. Option 6: There would be no up front costs and the interest rate could be indexed to one of the investment programs in which the City currently invests funds from the General Fund. A minimum and maximum interest rate would be established to assure that the City would get a reasonable rate of return on its investment and the Housing Authority would still be paying an affordable interest rate. The annual savings for the Housing Authority would vary with the interest rate, but could be as high as $288,000 or as low as $116,000. Budgeting would be somewhat more complicated with a varying rate, but the savings make this option advantageous. Option 7: There would be no upfront costs as the bonds have already been issued. The City could charge a fraction of a percent higher than the actual interest rate to assure all future costs are covered. It is anticipated that the interest rate Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Honorable Chair and Members February 6, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 3 would be 5 percent. The Housing Authority would reduce its monthly operating costs by $14,900 ($178,800 per year). Option 7, a loan from the CIC to the Housing Authority, would be beneficial financially to the Housing Authority and the City of Alameda. Because of the annual savings to the Housing Authority, funds would continually be available to make improvements to the three complexes. Such improvements ensure the continued viability of these complexes thus meeting the affordable housing needs of many Alameda residents for several more years. The City of Alameda and CIC would benefit from this loan arrangement. The Housing Authority would be making monthly loan payments of $32,209 per month or $386,508 per year. This would be a reliable cash flow to the CIC. Over 30 years, this income source would bring in $11,595,240 from an initial investment of $6,000,000. The money would be unrestricted and could be used for any purpose, including redevelopment projects that might result in additional income for the City of Alameda. Recommendation: The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1. Refinance the Bonds and notes for Parrot Village, Eagle Village, and China Clipper Plaza; 2. Enter into an agreementwith the Community Improvement Commission for a loan or loans totaling no more than $6 million for these three housing complexes; and 3. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute all documents related to this transaction. Respectfully sub MTP:caw u:IBOC reportslrefi plan Michael T. ' ucci Executive Director * Agreement is on file with the City Clerk. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 February 10, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer Subject: Recommending Pursuit of Additional Federal Funding for Housing Assistance Payments Background: The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program provides housing subsidies for eligible residents in the private market place. Funding for this program comes from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Under an Annual Contributions Contract (ACC), HUD authorizes housing authorities to enter into subsidy contracts called Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts, for a specific number of units called a baseline. To achieve 100 percent utilization of their allocations, housing authorities generally overlease or enter into more HAP contracts than the authorized baseline to offset those months when it can be anticipated that it will be underleased. HUD has funded housing authorities, which overleased in the short term, as long as it stayed within its ACC funding limits for the fiscal year. In previous years, HUD has encouraged housing authorities to overlease and to reserve funds to cover the overage. The Housing Authority was significantly underleased for about two years. Housing market conditions during 2000 and 2001 made it very difficult for families issued vouchers to locate units within the allowable rent limits. As you will recall, housing prices and rents had increased dramatically in Alameda; indeed throughout the Bay Area. The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda was not immune to these market conditions. In February 2002, the Authority had less than 1300 vouchers under contract, more than 325 Tess than its voucher allocation baseline of 1625. If a housing authority falls more than 5 percent under its baseline, it risks losing a portion of its allocation. In addition, because the Housing Authority was underleased, it did not use all of the available funds under the ACC. These funds went into a project reserve account. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, HUD recaptured over $4 million of these reserves. It was imperative, therefore, to increase the lease up rate, thus achieving full utilization of its allocation. The Housing Authority issued a large number of vouchers and, over several months, contracts were signed as market conditions changed. In April 2003, there were 1680 Report # 3 -B (HABOC) 2 -17 -04 "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service " Honorable Chair and Members February 10, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 4 vouchers under contract, compared to 1364 in July 2002. By May 2003, the number increased to 1770. By using this overleasing strategy, the Housing Authority was successful in ending last fiscal year at 98 percent utilization of its voucher allocation. The success of this effort resulted in HUD declaring the Housing Authority a "High Performer," a status that would not have been achieved without increasing the number of units under contract. Discussion: At the beginning of this fiscal year, the Housing Authority was overleased by 138 vouchers. With turnover ranging from 25 to 45 vouchers per month, the Housing Authority had projected being close to 100 percent utilization at the end of this fiscal year. Unfortunately, the turnover rate has dropped. In addition, voucher holders who were issued vouchers last year leased up in this fiscal year. The latest projection shows that the Housing Authority will be overleased at the end of the fiscal year. In prior years, HUD would have covered the Authority's cost for this temporary overleased status through the use of project reserves. There is language in the FY2003 VA -HUD Appropriations bill that HUD is interpreting as a prohibition on overleasing. Though this Housing Authority, housing authorities throughout the nation, and many governors and legislators have expressed concern about this interpretation, it appears that HUD intends to implement a prohibition against short-term overleasing, the long- standing practice that has been used effectively for many years to achieve maximum utilization of voucher allocations. In addition, HUD did not replenish our project reserve account last year with pre -2003 fiscal year funds; therefore, we also started the year without any funds in our reserve account in essence removing our safety net. This prohibition on overleasing means that the Housing Authority could be liable for as much as $1.2 million in Housing Assistance Payments (HAP). The alternatives to paying for this shortfall with Housing Authority funds are: 1. Obtain HUD commitment to fund the overleasing with pre- FY2003 funds; 2. Temporarily transferring unused Section 8 Vouchers from another housing authority to the Alameda Housing Authority; or 3. Terminating Housing Assistance Payment contracts with landlords. Staff has contacted HUD's local and central offices requesting funding assistance. The central office has been in communication with staff requesting additional information and has suggested that HUD may be willing to provide some assistance but may require that the Housing Authority use all or some of its Administrative Fee reserves. HUD pays the Housing Authority an administrative fee for operating the Section 8 Program. If the Authority is efficient and does not spend all of the funds provided by HUD during the fiscal year, the funds left over go into this reserve. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members February 10, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 4 As of the date of this report, staff has not yet received a commitment from HUD as to how much additional funds it will appropriate for overleasing and how much administrative fee reserves we may need to budget to make up for any shortfall. It is hoped that more information will be received before the Board of Commissioners meeting. Staff has been working with the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) on this issue. NAHRO is aware of approximately 200 other housing authorities across the nation in the same predicament. NAHRO also believes that HUD has discretionary funds that could be used to accommodate the temporary over - leasing situation experienced by so many housing authorities. NAHRO is also tracking Section 8 Voucher usage in other jurisdictions and staff, with the assistance of NAHRO, will be contracting those other Housing Authorities to see if they are willing to enter into Memorandums of Understanding to transfer their ACC and budget authority to our Housing Authority for a period of up to one year until our leasing rate goes back to the baseline level of 1,625 vouchers. If neither of the first two alternatives occur, it may become necessary for the Housing Authority to terminate Housing Assistance Payment contracts. Because HUD counts the number of HAP contracts by fiscal year, the Housing Authority would have to reduce the number of contracts in the last three months of the year in order not to be overleased and overdrawn on its ACC funding at year's end. About 480 contracts will have to be terminated effective April 1, 2004, resulting in the Housing Authority ending the current fiscal year with about 1250 vouchers under contract. That means that effective July 1, 2004, in order to be fully leased again, the Housing Authority would re -lease up almost 375 vouchers holders who would lose assistance if terminations become necessary. The remaining voucher holders will be re- leased up as openings occur due to turnover. Should this route need to be taken, notices would need to be sent 30 days in advance of the April 1, 2004, termination or no later than March 1, 2004, to tenants and landlords. The effect on the tenants would be immediate lease terminations but not necessarily terminations of their tenancies. Staff feels that a combination of all three alternatives could occur, including use of Section 8 Administrative fee reserves to prevent some or all Housing Assistance Payment Contract terminations. Fiscal Impact It is most likely that HUD will fund a portion of the $1.2 million shortfall. The Housing Authority soon hopes to know exactly how much HUD will fund and how much HUD may expect the Housing Authority to use of its administrative fee reserves. These reserves can be used for Section 8- related expenditures and any "other housing related Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members February 10, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 4 of 4 purposes;" however, HUD also is proposing to put restrictions on these reserves. Most of the Housing Authority's other operating reserves are restricted. For instance, Esperanza has approximately $400,000 in operating reserves, but these funds can only be used at Esperanza. Currently, a budget amendment proposal is being prepared. If the Board approves the recommendation outlined below, the relevant amounts will be included in the proposed revised budget for the current fiscal year. Recommendation: The Chief Executive Officer recommends that the Board of Commissioners authorize the Housing Authority to continue its aggressive pursuit of additional federal funding and or a transfer of additional Section 8 Vouchers to prevent termination of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments contracts and, if additional funds are needed, to amend the Housing Authority's budget as appropriate. Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:ED C:Imy docstreserve fund expenditure2 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 3, 2004- -6:50 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Theatre; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Cocores Development Company; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing from Real Property Negotiator. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission February 3, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 3, 2004- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Gilmore led the pledge. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson -5. Absent: None. MINUTES (04- ) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of January 20, 2004. Commissioner Kerr moved approval of the minutes. Commission Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr and Matarrese - 4. Abstention: Chair Johnson - 1. AGENDA ITEM (04- ) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend a Contract with Architectural Resources Group to provide remaining pre - planning services for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theatre. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission February 3, 2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: February 4, 2004 Subject: Public Hearing to consider proposal for redevelopment of property bounded by Park Street, Eagle Avenue, and Clement Avenue, including Ron Goode Toyota proposal, and selection of a master developer for the site BACKGROUND Purpose of this Report The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "CIC ") has received a proposal from Ron Goode Toyota ( "Ron Goode ") for the development of an expanded automobile dealership within a portion of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ("BWIP"). A master redevelopment effort of the entire block would help achieve the objectives of the BWIP plan, including eliminating blight within the project area and, in particular, along Park Street. Consistent with applicable redevelopment laws and the CIC's policies, including owner participation policy, the CIC reviews all proposals, considers all testimony, determines suitability of site for redevelopment by a master developer and, assuming the site is determined to be suitable for such redevelopment, selects a master developer for the site. The purpose of this report is to review the Ron Goode proposal and all other proposals and to consider authorizing and directing the Executive Director to negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") with the selected master developer. Ron Goode Project Description Ron Goode has hired an architect to prepare a site plan for expanding its current Alameda facilities at Park and Clement. These expansion plans include: • Demolishing the current showroom and building a smaller showroom (approximately 6,480 square feet) at the rear of the property; • Acquiring the John Patrick's bar property that separates Ron Goode's new and used car lots; and • Acquiring property from an adjacent business on Eagle Avenue (Rideable Bicycle Replicas) to increase the size of the sales lot. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #1 (CIC) 2 -17 -04 Honorable Chair and February 4, 2004 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 The goal of this expansion plan is to create a sales facility that will meet the Toyota USA requirement of 300 auto sales per month. Recently, Ron Goode has also added the Toyota Scion brand as part of its auto dealership, further increasing its sales potential. Description of Other Proposed Projects To date, no other development proposals have been submitted. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Hearing Notification The City notified, in writing via certified mail on January 21, 2004, the three owners and occupants of real property within the proposed project area: (1) Advising them that CIC has received from Ron Goode a proposal to assemble and redevelop the various parcels comprising the site and that CIC intends to consider the Ron Goode proposal and any other redevelopment proposals that might be submitted at its meeting on February 17; (2) Inviting them to submit their own proposals and/or to attend the February 17 meeting and comment upon the Ron Goode proposal; and (3) Setting forth the criteria that CIC will use as a basis for reviewing redevelopment proposals and selecting a master developer. The three property owners within the proposed project area are: Leonard Goode of Ron Goode Toyota; Gregory Barron of Rideable Bicycle Replicas; and John P. Thornton of John Patrick's. To date, no proposals have been submitted besides the one by Ron Goode. The criteria for selection of a development proposal include: • The nature and quality of the proposed development; • The financial capability of the prospective developer; • The technical and professional quality of the prospective development team; and • The record of experience of the prospective developer. The City also mailed notices on January 21, 2004 to the 80 owners of record and 42 businesses within the immediate vicinity of Ron Goode and will publish a legal public hearing notice in the Alameda Journal on February 6, 2004. Immediate Next Steps After Master Developer Selection: 1. CIC directs the Executive Director to negotiate a DDA with the selected master developer for the site. 2. Commence preparation of appropriate CEQA documents. 3. Finalize and approve DDA with the master developer. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\Eric\Ron Goode Toyota\rongoodetoyotastaff report 2- 17- 04_1.DOC F: CP /Ron Goode Toyota Expansion/Staff Reports Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission February 4, 2004 Page 3 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS BASED ON THE SELECTION CRITERIA Ron Goode Proposal: • Nature and Quality of Proposed Development — The proposed site plans include Toyota USA's corporate design guidelines aimed to make best use of space for future auto sales. The new, smaller showroom will be set back at the rear of the property, allowing the dealership to display its inventory in front along Park Street. Also, the new showroom, which will replace the existing 40- year -old building, will have contemporary, high -tech features such as computer kiosks for customers to select and customize their auto purchases. • Financial Capability and Record of Experience of the Prospective Development Team - Ron Goode is a long -time and highly valued community business, consistently being one of the City of Alameda's leading sales tax generators. It currently ranks #22 in northern California Toyota dealerships in gross sales. During its recent year- ending "Toyota - thon," Ron Goode sold 114 cars in 10 days. • Technical and Professional Quality of Prospective Development Team — Ron Goode has hired the architectural firm Avanessian and Associates to design the new sales facility. Avanessian and Associates has been in practice over 35 years, specializing in auto retail facilities in the western United States. In the past several years, it has designed over 100 auto facilities, working successfully with local redevelopment agencies in the cities of San Francisco, San Leandro, and Chula Vista. Other Proposals: To date, no other development proposals have been submitted. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The financial impacts would depend upon the specific terms of a possible DDA with the selected master developer. Ron Goode Proposal: The redevelopment of the site will generate new property tax increment revenues that the CIC may use to implement the BWIP plan. Other Proposals: No other development proposals have yet to be submitted. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\Eric\Ron Goode Toyota\rongoodetoyotastaff report 2- 17- 04_1.DOC F: CP /Ron Goode Toyota Expansion/Staff Reports Honorable Chair and February 4, 2004 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 RECOMMENDATION 1. Select Ron Goode as the master developer for the site. 2. Authorize the Executive Director to draft and negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement with Ron Goode. JMF/PB/MJF /EF:ry Respectfully subm Paul Benoit Development Services Directo By: Marc J. Fontes Business Development Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\Eric\Ron Goode Toyota\rongoodetoyotastaff report 2- 17- 04_1.DOC F: CP /Ron Goode Toyota Expansion /Staff Reports City of Alameda Inter- Office Memorandum Date: February 6, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and Alameda Public Financing Authority From: James M. Flint City Manager Subject: Approve and Authorize the Negotiation, Execution and Delivery of Amendments and Agreements Including Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes BACKGROUND In January 2000, the City Council authorized the issuance of not to exceed $20.5 million of financing for the purposes of constructing Telecom system infrastructure. In the final analysis, Series 2000B Certificates of Participation not to exceed $16 million were authorized in support of a construction draw -down loan provided by CBL Capital Corporation (Citibank Leasing) and guaranteed by Vectren Corp. A key requirement of this financing was repayment of principal no later than May 31, 2004. The required repayment date necessitates this refinancing. In addition, since assuming responsibility for the build out of the Telecom system, acquiring funding to meet that responsibility is an additional financing requirement. Of the proposed approximate $33 million financing, $7 million is "new" money with $2.2 million to be provided by General Fund Reserves. The remaining $28.2 million refinances Series 2000B and provides for capitalized interest during the 5 year term. To contrast this financing with other issues that have been recommended to the City Council for approval, staff reviewed previously approved NCPA financings. Alameda's share of the original Geothermal financing was $106 million in 1984; the original Hydroelectric financing was $62 million in 1985; the original Combustion Turbine Project was $8.8 million in 1984; and the Geothermal Public Power Line was $10.9 million in 1985. Local issues recommended to the City Council include $30 million in 2000 for the purpose of funding stranded costs ( "out of market" generation projects) and $9.5 million in 2000 for the purpose of refinancing $4 million for construction of the Service Center building and $5.5 million for Bay Farm Island Feeder extension and Upgrades to the Alameda Point Electric Distribution System. DISCUSSION Staff has been meeting and working with Nixon Peabody (Bond Counsel) and Stone & Youngberg (Underwriters), to develop the financing plan structure and documents. Uptown Services, LLC prepared the due diligence report required by Stone & Youngberg. Bond Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Special Meeting Council, APIC & APFA Resolutions #1 -A, B & C 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor & Council APIC and APFA February 6, 2004 Page 2 Counsel, Underwriters and staff have concurred that Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes (the "Notes ") and the Installment Sale Agreement is the best available structure to meet this need consistent with current policies. The following are documents required for this issue (the documents are available in the City Clerk's office): 1. Preliminary Official Statement 2. Installment Sale Agreement 3. Indenture 4. Continuing Disclosure Certificate 5. Note Purchase Agreement The Preliminary Official Statement (POS) is the document that describes to investors the nature and purpose of the debt instrument being offered for sale. It summarizes the conditions of the sale and all of the pertinent documents. The POS also includes a description of the City of Alameda and Alameda Power & Telecom (Alameda P &T), its management and financial standing. The project being financed and its effect on the financial future of the organization is also discussed. As investors rely on this document, risks associated with the project must also be disclosed. This document and its contents are required with each public offering. After the final review by the Board, and any last minute, non - substantive changes, the document is issued as an Official Statement, which is used in the sale of the Notes. The POS outlines the security for the payment of the Notes and the continuing disclosure requirement. The latter is already being met for other issues. As a consequence, there is no significant new administrative burden. The remaining documents deal with instructions to the trustee regarding the handling of bond proceeds; agreements with Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and the Alameda Public Financing Authority regarding the sale and conveyance of the system as security for the issuance of the Notes; and, Alameda P &T's agreement to provide audited financial reports as required by law. Stone & Youngberg commissioned a due diligence report to be prepared by Uptown Services, LLC, during 2003. The report validates a positive cash position by FY2007 thus supporting a Revenue Bond issue to retire the current financing in FY2009. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The Bond Anticipation Notes have no principal payments due during the short, five -year term of the Notes. All interest will be capitalized (pre- funded), and repayment of the principal of the Notes is to occur through issuance of a Revenue Bond prior to March 2009. It is not anticipated that the Notes will be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their March 1, 2009 maturity Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor & Council APIC and APFA February 6, 2004 Page 3 date. The cash flow projections validated by Uptown Services indicate sufficient cash flow by FY 2008 to support a Telecom system revenue -based debt repayment financing; however, investors in the Notes will be advised of the risks inherent in any projections or forecasts. RECOMMENDATION By resolution, Approve, Authorize and Direct the Negotiation, Execution and Delivery of Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction, financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic - Coaxial Broadband Telecom System, including Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes Secured by Installment Sale Payments to be Delivered in Consideration of Such Amendments and Agreements, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. The consequences of delaying approval will result in the delay of the refinancing of the Series 2000B Certificates of Participation ($16,000,000). JF /JAJ /jab cc: Public Utilities Board Members Division Managers Respectfully submitted, Junona A. Jonas General Manager, Alameda Power & Telecom Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ACTION AND AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION, EXECUTION, SALE AND DELIVERY OF CERTAIN REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION INSTALLMENT SALE FINANCING DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED IN CONNECTION WITH AMENDMENTS AND AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION OF THE CITYWIDE HYBRID FIBER OPTIC - COAXIAL BROADBAND TELECOM SYSTEM, AND AUTHORIZING, RATIFYING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom (being the City of Alameda (the "City"), acting by and through its Bureau of Electricity, or "Alameda P &T "), has authorized the acquisition, construction, development, financing and operation of a citywide hybrid fiber optic - coaxial broadband telecom system (the "Telecom System ") pursuant to resolutions including, without limitation, Resolution No. 4110 of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Alameda (the "Public Utilities Board "), adopted December 13, 1999, and Resolution No. 4517 of the Public Utilities Board, adopted January 24, 2002 (collectively, the "Prior Board Resolutions "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Prior Board Resolutions, Alameda P &T arranged for the financing of the Telecom System, in part through the sale and delivery of two series of certificates of participation in installment sale agreements as set forth therein (the "Prior Sale Agreements "), as approved by the City under City of Alameda Resolution No. 13175, adopted January 18, 2000, and City of Alameda Resolution No. 13431, adopted January 22, 2002 (collectively, the "Prior Council Resolutions "); and WHEREAS, the City has heretofore granted Alameda P &T a franchise to build and operate the Telecom System, which among other things requires that the Telecom System serve the entire area of the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the continued development, construction and operation of the Telecom System, and the repayment and refinancing of certain obligations due on or before May 31, 2004, as and to the extent provided under the Prior Sale Agreements, and in anticipation of the completion of the Telecom System in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Sale Agreements and agreements referred to therein, and the ultimate refinancing of the Telecom System based on future net operating revenues available from the ownership and operation of the Telecom System, Alameda P &T has (a) authorized the negotiation, execution, sale and delivery of revenue bond anticipation notes (the "Series 2004 Notes ") payable from an installment sale agreement in an initial aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $33,000,000 and (b) requested advances from the proceeds of outstanding bonds constituting loan repayments to the City's general fund which are required to be expended for eligible capital projects of the City, in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $2,200,000 (the "Advances "); and WHEREAS, the Series 2004 Notes and the Advances, together with obligations under or in connection with the Prior Sale Agreements which are permitted to remain outstanding after Resolution # 1 -A (City Council) 2 -17 -04 May 31, 2004, are to be repaid in accordance with their terms from any or all of the following sources: (a) the proceeds of obligations which may be issued or incurred in whole or in part for the purpose of refinancing the Telecom System, (b) available revenues from the operation of the Telecom System or (c) proceeds of any sale, lease, transfer or other disposition of the Telecom System or any portion thereof which may hereafter be authorized by the Public Utilities Board with the approval of the City; and WHEREAS, prior to the date hereof the Public Utilities Board adopted its Resolution No. 4600 (the "2004 Board Resolution ") approving, authorizing and directing the negotiation, execution, sale and delivery of the Series 2004 Notes and the incurring of the Advances and all agreements, documents and instruments related thereto, and declared official intent to reimburse certain expenditures of the Telecom System from the proceeds thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby ORDERS and DETERMINES that the actions taken by the Public Utilities Board, as evidenced in the 2004 Board Resolution, be and they are hereby, ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by this City Council. 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 meeting assembled on the 17th day of February, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _ day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE NEGOTIATION, EXECUTION, SALE AND DELIVERY OF CERTAIN REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION INSTALLMENT SALE FINANCING DOCUMENTS WITH ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM (AS THE BUREAU OF ELECTRICITY ACTING BY AND FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA) TO BE DELIVERED IN CONNECTION WITH AMENDMENTS AND AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION OF THE CITYWIDE HYBRID FIBER OPTIC- COAXIAL BROADBAND TELECOM SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom (being the City of Alameda (the "City"), acting by and through its Bureau of Electricity, or "Alameda P &T "), working together with the Alameda Public Improvement Corporation ( "APIC ") and the Alameda Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") has authorized the acquisition, construction, development, financing and operation of a citywide hybrid fiber optic - coaxial broadband telecom system (the "Telecom System ") pursuant to resolutions including, without limitation, Resolution No. 2000 -9 of APIC adopted January 18, 2000 (the "Prior Resolution "); and cc WHEREAS, pursuant to the Prior Resolution, APIC assisted Alameda P &T in arranging 0 for the financing of the Telecom System, in part through the sale and delivery of certificates of participation in installment payments as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, the City has heretofore granted Alameda P &T a franchise to build and Systm 0 � v I— operate the entire the Telecom the Citye and loch among other things requires that the Telecom System serve WHEREAS, in connection with the continued development, construction and operation of the Telecom System, and the repayment and refmancing of certain obligations due on or before May 31, 2004, as and to the extent heretofore provided, and in anticipation of the completion of the Telecom System and the ultimate refinancing of the Telecom System based on future net operating revenues available from the ownership and operation of the Telecom System, Alameda P &T, working together with APIC and the Authority, proposes that (a) the Authority negotiate, execute, sell and deliver revenue bond anticipation notes (the "Series 2004 Notes ") payable from an installment sale agreement by and between APIC and Alameda P &T in an initial aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $33,000,000, and (b) to obtain advances from the proceeds of outstanding bonds constituting loan repayments to the City's general fund which are required to be expended for eligible capital projects of the City in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $2,200,000 (the "Advances "); and WHEREAS, the Series 2004 Notes and the Advances, together with obligations under or in connection with the Telecom System which are permitted to remain outstanding after May 31, 2004, are to be repaid in accordance with their terms from any or all of the following sources: (a) the proceeds of obligations which may be issued or incurred in whole or in part for the Resolution # 1 -B (APIC) 2 -17 -04 purpose of refinancing the Telecom System, (b) available revenues from the operation of the Telecom System or (c) proceeds of any sale, lease, transfer or other disposition of the Telecom System or any portion thereof which may hereafter be authorized by Alameda P &T with the approval of the City; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that Alameda P &T, working with the Authority and APIC, authorizes and directs the negotiation, execution and delivery of the Series 2004 Notes and the Installment Sale Agreement and certain other financing documents and Telecom System amendments and agreements in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Directors of the Alameda Public Improvement Corporation hereby ORDERS AND DETERMINES as follows: SECTION 1. This Board hereby finds and determines, on the basis of feasibility studies, market analysis, experience gained by Alameda P &T through the development, construction and operation of the Telecom System to date, customer acceptance of services of the Telecom System in areas in which the Telecom System is currently operational and other information made available to it, that it is in the public interest for APIC to assist Alameda P &T and the Authority in connection with the negotiation, execution and delivery of such amendments and agreements, including without limitation the Series 2004 Notes and the related installment sale agreement, in order to provide for the continued development, construction, financing and operation of the Telecom System. SECTION 2. The President of this Board, the Executive Director, Treasurer and all other appropriate officials of APIC are hereby authorized and directed, subject to the limitations hereinabove recited, to execute such other agreements, documents and certificates as may be necessary to effect the purposes of this resolution and the financing herein authorized. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption by this Board. 2 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Board of the Alameda Public Improvement Corporation at a joint meeting of APIC, the City Council of the City of Alameda and the Alameda Public Financing Authority assembled on the 17th day of February, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, Secretary Alameda Public Improvement Corporation 3 ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE NEGOTIATION, ISSUANCE, EXE- CUTION, SALE AND DELIVERY OF SERIES 2004 REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES (ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM) AND RELATED AGREEMENTS AND IN- STRUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED IN CONNECTION WITH AMENDMENTS AND AGREEMENTS RELATED TO THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION OF THE CITYWIDE HYBRID FIBER OPTIC - COAXIAL BROADBAND TELECOM SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO RESOLVED, by the Alameda Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"), as follows: WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom (being the City of Alameda (the "City"), acting >- by and through its Bureau of Electricity, or "Alameda P &T "), working together with the Ala- meda Public Improvement Corporation ( "APIC ") has authorized the acquisition, construction, o *r " development, financing and operation of a citywide hybrid fiber optic - coaxial broadband telecom cn system (the "Telecom System "); and WHEREAS, APIC assisted Alameda P &T in arranging for the financing of the Telecom NSystem, in part through the sale and delivery of certificates of participation in installment pay- - ments; and WHEREAS, the City has heretofore granted Alameda P &T a franchise to build and oper- ate the Telecom System, which among other things requires that the Telecom System serve the entire area of the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the continued development, construction and operation of the Telecom System, and the repayment and refinancing of certain obligations due on or be- fore May 31, 2004, as and to the extent heretofore provided, and in anticipation of the comple- tion of the Telecom System and the ultimate refinancing of the Telecom System based on future net operating revenues available from the ownership and operation of the Telecom System, Ala- meda P &T, working together with APIC and the Authority, proposes that (a) the Authority nego- tiate,, execute, sell and deliver revenue bond anticipation notes (the "Series 2004 Notes ") payable from an installment sale agreement by and between APIC and Alameda P &T in an initial aggre- gate principal amount of not to exceed $33,000,000, and (b) to obtain advances from the pro- ceeds of outstanding bonds constituting loan repayments to the City's general fund which are required to be expended for eligible capital projects of the City in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $2,200,000 (the "Advances "); and WHEREAS, the Series 2004 Notes and the Advances, together with obligations under or in connection with the Telecom System which are permitted to remain outstanding after May 31, 2004, are to be repaid in accordance with their terms from any or all of the following sources: (a) the proceeds of obligations which may be issued or incurred in whole or in part for the pur- Resolution # 1 -C (APFA) 2 -17 -04 pose of refinancing the Telecom System, (b) available revenues from the operation of the Tele- com System or (c) proceeds of any sale, lease, transfer or other disposition of the Telecom Sys- tem or any portion thereof which may hereafter be authorized by Alameda P &T with the ap- proval of the City; and WHEREAS, the City and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Ala- meda (the "CIC ") have heretofore entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, establish- ing the Authority for the purpose, among others, of providing financial assistance to the CIC and the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to assist the City and Alameda P &T with the forego- ing measures by issuing the Series 2004 Notes and selling them to Stone & Youngberg LLC as underwriter of the Series 2004 Notes (the "Underwriter "); and WHEREAS, the Authority has duly considered all of the foregoing transactions and wishes at this time to approve said transactions and the documents to which the Authority is a party related thereto, in the public interests and in furtherance of the public purposes of the Au- thority. Now, THEREFORE, THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: Section 1. Approval of Purchase and Sale of Series 2004 Notes, Note Purchase Con- tract and Related Documents. The Authority hereby authorizes and approves the issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2004 Notes to the Underwriter pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of a Note Purchase Contract by and among the Authority, Alameda P &T and the Un- derwriter (the "Note Purchase Contract "), so long as the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds does not exceed $33,000,000. The Authority hereby approves the Note Purchase Contract in the form on file with the Secretary. The Authority hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Di- rector to execute and deliver the Note Purchase Contract in such form, together with any changes therein or additions thereto deemed advisable by the Executive Director upon consultation with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel, the approval of such changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution of such document by the Authority. The Authority hereby authorizes the deliv- ery and performance by the Authority of the Note Purchase Contract, the Series 2004 Notes, the Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 2004, by and among the Authority, APIC, Alameda P &T and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, and such other documents, instruments, certificates and agreements as are contemplated thereby. Section 2. Official Actions. The Chairman, the Executive Director, the Treasurer, the Secretary and any and all other officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority, to do any and all things and take any and all ac- tions, including execution and delivery of any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of conveyance, warrants and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2004 Notes and all other transactions contemplated by this Resolution. 2 Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. * * * * * * ** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Alameda Public Financing Authority in a Joint City Council, Public Financing Authority and Alameda Public Improvement Corporation meeting assembled on the 17th day of February, 2004, 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 Authority this day of , 2004. LARA WEISIGER, SECRETARY ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 3 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum February 10, 2004 TO: Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: James M. Flint, Executive Director 3 -A SUBJ: Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Ten Year Lease for Hangar 21 with St. George Spirits, Inc. Background St. George Spirits is currently located in a 20,000 square foot facility within Rosenblum Cellars on Main St. in Alameda. St. George Spirits produces many products, including eau de vie, single malt, and Hangar One Vodka. They have recently experienced a ten -fold increase in sales necessitating a move to a larger space. Hangar 21 was formerly used by the Navy for aircraft maintenance and recently by Kitz Corporation for the manufacture of large valves for the electric and petrochemical industry. The ARRA Governing Body must approve this lease because the proposed lease term exceeds seven (7) years. Discussion In initial negotiations with Alameda Point Community Partners and ARRA staff, St. George requested a purchase option for Hangar 21. However, because the capital investment in this building will be small in comparison with AVTS and Bladium, who have purchase options, St. George Spirits' purchase option request was rejected. Instead, leasing staff offered a ten (10) year lease, with a right of first offer to purchase, which is consistent with the development plan for the property identifying long -term adaptive reuse of the building. In addition, Building 21 is located on the west hangar row of Alameda Point, bordering the wildlife refuge and in the historic district. Fiscal Impact The gross rental revenue to be generated over the ten -year term of the proposed lease with St. George Spirits is $3,940,560. The lease provides for reimbursement of a maximum of $30,000 to St. George Spirits to cover shell upgrades. The $30,000 reimbursement to St. George Spirits will be amortized over five years as credit against their rent. The net income from this lease over a ten -year period (after deducting rent credits) will be $3,910,560. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 10, 2004 Page 2 Recommendation The Executive Director recommends that the ARRA Governing Body authorize the Executive Director to enter into a ten (10) year lease for Hangar 21 with St. George Spirits. Respectfully submitted, Pau enoit Dep ty Executive Directo ./% By: Nanette Banks Finance & Administration Division Manager Attachment: Site Maps JMF/PB /dc a u 0 x n a 1 1 ta 71 to) IIl ;•I c I C l ID 524 m I' JJ v J \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \ \ \\\\\\\\J\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \of\ \ \ \ \ \ \y_f \ \ \ \ \ \ me \ \\N \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ S9r City of Alameda California TProc(amation rx ' Whereas, The original Toastmasters organization was founded by Dr. Ralph C. Smedley in 1924 realizing the importance of speaking more effectively and thereby creating an organization which would allow opportunities for practice and training of public speaking; and Whereas, Toastmasters International has assisted more than three million men and women in their community service activities using speaking and leadership skills to aid members in organizing activities, conducting meetings and speaking in public to represent their organization at the local, state and national levels; and Whereas, Toastmasters International's core values; integrity, dedication to excellence, service to the member, and respect for the individual; empower people to achieve their full potential and realize their dreams; and Whereas, Toastmasters International is the leading movement devoted to making effective oral communication a worldwide reality; and Whereas, Toastmasters International's mission is to provide a mutually supportive and positive learning environment to develop communication and leadership skills which in turn foster self - confidence and personal growth. Now, therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the week of February 21st through 28th, 2004 as Toastmasters International Week In the City of Alameda and congratulate Toastmasters International on their 80th Anniversary. With great pleasure, Alameda extends greetings and appreciation for the good work done on behalf of Toastmasters International members and their communities. Bev Office of the Mayor Mayo 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #320 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.4701 Office • Fax 510.747.4704 • TDD 510.522.7538 Proclamation #3 -B 2 -17 -04 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING TUESDAY- - JANUARY 27, 2004- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m. Public Utilities Board (PUB) President Lucas led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. PUB Members Baldassare, Bangert, Flint, McCormick and President Lucas - 5. Absent: None. Public Comment The following speakers addressed the Council /PUB urging the City to withdraw from the Trinity River lawsuit: Spreck Rosekrans, Environmental Defense; Tod Bedrosian, Hoopa Valley Tribe; Ann Hayden, Environmental Defense; Dr. Nancy Ryan, Environmental Defense; Doug Linney, Alameda; Kevin Finney, Alameda; Rebecca Holder, Alameda; William Smith, Sierra Club; Michael McWilliams, Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Nada Nanda, Friends of the Eel River; April Marshall, Alameda; Kevin Jordan, Alameda; Peter Lenhardt, Alameda; and John Raphael, Alameda. (04- ) Presentation on Trinity River by the Northern California Power Agency. Jane Cirrincoine, NCPA; Jeffrey Phipps, NCPA's consultant; Jerry Tenuis; and Dennis De Cuir, NCPA's General Counsel, gave a presentation and answered questions. (04- ) Report on Alameda Power and Telecom's Participation in Trinity River litigation. Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) staff gave a brief oral report. Councilmember Kerr stated that, although there is legal ability to have a closed session, the City of Palo Alto held its discussion in open session. Mayor Johnson requested that the City Attorney address the matter. The City Attorney stated the Brown Act provides the ability to adjourn to closed session; however, it is not an obligation; the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board January 27, 2004 1 Council /Board can choose whether to hear the matter in open or closed session. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff would give a further briefing in closed session. The City Attorney stated Mr. De Cuir would be available to address NCPA's legal strategy or chances of success. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the vote could be taken in public, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired how the voting should take place. The City Attorney responded the PUB is the NCPA member; the financial decision is whether to continue funding; the Council could render its opinion and the PUB could exercise its Charter obligation to make a decision regarding financing [the lawsuit]. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy decision should be made in public; with the exception of questions about the outcome of the case, the discussion and vote should be held in public. Mayor Johnson stated the role of the Council and PUB should be addressed. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the meeting was held for informational purposes; the PUB could make a recommendation to the City Council at a later time. The City Attorney stated the City Council makes policy; the PUB would make the financial decision about spending money to support NCPA; the PUB is the NCPA member and makes the financial decision under the Charter. Mayor Johnson stated the decision is whether the City will continue to be a party to the lawsuit. The City Attorney stated the Council is the policy- making body for the entire City under the Charter; however the Council's budget authority to direct the PUB is limited under the Charter; the Council should establish the policy for the City, which should be implemented by the PUB; the PUB passed the resolution to join NCPA in the 1960's and has the technical decision to withdraw [from the lawsuit]; further stated the PUB is obligated to follow Council policy. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board January 27, 2004 2 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the PUB's decision has to be consistent with policy set by the Council, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Board Member Baldassare stated the decision is whether AP &T will withdraw its financial support [of the lawsuit]; that he would like to address the matter in closed session. The City Manager inquired whether the Council is responsible for approving the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with NCAP. The City Attorney stated the JPA is signed by the President of the PUB and was authorized solely by the PUB. Mayor Johnson stated that said matter should be reviewed. Councilmember Kerr stated nothing is preventing the City Council from voting on a policy in open session. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the agenda allows the Council to take action. The City Attorney responded the Council can establish a policy pertaining to the Trinity River lawsuit; further stated that she would follow up on the directive to examine the legal protocol of having the PUB be the NCPA member. Mayor Johnson noted that Board Member Baldassare wished to adjourn to closed session. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Board Member Baldassare wished to address a legal issue. Board Member Baldassare stated that he brought the issue to the PUB to address whether financial support of the lawsuit should be continued. Board Member Lucas inquired whether the closed session was justified. Board Member Baldassare noted that the agenda included a closed session; inquired whether a vote would be needed on the matter. Board Member Bangert stated that he understood the meeting would be informational; NCPA made a policy decision; if Alameda disagrees with NCPA policies, it should be dealt with in NCPA Board meetings; the secondary agenda item is voting on the funding issue. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board January 27, 2004 3 Councilmember Matarrese noted NCPA does not make policy for the City of Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated NCPA making policies does not preclude the Alameda City Council from making policies or the PUB from making a decision. The City Attorney stated nothing prevents the City Council from establishing policy tonight, even if the PUB wants to address the matter at a later time. Councilmember Kerr noted that the Brown Act does not permit budget issues to justify holding a Closed Session. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Board Member Baldassare and the City Attorney could discuss whether a closed session is warranted, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Westlands Water District submitted a letter outlining a proposal; inquired whether NCPA is supportive of said proposal. The AP &T General Manager stated Alameda is not party to said settlement, which is specific to Westland. * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 10:04 p.m. * * * Mayor Johnson stated the meeting did not need to be adjourned to Closed Session. Councilmember Matarrese stated both sides have made extensive cases; a healthy river would have an outcome of restored fisheries; the cost to the City of Alameda and the contributions to the environmental fund for the central valley project have no bearing on the discussion; there is an opportunity to have a real benefit for little cost; fossil fuel alternatives might have to be used; however, having every Alameda resident not use their car once a week would have a far greater impact on the effort to reduce greenhouses gases; Council should make policy. City Council Action Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board January 27, 2004 4 Councilmember Matarrese moved that the City of Alameda make a policy to support the restoration of the Trinity River and that the City should withdraw itself from the lawsuit. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated reviewing the fish population is one of the major signs of a healthy river; water will restore the environment; if Alameda withdraws from the lawsuit, the EIS process will not be stopped or slowed down; the matter could be in the courts endlessly; the City should set policy to support the ecosystem. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he supports the motion. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Trinity River needs to be restored; the draft of the EIS could come out in the next six months; questioned what the rush is after 20 years of waiting. Mayor Johnson stated the litigation will continue regardless of the City's action tonight; the City has been through EIR litigation and is familiar with the tools of delay it creates; the matter might not be resolved in the next six months; many different directions have been given since 1955; that she supports the motion; the two largest beneficiaries of the project, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and Palo Alto, have withdrawn from the litigation; questioned why Alameda, with only 1% benefit, should fight the legal battle; stated maybe NCPA should review its position; restoring the river makes sense. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. PUB Action The City Manager stated that he would support a motion to have the City withdraw its financial support. Board Member Baldassare moved approval of the City withdrawing its financial support of the litigation. The City Manager seconded the motion. President Lucas inquired whether SMUD is pursuing a separate settlement or litigation. Mr. De Cuir responded SMUD is not a part of NCPA and has decided not to financially support the litigation; SMUD was a separate Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board January 27, 2004 5 party. President Lucas inquired whether SMUD is purchasing power or using a different source. Mr. De Cuir responded SMUD is still a customer and will remain a customer, but will not pay for [lawsuit] expenses. President Lucas noted SMUD proposed a settlement. Mr. De Cuir stated SMUD's proposed settlement was to move sand and gravel with some water, but to move more mechanically. Board Member Bangert stated the draft EIS will be available in March, which would be valuable to have before making a decision. President Lucas stated NCPA has a genuine concern for the environment; SMUD not paying their way is reason for others to drop out [of the lawsuit]; on the other hand, Alameda has benefited from its membership in NCPA; noted that her PUB seat is dependent upon the City Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Adjournment to closed session to consider Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Westlands Water District et al v. U.S. Department of Interior et al. Not held. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board January 27, 2004 6 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- - JANUARY 28, 2004- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:11 p.m. Vice Mayor Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (04- ) Midyear Review - Fiscal Year 2003 -04 Budget. The City Manager and Finance Director provided a brief oral report. In response to Mayor Johnson's request for staff to provide the percentage increase in retirement costs, the City Manager stated the information would be provided with the next two -year financial plan. Councilmember Matarrese requested a chart showing the projected [General Fund] reserve draw down in conjunction with the increase in percent cuts forecast for several years, to which the City Manager responded staff would provide graphs during the budget workshops in May. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy decision that will need to be made is how far Council is willing to take down the [General Fund] reserves; projects, which will come on line in months or years, should be reviewed. The City Manager stated the budget workshops for the next two -year financial plan would include policy choices; Council can review service reduction necessary for budget cuts versus drawing down on the General Fund and only reducing service by a certain level; Council would be able to review the trade offs of service cuts versus drawing down on the General Fund. Councilmember Matarrese requested a time chart on the rate of the General Fund draw down to see whether the City can buy time to institute or participate in a recovery. The City Manager stated staff would provide projections beyond the two -year financial plan in the event the economy takes longer to recover. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 28, 2004 1 Mayor Johnson requested staff to review raising ambulance rates. In response to Councilmember Kerr's comments regarding departmental budget increases since 1996, the City Manager stated that, in the budget workshops, staff would address why growth has occurred; staff would provide the context to have Council fully informed. Vice Mayor Daysog cautioned that refinancing can cost more; requested a status report on the request to increase Police Department staff levels; stated the amount of funding supporting non - public safety at Alameda Point should be reviewed in the budget workshops; urged departments to establish creative revenue generating methods. The City Manager stated the City's finances have not allowed restoration of additional Police Officers; options would be provided and Council would have the opportunity to consider increasing the number of Police Officers in the next budget cycle. Mayor Johnson suggested that staff contact sport organizations about possible cuts that could result in lower field maintenance and request contributions from the organizations. Councilmember Matarrese noted that poorly maintained fields increase liability; said type of analysis should be provided. Vice Mayor Daysog suggested that decisions be mindful that there are some communities that cannot afford services. Councilmember Matarrese requested a status report at the end of the first quarter on outside pressures on the City's budget to update the public. Councilmember Kerr requested that the public receive notice of dates for the budget work sessions. The City Manager stated the meeting dates would be published. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 28, 2004 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTE S MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 3, 2004- -6:15 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property: Ballena Isle Marina; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Ballena Isle Marina and Ballena Shores, LLC; Under negotiation: Price and terms. (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Property Negotiator, the Council obtained briefing from staff and gave direction to Real Property Negotiator; regarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:10 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 February 3, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - FEBRUARY 3, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:49 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve a second mortgage loan from the City to the Human Resources Director [paragraph no. ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 20, 2004. Approved. (04- ) Recommendation to approve a second mortgage loan from the City to the Human Resources Director. Don Peterson, Alameda, stated that special treatment should not be given to Department Heads; money could be used in a better way. Horst Breuer, Alameda, stated cities will be in deep financial trouble in the next few years; cautioned the Council to look carefully before approving the $100,000 loan. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 1 The City Manager stated that many communities in the Bay Area use mortgage assistance as a recruitment tool for executive staff; that he is in the process of establishing a formal policy for Council review. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether mortgage assistance was offered as a recruitment incentive; to which the City Manager replied in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a cost to the City for the program; to which the City Manager responded in the negative. Councilmember Kerr stated the matter should be reconsidered because of today's financial situation; that she has concerns with an interest - payment only loan. Mayor Johnson inquired how the principle would be paid back; to which the City Manager responded that within six months of employee's termination of service, the entire principle would be repaid to the City. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see a policy established; that because of tight financial times, the City cannot afford to extend the offer to existing employees without a policy. Councilmember Kerr inquired why the City would not be receiving both principle and interest payments. The City Manager responded that principle and interest payments can be an included in the policy. Councilmember Matarrese stated that sequence is important; in the previous case, direction was given prior to employee accepting the position, which is not the current case; in the absence of a policy, he would not support the loan. Mayor Johnson stated the goal behind the program is important; that she routinely is asked why many City employees do not live in Alameda; Alameda is a high -cost area to live; that [mortgage assistance] is a good tool to enable City employees to live in Alameda without having to pay them more; that she supports establishing a policy. Councilmember Gilmore stated that [mortgage assistance] is a good recruitment and retention tool; there is a high learning curve with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 2 new hires; that she supports the goal of the policy, but would be leery of loan approval without a policy; consistency and clear expectations are needed. Mayor Johnson requested that a policy be brought back to Council for consideration. The City Manager stated that he would withdraw the recommendation; a draft policy would be returned for consideration. Councilmember Gilmore encouraged requests be brought back to the Council once the policy is in place. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $602,086.05. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Resolution No. 13678, Appointing Jo Kahuanui as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission. Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Kahuanui with a Certificate of Appointment. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation by the Historical Advisory Board to the City Council to designate the Del Monte Building, located at 1501 Buena Vista Avenue, City Monument #28; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13679, "Designating the Del Monte Building City Monument #28." Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Proponents: Horst Breuer, Alameda; Lil Arnerich, former Councilmember. Opponents: None. Mayor Johnson closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Kerr inquired what type of restrictions would be placed on the building. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 3 The Supervising Planner responded that the Historical Advisory Board (HBA) and Alameda Architectural Preservation Society have approved the rehabilitation plan; treatment of the building is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether adding a modern superstructure would be permitted; to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. The Supervising Planner stated that the removal of the historical monument would be under the preview of the HAB as well as structural alterations and modifications of character- defining elements. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether a closer look by the HAB would be required; to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote. (04 -) Public Hearing to consider revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. Continued to March 16, 2004. The Planning and Building Director, Planning Board President, Development Review Manager and Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson opening the Public Hearing. Patricia Bail, Keep Measure A Committee, addressed open space requirements. Jim Sweeney, Alameda, addressed open space requirements. Lee Stuart Darrow, Alameda, urged patios and bay windows be permitted on front yards. Diane Coler -Dark, Alameda, addressed open space requirements. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, addressed open space requirements. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public Hearing. Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 Councilmember Kerr stated that usable open space requirements have affected infill; that she is concerned about the new definition of landscaping, which reduces what is currently defined as usable open space; the term " usable open space" has made the difference in infill and the developed in different neighborhoods; property rights should not be taken away from the people who have purchased homes. Mayor Johnson inquired what the trade off was between private and common open space. The Supervising Planner responded that the direction received from the Council and the Planning Board was to make as few changes as possible; currently, 120 square feet of private open space is required for all ground -floor units developed in the R -1 through R- 6 districts; for an upper -floor unit, the requirement is 60 square feet; the change would require 120 square feet for upper floors. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the amount of common open space would change; to which the Supervising Planner responded that the concept of common open space is eliminated. Councilmember Kerr stated there has been the elimination of the concept of usable open space; the definition of open space is complicated; open space should not be reduced. Councilmember Gilmore requested a review of examples of applications. The Development Review Manager stated that sample site plans would be provided showing how rules would apply under today's regulations versus proposed regulation. Councilmember Kerr stated the key difference in zoning areas has been the usable open space requirement. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a landscape maintenance requirement to ensure that landscape is properly maintained. The Development Review Manager responded that the Ordinance does not specifically address property maintenance issues; complaints could be handled through Code Enforcement. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a change in tandem parking; to which the Supervising Planner responded that a change was not recommended. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 5 Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a cap on the number of tandem parking spaces; to which the Supervising Planner responded that tandem parking spaces can only serve an individual unit. Mayor Johnson suggested a tandem parking cap be considered. Mayor Johnson inquired whether termination of a variance or use permit has been extended to two years from the time of construction; to which the Development Review Manager stated the two -year extension is initiated at the start of the project. Mayor Johnson inquired what the time requirement would be to complete a project; to which the Development Review Manager stated once a building permit is issued, inspections are required every six months. Mayor Johnson suggested review of not capping the number of parking spaces to three spaces for each dwelling unit. Vice Mayor Daysog stated Alameda is a City with high expectations; revisions need to address beautifying Alameda and not just streamlining the planning processes. Councilmember Matarrese suggested review of rules and regulations pertaining to compatibility of renewing or transferring use permits. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of continuing the matter to the March 16, 2004 meeting. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -5. * ** Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened the Meeting at 9:50 p.m. * ** (04- ) Recommendation related to the application of State prevailing wages for Public Works construction and capital improvement projects. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Speakers: Barry Luboviski, Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County; Jufy Goff, Central Labor Council of Alameda County and Alameda resident; Ron Mackrowt, Alameda; Don Peterson, Alameda; Diane Ravnik, Northern California National Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 6 Electrical Contractors Association; Suzzette Kenney, Alameda; William Kenney, Alameda; Dutch Monroe, Operating Engineers Local; James McTiernan, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104; Victor Uno, International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW) Local 595; Michael Longeuay, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 Apprenticeship; Andrew Slivka, Carpenters Union Local #713; Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association; Matt Maloon, IBEW 595; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Sherri Stieg, Alameda; Cathy Leong, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Roberta Rossi, IBEW Local 595. The following individuals submitted speakers slips to have their names in the record in favor of prevailing wage: Tito Heredia, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104; Marlin Johnson, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104; Ruben Lopez; Francisco Nieto; Jim Stagg, IBEW Local 595; Gary Cortes; Ron, Glaziers Local 169; Kenneth Christian, Alameda; Gene Hopkins, Alameda Building Trades; Steve Havens, D.C. 16- IVPAT; Stu Helfer, Teamsters Local 853; and Carl Frederickson, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public Hearing. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that costs concerning Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) and Golf are not warranted; rate payers could assume costs; enterprise funds would continue to be competitive; Public Works costs are a serious concern. Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a need to look at end - costs when prevailing wage is not the standard; that he is in favor of adopting a prevailing wage policy for the City. Councilmember Kerr stated that paying prevailing wage is not prevented by retaining rights as a Charter City; that she does not want to give up local control; Alameda should retain the flexibility to decide on a project -by- project basis; that she does not want to encumber future Councils and take away discretion; that she will support Recommendation 1 [Continue to retain discretion whether to require payment of prevailing wages.]. The General Manager stated that prevailing wage is paid on most jobs; AP &T is asking for discretion in competitive areas; the cost of the lower [non - prevailing wage] Contract averages $28 per- hour with a bonded contractor. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether an endorsed prevailing wage policy would apply to the School District; to which the City Manager responded that the School District is autonomous. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 7 Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with the importance of a livable wage; any prevailing wage decision could be revoked by the State Supreme Court in the next few weeks. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City made a policy based on the 1996 Resolution. The City Attorney responded that the 1996 Resolution was prepared by the Building Trades Council; the Building Trades Council requested that the City take a policy position that the existing prevailing wage laws be upheld; the Resolution was not a direction in terms of a policy; the Resolution states that the City of Alameda supports a prevailing wage requirement; in 1996, the Council supported the Building Trades Council in opposing the State legislative action to reduce prevailing wage requirements. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands the context, but that is not what the Resolution states; that there is a long history on local control versus the overall concern of the Country; that he believes prevailing wage is a matter of State concern; data indicates that the costs are not saved by reducing wages. Mayor Johnson requested that the City Attorney address the Building Trades Council's current request for a Resolution. The City Attorney responded that a sample Resolution was previously submitted to the Council; the Building Trades Council seeks a policy statement from the Council indicating that prevailing wage is an area of statewide concern; the Resolution would be presented to the State Supreme Court. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has the ability to consider the request tonight; to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a previous Council was forwarded letter to the Building Trades Council. The City Attorney responded that a letter was voted on by the Council and forwarded to the Building Trades Council; the letter was rescinded; Council considered additional language which was agreed to by the Building Trades Council in lieu of a Resolution; the Council has not acted on the subsequent letter and Council chose to place the item for public discussion. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney thought the second letter was acceptable in representing the City's interests. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 8 The City Attorney responded that the interest of the City was defined by the Council; the letter addressed the policy issue but not implementation [of prevailing wage requirements]. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the letter submitted to the State would take away the City's ability to decide on whether to pay prevailing wage. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should acknowledge that the matter is a Statewide concern; the courts will establish the law for the State. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that prevailing wage ought to be an issue of Statewide concern. Councilmember Kerr stated tariffs previously protected United States workers; jobs are lost in the United States because of competitive labor; that she would not vote to turn decision - making authority over to the State. Councilmember Matarrese moved that the City of Alameda send a letter to the State Supreme Court indicating that the matter of prevailing wage is a Statewide concern. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Gilmore and Kerr - 2. (04- ) Final Passage of Ordinance No. 2918, "Approving and Authorizing the Sale of a Vacated Portion of Adams Street." Finally passed. Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (04- ) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that North America Free Trade Agreement and investment tax credits at the national level are affecting the entire economy of the nation and need to be revisited; stated that the Public Transit Committee and City Council passed a resolution a couple of years ago making the City of Alameda a Transit First City; that he hopes in addition to parking, the Zoning Ordinance provisions address how the City of Alameda operates as a Transit First City relative to building, parking and congestion. Regular Meeting 9 Alameda City Council February 3, 2004 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Housing Commission (Senior Tenant seat). Mayor Johnson nominated Nancy Gormley to the Housing Commission (Senior Tenant seat). (04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated that Senate Bill 744, which allows developers to appeal directly to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) if they are dissatisfied with a local decision, has been passed by the State Senate; the HCD approves the Housing Element; the Bill would allow developers to appeal the land use and building decisions of a City Council to HCD;; the Bill is now in the Assembly; encouraged Council and residents to contact Assemblywoman Wilma Chan to voice opposition to the Bill. Mayor Johnson inquired what issues can be appealed to the HCD. Councilmember Kerr responded land use decisions; that if a building project is rejected, developers can appeal to the HCD; without an approved Housing Element, cities face a higher risk for appeals. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:38 p.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 February 3, 2004 10 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 2, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Gallagher and Burk, Inc. for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 24, No. P.W. 07- 03 -14, and Allocate $185,000 from Traffic Congestion Relief Funds for the Project BACKGROUND On November 6, 2002, the City Council adopted plans and specifications, called for bids and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute all agreements for award of the construction contract for the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 23, No. P.W. 08- 02 -10. The contract language allowed for a mutually agreeable extension on a year -by -year basis, for up to four (4) additional years, based on satisfactory performance of all aspects of the contract. The extension would be under the same terms and costs, with an annual increase to the construction price index for the San Francisco Bay Area. On October 23, 2003 the City executed the first amendment to agreement to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. in the amount of $336,651.38, including contingencies, for the Repair & Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 24, No. P.W. 07- 03 -14. Locations for phase 24 resurfacing are as follows: Reconstruction pavement failure areas, crack seal and AC overlay: o Sherman Street (Lincoln Avenue to Eagle Avenue) o Grand Street (Lincoln Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue) o Lincoln Avenue (Oak Street to Willow Street) o Park Avenue — East (Encinal Avenue to south end of Jackson Park) o Park Avenue — West (Encinal Avenue to south end of Jackson Park) Reconstruction pavement failure areas: o Constitution Avenue (from Lincoln Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue) o Buena Vista Avenue (at Littlejohn Park) GiycfAlimeda uubIicWorks apartment Public Works Wo,kcjar Yo.d Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -B CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and February 2, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. One extra work order was issued to reimburse the contractor for additional work required to raise six manholes with odd sized rings at Park Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Sherman Street, handwork at edge of curb along Park Avenue (east and west) because of cobblestone base, increase linear footage of wedge planing at all locations, increase tons of asphalt concrete at new locations, and for paving a section of Park Avenue that was missed due to EBMUD's on -site crew repairing a broken water main. This extra work order added no additional workdays to the contract. The final project cost, including the extra work order, is $287,249.73. Additional sites for resurfacing were originally identified at Bay Farm Island; however these locations will be considered for the next phase of work (Phase 25) during the summer months in order to minimize disruption to schools. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is identified as CIP 82 -01, Phase 24, with a construction budget of $375,000 from Measure B funds. Staff proposes to use $185,000 in Traffic Congestion Relief Funds that are available for this project and reduce the expenditure of Measure B funds accordingly. The savings to Measure B funds can be programmed for other projects. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that City Council, by motion, accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 24, No. P.W. 07 -03 -14 and Allocate $185,000 from Traffic Congestion Relief Funds for the project. Respect i lly submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director A'fr& AXAM7/(} By: Jahn V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer MTN /JVW:ms /dl cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee Amy Ho, Finance Dept. Sally Kueh, Finance Dept. G:\PUBWORKS\PW ADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004 \021704\AcceptPhase24Resurf.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service evof ntda tublicWorks vepartment PublicWod Wr,kvfor You! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 5, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Terminate the Contract of Thomas D. Eychner Company, Inc. and Approve the Plans and Specifications for the Demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue. No. P.W. 08 -03 -16 and Authorize Call for Bids BACKGROUND On October 21, 2003, Council approved plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the demolition of the LinOaks Motel, Project No. P.W. 08- 03 -16. On December 16, 2003, Council awarded the project to the firm of Thomas D. Eychner, Inc. of Oakland in the total amount of $189,420, which included a 15% allowance for contingencies. The purpose of the project was to demolish the existing structure in advance of the new Main Library construction at the same site. An important part of the project is the remediation of lead -based paint and asbestos that were discovered in small quantities by a survey conducted by SCS Engineers on April 5, 2002; the sampling for the report was limited due to the occupancy of the building. After the evacuation of the LinOaks on January 13, 2004, staff arranged for additional asbestos testing as a precautionary measure using a different environmental firm. The more recent results showed that the stucco exterior of the building and the interior wallboard textures also have asbestos concentrations in excess of asbestos action levels and additional remediation is necessary. City staff have discussed remediation options with the contractor, who estimated that the additional asbestos remediation would cost approximately $250,000- $300,000 if performed as a contract change order. The original low bid submitted by the Thomas D. Eychner Company had a bid amount of approximately $35,000 for the remediation work as originally envisioned by the SCS report. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS At this time the demolition project is not critical to the timing and schedule of the library project. To meet the overall project schedule, the demolition needs to be completed prior to late July 2004. Staff believes this is feasible and will work toward this milestone. It is desirable, but not critical to have the demolition complete prior to the due dates for the Main Library bids in order to confirm the existing site conditions. of �U� Uepartnwnt Public Work Ifrk fu-Ywd Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -C CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers February 5, 2004 City staff considered four contractual alternatives for performing the additional abatement: 1. Contract change order for Thomas D. Eychner Company: As discussed above, the additional change order cost ($250,000- $300,00) considerably exceeds the scope of the original bid documents. It is not anticipated that the City's emergency authority would extend to approval of change orders of this magnitude without competitive bids. In addition, a contract change order might expedite the completion of the demolition but probably would not affect the overall schedule. 2. Include demolition and remediation in the main building contract: This alternative would adversely affect project schedule and is not recommended. 3. Bid a separate abatement contract for just the additional work: This alternative could have major coordination and accountability issues and is not recommended. 4. Terminate the Eychner contract and re -bid the project: This alternative would probably be less costly than the change order alternative and would probably not adversely impact the schedule. Costs to date of approximately $9,000 incurred by Eychner would have to be reimbursed. This alternative appears the most consistent with conventional construction bidding and award procedures and the California Public Contract Code. The standard City construction contract allows the City to terminate a contract after seven days written notice. The necessary changes to project plans and specifications are complete and the project can be immediately re- advertised. It should be noted that the contractor has been helpful and cooperative during this process. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Funds for the demolition project are available in the New Main Library Project, CIP # 02 -37, with 65% of the cost from the State of California Office of Library Construction grant and the remaining 35% from Measure 0 funds. The additional remediation work, if performed as a change order, would cost approximately $250,000 in addition to the original demolition project. If competitively bid, the additional cost could be as much as 20% less than the change order alternative. There are sufficient contingency funds for the additional cost. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The entire library project, including demolition work, has been reviewed for environmental compliance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In 1990 City Council certified the "New Alameda Free Library Draft Environmental Impact Report." A technical update and initial study for the project were prepared in April 2002. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service WofAlanedi P.UblkCWorks apartment Public Works Wasp, Yowl Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 3 February 5, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, terminate the contract to Thomas B. Eychner Company, Inc. and approve the plans and specifications for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16, and authorize call for bids. Respect y submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: J V. Wankum pervising Civil Engineer MTN /JVW:dl cc: Susan Hardie G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \021704\Demolition temiinatedoc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtedA{and& PublicWoiks Department Public Workstw „nfa.r ! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: February 4, 2004 Re: QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2003 INCLUDING MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENTS BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a 2 -year spending plan for 2002 -2004 and annually appropriates funds consistent with the charter and government code requirements. The total adjusted 2003- 04 budget for all City funds amounts to $281,276,714 (Details by fund can be found on Exhibit A, pages 7 -9). DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS General Fund Revenues: Our General Fund revenues for the period ending December 31, 2003 totaled $27,178,373 representing 43.70% of our updated revenue projections of $62,193,008. The main sources of local tax revenues include the property tax (25.22 %), the local component of the sales and use tax (11.00 %), the vehicle license fee (VLF) (4.00 %) and a variety of "all other levies" (14.89 %). The latter includes utility user tax, transient occupancy tax, property transfer tax, business license tax, etc. Our adjusted revenue estimates include the following adjustments in the second quarter: Amount Description +116,884 Increase in Payment -in -lieu of taxes based on 6/30/03 audited values of fixed assets for Sewer, Golf and AP &T. Enterprise Funds are charged one percent of fixed assets as revenue for the General Fund. Building Services - Increase in revenues derived from: +45,000 Permit Tracking +20,000 Plumbing Permits +40,000 Permit Penalties Report #4 -D CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers February 4, 2004 Page 2 of 41 Amount Description +350,000 Additional transfer from the Traffic Safety Fund for funds that have accumulated from prior years. These funds represent the local shares for moving violation fines. Funds help support the Police Department's operating budget. Public Works — Revenue Adjustments +5,000 Encroachment Permits +230,000 Engineering Service Fees +40,000 Plan Check Fees +40,000 Transfer from Urban Runoff - 280,000 Measure B Streets & Roads - 90,000 Measure B Bike & Pedestrian +435,947 Transfer for Debt Service Fund for residual funds for bonds that have matured. - 212,610 Reduction in anticipated Police revenues primarily from unreimbursed program costs — AUSD. - 234,000 Reduction in anticipated fees and charges and /or costs allocated to other funds. +75,000 Development Services Fees -3,000 Revenue for other agencies — Miscellaneous. - 260,000 Mandated costs reimbursements unfunded State mandates. - 1,643,244 Vehicle in Lieu Fee adjustment as a result of loss of backfill from the State General Funds and result of County program realignment. Portion of VLF is dedicated to fund a realignment of state and county health and social programs. ($1,325,023) Decrease in General Fund Revenue estimates, 03 -04 FY. General Fund revenue detail can be found in Exhibit B on pages 11 -13 of the attachment. 1. The City received 51% of its estimated property tax allocation from the Alameda County Treasurer in December, 2003. The next allocation is scheduled for April with clean up payments scheduled for June, July, and August. This is after the ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) shift of $4.1 million this year. Over the last 13 years a total of $37 million from our local share has been shifted to the ERAF. Note: The January 9, 2003 Governor's budget proposal includes an increase in the ERAF shift by another 10% of local property taxes making our 04 -05 General Fund ERAF an estimated total of $5.7 million. The Governor is also proposing that redevelopment Dedicated to Eceffence, Committed to Service" Honorable Mayor and February 4, 2004 . Councilmembers Page 3 of 41 agencies continue to contribute to ERAF. For our local CIC, this translates to almost $400,000 /year of contributions into ERAF for the next 2 -3 years. 2. Certain revenue sources may appear below projected annual estimates. There is a 30- 60 day lag in receipt of several major revenues. These revenue sources include sales tax, utility user tax, vehicle -in -lieu subventions, and franchise fee payments from Waste Management, Inc. These revenues are only accrued at year -end and recorded on a cash basis during the fiscal year. The cablevision provider makes franchise fee payments quarterly while PG &E remits a franchise fee for gas on an annual basis (approximately April 15). 3. Sales tax payments received in July and August are accrued for the prior year as these payments represent taxes paid or generated in Alameda for sales transactions in April, May and June of the prior fiscal year. Our third quarter sales tax revenues showed a decrease of 4% over revenues from the same quarter in 2002. Our sales tax revenue projections are not being adjusted pending results of the 2003 4th Quarter transactions. Traditionally, sales tax revenues for the holiday quarter are generally higher than the other quarters. 4. Transfers from Alameda Power & Telecom are remitted to the City's General Fund in 10 equal monthly installments. General Fund Appropriations: General Fund adjustments reflect an increase of $1,244,616 in required appropriations for the second quarter. The General Fund budget adjustments are as follows (can also be found on pages 34 -36 of Exhibit B): Amount Department and Description $ -5,209 Human Resources — reduction in various line items. - 24,629 Reduction in projected Planning and Building costs are partially offset by increase in part time pay. +166,900 Increase in Police budget due to increase costs for prisoner feeding, telephone costs, contractual services, equipment rental, software licenses and debt service for jail facility. "(Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers February 4, 2004 Page 4of41 Amount Department and Description +1,191,000 Fire Department— Increased consulting services of $35,000 for Fire Service /Coverage study and increase in employer paid benefits - PERS. The department's budget was not adjusted for the 10.8% increase in employer's contribution for PERS when the appropriations were approved for 2003 -04. In addition, funds need to be appropriated for the contractual services for ambulance fee collection ($130,000). +15,000 Public Works /Maintenance Services — Increased costs for landscaping contract as authorized by Council. - 375,000 Reduction in salaries and benefits in Public Works Administration, Capital Projects and Land Development Divisions due to vacancies. +51,554 Additional transfer required funding library operations as a result of decreased state support of public libraries. +150,000 Capital Improvement — Seismic upgrade for Fire Station #3 as authorized by Council and increase in General Plan +90,000 Amendment Project as requested by the City Attorney. $1,244,616 Increase in General Fund appropriations General Fund Expenditures: Our General Fund operating expenditures for the six months ending December 31, 2003 amounted to $28,132,682, representing 47.70% of our operating budget of $58,972,843. Non - departmental expenditures totaled $125,322 and included expenditures for property tax collection, rent subsidies for the Alameda Historical Museum, Customer Service Program and transfers to SSHRB. In addition, we transferred out of General Fund to special funds ($2,196,379). Transfers to other funds include; Library operations ($775,000), Urban Runoff ($32,500), Capital Improvement ($173,879), Debt Service — City Hall, Jail & Library ($465,000), and Risk Management ($725,000). Capital outlay purchases funded by General Fund amounted to $29,396. Combined General Fund expenditures for the first quarter amounted to $30,483,778 or 47.38% total of appropriations of $64,342,313. General Fund expenditures by departments can be found on pages 34 -36 of Exhibit B. "Dedicated to ExceiThnce, Committed to Service" Honorable Mayor and CounciImembers February 4, 2004 • Page 5 of 41 If all our assumptions are correct with respect to General Fund revenues and appropriations, current expenditures will exceed current revenues by $2,094,105 at yearend. This results from State budget impacts, VLF backfill gap and the realignment of program revenues to the County, and appropriation increases as outlined above. It should be noted that our VLF revenue loss includes loss of funds due to the realignment of certain health and social programs from the State to the counties. A summary table of General Fund revenues and appropriations follows: General Fund Original Adopted Amendments 1St Qtr. Amendments 2nd Qtr. Adjusted Actual 12/31/03 Balance Revenues $ 63,518,231 $ - $ (1,325,023) $ 62,193,208 $ 27,178,373 $ 35,014,835 Appropriations $ 62,947,654 $ 150,043 $ 1,244,616 $ 64,342,313 $ 30,483,778 $ 34,858,535 Balance $ 570,577 $ (150,043) $ (2,569,639) $ (2,149,105) $ (3,305,405) Special Revenue and Enterprise Funds: The summary of revenues and expenditures for special revenue funds and enterprise funds are also included herein. (Revenue pages 14 -33, Expenditures pages 37 -38). Second quarter adjustments to these funds reflect rebudgeting or prior year's budgeted amounts for capital improvement projects as well as capturing previously authorized Council adjustments. The adjustments to the CIP are explained in the attached memo from the Public Works Director. A listing of current year's capital projects is also included herein. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT We project that current expenditures will exceed General Fund current revenues by yearend. This is primarily due to additional "state grab" of local monies for the remainder of the fiscal year (VLF backfill gap and realignment of VLF funds to the County). The Summary Analysis for all funds can be found on Exhibit C, pages 39 -41. The projected General Fund balance for June 30, 2004 is $16,718,333 and is 28.34% of the operating budget for 2003 -04. The impact of these adjustments will be funded from two sources: ➢ Operating reserves established at the end of the 01 -02 FY. ➢ Undesignated reserves. "Dedicated to ExceOEence, Committed to Service" Honorable Mayor and February 4, 2004 Councilmembers Page 6 of 41 RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council accept the report on the results of operations for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 for all funds and approve the supplemental appropriations as outlined herein. Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager 0,,, Jfi4A-c-- By: Zenda James Finance Director Attachments: Budget Profile, Exhibit A Recap of Receipts /Disbursements, Exhibit B Summary Analysis of Funds, Exhibit C "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" (BUDGET PROFILE - 2003 -04 I (General Fund (Enterprise Fund (Special Revenue Fund (Debt Service Funds Alameda Power & Telecom $ 48,448,545 Ferry Services 3,742,577 Golf 12,556,581 Sewer Enterprise 2,778,310 Abandoned Vehicle Program $ 61,635 Affordable Housing Fund 593,927 Asset Seizure Funds 32,231 Athletic Trust Fund 954,007 CDBG 4,123,483 C H RO /Lead 146,592 Commercial Revitalization 191,604 Curbside Recycling 1,947,034 Dwelling Unit Tax 223,966.00 Equipment Acquisition 21,300 Equipment Replacement Fund 700,260 Fire Equipment Fund 75,000 Fisc Lease Revenue Fund 3,061,721 Garbage Surcharge 265,661 Gas Tax 1,460,502 Home Funds 1,791,191 Housing Developments 20,000 Housing Authority 25,174,283 Human Services (SSHRB) 628,891 Library 2,717,054 Low and Moderate Income Housing: WECIP 1,182, 098 BWIP 1,631,819 APIP 94,703 Measure B 3,185,751 Parking Meter Fund 1,678,968 Rehabilitation Repayment 1,142,194 Redevelopment: BWIP 10,150,855 WECIP 4,093,735 API P 709,726 Senior Citizens Transportation 38,850 Tidelands Trust 171,309 Traffic Safety Fund 454,416 Waste Management/Recycling 789,574 7 EXHIBIT A $64,342,313 22.88% $67,526,013 24.01% $69,514,340 24.71% $11,532,420 4.10% 'BUDGET PROFILE - 2003 -04 'Capital Projects Funds 'Fiduciary Funds Internal Service Funds Total All Funds Alameda Point Bond Project Fund Capital Improvement Fund CFD #1 CFD #2 Construction Improvement Fund Island City Maintenance District Police /Fire Impact Fees Transportation Improvement Fund Urban Runoff *Excludes unfunded projects 515,800 25,464,738 1,470, 000 181,220 25,966 1,077,200 24,219 2,329,532 2,193,652 Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment 21,391,927 Pension Plan #1079 3,790,000 Pension Plan #1082 610,000 Dental Trust 350,000 Central Garage 150,000 Central Stores 700,000 Housing Authority Reimbursables 2,000,000 Risk Management 2,014,277 Technology Service Fund 606,500 Unemployment 31,000 Workers Compensation Trust 3,435,597 8 EXHIBIT A $33,282,327 11.83% $25,791,927 9.17% $9,287,374 3.30% $281,276,714 100.00% !BUDGET PROFILE - 2003 -04 EXHIBIT A 'FUNDS Percent of Total Appropriations General Fund Enterprise Funds Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds Fiduciary Funds Internal Service Funds 22.88% 24.01 % 24.71 % 4.10% 11.83% 9.17% 3.30% $64,342,313 67, 526, 013 69,514,340 11,532,420 33,282,327 25,791,927 9,287,374 100.00% $281,276,714 CITY OF ALAMEDA 2003 -04 3% • General Fund • Enterprise Funds ❑ Special Revenue Funds ❑ Debt Service Funds • Capital Projects Funds ® Fiduciary Funds • Internal Service Funds 9 GENERAL FUND RECAPITULATION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2003 EXHIBIT B 2003 -04 Actual vs 2003 -04 Actual Budgeted Budgeted UNAUDITED FUND BALANCE - July 1, 2003 * $17,866,684 $17,866,684 Funds earmarked for operating shortfall 1,000,754 1,000,754 RECEIPTS: 29.24% Property Taxes $7,947,101 36.70% Other Local Taxes 9,974,991 5.56% Licenses and Permits 1,511,715 0.32% Use of Money and Property 87,386 1.23% Fines and Forfeitures 333,046 3.58% Revenue from Other Agencies 973,391 9.81% Current Services 2,666,019 13.56% Contributions from other funds 3,684,725 EXPENDITURES: 9.62% City Administration $2,933,761 62.99% Public Safety 19,202,108 1.67% Planning 509,306 3.05% Development Services 928,675 8.98% Public Works 2,737,007 5.98% Recreation Services 1,821,826 0.10% Capital Outlay 29,396 5.68% Transfers 1,731,379 1.53% Debt Service 465,000 0.41% Non - Departmental 125,322 CURRENT YEAR BALANCE OF REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES ENDING FUND BALANCE * Includes: $2,399,474 Accrued Vacation 783,000 Post Retirement Health 3,182,474 10 $27,178,373 43.70% $62,193,008 $30,483,778 47.38% $64,342,313 ($3,305,405) ($2,149,305) $15,562,033 $16,718,133 GENERAL FUND REVENUES W F 00 mw W J 0 0 Z W J m o 0 -10 ¢9 U Q 0 tug 00 W N 'O y . e 7 Q C r 'O 04 we gJ N Z_ O 2 ▪ 5 W 0 U LI. a 0 O PROPERTY TAXES (3100) r r r 0 0 . • o CO co M N V N 0 0 0 M 0 m M m O N - 0 r N 69 N.000 m00. N 0 V 0 —a0-(60T N- 0 0) M N ( r 0)0) 0 0 0 N 0 O N O M N O V 0 r (V (0 M 0 MM 0 N (fl 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 N Q (0 n co co M co co e n 0) N O a O 0) N O ((00 (ri N 0 SUB TOTAL - PROPERTY TAXES OTHER LOCAL TAXES (3200) (0 re00(0 00(0 re 0 V (0 0 0 0 V O 0 U) (0 O r r 0 CO O 0 0 0 0 O) 0 r O r 0 0 0 M COO O V 0 CO CO 0 CO V M U) N l0 V N M N O) N O C` 0 0 0 V O U) (1) 0 V M O U) 0 0 0 0 on O O 'V V 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 00-00.0 0 M (O O n (O 0 0 N (0 0 0 M O M 0)) V o N n V 0 n 0 0 O M 0 0 0 0 O) 0=000 N M O0 ,- 0 MOM 0) 0( M ((00 0 0 0) N.:160 (O O N 0 M O N (0'0) U) N� .-M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000N-00M O 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 O 0 O O 0 N N O O U) N. O n O now o V 0 0 U) U) U) M r N y) N n r N r m co O O O O O O O r O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0- O O O O O O O O O N O) O c0 O O O O N 00100-0(00 101010 N U) V' 0 0 U) U) (0 M ✓ N r (n x E = (0 U N k grm W w N N C~ O N (O J N U IA N 0 a) O U) M l` 2 O C • C O L L O C x x H a) R LL 01 LL C C Q. O- O- 3 N LL m u_ V l` O p al w ((1 al 'y W C) d m LL LL O a) 0._ . c> O E. N 4 N H O D (n (na��acDciQ1-Qxa 0000000,000c)00 O 0 0 0 0 N M (0 0 O r 0) C7 V U) 0 U) (0 (0 U) 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M co 0) M R 0 00) 0) M 4 0 N CO CO 0 H SUB TOTAL - OTHER TAXES LICENSES & PERMITS (3300) 0,000.00— 0 0 0 e r 0 e o 0 O n M O N cad 0(0 O N t` Q(0 0 O) 0 0 V 0 0 M O V C` 0 O N (0 0 0) 0 0 0 (0 0 - 0 (0 0 ( 10 0 ) 0 ( 0 M N N (N W r 0) V N .0 M O) O N 0 C N C` O 0 N CO O n Q V 0 O) O co V r co N N c V OO Q00000,0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M M O O 10 L V V N 0 0 0 0 O co O V Lo fA 0000000000 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) '70 0 MM V N 01- 0 r r m 0 LL A 22 w' E E E w s C 0 0) 0 0 0j O) Ean-0 v m _ w E Q a o 0) a) 0 - v O C O C 2 l0 LLm)-mm W wn.(0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000,-0000 0,-,-N1-1.003N0 M () M C") ()) C) C') 0 0 ) (0 (0 (1) (1) (0 (0 (0 0) 0) (0 00)_ (00 H 0 O A SUB TOTAL - LICENSES & PERMITS USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY (3500) 0 r 0 0-0 .00 0 NNM N M 0 (0 (M (+M) O NM M 0 O O V OM O 0 (13,0 0 0 0)) O CO O E U N a C C C U C � z=2 N = � U 00 00 00 M V M M M A N CO CO CO N M ao (0 O 0, SUB TOTAL - USE OF MONEY GENERAL FUND REVENUES Z W W W s U 00 Z W m 0 0 J m M 0 Q M m N M W p 00 W (s. >U1 e 0 0 e W (0(0 0) M 0) a1 v (LO r ((0O n n (D O (C) N CD N (D V M M CO N V 0) 41-N ./-N MM V (A 00 0 0 O O O O (A 0000 0000 0000 OM 0.- LO rn Q CO CO 0 O CO (0 0 00 N O F K( W ill • CO 0) N 0 W w o n m Z O o moan, W - _ O c a) O J .1 2g aE w ~ m ` 1 IC g O W c v m m a (pawl- m 0000 0) V V V M M M M REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES 00000 ee 0e00e00 N _ 0 0 0 CO 00 C0041- O O n 04' 0004" O N 0) (0 OO V)OOONOO(OONOsi r M O O r O R M 0) O N_ 2 0) V N (A 0 0 O) O r CO CO 0) N 0 O O 0) 0) 0) V O N (0 (ON V lO 00 n O (00 O CO O V - r 0) N N OM O VM O ( n O 0 0 0 4- (0 O 0) 0) 00 r 0(00) oo N (0 n X00)00(00)0)00000 00000000 (000 N 0 0 0 N V 0 O 0-00 05-(600(60 O O 00 000 N W N r N (0 O) O 04t O N 00 V (0 0000)000000000 0000000000000 O N 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O) (O O O M O O O 0 0 O) N ( V 0 0 ( 9 (0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 0 0 ) N Nn n N M 0 H 4 0 W 0 0 CO tO 0 N CO 0)000000000000 0) N N N N N 0) 0) N O M 0) N N N N M M V V (0 (D 0) 0) 0000000000000 M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0v0N000)(0x000 I 0 O M N lf) r Q) (O N n O CO M I eM- r N 0 (f) N CO N ( N V 00 co V V n M O N710 (0 M (f) CO N O r (C) (n CO M CO V 0) V 00 V m r_ M r 0 V 0) (0 O I) 0) N (O (() M M V (C) (0 M ([) V (() 0) CD N N V V N V O N 0 (O (O (0 M (0 (0 (0 0 N N 0)01(.1(0N-4- v O 9_ M O N O N OO V N M n 0) (Nino N OD N V N V C0 (O (D (0(0(0 N N M f-- V W O N M co sr n c) O V N (O V CO 0) ~ M (O (O M N V V mnol v00)oovoo000 O 0 r O O M 0 0 0) 0 0 O M O (0 O N N O c0 O O (O CD O (n (0 O 0) 0) (n O (C) M V O (`7 0) N N (0 (0 r M O r N M 10 n N (A N 000 ° 000 CO N 01(04. N.. N 0 0 0) 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 O V on O O N O a00 0 0 o M O M (C) N r (n (f) (n O m O O M O N n l() O r 0 n O r V M N CO co N O ((0 N M M co (O N N W 0 W N z Z 0 0 LT .2 LL N v n 0 Z 0 '0 0) (0 c Cn C) E L LL c Y= t( J Q U o E E c o E E a 0) o S 10- E 0 I- L U c Q 0-0 d � U Q 'c v.(3 0� C (O _ c 8g C) c>"7 m 0,E05no.aaaiE0O 00.000.000.0 0.000.000.0— 0) O 0) 0) O) 0) 0) 0) V 0) (0 M M M M M M M M M M M M GENERAL FUND REVENUES Z▪ ia 00 W J 0 QZ W < 0 a O COO O F- J 7• 0 w a 0 W▪ 9 W M O O w W N >(n c C N N V 7 a C d 5 E g y4 W QJ N Z O re O H Z W 0 W a OF TOTAL DESCRIPTION CONTRIBUTIONS FR OTHER FUNDS 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 e o o e e e e( ( O O 0 W 0 000 0(0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0(0 o 0 000 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O • (V O N 0 0 0 (0 UP U) (0 (0 N O) l0 (I') CO l0 CO (0 N Q N N (0 1.- O 10 O (0 (O Q 0 0 (O (0 O (0 (0 Q O O O O (0 (0 N 0) (O m N (0 N N (O N W (O O N M N (0 1- (0 (0 Q (O (O (0 N m M CO M ,- (O Q Q O O 0)N0) Q N O (O O) O Q l0 Q O Q I� O N 0) 69 00 M N CO Q N NC.. N N M (0 N N (0 N N 1� r- N O N O M c0 (O O O O (O (O O O (0 (O O O 0) N- n O CO (0 N 0) Q (O CO N N (0(N(0(0 Q Q M (0 M (0 I� (0 +- Q c- (O Q 0)C)(0 N-000) N m 0) O) M Q N O N O) (O Q Q .--0-CF O N N (O (01(0N(0 (0(0 ,- V I. (O (0 N N N N Q o .- M (O N V co .v. = Q O r- O a0 N O O O N N 0) (0 = N O 0) 0 0 r M (O 0 N o r- (O (0 M O N M (0 M N (0 (O O 1- Q (0 1� Q M r- 0) r M O r m (0 (0 M M N O Q O N m (O_ (O N l(7 (O O m m O Q M O m r- O N N O m m o O Q O N MU) O N Q Q Q Q m M 1` O M M Q I- .- N Q M N O O 0 0 O 0)) M CO m V V O M O 1- O (0 (0 O c- O O N N m N N O 0) 0 0 O M O (AN O (- c0 (0 MONOOM (0 M N(0(0 O I� (O I- Q in M 0 - 0 ) 0 . 0 ) 0 0 - 0 0 0 ) 1 0 0 MMNO Q O N c0_(O N (0 CO CO CO m O V O O CO- O m 1� OWN CJ «) 0) CO V CO N N +- Q m (0 N N m Q Q Q Q CO M I- N CO Q 1- c- r = N M NCO c m m a oa oar may a morn c°c CJ a ;)02 _ .? r ,O =a5 m wpm v 2§S to (°') a o o .S m m w~ (� a`) CO�a c m 0) E -oc05 -' 20 v 003037, ,U22 jU <05..,D.<0 EEEEEExrEEEoME EEEEEEELsE O O O O 0 (0 t0 i n O O O C m 0 O O O O O O O O O H HH 0 (! FFHHI- aI- UI-HF- - -- -H(� -< I- I- N M Q (0 = M (0 N (0 Q n (0 (0 O Q O O N N O O 0 0 0 0 0 N N M CO n CO (0 0 0 (0 _ N N N N N N N N +- N N N N N N N NM Q O 0 m 0 00 0) 00000 000m N N 00000 0 0 000( 0 0000 0 M M M M M M M M M C) N M M M M (9 M M M M M M M M M M M N N 00) N N CO CC g M M 0)) N (O 6, V 0( V M 0 N n v CO M n M CO O 0) N M N O M N e 0 0 0 0 o r o SUB TOTAL - CONTRIBUTIONS GRAND TOTAL - GENERAL FUND Z 0 Z W a' W _m W = a O X U W 0 ZW J J co 0 0 F J 2 O I— U a) Q O M DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT FUND co Z 7 LL N m CV Improvement Tax 0 to CV M M St- u) uJ CIC- APIP LOW /MOD INC HSG 0 CV Z LL CO N PROP TAX - CURRENT SECURED LIBRARY FUND - OPERATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 N 0) 0 N CD rn 0 CO N O ) tf) V CO 0 O) N N V- CO m � a o c0 N NI CO N 0)) 69 CO 0) 0) Cr 0 U) '- V O O (O N 03 N ) M N r (A o o O O tt o O O O tf) o O 44) o N rn (+) co co r- f» o 0) y c co C N o 0 i- x '� c N m C. t� (i T O N N (0 N O„0 L -0 0) a v) O • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o) CO t` o N NO ( CO r CO CO 0 (.3 CO CO CO CO Z 7 LL o co 00 O O N O N U) O M N u) CV CV N 0 U? GAS TAX FUNDS 0 0 0 0 O CO 0 0) (00 (0 00 ui C) CO CO (f) CO 0 0 CO 0 V (O v _ U3 0n 0)- w r ri CV 0 CA CO N V Cam') (() 0 t0) N fA m CO- CV N 0 0 0 0 0 o o O o 0 O O u) O co o o o r o 0 N U) n Interest Income n (0 N- 0 0 0 Z; X N N O I— O O i N U a) c a) to (n .O fn U) 1 CO OS 0 CO CO I I- I- N CO CO N 00)00 0 0 0 0 0 o O .- (or DI f, a0 co co 0 007 M (07 M CO Z 7 LL CO 0 0) ur) TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 00 CV- 03 CO CO f9 Statutory Violations N M MEASURE B LOCAL ST & RD FUND 215.1 County New Measure B N M MEASURE B BICYCLE PED IMP FUND 215.2 co O a O County New Measure B LO N CO (+) Z Cl m W H in B W -J m = a o X 0 w 0 • 0 `Cr Z w N g_ cv m 0 0 F J ▪ o () m is N to U (f Q 0 CV CO N Z 7 LL W 7 Z w Z w 0 Q' F -r a a - _ 0 0 W 0. w (0 ❑ I- Q • re < • m Z� LL Z (j % N < MEASURE B TRANSBAY FERRY FUND 215.3 0) O County New Measure B N CO CO FUND 215.4 MEASURE B PARATRANSIT LO (0 LO CO LO oo O County New Measure B LO N CO CO TIDELANDS TRUST (.O N ❑ z LL N 0 _ 0 O Rental Income 0 O CO LO LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION co ❑ z 7 LL • 0 0 0 0 o (0 0 0 00) VI M ((0 49 co • (0 0 O (0 CO o CO 0 N (0 00 0 0 ❑ z ✓ O 0 0 (0 O) LL O O 0 4°9 V r • 0- 0 O Ui Sale of City Property 2003 AP Revenue Bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 CO V CO M m O N N 0 N L— U) • .0_. CO •ct 0 CD L CV 0 N N 0 N — (n r 0 0 0 0 E9 U) ❑ -o "O O • O m m a < < o E E m 2 O Q ` LL I— E=in p0 CO 0- O (V (n UJ (f) (.) c0 00 ❑ M M M z LL ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS 0) z LL 0 v co M h 409 0 0 0 V▪ J Federal Grant Public Service O M DWELLING UNIT TAX FUND N ❑ z LL co 0 0 N Ul N (O 1— m .3 ❑ V) ❑ Z LL W 7 z W > z W • 0 H J d Q U - 0 W CO 0. W (n ❑ • re F U Q m z 2 • 7 LL Z N ▪ • Q BUSINESS & WATERFRONT CIC PROJ 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0) O O O o o o 0 M 0 r o N O u ) O N 0 0 0 o u) O Q) (. r 0) b9 O 0) 49 N N O O o o vi o fA • .6 N a) to C 0 ❑ 0 z 7 0 • CD LL a) a�i 0 W o co a) a?i H a) O cc p o 2 E a) is C w 0 c 2 ca — H N z N E. n 2 a`) Y m Y O N L Q N N a 4 0 0. E a 0 O O O N O M N s- 0) N co ❑ CO M M ❑ M co z z 7 7 LL LL O N N u) 0) CV- H3 0 N N WEST END COMM. IMPROVEMENT PROJ. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O o o d a d o o CO (0 0 CO 0 CO CO 0 N O r O N O N CO- u) n CO V M O (0 O O CO 0 0 r» CO N N CO a) V) O N a)t ❑ • E n E al U ▪ O c • C O m r w U w 2 N r c 0 a) m O 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0) 0 10 LO N u) O 000 0) ❑ CO CO CO M CO z 7 LL O O O 0 O CO- CD Y3 OM') U l CV N 69 COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION O 0 0 0 0 0 co O O O co O O O u) co O 0) 0 r- V (u) M N (0 o O O co- of r (r0) co u9 0 U Z'N C J N E 0 0 0 CC U U C N 2 m c a) C CC H 0 0) M CV O 69 N N c» HOME FUND N tt 0 0 0 N O . u. CO Cri • M CN 0) CO N • c0 (0 r O 0;) �- 0 O U1 r M N M 00 O 03 0) U1 a0 0) d9 • c 0) 0 O 0 0 CV Cn Cs▪ 1 • LO NI ❑ (0 ❑ M CO z z 7 7 LL LL co ✓ CN I- p m W 0 a. U W W I- 2 W Q J J J m • 0 0 I- J Ct • y U Q • o M Q O E O 1- N V7 W N Z LL W 7 Z W w 0 Q' _ 1- J d W a w (A 1- 0 • W • m Z 2 LL • Z . a c • (o N Q HOME REPAYMENT FUND ▪ 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO u (0O ODD •) 0 O CO OD (A 69 CO CO N - (D o0 N (O W M Cr) 0 69 o 0 oo CO a 0 (°O N N LO 0 CO M Z 7 LL REHAB REPAYMENT FUND O 0 0 0 ✓ (0) °o 1 O r-: ° si N 0) 10 (n 0 0 CO ' CO 0 fA (0 69 CD CD LO o O N V CO u5 cci CI (A N CO 69 O O O 0 0 O O Q) V Interest Allocation 0 oD (A o • 0 O 0 o 0 H! E9 O O O N (A m o o O 0 0 ✓ 0 0 0 • a) lf) 0) Csi s- NE O CO 01 CO 01 CO 7 7 LL LL 0 K9 ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CO 0 0 0 O ono O o O oadoo 00 o co 0 0 0 0 0 o O N •t N O cr N N. N m 0 1 ar 000 N 0 N N N-- 09 O) LO M 0 N CO N 0 N 0 • r 0 (D 0) O h- 00 N CD- CO fA LO CO (D CO N- (NI c0 O 00 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 000)() LO0 00 (n UIU) CO CO CO O m • CO CO M CO CO CO z 7 LL N CO N N 0 0 CO COO - u0� r M m N c0 LOW & MODERATE INCOME HOUSING - BWIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 0 o O o c°+) (00 (NT - 6 0 0 0 0 co 0 o 0 0 0 O CO N CO 0 69 c O N C x E o (0 U in C c (g To 0) 4) cr m CL 0 2 N N_ v 0 0, 0 0 0 o 0 v 0) N - LO (CO 0) o M M CO M Z 7 LL LSI 0 0 0 0 0 a) 49 0 0 (A CO (0 0H9 I— ❑ m W Ci d X � W U W I- U 0 g J J m 00 0 I- Q - o 7 I— y U ❑ ❑ o w I- 0 Q O 1-- • N CO W fn ❑ Z LL W Z W W cc J U W co ae 1- U Q W • m z 2 LL • z DESCRIPTION FUND 204.5 CIC - HOUSING IN -LIEU FEE 00 0 00 In Lieu Fees LOW & MODERATE INCOME HOUSING - WECIP O 0 O O N O vi o 0 CO CO 00 rn 0) CO- W 1� 0) • E9 93 (» 0) 0) O 0 E9 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0) O N 0 0 m o 0 0 CV N (n CO ❑ c') C) z 7 LL AFFORDABLE HOUSING 00)) e0 N (0 (h • 0) a) (» v N LL N C1 E 11) A 7 E a o o a c N @ N ' a E • d Q Oo O 0) (0 (() O) c7 (7 (7 Lo h 0 V O 69 N (0 O CO 0 0 LO 0 ID 0 0 N N 00)) 0 0 0 0) O N (`▪ ') - N N to CC0 (0 0) 0 N V W ❑ (0 (07 M Z 7 LL 0 co N 0 GARBAGE SURCHARGE r em z 7 LL d 0 0 CO CO CO CO co- POLICE /FIRE IMPACT FEES CURBSIDE RECYCLING FEE n em ❑ z LL Recycling Fee V1 Z 7 LL SPECIAL REVENU E TO COLLECT FUND /ACCT DESCRIPTION WASTE MANAGEMENT /RECYCLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) o 0 ccoo 0 000 0 ca 0 0) c6 0 v v o u) CO o v 0 coo ° v m ° 0) O O O 0 N W CNO) (1)) 69 N 669 O (N1 C') CO c) sr O 0 0) 0) CO CO 0 N CO o V N V sr 0 CO CO 0 0 V 0 0 0 CO 0 c!) 0 0 01 0 0 C) 0C)0)00 ui 0 7 00 V N N N N CO 69 a) a) . > E m a°)) 1Y U O LL C N 0 p 0 y 2 C O) W N 7 .0 N C C N T a) 2 m cc r C O O 2 Q O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.- 0 0) 0) N- r- o N N CO V LO 0) N 0 (0 CO r` CO CI CO CO CO Cc) M CO z 7 LL (0 0 0 0 0) 0i 0 0 0 N 111- M 0 N MARINA COVE MAINT DT 01 -1 o9 Prop Tax - Spec Assass Dist DIKE MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 0 69 0 O N b9 Interest Income CIC- ALAMEDA POINT co co to N CO N 0 O 0 o Cl COO z O z LL c7 LL M LL 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 00 0 r-- v� ro r 0 000 Ul 69 `r »- 0 0 0 c9 c9 sr s- r--- r 0- 0 b9 a) a) a) M m a c E LL • c F- J 0 0 CO CO M LO 0 Ul 69 ATHLETIC TRUST O co 0 z LL 0 0 0 1 0 ovv Un 0 CO u) 0 of v ui 0 0) 0 (0 N D) (0 CO M CO 0 N 0 f9 0 N N LO- CON f9 0 69 co 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 (-- 0 C- 000 O (0 N r 00) 69 69 0 0 0 c9 E9 r 0 CO O N r 69 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) M M a) er N N M co LO CID r-- co co CO CO p M co z 7 LL 0 co 69 I- 0 Z Z W • W 0 ICC — w m W = a O X W H gJ J < 0• 0 0 F J M 4 F W • p Q 0 Z LL W Z W W cc J 0 W a 0 DESCRIPTION 1- re O MI Z 2 LL • Z 5 15 • Q UIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND W p z LL 0 0 0 CO N_ CO M 0 CO fR Departmental Charges FIRE EQUIPMENT FUND 0 M z 7 LL 0 O3 0)) O O 0 K3 a) LL 0 U w c 0 0 O 0)) O 0 URBAN RUNOFF z LL 0 0 0 0 • rn o n N O sr CO (o o ao v v v n O O r lf) f) N N O M OS N 0 CO 0 CO 0 N N 0 O O r CO 0 N N E9 (H a c J LL N co It2 C E N E (0 E Q O Q) c <0 w U c U • N N rn 1— 2 o — 0 0 O 0 00 O) O Q) M 0 M YOUTH COLLABORATIVE 267- 667150 0 O 00 N 0 (0 O O O 36990/38101 Grants /transfers HOUSING DEVELOPMENT N co 0 z 7 LL co (0 Miscellaneous Revenues HA SECTION 8 PROJECTS FUND 265.1 coo oo O3 Oea PRINCIPAL REPAYMENT 0 OLO LO CO ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM O (�I v a O 0 ✓ EA 0 0)) 0 69 0 0 O 69 County Grants O H 0 a� 2 H N y w w Z W > Z w 0 H J d _a - U U to a W 0 H U a W • m z 2 D z LL Z CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a0 O O O oo O N 0 0 LO 0 0 0 (0 0 O C) 0 O O C) O O O O (0 O Cr O " s - O N w o o N 1- O CO N O O O N O O C) 0 0 0( 0 co O 0- N O 0 cc O .- 0- O a0 v n C) s O CO 1� CO O 0) CO 0 N- ( 0 V (0 - (O .- (O 0) 0 N n O N co I- r 0) co 0) co O N CO (0 N. (O 1- •- CO V 0 V CO 0 (O 0) .- CO (D N- (0 (0 0 V 0 0) 0 0) O CO CO 0) I,- N 0) N 0) 0 00 O N N V (n N s- N_ (!) (0 CO- CO- CO. CO CD I O a0 O N N CO 0) (- N 0) N V 0 • 0 (0 - N 0- N. N CO N 69 CO N N `-' 7 0) 0) - N V ,- 0) (D 0) (0 (O N- r CO 0) 0) (D 0 CO CO 0 0) 0 (D 0) O O I- O O V CO 0 N CO N N- 0) 0) 0) (0 N 00 0) (D O 0) 0) (0 CO 0) CO CO (0 CO 0) N 0 N CO (0 O (0 CO 0) CO C) N 01 V C) V .- V CO N 0 V 0 r Cr; CV 0) CO 0) a N O) W 0) (- N N O V N- EO O N 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0) (0 N. 0 v- O (0 .- 0 O N 0 (A 0 0) 0 0 (0 0 (0 O(0 CO (0 ,- 0 CO N 0 0 CO V 0 O n 01 01 s- N CO 0) CO 0) 0) N N O ' N 10 co- CO CO- (0 N 07 CO- CO O Cr- CO- O O O CO N 0) (0 f� N - (0 CO N. c- N CO 1- N V N 0 V.- N (0 N 0) (0 1� (0 .- N .- Federal Grants 0) () (0 L C U) 2 E • 4 m m c 0) 0 '5 i) H (q m c m N Y U) •a fn C N _ (6 10 'O n (p (0 LL N 1] c .Q 2 0 00021=00_0i= .0 0 EL c c = ° c Li_ ° ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. c C 2 (0 N (1) CO 0 0) co 0 0 (0 (0 () 0 (0 (0 0 U) m 0 0 O o U H w w a w a? w' a) �) 01 m 0 N N L N .0 Q) 10 W N 0 N V) (A (A N N fA C C C C C C C C C C C c 4a m g m m m m m CO m CO m CO m LL co In O 0 0 < O H H H H H H H H H H H om Urban Runoff Misc Revenues O 0 o o 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V— (0 co '7 0 0 0 0 (y 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0) 00 0 O CO - N N 1- (0 (0 0 0 0) N N V 0) 0) (0 0) .- N N N N N N 01 0) 0 0 Q Lo U) (0 O O CO (0 O O CO r � O CO 00 CO CO OD CO CO CO CO CO 0) C) M 0) 0) 0) C) OD C) C) C) 0) 0) 0) C) CO M C) 0) CO M CO 0) 0) CO Z M LL O 0 N O co N O 0 0) 0 N OD CO- °n V 0 00 00 N CO N (» FUND 340.11 CDF - WE TRAFFIC SAFETY 0 O K3 Citywide Development Fee O CO CDF- WE PARKS & RECREATION FUND 340.12 0 O N 69 LO 0 CD 6, 6, Citywide Development Fee FUND 340.13 CDF- WE PUBLIC FACILITIES 6, CO (9 to Citywide Development Fee 0 F 0 Z CO 0 LIJ W CO ILI -I o U W U Z J CO TO COLLECT < O 7 � N U p 0 c Lu M Q O (9., H W 0 Z u- W Z W 1 W cc J 0 W a fx h F U Q CO z 7 Z LL Z DESCRIPTION 5 a7 9 a N Q FUND 340.14 CDF- WE PUBLIC SAFETY 0 0 N e us 0 Citywide Development Fee FUND 340.21 CDF- NW TRAFFIC SAFETY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co o co co V fA 69 CO 03 0 CO CO V w, fA 0 Citywide Development Fee O CO CO FUND 340.22 CDF NW PARKS & Reacreation Citywide Development Fee FUND 340.23 CDF NW PUBLIC FACILITIES 0 0 0 (0 (NI 44 N (A 0 a) F a) W LL LL Q N N E 0 O" J a) CO > 7 0 a a) 2 LL 0 U U V N 0 0 0 0 Citywide Development Fee 0 o v co M M M •) p c• Z 7 LL FUND 340.31 CDF- CEE TRAFIC SAFETY 0 0 0 rn H3 m 69 O 69 Citywide Development Fee FUND 340.32 CDF- CEE PARKS & REC O 0 0 N 69 N i» 69 Citywide Development Fee O CO CO CDF- CEE PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND 340.33 0 0 0 0 0 N 69 N fA fA Citywide Development Fee (M) FUND 340.34 CDF- CEE PUBLIC SAFETY fA Citywide Development Fee I- W CI Z ▪ W 0 H d' W m W a ><= W W H QZ w J J m U 0 J M Q • O F c) U W 7 z w > Z CU o F J O 0 w (,) a w u) 1- U • W ▪ m z E • 7 LL Z Ci N 7 •O Q FUND 340.41 CDF- BF TRAFIC SAFETY 0 0 0 0 0 00 Z 7 LL H Z W w W > 0 0) cc (0 z E 0 n � Ti) 1— 0 cp O. z U 1- 0 0 0 0 N 0 N O M O O 000 ui 0 (O O co 0 c) 0 O O (00) ° o 69 N9 0 at 0 (» CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO fA LID 0 H 0 N 0 CO CO _ CO p CO M M z 7 LL 0 0 N GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CO N 0 W V CO N CO 0 0 0 0 C- O N O O N N r O N CO C- N N Cr O O O M O W O 0(0(0ricivo0 4)h 0) 000 000 V C a C 'Cr CO N CO V' N 0 at N CO O N CO N CO O 0 N V I' V N (O 0 O (h co O co 0) CO V 0 0) N a0 (0 st N V .- CO 00 0 0 M CO r- CO N V CO O N 00 s- V N '-' V CO 0 CO- 0) O • N N N_ r N N V h (V O .- O N s- CO r CO N CO 0 N CO ,_ N (0 CO N N CO v N b9 O CO N (0 CO O 0 00 CO CO C- N (O O s- O n O (A CO 0 CO OD CO 0 0 Cr CO N 'V (0 (0 CO N CO r (O C) N V N CO CO 0 (O • Cr- 00 03 (O CO- N CO N- N O .- M r CO N N N CO N s- N N .-- N N .• N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 0_ O CO 0 0 N 00 N V 0 CO CO N • O CO- CO- O CO- CO- N , O N_ M V' O(0 CO CO CO N N CO N CO C) CO N 69 N O c a � Ir as a) y N u) .0 U c o N O N d N u) N Z a 9 N 0 LL (n R' u1 0) w0 u) u) H N - O 0) .5 N u) O Q O p LL O C N C (n C O (0 LL' E. O .0 E (� p O Q C O 0 LL ai 0" N 8-2=f) r a) p E n y 0 `m mw - 0 D) ce CD E i 0 ate) w N 70 M 7 .0 U �- r-. U Y U 0 ▪ O) f6 N '� O O O O O N 7 0 L O y N - 0 0 0 0 .-- 0 0 0 0 0 N CO 0 (0 (O c- o 0 0 0) O N CO C (O (O CO (O 0 0 0 N (0 CO N CO CO CO V V N N N N N N CO 0) 0) CO i0 N I"- N- N- I` N- r C- N. � r N- r N N- 00 CI CO C) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO C) z 7 LL M (0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 CO 0 N 0 0 N ao ono o Ci v N N.- 0 u) O) CO r 0 r W CO O r C- N N a- M N N (0 01 CO co CO' CV 69 69 C- N W (O 0) N CO CO W N N CO N s- M 0) 0 s•- 0 V (O (O '7 CO (A 69 O i,- O O O O O 0 N_ CO 0 CV 0 O) N e} 69 SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND N 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CO s- N 0) 00) C) CO M C-) C0 CI ) z LL Cr; CO N K3 • 00 N N- 01 N 0 CV N 60 Z W Z W CI m W 0 F CC W m W J = a U W Z W Q J J J 0 0 H J M Q I V I- 0 p Q N W z W > z O F J — U 0 W N CL W CO Ce U Q W m Z E � 7 LL Z SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION O co ca 0 z u_ LL ASSISTANCE FUND rn 0 CO V CO N N csi O (n O N N (V E9 O O M C m (0 (0 a CO If) m N 0) N g 7 C > C U CO 0 F � v o (() O O) W CO CO M FUND 621.1 FERRY SERVICE FUND 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 CO (O CN0 0 0 0 0 1 N O N N W .r- O CO N Nr co N n CO N N 00) ‘r N N O O N- O O co O NO r` N (O (n OO O co 0 wv' 0 f9 69 O O (1) 0 (.0 O V GS CO N- O CD (9 0 O M FUND 621.2 FERRY SERVICE FUND 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O (O O O 0 O O r; o 0 0 - O N 00 0 0 N CO Nr W v 00 (D CO CO N .- b4 O) N 0 e0 e0 CV (0 N 03 0 ((O V O) CO- (- CO NI- N co N- 3 C• M 0 0 0 V N O V N- O) CO O V co N N CO POLICE AND FIRE - PLAN 1079 O co 0 r) z LL O V CO N a CO N P-- CV- 69 0 0 0 Lo- CV E9 Transfer from General Fund O O POLICE AND FIRE - PLAN 1082 O co 0 z LL O O 0 O te Transfer from General Fund co ua CT) H ❑ Z W m 0 W J = a O W U W Z W < 0 m 0 H J () U � Q ('1 W Z W > Z O H J — re 0 0 cn 0. w co ❑ H U QW CO Z 2 7 7 LL Z WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O a0 O N 0 0 0 CO o 000(0ori (n U) v (n v CD (f) N a) 0 N 0 CD O 1.6 C) O O CO O (A N CO 0 CO (A O (0 a0 co N O 0) V 0 0 0 O CO O- O (n O (n 0) EA y a "O C C LL CO LL a) C N 3 N N N N O N (o LL r a m (0 2'aaa)o W U to Q D 0 2 0 0 o U w r- 0 C N co N w a) w a� if) a) a) 2 2 a) C C y N m C C m m m m r EHHHHo 0 0 0 0 oD o 0 0 0 0 (f) O n _ O M N O (n CO 00 CO O 0) ❑ CO C) C) C) C) C) z LL a N O 7 N Q N 0- 0- RISK MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 O 0 0 0 v n 000000 ( v) (n (n u) O O (f) TY 0 (0 CO V O O V' I- 0) a N 0 (- N N CO N 0 'I' O V 17 CO N CC te O 0 V - 0 CO CO O O V' t- 0) V N CO O I- N N O N O (4 L00 V V CO OD Cr N- 0 O 0) f- 0 N 0 0 O O CO CO C) W O V n 10 N O 0) a0 O m N 0) O N- ee V a C 7 LL 7 a C j Q lL n a) C v LL j N q C m Q -2 n 0 C LL' a) O V) n W < a 0 0 0 0 0 0 r m (1; ( 0 (0 ( 0 ( 0 co N O CL w 0) °? ID co C o (tC C C C C a) N L (0 (o (o a) a) r L O H H H H H O O N 0 0 0 CO 0 0 O 0 0 (n 0 (0 0 (0 N- W N CO O 00 O I- CO CO O 00 O 0) 0) ❑ C) CO CO CO CO CO CO M Z LL oa V 0- (0 O DENTAL TRUST M T- o z 7 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ((00 0 0 0 (f1 00)) 00)) 0 CO N CO CO 69 0 r 0 0) O N M OD CO LO V 0 f- N N CO N O 0) 0 0) (H 1- 1- () 69 O (0 O N (00 0 ce 0) O N rn U m C 0) w r L C 0 H 0 0 O 0 0 0) O O 1- O 0) CO CO CO CD N 0) LO ai 0 U3 WEST LAGOON HOMEOWNERS ASSN O O O co csi 1/0 409 Other Current Services Z W LLI 0: W a —I x ° W W U U Q J Q 0 CO U 0 F J � O I— y p c7 (1) Z LL DESCRIPTION UNEMPLOYMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0- 0 0 0 N N (f (U L()) N M 0 V 0 e0 N N N M U3 ea (0 N N N 0 (0 N V) CO N. O 0 v> (°n M a C 'O 7 C LL N LL 7 (A C C U C O LL d W ) n o. co. C o 0 ) 0 W Q 0 0 0 E m c w vi N w E w a w w 00 c c f0 C C c c m m m m y 0 000000 O 0 0 U7 O n N M O O (0(0 O O m D M M M M M z LL (0 0 CO DEBT SERVICE - CFD #1 0 0 0 M O O ET) O • (O (0 U7 N N (MD M 0) LO- o0 (0 U) CO (a ea CO 0) N V M CO 0 W O c0 cO Ea ea o 0 0 o (0 00 CO O O 0 ur E 0 o a� N U c N N U a0 c o o o 0 co N M (0 DEBT SERVICE - JAIL FACILITY 0 0 0 I 0) M 0 0 O r- O O . - N 0 0 00000 N 0 0 0 I� O N 0 CO U3 CV r 0 0 0 N O U] O r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N EA M .- M co 0 0 O ( (0 N O c0 0 co M M co z 7 LL LO (0 N N O 00 of (NJ 0 DEBT SERVICE - Para 0 0 0 N 0 O CO O I-- N O IN 00 N t V N O) 0) (A (A CO (fl co 00 Cs. LO N N (00 r• 0 0 O O N (A O 0 (p 0 O CO _ LO 0 M co Z 0 LL 0 O N O DEBT SERVICE - ABAG XX (1) N Interest Income � p Z W CO W F CO - w X U W I- L) 0 3 J J m 0 0 SPECIAL REVENU E J • 2, I- y U p Q 0 ESTIMATED FUND /ACCT DESCRIPTION re w w z E - 1994 Street I DEBT SER • • CO - L11 M ro v 0) (0 N N EA M M E` - LO V 0 0 0 0 (n 0 M (0 Interest Income Transfers - Special Revenue 0) DEBT SERVICE - 1995 City Hall Bonds co z LL 0 0 0 0 Vi d (0 (D H E -v O C C u N • N N C N • o 0 0 0 0 u, m M M O 0 0 0 0 (f) CO 0 EA 0 EA DEBT SERVICE - Library & Golf Project 0 0 0 N 'Cr h CO V 0 0) E9 (O M N oo O_ (n O (0 O (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E13- 1 000 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 v N p M CO CO z LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 69 DEBT SERVICE - Alameda Point Project 0 00 ((0 EH Interest Income DEBT SERVICE - Library Bond o 0 0 N �, v z • co z LL LL O En Interest Income M DEBT SERVICE - Maitland Drive v z 7 LL 00 409 0 0 69 Special Assessment 000 M DEBT SERVICE - 84 -3A co v p z LL 00 0 m o rn co 0 N M 0 M LO 0 u7 V O V N ' N E» E» V O V u) ((7 � ( EA E9 0 O 0 0 0 0 M c• 0 O 00 ai 0 0 m 0 LL W Ea* w = a o X U w w Z w gJ < 0 0 J M 0 u U p er w (4') Q o E N F N w fn Z 7 LL w Z w 1 w re J U w a 0 w I- U W m Z 2 LL Z 1) c N Q DESCRIPTION DEBT SERVICE - 84 -3B 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o (0 0 O 0 CO 0) sr b9 � o LO- LO b9 00 0 N CO LO (9 co DEBT SERVICE - CIC TAX ALLOC BOND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V CO O oCO 0) CO (9 (0 CV CV 0 0 0 (9 Interest Income Tsfr from Low /Mod BWIP Tsfr from CFD#4 (p 00 0 CO (0 N V N CO CO ❑ CO CO CO Z 7 LL 00 0 DEBT SERVICE - CIC SUB BOND CD ❑ Z LL 0 I 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 0 N N u) (`) C0 0) 0) co N. LO CO a0 N N- 0 C6 0) I': ui Ci H3 69 CO 00 69 44 N N u) (.) 00 03 CO N n O 0i of n ui C6 69 O 03 69 a- 00 Interest Income u09 DEBT SERVICE - CFD#4 TAX BOND 0 0 0 0 N 0_ (0 0 (O LO u) 0 CO . ❑ M CO Z 7 LL 0 DEBT SERVICE REFINANCE CITYHALL 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o co (0 co V ‘ci- te 00 0 v o f0 0 0 LC/ CO ❑ CO CO Z 7 LL 0 EO 2003 Tax Alloc Refinance BWIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (0 V' 0 (0 0 0 0) 0 0 L6 L- N CO (0 M N R (0 (n 0 N CO (0 0 0 N O) 0 0 LO - ui CO (0 M N V (0 (0 CO- � r 0 0 o 0 h o co 0 (0 0) (0 (0 10 Z 1:1 CO CO CO CO LL 00 d O (0 co O N 44 O co O N b9 0 W F- Z W J J < • 0 0 F- ESTIMATED REVENU E O O N z 0 F J 0. Q U 0 W d CO F- U a w O CO z 2 LL • Z •D N 2003 AP Rev Bond Debt 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ET O V O M O M O 0) 0) fA O R O M O N 00 CO 0) in °) O 0 U3 CO r- o CD U) co cr co 0) 0 co M z 7 LL 0 O v d" N CO 0) O_ co N 0) O fA DEBT SERVICE - 89 -1 M CO z 7 LL O 0 0 N O •-• O V • O 0) U7 � N O N oo co U) 0 l00 U) N N 0... .- OD H3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N CO N U) U) .- (0 c) CO- E/9 EA "a- a) N E a) O U Q C N N a a) c 0 0 00 0 CO • LO M DEBT SERVICE - 92 -1 M co z 7 LL • E O O co O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0) (0 W 0) N NI- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO- 0- m Ea 0 0 0) N of DEBT SERVICE Interest Income 00 M 1998 REVENUE BOND DEBT 0') co 0 z 7 LL 0 0 0 O 0 N N O CO O ▪ 0 E CO d 0 X O co U — y CD o 0 o O O co co () 1999 REVENUE BOND DEBT 0 0 0 0 O sa- - (0 V 0) OD 0) cq Cr CO CO V UJ R 0) N 0 0 O O 0) N UJ Interest Income Other Contributions 0 M O 0) 0) 0) 0 0 00) N U'3 Z W 0 0 0 m W F m 0 C 0 C)) W O W E w J W U U ILI U 0) 0 0) Z W CO m CO J m 0 6 69 ESTIMATED 0 0 O 0 z LL W Z W i Z w O re 0. a_ re U w w (n IX 0 CO Z 2 LL Z AIa PT Bond Proi Fund (0 O (0 r� n 0 N (» (» 0 0 0 O CO r» O CO CI▪ D 6 Debt Sry AIa Pt co 0 z LL 0 0 0 0 CO 0 O 0 ✓ O 0 0 N-- O O O CO (0 0 0 (0 00 (0 O 0 CO V CO st 66. a• 00 CO O 1� l0 0 0 M CO (0 0 0)cov0 99 CO V CO O O 0 0 0 0 O CN- c) O 0 M N co N 0 Tr C so O O 0) 64 FISC LEASE REVENUE BOND O 0 z LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 () O O O M 0 0 N 69 N 0) OD 0▪ ) sr • 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O co 0 1— 69 0 0 (A 0 N 0 0) N 0) (0 0) 0) CO CO CO O 00) c 0 0) n (A COMMUNITY FACILITIES O DISCTRICT #2 - Para � O 0 (0 0 C) O ✓ N H3 0) O CO fA Interest Income Transfer from Debt Svc Fund 0 O 0 0 0 (00 0 00 (O 0 0 CO C9 s- M (0 0 Z Z CO CO LL LL CO LO 0 O O 00 69 ESTIMATED 0 Z LL W Z W W CC -J U W 0. fy m U Q W m 7 LL Z 8 1 N Q DESCRIPTION MARINA VILLLAGE AD# - 89 -1 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 ao N C) 09 N O CO 69 N 0 CO 0 CO O N 0) CO lA CO U) N 69 HARBOR BAY AD # - 92 -1 Interest Income M O 0 co ❑ M Z 7 LL F U 1- H N 0 W U Z Z W F Z U ❑ Z J N FUND 275.1 0 m N- 96 co CV- co 69 Special Assessment 0 03 CO FUND 275.2 CV d 0 N Special Assessment FUND 275.3 d 0 N O co Eft 0) O O Special Assessment O o M FUND 275.4 d 0 N O O Special Assessment 0 CO CO H U N 0 W U Z Z W z Z U 2 0) u") mi ti ❑ 2 7 LL m 0 0 0 0 D Tr ((00 Sr U)) c4 N U) r N- N- N O (f) u) N CO E 0 Q0) To C- T) N CL CO 0 0 0 O O 00 O) co M Z W m 0 LLI W IY a 0 x W U W Z • W JJ m U 0 F J () j F 0 U p Q M O Tr F 9 Q • N N W N p Z LL W 7 Z W > Z w 0 re _ H J 0. — U U W co a w co 0 F U Q W o m z 2 LL • Z • N V N • Q H U H N p w U z Z 1- z Z 2 F U 0 Z J V) FUND 275.6 (00 O N 0 LO N 0) CO N LO i9 0 (0 (9 Special Assessment 0 c0 M F U rl p W U z Z W z 2 H U 0 Z J w FUND 275.7 0 N o_ 0 0 O 0 N 0 0 0 0 0) o 0 00 0 0 ✓ 0 0 CO CO • o 0 O n o (0 M 69 O o 0 N 0 (9 M C m E O 8 a C m • 0 U a) U E O 0 Q a0 (0 Q • L C (001- o o 0 o 0 c0 0) CO - 1- O CO CO M N 0) m (9 CENTRAL STORES FUND 0 0 z LL 0 0) 0 V V O I. 'Cr CO 0) N- 6 [F V CO o N CO V O V 0 CV N N (9 v) o o(0 61 N 0 N- .6- 60 M 00 N N- 69 N O CO CO ) 0 ON e0 0 e0 Q- v (0 fA 00 V) a U m L.L. 0_ N • s (9 w 0 C N a) W W L E E y O O O O 0 0 0 c c- ((6 N L L F- H 0 0) 0 0 0 - 0 0 CO CO C• O CO O) CO CO M M CO (0 0 CO O 69 co 0 0) op 69 CENTRAL GARAGE FUND O 0 0 O )0 I- u) °v - O v r CO 0 M (9 • V N • 60 CO v CO V M (9 0 0 69 0 fA a) ca 7 r E O • o w N O m C H 0 CO (0 CO n M O M (0i Z 7 LL N N 69 TECHNOLOGY SERVICE FUND O 0 0 rn N LO 0 v CO 0) 0 CO (0 r 6 1" (0 0 O (O N •N- (9 • 0 0 1 N N 0) 0) 0 co M Z 7 LL 0) n co 69 N N 69 SPECIAL REVENU E m O H M Q O 2 N F m W FUND /ACCT DESCRIPTION W 2 z N O N • a Reimbursable Fund N 1) 0 N o to O ✓ V Charges to Other Depts. O O O O N 69 ✓ N c co ) co v u) a o I� M o co (O O O O (O O (O (0 co co co 0) 69 69 69 M CO (O O 1O r O) CO N CO- LO r CO .- O) m N N H3 � b9 r CO CO N 0 N 0) N U Z ▪ Z Z LL J LL J a J W W Z CL W O co CD Li Li 0 • Z O 0 F F (7 0 0 w W F W GI la GI Ce W w c. ax w w 0 z Q m M w W O Ce p, H 0 . W 17 D. X w 'O 0) w C 0) O 3 Q 'v O Q M C L i i O O Ci c d E E LL tin; L Q J u, V O z p M "I Q N 0 Dec 31 2003 APPRO GENERAL FUND City Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO 0)ru>reo I N N CO CO CO 0 O M M V V V V 'V M I V 0 0) V V N V M N.- r N (O V 00 M r V M CO O O 07 O 0O Oi ( N. (D V O 0 0) N- N.- M 0 N- r u) 0) (0O O 000 r 0 .- 0) M V (() V N (0 r N . H9 V V 0) 0) CO N. 0 W V 0)) V N 0 0 u) N V M V u) O 01 r N CO O N CO 0 N W N 0 V 0) V CO 0 CO (00 N V U) cc-- V 0 r 0 V 0) C 0) 0 . 0 ) OO T _ C ` 0 O T O c (O Y E w .O o O U U 2 U Q c ca E w w >. C j 0 .>. 0 O ii 2 0 o 0 0 O_ 0 0 CV N CO V 0) 0 N N N N N N 0) co CD 64 (O 1- 0) to O N N 00 0 (0 w 0 N C4 O 0) 0) (0 CO V 0 w GENERAL GOVT SUB TOTAL: Police Services 0 0 0 0 0) N u) LO CID OD to 0) 0) N 0 V CO M 0 r M M O V V u) 0 (O N CO u) co 00 0 0 0 V CO V N N M 0 M CO 0 0) u) 05 r 0 0 M 0 N 0 0 O 0 W O U5 Bureau of Services Cl/ 0 7 To CO E m Q Crossing Guards 0 0 0 0 N CO 0) M M M M I r- 05 r 0, CI r 0 Ea 0) O_ co 0 00) co 0 O N r CO 00 Fire Services 0) 0) v V N N N N N r r 0) 0 M 0) O CO M CO r V 0) N 0 Cr; O o O O O O O O U) N 0) 0) 0 CO 0) 0 CO N.- (0 O OD N 0) C CI- o_ 0 0 N N CO CO CO CO u) CD 0 69 CO U5 U) r 0, 0')) to (.6 N 0) 00 0) 69 ER 0 D ui O V 0 OD CO N w V N N 0, 0 0 O r 49 w 64 0, Police / Fire Pension 0 1 0 0 • O ' O LO I M CO M V a V N 00) N 0) 0, O N N 0) 00) (N') O PUBLIC SAFETY SUB TOTAL: 0) 0 (0 M l0O V 00) 0) N 6 r CV V 0) M 0 0 V 0(, 0 0 0 O 0 0 v3 v F- G Z W UJ 1:1 0 Q.' W N W d ax w CO 0 o F z N m J = Q M x m d W O (A M W c K o N H M W 0 0. x LO v r C c y) O 3 N Q O Q 0 c CI c E O a V Q Ci c al y E LL N 7 a J Cl) 0 Z O U' I- 8 2 < O a 0 0! 0 a GENERAL FUND ment Services 0 d 0 co co (O o r V O N V O Ca M 00 0 r CO ((00 0 CD o 0) Ca M fA � (n 0 0 00 N N o co O 00 O Ea N U E Z U co a) o m W c C v N m 0 0 0 N (VO V V 0 0 N 0 CO O V V CO o N V (0 c•-) N 1) O (0 (n w N N. 00 00 0) CO- h N Ca 0) V fR (O 0 0 0 0 N 0) O M O ta O) 0) N N CO (0 to N Ea O O U3 to co rs- N 00) CV 0) O PLAN /BUILDING SUB TOTAL: Public Works 0 • 0 0 0 0 (O O V a- N N O CO O 0) 0 f� O O M 0) rs. V co V V co M co V 0) ( (' 1 00 C 00 r- 0 (O co N 0) 0 V M (O 0) O CO. 00 LO LO- LO M V V f� O N O L V NN W f- co 00 eo co" Q1 r N V O O n (0`0 00) 00) CO 0 a 0_ 0 CO- N N 0) (O (O (O M CO M N O (O N 69 0 V N M CO V V N N N M N (O 00) r CO- (O VEA (Of) M N O M 110 N fa O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O . EaN° M ea Ea 69 0 N O V N M CO V V CO N N M (NO Ca C7 r co- O V' 01 LO 000 V N M 0) 63 r .- N (0 w 0 m o J O Q d C 0 c U_ w c E. N 0) m c O C 0 N O a) p a) O O) ,c m 0 acc H 0 d a c m@ 8 m c <0 -12 0 0) a O (O (0 (n O O 0 ` NNNNNN V V V V V V 0 0 0 0 0 O N O 0) N V O M C7 N CO M 0 O O V V O V M O V 0 0) V (O 0) 0 0) M N O CO V (O CO (O N 0 O O N CO CO CO N O LO 00 0 V co co m M V c� o co- o m co- o O 9 V (A V M 0) V (O CO N CO r 00 N- M (O (0 N- N N CV 0. N V V M 0) V O CO 0) CO N O N (O CO O N- N N N O u) N V in 0 0 0 0 0 N M (O f. 0O (O O V) O 0 0 0 O 0 N- V V V (O N 0) 00 < O) 00 N O co (A N' O (R MCA CD CV CD ONO_ (00 CO') N 0) CO a- 6a CV V! CV fa M 1O (0 COO M 0 n 11O W 0) (A 0') 00 Vi N 01 0 N 0 69 CO O 0 M 0N) H3 O O O ffl O fR 0) CO CO 0) (0 h M co 000 10) T 00 M 0) w RECREATION /PARKS SUB TOTAL To F .0 y 0 c a) 0 0 0 F .0 ) Capital Outla 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO 0 O CO o O N c0 a0 u) O O 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0) u) N N 00 N m N 0 0 N 0 0 O) u) 0) 01 CD- CFI D) N O O N 0 (A O U) 0 O N (0 V N V Q GENERAL FUND Non - Departmental o o (n 0 (A 0 N O O M N N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 V M O N uoi ca u0) O V 0 V (O 0 N O N- O U) 0 0 N- O 0) u) 0 CO N C- N. CO 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 N. 0 O O 0 00 N CO N. n N CO (» 0 V 0 CO (D 0 U) 0 (() 0 u) 0 O) N r r O C• h 00 U) U) O 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 u) 0 0 O 0 W 0 O O) 0 CO CO CO u) u) CO m c LL O — O CS d CD N 03 0) = c CI- l— E w a) E (0 6.-- m N 7 N 0 7 U O) fl. °E 2Ez E -0 Ea) a=i m y O LL' c a) .c .w co n a= co f0 F. 0 O K 0 D 0 Q 2 CO $ I- Sub -i 0 LO M 0) 0) M 0) N M M n co toO) O h (() U) O) CV te CD N M N n M a 0 M ock co a0 N CO 0 O LO v co 1` 0) ELAPSED TIME: 50% ORIGINAL EXHIBIT B APPROPRIATIONS Second Qtr Adjusted EXPENDITURES BALANCE 2003 -04 Adjustments Appropriations 31- Dec -03 31- Dec -03 SPECIAL FUNDS 93006 ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM $61,635 $61,635 $26,683 $34,952 266 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND 403,454 190,473 593,927 61,752 532,175 856 ALAMEDAPOINT BOND PROJ. FUND 0 515,800 515,800 1,535,948 (1,020,148) 858 ALAMEDA REDEV & REUSE AUTHORITY 21,930,007 (538,080) 21,391,927 6,224,145 15,167,782 219 ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS 100,000 (67,769) 32,231 0 32,231 280 ATHLETIC TRUST 924,007 954,007 615,283 338,724 268 CALIFORNIA HOUSING REHAB /LEAD 146,592 146,592 57,791 88,801 310 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 25,850,499 (385,761) 25,464,738 4,576,345 20,888,392 703 CENTRAL GARAGE 150,000 150,000 131,480 18,520 702 CENTRAL STORES 700,000 700,000 275,077 424,923 361 CFD #2 PARAGON 0 0 554 (554) 227 COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION 191,604 191,604 84,120 107,485 236 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4,114,133 9,349 4,123,483 964,130 3,159,353 164 CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT TAX 25,966 25,966 0 25,966 273 CURBSIDE RECYCLING 1,947,034 1,947,034 6,679 1,940,355 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS: 15,809,249 328 2003 AP Revenue Bond Project 0 288,905 288,905 288,905 0 413 1990 Police Bldg 237,960 237,960 176,668 61,292 415 1989 COPS ABAG 251,700 475,857 727,557 727,557 (0) 417 1994 Street Improvements 448,960 448,960 67,398 381,562 418 City Hall Bond 872,756 (872,756) 0 0 0 419 Debt Service - Library and Golf Project 373,893 373,893 256,503 117,390 421 Debt Service - Library BD 2003 0 167,227 167,227 167,227 (0) 458 Assess Dist 84 -3A 332,000 332,000 296,125 35,875 460 Assiss Dist 84-3B 3,512,410 (3,412,410) 100,000 89,145 10,855 461 Debt CIC Tax Allo Bd 1,026,266 320,289 1,346,555 1,346,555 (0) 462 Debt CIC Sub Bond 338,527 338,527 335,196 3,331 463 CFD #4 Tax Bond 0 0 831,763 (831,763) 464 Refinance Cityhall 0 0 241,153 (241,153) 465 2003 Tax Allocation Refi - BWIP 0 0 18,476,829 (18,476,829) 468 2003 AP Revenue Bond Debt 0 0 9,186,598 (9,186,598) 832 Assess Dist 89 -1 0 0 2,526,178 (2,526,178) 835 1998 Revenue Bond Debt 2,816,729 2,816,729 3,690,039 (873,310) 836 1999 Revenue Bond Debt 3,645,633 3,645,633 5,056,195 (1,410,562) 857 Alameda Point Bond 1,164,606 1,164,606 10,460,440 (9,295,834) 860 ASSESS DIST CFD #1 1,470,000 1,470,000 909,355 560,645 861 ASSESS DIST CDF #2 PARAGON 181,220 181,220 165,385 15,835 713 DENTAL TRUST 350,000 350,000 366,867 (16,867) 221 DWELLING UNIT TAX FUND 196,000 27,966 223,966 9,668 214,298 298 EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION FUND 96,300 96,300 4,512 91,788 119 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 684,505 (15,000) 700,260 376,344 323,916 621.1 EASTEND FERRY 1,419,408 35,000 1,454,408 502,553 951,855 621.2 WESTEND FERRY 2,288,169 2,288,169 1,069,105 1,219,064 256 FISC LEASE REVENUE FUND 3,061,721 3,061,721 1,362,137 1,699,584 256.1 FISC - CATELLUS 0 0 1,281,095 (1,281,095) 270 GARBAGE SURCHARGE (GAS MONITORING 265,661 265,661 65,045 200,616 211 GAS TAX FUND 1,460,502 1,460,502 834,681 625,821 601 GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND 12,556,581 12,556,581 2,209,218 10,347,363 248 HOME REPAYMENT FUND 0 0 44,448 (44,448) 235 HOME Fund 1,447,706 343,484 1,791,191 287,118 1,504,073 115 HOUSING AUTHORITY REIMBURSABLE FUNI 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,349,426 650,574 265 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 20,000 20,000 401 19,599 204.5 HOUSING IN LIEU 267,000 85,731 352,731 0 352,731 267 HUMAN SERVICES /SSHRB/YOUTH COLLAB. 611,212 17,680 628,891 74,221 554,670 275 ISLAND CITY MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS: 0 0 0 0 275.1 84-2 Zone 1 5,520 5,520 727 4,793 275.2 84 -2 Zone 2 21,382 21,382 1,877 19,505 275.3 84 -2 Zone 3 29,237 29,237 1,877 27,360 275.4 84-2 Zone 4 71,090 71,090 26,865 44,225 275.5 84 -2 Zone 5 645,261 645,261 382,684 262,577 275.6 84 -2 Zone 6 293,500 293,500 166,475 127,025 275.7 84 -2 Zone 7 11,210 11,210 15,575 (4,365) 210 LIBRARY FUND 2,717,054 2,717,054 1,268,553 1,448,501 202 LOW AND MOD INC HOUSING (WECIP) 1,182,098 1,182,098 55,332 1,126,766 204 LOW AND MOD INC HOUSING (BWIP) 1,598,282 33,537 1,631,819 599,809 1,032,010 206 LOW AND MOD INC HOUSING (APIP) 94,703 94,703 22,863 71,840 276 MARINA COVE MAINT DT 01 -1 0 0 1,000 (1,000) 312 MARINA DISTRICT A.D.89 -1 0 0 59 (59) 215 MEASURE B FUND 300,356 300,356 3,723 296,633 215.1 MEASURE B FUND Local St & Rd 2,413,116 (698,456) 1,714,660 475,158 1,239,502 215.2 MEASURE B BICYCLE PED IMP 277,305 (57,305) 220,000 25,689 194,311 215.3 MEASURE B TRANSBAY FERRY 713,470 713,470 293,808 419,662 215.4 MEASURE B PARA TRANSIT 237,264 237,264 18,051 219,214 318 OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT 0 44,493 44,493 0 224 PARKING METER FUND 1,678,968 1,678,968 166,218 1,512,750 801 PENSION FUND- 1079 3,790,000 3,790,000 1,682,777 2,107,223 37 ORIGINAL ELAPSED TIME: 50% EXHIBIT B APPROPRIATIONS Second Qtr Adjusted EXPENDITURES BALANCE 2003 -04 Adjustments Appropriations 31- Dec -03 31- Dec -03 SPECIAL FUNDS 802 PENSION FUND - 1082 161 POLICE /FIRE IMPACT FEES 203 REDEV. BWIP 201 REDEV. WECIP 205 REDEV. APIP 249 REHAB REPAYMENT FUND 712 RISK MANAGEMENT 602 SANITARY SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND 620 SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION 704 TECHNOLOGY SERVICE FUND 216 TIDELANDS TRUST FUND 213 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUNDS 350 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 715 UNEMPLOYMENT 351 URBAN RUNOFF 274 WASTE MANAGEMENT /RECYCLING 711 WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST Total Special Funds GRAND TOTAL - ALL FUNDS 460,000 150,000 610,000 556,573 53,427 35,000 (10,781) 24,219 17,500 6,719 10,150,855 10,150,855 7,258,711 2,892,144 4,093,735 4,093,735 416,127 3,677,608 709,726 709,726 234,722 475,004 1,142,194 1,142,194 362,064 780,130 1,864,277 150,000 2,014,277 1,286,231 728,046 2,778,310 2,778,310 1,312,316 1,465,994 38,850 38,850 22,836 16,014 556,500 50,000 606,500 347,556 258,944 171,309 171,309 38,975 132,334 150,000 304,416 454,416 454,416 (0) 2,294,533 35,000 2,329,532 118,287 2,211,245 31,000 31,000 31,889 (889) 2,188,652 2,193,652 609,603 1,584,049 789,574 789,574 225,679 563,895 3,294,709 140,888 3,435,597 992,396 2,443,201 $161,080,646 ($1,216,716) $144,164,929 $99,231,532 $44,933,396 $224,028,300 $27,900 $208,507,242 $129,715,310 $78,791,932 EXHIBIT C SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS ACTUAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTED ESTIMATED BALANCE REVENUES APPROPRIATIONS BALANCE 06/30/03 2003 -04 2003 -04 12/31/03 001 GENERAL FUND - CURRENT Earmarked for Operating 119 RESERVED - EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 161 POLICE /FIRE IMPACT FEES 164 RESERVED - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Sub total General Fund Includes accrued vacation and post retirement health SPECIAL FUNDS r $16,549,456 $62,193,008 63,341,559 1,000,754 1,000,754 1,394,319 950,000 700,260 (5,781) 30,000 24,219 0 (71,310) 270,000 25,966 172,724 $18,867,438 $63,443,008 $65,092,758 $17,217,688 $15,400,905 0 1,644,059 259 AB434 - VEHICLE REGISTRATION $37,392 $0 $0 $37,392.00 310 -93006 ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM 164,496 80,000 61,635 182,861 266 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND 253,340 363,012 593,927 22,425 856 ALAMEDA POINT PROJECT BOND FUNDS 1,530,188 61,800 515,800 1,076,188 ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM 47,963,294 48,448,545 858 ALAMEDA REUSE & REDEVELOPMENT AUTH. 4,094,844 10,098,315 21,391,927 (7,198,768) 219 ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS (67,769) 100,000 32,231 0 280 ATHLETIC TRUST FUND 291,730 832,837 954,007 170,560 310 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 11,744,195 25,842,880 25,464,738 12,122,337 340.11 CDF WE TRAFFIC SAFETY 365,577 0 0 365,577 340.12 CDF WE PARKS & RECREATION 3,962 0 0 3,962 340.13 CDF WE PUBLIC FACILITIES 9,670 0 0 9,670 340.14 CDF WE PUBLIC SAFETY 8,324 0 0 8,324 340.21 CDF NW TRAFFIC SAFETY 146,384 0 0 146,384 340.22 CDF NW PARK & RECREATION 124,887 0 0 124,887 340.23 CDF NW PUBLIC FACILITIES 22,127 0 0 22,127 340.24 CDF NW PUBLIC SAFETY 9,687 0 0 9,687 340.31 CDF CEE TRAFFIC SAFETY 16,727 0 0 16,727 340.32 CDF CEE PARKS & RECREATION 5,632 0 0 5,632 340.33 CDF CEE PUBLIC FACILITIES 1,346 0 0 1,346 340.34 CDF CEE PARKS & RECREATION 691 0 0 691 340.41 CDF BF TRAFFIC SAFETY 7,434 0 0 7,434 340.42 CDF BF PARK & RECREATION 38,186 0 0 38,186 340.43 CDF BF PUBLIC FACILITIES 6,485 0 0 6,485 340.44 CDF BF PUBLIC SAFETY 2,795 0 0 2,795 703 CENTRAL GARAGE 25,641 253,717 150,000 129,358 702 CENTRAL STORES 924 899,049 700,000 199,973 268 CHRPO /LEAD 30,541 120,000 146,592 3,949 227 COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION 413,480 427,449 191,604 649,325 236 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 0 4,123,484 4,123,483 1 360 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #1 HBIA 210 73,900 0 74,110 361 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2 (PARAGON) 454,355 100,000 0 554,355 273 CURBSIDE RECYCLING FUND 265,601 1,800,000 1,947,034 118,567 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS: 860 CFD #1 2,775,191 1,453,000 1,470,000 2,758,191 861 CFD #2 397,059 206,000 181,220 421,839 461 CICTAXALLOC. BD 1,050,410 0 1,346,555 (296,145) 462 CIC SUB BOND 865,182 0 338,527 526,655 463 CFD #4 TAX BOND 648,702 0 0 648,702 413 Jail Facility 291,672 259,000 237,960 312,712 415 ABAG #20 727,187 24,500 727,557 24,130 39 EXHIBIT C SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS ACTUAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTED ESTIMATED BALANCE REVENUES APPROPRIATIONS BALANCE 06/30/03 2003 -04 2003 -04 12/31/03 417 Street Improvement Bonds 419 Library/Golf Bonds 420 Alameda Point Project 421 Library Bond 452 Maitland Drive 834 Marina Village 458 Assessment Dist 84 -3A 460 Assessment Dist 84 -3B 464 Cityhall Refinance 832 Assessment Dist 89 -1 833 Assessment Dist 92 -1 835 1998 Revenue Bonds 836 1999 Revenue Bonds 857 Alameda Point 713 DENTAL TRUST 876 DIKE MAINTENANCE FUND 221 DWELLING UNIT FUND 298 EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION 621 FERRY SERVICE FUND 621.1 EASTEND FERRY 621.2 WESTEND FERRY 256 FISC LEASE REVENUE FUND 256.1 FISC LEASE REVENUE FUND 270 GARBAGE SURCHARGE 211 GAS TAX 601 GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND 313 HBIA ASSESSMENT DIST 92 -1 235 HOME Fund 248 HOME REPAYMENT FUND HOUSING AUTHORITY 115 HOUSING AUTHORITY REIMBURSABLE FUND 265 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 265.1 HA SECTION 8 PROJECT 204.5 HOUSING IN LIEU 275 ISLAND CITY MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 272,432 611,368 0 163,454 0 0 593,196 213,713 1,405,129 5,694,125 31,699 24,810,571 29,199,776 1,694,876 (56,834) 315,376 (28,476) 182,462 10,484,642 29,118 336,881 (684,424) 236,815 394,262 78,154 7,693,515 3,051,460 46,338 133,302 0 0 0 99,670 298,114 491,500 291,000 65,000 0 6,000 472,000 349,000 113,800 0 3,652,000 2,963,000 1,468,005 2,790,000 32,000 409,852 20,000 60,000 95,867 0 1,454,408 2,288,169 352,133 0 58,333 1,667,500 5,712,400 368,000 1,744,852 0 25,209,933 2,000,000 20,000 0 0 448,960 373,893 0 0 0 0 332,000 100,000 0 0 0 2,816,729 3,645,633 1,164, 606 350,000 0 223,966 96,300 0 1,454,408 2,288,169 3,061,721 0 265,661 1,460, 502 12,556,581 0 1,791,191 0 25,174, 283 2,000,000 20,000 0 0 314,972 528,475 65,000 163,454 6,000 472,000 610,196 227,513 1,405,129 9,346,125 2,994,699 23,461,847 28, 344,143 562,270 3,018 335,376 (192,442) 182,029 10, 484, 642 29,118 336,881 (3,394,012) 236,815 186,934 285,152 849,334 3,419,460 (0) 133,302 0 0 0 99,670 298,114 275.1 Zone #1 3,819 4,850 5,520 3,149 275.2 Zone #2 52,125 18,650 21,382 49,393 275.3 Zone #3 53,355 17,000 29,237 41,118 275.4 Zone#4 55,669 62,000 71,090 46,579 275.5 Zone #5 4,114 620,750 645,261 (20,397) 275.6 Zone #6 198,830 313,500 293,500 218,830 275.7 Zone #7 29,315 10,200 11,210 28,305 317 LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,318,689 67,075 0 1,385,764 210 LIBRARY OPERATING FUND 0 2,680,054 2,717,054 (37,000) 206 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING -APIP 174,298 44,428 94,703 124,023 204 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING -BWIP 2,266,591 643,300 1,631,819 1,278,072 202 LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING -WECIP 875,568 949,000 1,182,098 642,470 276 MARINA COVE MAINT DT 24,189 0 0 24,189 312 MARINA VILLAGE - ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 89 -1 2,467,422 123,138 0 2,590,560 215 MEASURE B 1,652,084 0 300,356 1,351,728 215.1 MEASURE B LOCAL ST & RD 917,075 1,218,849 1,714,660 421,264 215.2 MEASURE B BICYCLE PED IMP 84,767 164,830 220,000 29,597 215.3 MEASURE B TRANSBAY FERRY 331,667 686,095 713,470 304,292 215.4 MEASURE B PARA TRANSIT 105,817 132,599 237,264 1,152 223 PARKING IN LIEU 46,217 0 0 46,217 224 PARKING METER FUND 2,202,978 465,000 1,678,968 989,010 801 PENSION PLAN 1079 0 4,025,000 3,790,000 235,000 802 PENSION PLAN 1082 (10,122) 566,695 610,000 (53,427) 40 EXHIBIT C SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF FUNDS ACTUAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTED ESTIMATED BALANCE REVENUES APPROPRIATIONS BALANCE 06/30/03 2003 -04 2003 -04 12/31/03 203 REDEVELOPMENT - BWIP 1,447,225 203.1 REDEVELOPMENT - BWIP CATELLUS (3,929) 205 REDEVELOPMENT - APIP (1,122,777) 201 REDEVELOPMENT - WECIP (1,884,067) 249 REHABILITATION REPAYMENT 967,007 712 RISK MANAGEMENT 1,158,875 602 SANITARY SEWER ENTERPRISE FUNDS 31,362,692 620 SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION 23,586 267 SSHRB 109,605 704 TECHNOLOGY SERVICE FUND 370,118 216 TIDELANDS TRUST FUND 523,642 213 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 379,416 214 TRANSPORTATION FUND 180,814 350 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND 2,116,292 715 UNEMPLOYMENT 69,765 351 URBAN RUNOFF SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 1,765,744 274 WASTE MANAGEMENT /RECYCLING FUND 3,201,305 820 WEST LAGOON HOMEOWNERS 0 711 WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST (3,194,592) SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - TOTAL COMBINED TOTAL - ALL FUNDS 8,538,300 0 584,855 44,391,016 183,000 1,861,748 5,128, 027 38,850 476,194 556,500 150,000 150,000 0 215,000 30,616 2,670,216 998,257 62,000 1,145,449 10,150, 855 0 709,726 4,093,735 1,142,194 2,014,277 2,778,310 38,850 628,891 606,500 171,309 454,416 0 2,329,532 31,000 2,193, 652 789,574 0 3,435, 597 (165, 330) (3,929) (1,247,648) 38,413,214 7,813 1,006,346 33,712,409 23,586 (43, 092) 320,118 502,333 75,000 180,814 1,760 69,381 2,242,308 3,409, 988 62,000 (5,484, 740) $164,390,387 $229,230,030 $216,183,955 $177,436,461 $183,257,825 $292,673,038 $281,276,714 $194,654,149 41 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 4, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Amend Fiscal -Year 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program to Include Additional Projects BACKGROUND On June 17, 2003, City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 budget. The identification of additional projects of City -wide importance and the recent award of grant funds require amendments to the approved CIP in order to allow timely project delivery. In addition, Measure B funds $379,000 in staff costs associated with handling public requests, Transportation Commission (TC) and Transportation Technical team (TTT) work items and were originally identified as "Administrative Costs." However, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency (ACTIA) indicated that charges to administration would not satisfy their auditing requirements. To allow staff to charge to Measure B, individual project numbers to which staff may charge are provided with the mid -year amendments. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The proposed new projects can be divided into two categories. The first category includes transportation - related projects funded through grants or other transportation funds. The City has recently been awarded a Safe Route to School (SR2S) grant. The project is estimated at $192,000 and provides in- pavement crosswalk lighting at locations near three schools and is similar to the lighting installed at Eighth Street and Portola Avenue. The SR2S grant covers 90% of the total project cost. Staff proposes the matching funds ($19,200) be allocated from Measure B. Staff also requests that $150,000 of the recent refund of California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority and an additional $30,000 of Measure B funds be allocated for the annual sidewalk repair program to allow for repair at additional locations thereby reducing the current inventory of sidewalk deficiencies. There is also a need to provide Measure B funding for the Pavement Management System Update, additional Congestion Management Funds, Conceptual design of the Clement Street Extension at Tilden Way, Conceptual Design of Main Street to Mitchell improvements, Design of a GlyafAhrarda PublicWorks Department PuHi Works WaA,f Y ,, Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Report #4 -D CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 February 4, 2004 traffic signal at a location to be determined, Bike and Pedestrian Operations, Traffic Operations (TTT & TTC), and additional funding as needed to complete the Lincoln Middle School Safe Routes to School project as shown on the attachment. In conjunction with the Catellus project staff also requests an allocation of $30,000 in Measure B funds for crosswalks and related pedestrian warning signals at Poggi Street and Atlantic Avenue and Third Street and Atlantic Avenue. The list also includes $200,000 of Regional Measure B funds for staff and consultant costs for the design phase of the Interstate 880/Broadway /Jackson interchange. The additional funding for these projects total $737,038 and includes $196,494 in Measure B funds, $200,000 of Regional Measure B, $190,544 in grants, and $150,000 in a Risk Management refund. There are sufficient Measure B funds for the above increases. The second category is utility projects including the engineering for the next phase of the Cyclic Sewer Repairs in the amount of $210,000; future construction costs will be allocated in next year's budget utilizing Sewer Funds. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION/BUDGET IMPACT Approval of the proposed amendments to the fiscal Year 2003 -2004 CIP program will result in a total additional allocation of $947,038 to the CIP. This additional allocation is funded as follows: Amount Funding Source $ 150,000 Risk Management refund $ 566,494 Measure B $ 210,000 Sewer $ 190,544 Grants and others $ 200,000 Measure B- Regional Funds ($ 370,000) Reallocation of Measure B from Administration $ 947,038 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require environmental review for amendments to the CIP. Individual projects must be reviewed in accordance with CEQA during the respective project development. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the attached amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 -2004 Capital Improvement Program, including additional projects and funds. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service aeofAkneda VbIlicWoris tt Public Works H .* f r ! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Respectfully submitted, Page 3 February 4, 2004 Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director z/10,604) By: John V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer MTN /JW:ms /dl Attachments: Proposed Additions to FY 02/03 CIP budget CIP Listing By Funding Source cc: Zenda James Sally Kueh G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004\021704\INTERIMCIPREPORT.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service • Gtvof iin.da ubIICWoiks Department Public Wills IYofar Yw,! City of Alameda Proposed PROJECT NUMBER 1982 -02 - 2003 -2004 Mid -Year Adjustment Capital Irnprovement Projects PROJECT NAME Citywide Sidewalk Repair Program Phase 4, FY03 /04 (Const) & FY04 /05 (Design) Progra►n NEW AMOUNT $ 180,000 (CIP) Projects CARRYOVER AMOUNT $ 250000 ,Measure ELIGIBLE FUNDING SOURCE(S) Risk Management Refund ($150k) & B ($30k) 1991 -06 Congestion Management Program $ 40,000 $ 218,067 Measure B (40k) 1995 -02 Cyclic Sewer Repair Project Phase 5, FY 04 -05 (Design) $ 210,000 Sewer ($210k) 1998 -08 I- 880 /Broadway /Jackson (Partial Design) $ 200,000 Countywide Measure B (200k) 2002 -98 Lincoln Middle School, San Jose School Crossin Upgrade $ 120,000 $ 368,514 Measure B (120k) 2003 -68 Annual Traffic Signal (Location TBD - Design Only) $ 50,000 Measure B ($50k) 2003 -69 Safe Route to School Project, In- Pavement Crosswalks $ 192,038 Safe Route to School Grant ($172,838) & Measure B ($19,200) 2003 -70 Pavement Management System (PMS) Update $ 50,000 Pvmt Mgmt Tech Assistance Program Gra ($17,706) & Measure B ($32,294) 2003 -71 Atlantic/Third & Atlantic /Poggi Pedestrian Heads & Disable Ramps $ 30,000 Measure B (30k) 2003 -76 Clement Avenue Extension (Design) $ 30,000 Measure B (30k) 2003 -79 Main - Mitchell Improvements (Conceptual Design $ 15,000 Measure B (15k) 2003 -80 Bike & Pedestrian Operations $ 30,000 Measure B (30k) 2003 -81 Traffic Operations (TTT & TTC) $ 170,000 Measure B (170k) TOTAL PROPOSED NEW PROJECTS: $ 1,317,0381 $ 836,581 I Less Previously Allocated Measure B for Administration $ (370,000) EXHIBIT "A" $ 947,038 g:pubworks \cip \cip03 -04 \FY 2003 -2004 INTERIM CIP FINAL (MID -YR ADJ) :42 \ 'Golf Funds/COP RM1(709k),Fares(1,597k),PO RT(151k) } Ei Li La Li ® / EDA 75%, Partial spent I ! Dev fees MT C($490k), CM Grant . _ BTA($54K), Measure B 10% (6k) TDA TFCA Permit Fees CDBG CDBG ) \ .. General Golf Measure B Other Parking Fund Revenue $ 376,000 111111111! ° / } # CO. E. $ 322,500 « 2 - ; $ 250,000 $ 60,800 $ 251,200 $ 705,000 $ 41,000 : ' ) $ 36,0001 . _ . $ 30,001 \ 111! $ 7,000,000 IIIIIIIIIIII,E. 1111 $ 40,000 1110111111! fil / 8 # ■ § § , ` § § . # 4 FY 03/04 Carryover Amount Amount $ 376,000 $ 70,000 $ 3,012,076 $ 250,000 $ 50,000 § # ` # B ` \ # § ` 111! X f ; # # © r r , . $ 30,000 7 7 a ■ ; ; a A _ « 2 m ! a m e ; , ■ ; m m a ■ k @ ; ■ } § / 13 § i r I k A f\ t- N { 0 t Alameda Point General Plan Amendment AWneda/Oakland Ferry Service Annual Engineering SeMce Contracts Ann Tra - Sig (Location = D • Design •nr IAP City Building Roof Repairs i ! ) ! 7 IAP Sewer System Upgrades ) AP Storm Upgrades AP Street Ught Repairs AP Street Upgrades AP Water Pier Systems Repair AP Water System Upgrades Ph1 ^ J | a §: :2 }7 • Ballena Bridge Seismic Upgrade a Bay Breeze RePower 8 Repmpulslon (Phase 3) a 2 Bicycle Loop Detectors, Phase 2 Bite & Pedestrian Operations Bike Bridge Approach Improvements A i_ Building PerMb Records Management Sus Shelters City Hag West Elevator § 2 2 k § k ) | § | k k) § k E |§ k $ ! k 3 $ k _ B \ \ $ k 2 3 'Rise Management Refund 1 ) 'Study Only 51000 APT),$50k I ! k § ISM Waste Fee surcharge } &| n ; !#§ §&§ ƒ R |! RM1($198,275),STP($360,90 i g ! Mercantile Inspection Fee 1 ! ! ! - 2 Mes B Reaulh&STP Mes B Reauth & STP pendinJ k ■ \ oJ \!\ § § 6 § # ! 0 En k / 000•097 0 000•001 $ I # 2 " # § § ! " $ 1,577,800 $ 724,200 $ 150,0001 \ " $ 17.000,0001 k . (§ # K ® ! \ / © IS 100,000 $ 30,000 ' k VP VP ` ® § # §I & VP § 69 - IA \ - $ 120,0001 0 f! " ! -2 $ 75,000 1$ 260,000 § \ $ 60,0001 1000'O1 $ 0 o j / a. } 0 , 0 '6 ( \ ` & 1$ 175,000 # 2 ' § - ` ' ' # $ 17,0300001 § , R. ) \ \ S :! § ®■ # # # § ■ I$ 113,000 # « # § § G. \ 4 # § £ § ! k ■ e k § VI R o ] \ m \ \ ■ } ■ G e \ } } \ / m .1 ; , ■ \ ■ } ¢ } ] \ o \ \ j` -2 7 2k� /® a8't ) I$ 4 7| /A# 00 | Citywide Traffic Calming Citywide Traffic Signal LED Replacernent Clement Avenue Extension (Design) Congestion Management Program Congestion Management Program IC0nsond. Service & AFD Training Center .. k 2 |k 9uoPf0e21 epoOluewdopnoc4 - k ! k (East End Feny Operations Eighth Street Conidor Improvements | k 1 ƒƒ | ka Fire Bidgs Upgrade & Maintenance �) | ` ( |°g !Ag g \| \! General Plan Update, Phase 1 1 1 / % Golf Clubhouse Remodel (Design) Graffiti Abatement Harbor Bay Feny Temdnal Weather Protection Housing Element Update 1880Broadway Jackson Ph1 Impvta 1-880Broadway Jackson Ph2 Impvte I.880BroadwaylJadwon (Partial Design) 1880MIgh Street Improvements h- Pavement Crosswalk Lights. Various eland Drive Bike Path 1804 -06 Landscape Median Maintenance 2002.88 Lincoln Middle School, San Jose School Creasing Uoarade \ \� k k §§ k f| k| §$ 7\ k$§ B§ k k k k 77�k\ k Comments State SRTS Grant | c. Original Fund Source CDBG ch to DUT COBG CDBG 2 \. / e.00rq Funding Amount Distributed § } ) IlIlIllllllllllllllill!! Reimbursed by Dev Fees/$107k City in Mid Permit Surcharge/AP Bonds TLC($990k),B W I P($200k),TC SB($1.367.5k) Bonds ($5.0 M) Prop 12 P-TAP grant (517,706) Includes PWD MaIntenanca SR2S grant (0172,838) study $ 50,000 DUT :E. \ § § ® § 11111111 $ 1,722,5001 11IU!I1I!IIII]OhIU 8 J / $ 2,557,600 $ 540.000 $ 6,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 27,000 $ 300,000 $ 32,20 $ 17,706 $ 140,000 $ 500000 $ 60,000 $ 10,200 $ 172,838 $ 60000 k ■ $ 250,0001 $ 25,0001 $ 24,395,000 7 ! / 5 86,250 # ® 0 1 § \ k s k° ® 8 ` % 2 § R k , ` § ° f / k \ | FY 03/04 Amount § ; « n # ; ■ K ■ # # § $ 75,000 $ 126,000', § n # e # ! e § ■ § ! | # § # 2 * # § § m a a; a s■; R s! 2 R 8 a R; 2 81 2 & m;■;! 2, 2 m , Ern |f : / Maeddc Senior Center (Boller Removal) Masddc Senior Center (Social Had Flooring) Mastick Senior Center, Fire Alarm System I | ! New Phone Systems (Various Bldgs.) Norma Anledch Teaching Academy Northern Waterfront Specific Plan One Stop Permit Center PACERS - Employee Rideshare Paratraneh Program . ) 7 .3 ! ! Park St SVeetscape & Town Center Pads Street Paddng Structure, Phase 1 Park Street Parking Structure, Phase 2 IPark Trees - Replacement & Pruning Parldng Meter Maintenance Parks Playground Equipment Upgrades Pavement Management System (PMS) Update 1 A { ! ! ! $u14318d elo4Wd R ! ! ! Resurfacing, Phase 24 (Design Only) Safe Route to School Project, In- Pavement `I1 Crosswalks Sewer Rehabilitation (181) Program Sewer/Storm Pump Station Upgrades Shoreline Park Pathway Repair Sidewalk Repair Program, FY 03/04 (Design Slough & fake Renovation (Design) South Shore Lagoon Stone Upgrades k k \ ) § k ) § g k ) - | k \ kF. F. - k ) $ / k k ) k k ci c E o 0 a U W 7 IReePay AP & T Loan TeTap S ° Includes LD &T a 'a - ql 0r AP &7($848700), Pentling AP &T Loans($83,200) Enterprise Funds N TLC ($881 k) W EC IP ($318k) SF Foundation TDA CDBG 8 FA P 3 cn x- •N a , O m W R° w 8 w w w p pO r w w $ 53,0001 N S 170,000 3 p 0 X r o g § 8 G U f 0 a O a Q • Q _ O (7)‹ O N S w$ S w O w $ 1,200.0001 w o P, O . Q S$ I$ 15,000 o $ N $ 1,031,2001 8 $ 112.5001 C {{yy t--- W gi Gp : m 8 b M p p io =a N a E c 1111 1 !p 1 ; i 'Street Tree Pruning Traffic Operations (TTT & TTC) ITratfic Signal Coord. - Eight /Constitution 1 y Underground Conversion District 16 g Update of 1881 General Plan, Phase 2 Washington Park - Basketball Court • C m 2 Webster Renaissance - Phase 1 West End Neighborhood Project E •u ' Z m a W g m ° N a n $$gp n r q i3g p Q pp F N N NNW E M M M N N RA P 4 l 443 N NNN N R N A NNN =N I'$4n w nw '41 N NNW 4 . N N Y ' NN N N elk 44 Ss N N N - eN 4N Y o IR NM 4 44 PS RR N N CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: January 27, 2004 Re: Quarterly Investment Report for Period Ending December 31, 2003 BACKGROUND Attached is the investment portfolio for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 DISCUSSION The attached portfolio reflects the invested operating funds as well as the various assessment district funds. These investments have been made in accordance with the provisions of the City's approved Investment Guidelines. The City of Alameda's expenditure requirements for the next six months are more than sufficiently covered by two sources, namely (1) anticipated revenues from regular operations and (2) liquidity of current investments. FINANCIAL IMPACT This report is provided for information purposes only. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council accept the City's Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2003. Attachment Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: Zenda James Finance Director "Dedicated to Excil(ence, Committed to Service" Report #4 -E CC 2 -17 -04 City of Alameda California January 27, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council have reviewed the City of Alameda's Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2003 and find that it complies with the Investment Policy established by my office. The interest of the Council is always appreciated. Sincere) K: in Kenn dy C ty Treasu er KK/fl "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer Office of the City Treasurer 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 220 Alameda, California 94501 510. 748.4560 • TDD 510. 522.7538 Business 510. 748.1898 • Fax 510. 748.1896 0 o'vI,co co 6- co CD 'CDstter. o'vI CO 0. O f. co. , O I cs l0. laI r`�)ch LOn Wow N '.M s- O. CC I CO C) M N Q J 2i > O moo co H a co cc W,V O O) O I) I O 0 Cs/ O O ' 0 0 CO'OIN'N c!) :c0''o0 A o a, co' :v o L) ▪ 01 ,01 0)is- CD Usk : Is- Cs/ cV 1. Pj' Cr) ) N 0 'o Io 0 0 0 o 1c0 '.0 c\l O O O,O' OIM CD MIN c0 ▪ cn 'N ^',V cn N 7 X10 N- ui N O LL o o \ \Io o o 0 N MiM OIO M 0 J. cO I,M'COCO M'M 0 H Z,Q CO CD10 co Ii.- 7'. 0 0 W.0 O N'. c0'cc 1:o c oo '.H 0 W H', OIL0) O'c010' 0:C01 CO :W1V.er' 0''� c+c)).'- �''' 0'. eaet� N cNc}} '' u 00)'' x • CC)' N' Cc)' LLt) • i O) 0) O co N.. 0 0 Z DLL • :O' W w J '.cnW SDIi. •d W V) 'O' '0 cW ' nW2wj M 0 N M w m w w U w ❑ CD Z ❑ Z Q w w • w W • D LL O Ow U ct O LL O O LL O a H Z W 2 O W > Z (0 IO N IM N EW Q Q ▪ ❑ 2 Z O- O- S- LO H Z W 2 H r1) w Z; (1)''(0 (Olo:61010 10110 u) O 0 O',0:M o 10 0.0 6 1',100 N O (0 O O, O (0 0 0'10 0''0 0110 0:0 0 '7 0) 7'101!0110 O NIN 0- (1) (1) 0'N - :.r 10'N- 0 10 10 0'1 10 ti O 1∎ n LO 10;0 a0 II) M 10 10,101101N N 10 10';0'10 O 7 O OlN O O'O (M NIO O, oo N'CO o ;(O 1d M N (O O N N10 (O O O h N N h1O O 'N:N M 0110 CD l0 O 10110 .17} O/ M'0/ O co u).N N co :q4 1` O) CO N N O 01M N f` 00 MI'7 co loo co 1N :r O O'. NIOIOIy_ h (0111(0 O O'MlM.0'0 M;O) h'N N rn',v_ M O 00 O (D 1` h1M 0 N O (O (0 (011 CA,N r N NIr:M N.h'71n '110 V M 0410 V I�jO O CV .1 10IN :I� 1� NIO W M N 10 O N N:M N CO m V 010 O' o CD IM (0 •O 7 • (h 1919 O O O O :OD !OD ' CO O N: (0110 0 0) C CO IO 0 OD N N N!N N O) M M101'M V N 110 O 1010 10 O!7'7.O CO 0'110 OO'1O O N -,r O Co LO N Cl 0 Ur r 1■ N O CO 'CD I10:7 N u) 10110110 M: r r -(0 r r r.r r N 69. 11) O'',(D 010'10 O O O O�O.O 0:0'0 6: c> CD .CD O O.0 O O O ✓ 'W:.'V' 0.0 ,0 O 610 O 0';0!0.010 010 O.0 0'0:.0 O O O O.7',r OIO 0 co O',O O CD 'CD IO'O • O 0' :O O. CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 M', ID: 0'010 O 01,0 O 0';010 010 O:0 0.0 O CD !CD O O O ID :O':N 0 0 0 0 010 0 0'0''0 910 OIO 0.0 O 6:6 O O O N'N a7 1.6!u) Id O ' =!0 O 0.010 :0''O) 010'910 O i::6 O O 10 0.7:('7 0)1,0)!0 O 010 O 0 L():,1) 0'' 0 010:0 0 7 ID O O) N a'N'r 110 O 10':0 11) 0:7 7• 1010 0111)10 ',O 11) N'.- O CD 111) N r M r 69' 0000:000 00001000 0 0 0 616 0 0 0 0 0'01,0'. O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01010!0 O 0 0 0 010 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 '. O O O O O O!OD O uo 10 O CD Id 0;0 O In I0 O CD CV In N N O 0',010'11) 0) N N ID Lola r(- N O O'�0',0 7 11) O O 0'10 :O O O O Oi00 OHO O'.0 O.0 O O O 1CD 10'0 O O 0'61 O O'. O 0.0 0.0 O 0!010 O'O 010 010 O CD :CD O O O O O CD IO O 0',010 0 :0 O O O O O O :O.O 9110 0 O 00 co O :O :O O:r U) O 1010 10 10 :1010 0 111) O I1) IN 1 0 r r r 1- 0:10:.0 7 7 N 11)'1)'10'10'10 1101,N M CO 'O O O O) N N N NININ N M M -01:0-.0 h N.0) 0 1 :CO :CO 110:11) O;0'r M M 10 10 10 0) 0 O M MIMIO (D O) r r r r 01'10 (0 M.M 0117''7 7 7 7'7 7 7 7 11) 11) O 10:10'10 (0 O MI,a11 N- ID 0)II°'O.M 19:.0;0:010 O 0)110) 0)'0) (D'OIO O '0;0100 :0 0101.0). 0)1 M 'M', M.f� O'lo ',O O''!1) O OIO�O O O 7 7'7 7 710 O O:O 6'0 0'9 O C C C.o C Ip a C C ca co 7771+7,A In N N ,0,0'0 'p () -r xN'N w Q!w 0'Q w >- 'M1M M. 'O) 'N c)! CI) ',O 0▪ 10 -0: C 1 O'OO ° m ¢z CV 'CV cV 0.I(0 CA o M co N MI,M'10: 0 '110 IIn N O',CD'(O O N- 0)'I0),u)!� 0 0 0 n 1)iM'OIO O O) 1010 1ID ID f`:,1) N- 1010 O O'O • O 0 O'Oj01110 O) 1� 01(0:011x!1 M' 1'10 :N O) M W'10,1- 0,1� 6IN N M1U) O ID O 'co '110,0 IR)'IN 011;7 O O'O10) m1 'O 01010111)11 to l r- 10 O O.N"O IO Ir'. 0), h r- :r- n 0110'0) :CA M', 0;0 r r,r 1 7 7 7 7'7 7 11)111) ID ID111) 10'.10 10 1D ID In'10 10:11) 10 IDIID ID 11) In In (n1In111) ID ID 1,11)'ID 1010 '�IDID 1010 0 0 0 0:0'0 0101010'0 010':0 0'00'0 0''0,0:010 0 0 0 0 010'10 0 01010'010 0'0'0'0 o01aia)10ai 10aa10.D(m77 >> > > 'a)a)a)1)) W: 10m ■ • r • p:Z Z'1❑ ❑ LL U. M Q Q Q Q 2 2 �� �'1 ,¢,¢ 010 Z❑ 91044_ LL Q':E :E [60 :6)':���' 00'.00'00 ;!2j3j,M'M'� (r.(� 11) �'O,O r r O r1� r x11 �''� 6:4us 1:A'�� • Cr) • :IN Cr) Cr) N; M' N_NI CO (7.01 CO N O O CO 0I M CO M M CO N' Cc) CO CS CI CO CO 01.0 CO CO 0'1010.0110 O O OI O' 01619 OI 6110' O OIO 010 O O O OiO 0 0 0 0 0101, OOO 9 O'O O 91919 o o N > > 0 0) ' C D.I a' (0 1 CI C 71 j' 10) 10 T O. O. C C)! D D C 0 > U 10 U C C U: 7 61 LD) 7'1 =: C a)! a)1 0: o 0 0)' 71 7 a)j CD a' 71 7 7 (01 (0 711 7 7 O a) (0 N'' N' d ❑'❑ 2 2! 2! Z ❑:7'? M (/)!�, :E -1;� ?,.Q 2I2IQ Q QIQ Q O Z O.g1❑ 4 4,❑ LL 7�a..171' Ca CV 1)1. NIN''N.N'M N NIN O O. O) !N r;; NIN O) CA �iN'iA co N:N M 4 M'i MIN N',7 .n- NM': N'�.r'N 0)I 1 I to 0 0 0 0(0 1 II( 0''IC o 0Io 1 (0 N ID I ( I ( I ID o Ie I c 0 O'O O OI.00 LO O O 7 7'O O CD CO O O 0017 1"OINIO) 0100 O O O N I M CO OLIN O O O1O 010) 11) 'N L1) :O'O O: O_''O!7 O.O (0 :CU O'('( ('4 I(0 I.O N 711�'IO) 10 0:0 O NI M 10 M 0 O N MOO 7.V 1-10.7:0 'O:O N: �O I�10 1".1�M'1 CA '.r r'.N!N:71M �:�'7 M�N'O O O'O O O l0 '10 � O) M 0) O 11) O O N N N'1O x119 O'. 110'(0 r ?' ?' ?' :US CS CS r r 7 7 7'r ''Ir 7'7'. -'•- rIN 0'CO 0 11) r1N r r r N N Csi O O NIM N!N N'IM'r r • CD 0 0 I o 'C 0 C 0 0 :0 0 0 0 0 0 :10 0 '!I 'o '0 '1 1 10 1 '1 o IC 0 0 0''0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 110 10 1 0 10 1 O O 0,010 O O CD O 10;0 O to: n'10 0!10 010:10 11) I%.1) 'O 0 0 0 0 0:,010 O O O O O 1011.0 1010 ID 0 10:10:,0 10110:.0 O 0.010' 010 : 11)', O) W:0 N:10 10 r r:1)', 6111 ��F��} '.N NIN1N'N O O O N 11)',010 O 117 O O O 1-'.1- N N In a f�Ih'I u, (0 0:1) :COO:NI :CD O , I-.M M•1) r : , 0 O O ' . O :,O O :O US:US :(D (O O'O,r NIN 1� f. '01•0 ''O O N O 0111) 0 ;00 • r x N 11) M ;co cv IO:N In In 't''( d.:,11): M.ID ID.(0 N 7•7 616 -''. (0 ,- 7 10'10 f` 1'. ID 1- 1- •(0 M M M'I(V N O O fV '1111)1 N':(V N'(D 0'!11) W O O Oi0 0'N- (0 0)'1� Mi( NlN:O 0'10.0 O D:, 7 WIer 1, 0'010 O :O 0'1) 1) oe ID 00:01 M Q', 11) 711, O O m n 1 '7'.0 O'0 7101. 710 0'0'0- 1` M O 6:.0 I:ID 011 OIO N'Nj(0 111)1) ',O 0110.0) O > � ID O N 10 .O 0) '1) 0 0 :, r L0 .O 0 M'O O O CN10 10 V-1r 0)10) O''7'O f� 010:7 0 ',1))'O) 0 0:010 O O 7 0) ('0 010 %N 0!a' :O 10 O 7 N r 1 10.10.10(0(0 0 ' 7 7 10 10 1, 0 0 LO 110 1, IV 'm C r DESCRIPTION ❑ u_ LL ❑ w 0 0 CL U h Cl ❑Q w. zzw, H I-E-Zz Q Z zz¢m NN. AUW 2 �1Z ¢0 ¢ O O '>> W ' ZZH1100Z. UU -UI'gZ WWI �Ig ww (7)1_, aw0 WIII ¢ Q Z a1t1- 0jQ10 J J O a''iilm 00rnM <-I.I J J 0 Hlm U LLILL wI 1I z m<') w w U 1- 0 O 0 ' E 1- 1--'z ZZ z, w���'m Z H mO'mw 0 0 -°w ,w gZ'w z w� < w ' x) � 0 ,0 O 1 Oz ce : }UUma'(0U000�} 0 w,1) 1- 1-m 0:fw- w 0} }ice j O J J,Q p W;Q a Q J WIZ 0 0 J J LL Q m O W H H O❑ :O Z O 03.2 00m0,2CO2 Zr- CC L=L11=1:.D7 1-O L=i ''ALL.., LLLi I=i �'U 2 2;0) 7 n O O N C I In O) _ ... _ Tv CAM f` c0) 1)) 7 (0(010 N -N 1 0 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 1'104 O,M 1() 01 '0 M M 1)),M 7 :, CA M V -, V N N 1- CA • O CO 7 7 01110 0 MILO CV CV LO 11) r M: CO CO M 1■ M O N. ■ n .co M'N:O O 0) N- O h co O co O) N a 7 0 10 x S10) 10 IN CD O O) M 10 M 10 co O O C7 N'1)•) 7'. N 1'(4 0-110) O (0 O N. co n co M co ;co N'11�11(0 710- co a 0 O) M x M N (0 (0 0'lh (''10;10 0'7 O - 100) O I1) 1)'0 O O) O) 010 7iN.0 0.0 7 O N N O) O O O) O) N- N O O O O) 0 10 7 M' O 7 0 7 7'117 ID '.(n 01100 1n,N:0 www'' HHH(O(o 0 0 0 w w Z z z H H Q Q w z z 920 • O 0 O C0 C9 a w w U w w W w CC OC Z Z U Q Q ��woo 2 !4 C 2 ! C7 C7 W UU O O w m m 2 2 O LL LL (0'0) W H I- 0 0 Z Z 0 0 I- 1- w w U U as 11) m li- 2 M z (n fn z w w 88 w z z JJ 21-0' 1 } }2 <<wZ0Z1tn W cLx 0 0 w 0 Z LL'w m m 0 zzHwaw WW'w ZZZ1�UIZ m IL 0: CO Q CO :E I< F w a UUu LL LL LL''LL 07LL M O O N M cc W m W 0 W o 0 z 5 z a W w d' W W M ccH ga Q 2 LL O O W I- 5 Iz co W Z 01 0 0 N c) w W m W 0 w O 0 z_ 0 z a w 0 W w W Q D w O }O w H U rz O w O J O w H ce O w H z w 2 H m w z co 0 O 0 N r7 w W m w W 0 w 0 0 z 0 z a W O w W W a aD w O Ow H U cf O w O J O H cc O a H z w 2 H m w z M O 0 N M w w m w w 0 w en 0 z 0 z a w uJ w w w 2 cel- ga aD LLa OO w F U w O Li. O J O LL F rf O a z w m I-- u) w z 0 O N M CC w W m w W U W 0 U Z_ 0 Z Q W W WM Q LL Q O w H U � O LL O O LL O a H Z W H W i Z W - W j w CC LL • i ?• a ?'O 'W U O!0 �>- LL cc J Q 2 o o O O O O O O O o, o o o oo' 0) 0) I h.0 co CO U)', U7' co (0 co w Q W'. 2'H O 0 CL DESCRIPTION 01101 010, a C' O co LL '. O M 0 o 00 o o oo o • V. O o O O co 0) 0 1. CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSITS $190,000.00 A co O 0 0 0 0 U W W 0 0 z 2. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 0 O',° LC) 0 U) M O l0 0'U) 0,10 W,(O' O. 0,010 ', l0 0 O 0 O) 0.10 C) 0 0 0 0,0 0 U) :0 0 OD 0 0 U) O'N;N n U) N .- If) IN 0 I 0'I� CO CO 10;01 U). U', U) LO N O 10.0 ,- OIN CD' If) '0'U7 0'U :0IN U) O CO 0' U) IN O I (0 (0. M N WIN, W 6.W to . 0)' N'O (O' O N- N N !. o: (0.0) N -6 N'O 011'- O t` 0 N'O CD CV 0 CO U)1 F (D O 10'(0 M a0'.- CO 101CO I- 'O I(O V N :h'OO '0) N 'U) 0'0 CO O); N,U) 0) 0' IO CD LO 'N I(0 1,-' CO CD CO OD O O'M CA NI V CO O ' C O O N,117 CO CO_ 'M C O ' , - , - CO N O'0 N. CO 1CO,IN (A OIM;I-- CD'CO IN '(Olh MIN N V I` N V; 10 '.N ',O O) M N. NI M O. VI, i0 O. 1 O'er M lO (0 I�;O 0) N- 0) 0)'OD lf),117 M 10 W'(0 (D 0 '��' 0 O 'O' N'10 0 (A (DCOIN'N NIIN' CO 0,01 0 .1010 I- ,(o I,M co co co co 0110 co Imo'o 1110,10 U7 O co (O 0 10'COI,- 0 CAI( 4- IN' N 0 OI 010 10 10',10 0 10 0I U)' N'. 0 10 N 0', U/ If) O)' OD'10'(0 U) Mi10 0 00 0.0 O 010 O O'O, O'.0 0 O 00,000 O 0,0110 O O O.O O O O O o.0 0'O o10 0 0 0 O o a o 010'.010 0'010 O ' � O ' O ' O 0 0'01010 O'O'O O O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c), o a o o 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 010 00 00 001'00 O 0 00!00 0 0010 0 0'.0 010 0 0 010 00,0 o'o d o 0 0 0 1000 ololoio o 010100 0,0 0,001010 o'O o 0 oIo 0010 O 010,0,00 o 0 o O o.0 0 0 'o 0 00 0 00 0,01,0010 o O o 0 010 o O o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O,ol0 o o'o 0 00 0 000 0 10 0 0.0 0!ail0 Ool0 0 0 Ui10 U) (0'100 0 0 0'10.10 010) o 010 0 0 07 Ui o 0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0 ,0 0'O'O OI,'0 0011171010) N' U) N' N, 0', 0 O O 0).0 010 I0) 0110 co '. O VIN 0 N I CO (0 0 IN 0 (00 U) 'U) U)'0) 0 U) (O 0 (0 CO .,- 0 0) U) ,- n' N' Oi 0.0 0 U)1101, U) 0 (0 0 U) N 0 (0 N 0) U1 LO O). IN U) U) U) M' U) co V V N. U)'O.O LO O'1 CO (0, a)IN N CO '. CI CO CO 0 LO r- ti CO CO CD CO f`11` N. N. CO CO O) N- r- o) O'U) U)'W'O'. co ,OD co ,O CO CD co CA WI(0 O r-- r-- MI(0'(o (o CD CV N N'(0'1) O' .-.V o LC) co co co M'V V V ' ' . V V V ' Co U) co'a co co'CO'h.n IN IN CO CO OD OD OD 0) - 03 0) '0) O O O r r N N'N M t`,r C0 ',m' CO V Imo, N N' O) 0) CO • CO IN 0 0 CO ;M', N N O)• M, 0)''O, f- CA, N- 0).O Imo, O.O'V,� CO N CO 0 0' 0, W' 0'00 CO 1�, C0.0 0)1 (0 M. 0 (0'O- CO i CO (O 10 O N V 0 CO OD I0)I0) CO ''.U), CO U); O) 0) 0' U) V'' 0 M M 1.0 c0 ACA V r-- co. U) U)'OD co io'co (0 ''O'O OD'N.1�'(0 (0 ''I� I�IM'O'0)'011� �''.O.V O 0) � O) co.' co.. n- (O • • V;V V V V V V 10 10 10'W 10 10 10W (0 010 10'10,10 10 N'(0 CD CD (O; CD CO (0 CD CD CD CO CO CO CO l n r IN n f` 0 0 0 O 91.5 O O O O 0'9 0 0 0 0 'O'O O 9,20' OIO 010 o O o o OloOl0'0 0 0'0 O O O O O O 0- 7 7 7 00) 00) m 00) (1) a s al m _59 m m m 1, U �O N N N° m l m m 1 7 7 7 7 j7 j1 U V co N a a N Q O p p'O,LL LL Q Q ¢'� Q Q Q QQlz p LL LL¢ �,� ' Q Q10 O U_ ¢¢ 2 ,- CV CO r',� CO �'M'M 01 ,_ U) ,- ,- .'.- ''M a- a- 4- U) ,- ,'r 0 N 4- NN 1.6 1.6 � U) �'V N 1,� 0 0 M.M N. M, co co co c-4 N co co co '. co M' N co co CV M M: MN CO CO 0 CO CO NIM CO N" N. N N N,N O'.O O O O O'O'O O 010 0 0 0 9'919 9 O.O O'',O O 010 9,9'9 O. O 0'010' O O O OO''O O 010 > � 0 0 > 0'. C. C a' 11'. C, 7' 7 0) co! a. a' 0' U' > 0 U0 7', a) 7' 7' C' 7 7, U' = C) a', = = a; j m', T 0' 0 0 O' 0 7 7 0 0'' 7?? 7 7 7', O CD CD ?' N.�' 7 �'�', 7.? ° 0 O) 0 .? O O) ? 7 CO Z00MZ0-)-1 UU'? QQQQ- OZQ0p,n,LL Q,o 7 0,700) rU _7Q,2 O OD iZ 'N OO,O V 10'(0 N M 01'� 0�''R) V,N,('7 V M V ", 'CO.M'',o �'V M r �'N V'.- 1�'�'p7'0) N N N N CO " N N N'M 'N N N. N. 'N .- N N 0 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'010 0 0 (( I'(0 0 0'010 0'0 0 0 0'0 0'0 0 0 0 U) (0.(0 •V,0' CD CO N CD M N. CO n. a) Co N' CO M V n N (0 CIO •d)', U)',.- NjU).O Q)' CO (D Iry'OD,f� •O 0.10!0 O'.VrO'I-•CA N'V h'(A M'N- V CO CO V;V'I� 03 ,V'0 N110 M', OO, CO 1CA U) CO f` r co W'.. - 'N N V co co Co co' co O) M'(A O U) O'NI(o•�•10yCO'U)•CO'1� OO '.I-•V'00 I--'V (O O•N ▪ co co •V - - (4 a- 4- ' N'N 4- .- .- N CV CV N'M' N, N' N I M •,- O')1; N N,M N'. N M V M o '0 O,o c- M 011 (O 0 'e 0 0 0 0 '0 o o '0'( '0 10'0 ( 0 '( 0 0 0 '0 ID '0 0 0 O 0 100 0'.O'U) 0101(01,(01,0'(0 N'O 01,0'0 0) 0 O'0'.NIh,o o''. O'.1e N N N.N ",O O O'. U) O 0 0 r U) ca LO r.U)11` h'. U) 0 0 0'LO 0 M O ' H co. .M co O 0 (0 �'O O O',N O O, U). CO NI Lo co co CV CO CO N U)', U) O,N1V O M' es; O') M', O7 , ,'V' t` h 0')(+).01 M (1 - [V 10, N N' N 1 co co co (010. N- (0 04 M'V'V'. CO n N N CD O CO ' IN 0 CO' (D'U)IM n CO . CO O; M'. CO 01'0 0 n M CO. (o CO 0) CO ' n'. 0 t` N- ' CO ' 0 CO ' 0' O N: V'. O V M ''0 h'0 V. 00 '.O (0 OI M U) 01,(0'0 (NI V N' N 1,, �, 0 (0 CD ..- .- O'f. CV CV 01 LO 03 CO r-- 1.r) (N M ICD f�''CD CO CO NIr'M, VI` CO 011, 0'a, N- CO 0 0 V 0 m,0) lO 'CO CO LO CO V CO 10 M .-',V N'O Ih N U)' LO 0 VICD'�,V'N CO; CO N' CO CO 7' CO V (O Imo. O'V'. O)' CO 0) COCA' CO C0 00 00 O'0 ,V CVO' OD- OIV CC: .4- OS (0'V 010,00'0'0 C O 0 0'1N U)'',,N101' :C0 CO NI,N O). CO OI1,- 0 'VIM'OD OD 04 00'04 U)1. (0 (0 (0 O'V' CO O U) M �'' O O) U)''- h ('40 0 CD 0)'100)'0 (0 0 co or O' co NI0 (0 U) 0 100 N co i co 0) N- 0- 0) co 0 0) 010),10 N (o or 0'- N' 0'- (0 '0 0 O M'O 0 '0 0 0 0 0 U) 0!0 (n O 0 o n O o U) ''. .� 'U) 0 CO U), O CO N N O N (0'U) V U) U) U) 0 V CO OD 0 (0 0 O CO 1CD CD CO MIO N M N 0'00 04 co 01N (D M CO 0 O IN CD N M LO C) CO CD �CO IN N. U) O O O'. 0) (D 0 0 co 'U) (0 U) M U) W w'W W W' 0' 010 0 0' Z Z'Z Z Z' (n (n U '0 010 U, U,0 0' U U p ''Z Z'Z W. WZ Z' p w H 'H Z W W . W I W H 1_'.W W U Z H 'w Z ZIW co m U.WW W LWi,u ',W W Z WI Z'W W CO 'O m WIZ ma O UIH1Zp J W H1H H W W H O 1 Y , V ) IH1H Y ' ' W WIH Z z,O O w J 010 O Q z N W !O ,O ccI� re O(0 ^w O rt m < W , WIZ 03H U J'ZIZ Z W'J J W Z'W W > IIQIwIH Z',Z QIJ J Z 011-1-111- Z Q'W 'U W(n (nIW'� Q'1Z W m;c1cc cc (nm m'CO _10 11U U,(n'j,U 2 Q Z10)1Ce1Ce 2�1m m1CC OI'ImIZ X 210 U U'U U 10101LL17 (IO:E- W 01717 7,10 oL(A m,(n DI0.0l,w U z LL W 717'0 O O 7 mJ 0 7 0 Z WIW',W c O 1 1 O 1 1 � ' ' , Q OIIW z 0 0 1 0 < 1 1 Q Q a'O O LLIO a D_IZ Q H LL,WI,HOI;OII<wj00' 011 LL'a:W ¢'w LL O O'',O O m m1 w110 ,, 0 wlw W,a'' Q Q QIO w z m Q �ZIwI w'm w'QIU, w, 10 Z Z z UI 0 Z U HU 0 1- C7 H 1- 03 H U 1U 01 H ...p H 2Im m 21F 'm10 m �1-'IF- �''m11� m m',m m;� H ml� m �,,� � �I� � F m mU �,',mj���'� J,J J J, J', 212 2' 2'. (n,2'. LL 2 2 2 U'U co 2 2 2 2 2,,2 2'LL '" 2, Z' J 21Z1(n co z.2 2 U 2 2 LL U Z',2' Z Z Z LL 'ILL LL'Iu 71LL LL LL, LLILL 0110 0 UjU U U U'U UU 0 U1U U ,LL 0. 0 ,7 0'',LL LL 7; UILL U 71,LL',U LL',LL LL CO 0 0 N M cc w w m w 0 w c 0 z_ 0 z Q w O w w w • ct Q Q D LL O }O w H U w O w O J O LL H cc O a H z w m H co w z M O O N M w w m w w 0 w 0 0 z 0 z Qw 0 w w 2 I- an w O Ow I- C) O w O J O w H Q' O CL H Z w 2 H m w z CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: January 28, 2004 Re: City of Alameda Investment Policy BACKGROUND The State of California Government Code Section 53646, requires the Treasurer to submit to the City Council, at a public meeting, an annual Investment Policy for their approval. The intent is to provide the local governing body with the authority to review and approve the policy. DISCUSSION The investment policy is attached for your review. It is important to note that our Investment Policy, as recommended herein, affirms our fiduciary responsibility to safeguard public assets. We, therefore, place a high priority on insuring safety of principal first and then insuring that the liquidity needs for payment of payroll and other city obligations are met prior to considering yield on the investment. The Government Code requires: ➢ The Investment Policy be approved annually by the local governing body. ➢ A quarterly investment report be provided which includes: a) the market value of securities b) source(s) of market valuation c) statement confirming that current liquidity is adequate to meet expenditures for the next six (6) months "Dedicated to EzceOEence, Committed to Service" Report #4 -F CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and January 28, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 of 2 There is one area that has been changed: Section VI (E) - Added language "as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical- rating organization." This change is needed in order for our policy to comply with California Government Code Section 53601. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council approve the Statement of Investment Policy. ZJ /fl g:finance \council \021704 \investmentpolicy Attachment Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: Zenda James Finance Director "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" INVESTMENT POLICY I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE It shall be the investment policy of the City of Alameda that all funds not required for immediate budgeted expenditures be invested in compliance with this statement as well as applicable federal and state legislation. Safeguards will be set into place to insure that adequate reserves are established and maintained to provide that cash in sufficient amounts will be available for those immediate expenditures as authorized by the City's budget. Funds so maintained will be deposited in a manner best serving the City. It will be further recognized that the City has a responsibility to insure the security of its assets and always maintain a level of quality so that the public at large will have the highest confidence that its best interests are being served. The purpose of this document is to identify various policies and procedures that enhance opportunities for a systematic investment process. The initial step toward a prudent investment policy is to organize and formalize investment related activities. Related activities, which comprise good cash management, include accurate cash projection, the expeditious collection of revenue, the control of disbursements, cost effective banking relations, and a short-term borrowing program which coordinates working capital requirements and investment opportunity. In concert with these requirements are the many facets of an appropriate and secure short-term investment program. II. SCOPE It is intended that this policy cover all short-term operating funds and investment activities under the direct authority of the City. These funds are described in the most current annual financial report and include: General Fund Capital Projects Fund Special Revenue Fund Enterprise Fund Internal Service Funds Fiduciary Funds Redevelopment Agency Funds This investment policy applies to all transactions involving the financial assets and related activities of the foregoing funds. 1 III. OBJECTIVES A. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City, followed by liquidity and yield. Each investment transaction shall seek to first insure that capital losses are avoided, whether they are from securities default or erosion of market value. Investment decisions should not incur unreasonable investment risks in order to obtain current investment income. B. Liquidity: The City's investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. This need for investment liquidity may be tempered to the extent that the City is able to issue short-term notes to meet its operating requirements. Emphasis will be on marketable securities with low sensitivity to market risk. C. Yield: The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market average rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the City's risk constraints, the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio, and state and local laws, ordinances or resolutions that restricts the placement of short term funds. D. The investment portfolio shall be diversified to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institution. E. The City shall adhere to the guidance provided by the "prudent investor rule ", which obligates a fiduciary to insure that: "...investment shall be made with the exercise of that degree of judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation but for investment considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." F. All participants in the investment process shall act reasonably as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public scrutiny and evaluation. The overall program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. Nevertheless, in a diversified portfolio, it must be recognized that occasional measured losses are inevitable, and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio investment return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented. G. Investments are to be made that will bear in mind the responsibility of city government to its citizens. Investments which encourage the betterment of the human condition will be sought. Alternative investments which enhance the quality of life will be given full consideration. Investments which serve to only enrich a few to the detriment of the people will be strictly avoided. H. No investment is to be made in a company that receives more than 15% of gross revenues from the production or manufacture of cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling products. 2 IV. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Article V of the Charter of the City of Alameda places sole custody of the City's funds with the Treasurer. Further, Section 53636 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that money on deposit is deemed to be in the treasury of the City. Although the responsibility for conducting the City's investment program resides with the Treasurer, the day to day investment function is hereby delegated to the Finance Director who shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program, consistent with this investment policy. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority for all investment activities. This procedure is attached hereto and marked as Attachment 'A ". V. INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE An Investment Advisory Committee has been formed for the purpose of overseeing the implementation of the City's investment program and assuring it is consistent with the investment policy as approved by the City Council. The advisory committee shall consist of the City Treasurer, Finance Director (as representative of the City Manager) and the Investment Officer. The Investment Advisory Committee will meet as needed or as market or economic condition changes to determine general strategies and to monitor results. The committee shall include in its deliberations such topics as: economic outlook, portfolio diversification and maturity structure, potential risks to the City's funds, approval of authorized financial institutions, and the target rate of return on investment portfolio. The written investment procedures shall be approved by the investment advisory committee on an annual basis. Quarterly: The Finance Director with the concurrence of the Treasurer shall submit a quarterly investment report to the City Council. This report will describe all investment transactions during the quarter, compute average yield and average life of the portfolio as well as all required elements of the quarterly report as prescribed by Government Code Section 53646. VI. INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS Investment instruments authorized for purchase include: A. United States treasury bills or certificate of indebtedness or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. B. Insured or collateralized certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state chartered bank or state or federal association. In accordance with California statutes, City deposits including collateralized certificates of deposit shall not exceed the total paid -up capital (to include capital notes and indentures) and surplus of any depository bank, or the total of the net worth of any savings and loan association. C. Prime bankers acceptances with maturities less than one hundred eighty days, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System, and are issued by the top fifty 3 banks in the world, or any qualified depository in the State of California. Purchases from any one bank may not exceed thirty percent of the City's investment portfolio. D. Securities of government agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Farm Credit and Federal National Mortgage Association, a maximum of 25% per issuer, and a maximum of 75% in total. E. Prime commercial paper with Al /PI rating as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical- rating organization (NRSRO). Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity and no more than 25% of the City of Alameda's portfolio. F. Medium term corporate notes with a maximum maturity of five years issued by corporation doing business in the Untied States which are rated "A" or its equivalent or better by one or more of the following national rating: Moody's, Standard and Poor's, Fitch's or Keefe's. Investment in medium term corporate notes shall not exceed 30% of the City of Alameda's portfolio. G. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund. H. County Agency Investment Funds, a maximum of 15 %. I. Repurchase Agreements. J. Domestic money market mutual funds registered with the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and which are rated in the highest rating category by a nationally recognized rating service or which only invest in: a) U.S. Government or federal agency securities and repurchase agreement, b) other investment instruments specifically included in the local investment policy, or c) tax exempt obligations. K. Other instruments as authorized under Section 53601 and 53634 of the Government Code. L. California Asset Management Program (CAMP). M. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit, a maximum of 30 %. VII. INVESTMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the use of repurchase agreements: 1. Securities purchased under the repurchase agreement shall be limited to the securities and qualifications listed above. 2. Securities shall be marked -to- market, and shall be maintained at a value equal to 4 or greater than the cash investment. 3. The market value of the securities that underlay a repurchase agreement shall be valued at 102 %. 4. All securities under a repurchase agreement shall be held by a third party custodian or safekeeping agent. Transfer of underlying securities to a counterparty bank's customer book entry account may be used for book entry delivery, and a counterparty bank's trust department or safekeeping department may also be used for physical delivery of the underlying security. 5. The seller of repurchase securities shall not be entitled to substitute securities, except as authorized by the City. New or substitute securities should be reasonably identical to the original securities in terms of maturity, yield, quality and liquidity. 6. As soon as possible, a master purchase agreement will be executed between the City and all trading partners. B. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the use of commercial paper: 1. Maturities shall be limited to two hundred seventy days or less. 2. Purchase must be of the highest letter and numerical rating as provided for by Moody's or Standard and Poor's or Fitch Financial Services, Inc. 3. Purchases must be limited to corporations organized and operating within the United States, and as a practical matter generally only those corporations operating within the State of California, having total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars, and having an "A" or higher rating for the issuer's debentures, other than commercial paper (as- provided by Moody's or Standard and Poor's rating services). 4. Purchase may not represent more than ten percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. C. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the use of negotiable certificates of deposit: 1. Certificates with maturities greater than six months through one year have an "A" rating or its equivalent or better as provided for by one of the four following national rating services: Moody's, Standard and Poor's, Fitch's or Keefe's. 2. Certificates with maturities greater than one year and through four years shall have an "AA" or its equivalent, or higher rating from one or more of the four following national rating services: Moody's, Standard and Poor's, Fitch's or Keefe's. 5 D. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the use of medium term corporate notes: If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either Moody's or S &P to a level below the quality required by this Investment Policy, it shall be the Agency's policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities in the portfolio. a. If a security is downgraded two grades below the level required by the City, the security shall be sold immediately. b. If a security is downgraded one grade below the level required by this policy and matures within 6 months, the security will be held to maturity. The City Treasurer may determine to sell the security if it is determined that there is a probability of default prior to maturity. c. If a decision is made to retain a downgraded security in the portfolio, its presence in the portfolio will be monitored and reported monthly to the City Council. VIII. PRUDENCE The standard of prudence to be used by investment officers shall be the "prudent person rule ", and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence will be relieved of personal liability for an individual security credit risk or market price changes, provided that deviations from expectations are reported on a timely fashion, and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. IX. INTERNAL CONTROLS The City Auditor will establish a system of internal controls, which shall be documented in writing. The controls shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation by third parties, unanticipated changes in financial markets or imprudent actions by employees and officers of the City. Controls deemed most important include: control of collusion, segregation of duties, separating transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping, custodial safekeeping, clear delegation of authority, specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial action, written confirmation of telephone transactions, minimizing the number of authorized investment officials, documentation of transactions and strategies and code of ethical standards. X. BANKS AND SECURITIES DEALERS In selecting financial institutions for the deposit or investment of City funds, the Treasurer will consider the credit rating of the institutions. The Treasurer will continue to monitor financial institutions' credit characteristics and financial history throughout the period in which City funds are deposited or invested. The Treasurer shall approve all financial institutions from whom securities are purchased. 6 XI. MATURITY The City will not invest in instruments whose maturities exceed five years at the time of purchase. It is the intent that investments shall be managed in such a way that any market price losses resulting from interest -rate volatility would be offset by coupon income and current income received from the overall portfolio during a twelve month period. XII. DIVERSIFICATION It is the policy of this City to diversify the investment portfolio in order to reduce the risk of Toss resulting from over concentration of assets in a specific maturity, a specific issuer or a specific class of securities. The following strategies and constraints shall apply: A. Portfolio maturities will be staggered in a way that avoids undue concentration of assets in specific maturity sector. Maturities shall be selected which provide for stability of income and reasonable liquidity. B. Concern for liquidity shall be insured through practices that include covering the next vendor disbursement date and payroll date through maturing investments or United States Treasury bills. C. Risks of market price volatility shall be controlled through maturity and issuer diversification. XIII. RISK TOLERANCE The City recognizes that investment risks can result from issuer defaults, market price changes or various technical complications leading to temporary illiquidity. A. Credit risk, defined as the risk of Toss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing in high grade securities and by diversification. B. Market risk, defined as market value fluctuations due to overall changes in market price and rate, shall be mitigated by eliminating the need to sell securities prior to maturity and avoiding the purchase of long term security for the sole purpose of short term speculation. XIV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. All transactions will be executed on a delivery versus payment basis. B. Wire Transfers: Whenever possible pre- formatted wire transfers will be used to transfer funds to pre- authorized accounts. C. The City will not enter into reverse repurchase agreements, nor trade in options or future contracts. However, the Investment Advisory Committee will review and make recommendations regarding the future use and application of these instruments. 7 D. From time to time a competitive bid process, utilizing a minimum of three financial institutions deemed eligible by the Treasurer, will be used to place investment purchases. The City shall transact business only with banks, savings and loans, and with brokers /dealers approved by the Investment Advisory Committee. E. In the event of an absence or replacement of the City's Investment Officer, the authority to invest in all maturities beyond six months shall be regulated by controls and restraining requirements and documented in written investment procedures. In order to assist in identifying "qualified financial institutions" the Treasurer will forward copies of the City's Investment Policy to those financial institutions with which the City is interested in doing business and require written receipt of the policy. F. Safekeeping and Custody Securities purchased from brokers /dealers shall be held in a third party custodian account, which the City has established for safekeeping. Said securities are to be held in the name of the City with the trustee executing investment transactions as directed by the appropriate City official. Collateral for time deposit in savings and loans is to be held by the Federal Home Loan Bank. Collateral for time deposits in banks is to be held in the City's name in the bank trust department or by the Federal Reserve Bank. G. Confirmation Receipts for confirmation of purchase of authorized securities must include trade date, pay value, maturity, rate, price, yield, settlement date, description of securities purchased, agency's name, and third party custodian information. H. Preference Where all other factors are equal, as a final consideration the following preference will be given in order: a. Institutions principally located in the City b. Institutions principally located in the County c. Institutions principally located in the State d. Institutions principally located in the United States Trust Agreements The City shall direct the investment activities of trustees. Such direction shall be in keeping with the terms and condition of its trust agreements, applicable law and policies set forth in the Investment Policy. In addition to the acceptable investment instruments listed in Section VI, A thru K, bonds proceeds may be invested in: 8 Attachment a. Shares in a trust established pursuant to the Government code, Title 1, Chapter 5, investing in securities permitted under Section 53635; b. Other investment instruments allowed by State law which requirements imposed by bond insurance and rating agencies. 9 Cerifi d by: Division 7 and comply with Kevin Ke edy City Tre- urer ATTACHMENT A Matrix of Recommended Segregation of Responsibilities of the Treasury Functions FUNCTION 1. Authorization of investment transactions: °Format Investment Policy should be: - prepared by - submitted to oReviewed Investment Transactions approved at the end of each quarter 2. Execution of investment transactions: * ** 3. Timely recording of investment transactions: oRecording of investment transactions in the Treasurer's records oRecording of investment transactions in the accounting records 4. Verification of investment, i.e. match broker confirmation to Treasurer's records 5. Safeguarding of Assets and Records: oReconciliation of Treasurer's records to the Accounting records oReconciliation of Treasurer's records to bank statements and safekeeping records oReview of (a) financial institution's financial condition, (b) safety, liquidity, and potential yields of investment instruments, and (c) reputation and financial conditions of investment Brokers oTreasurer's Vault oPeriodic review of collateral should be performed 6. Management's periodic review of the investment portfolio as prepared by the Treasurer - key areas which should be reviewed are investment types, purchase price, market values, maturity dates and investment yields as well as conformance to stated investment policy. RESPONSIBILITIES Treasurer* Governing Body Treasurer Treasurer delegates to Finance Director and Supervising Accountant (Revenues) Supervising Accountant (Revenues) Supervising Accountant (General Ledger) Treasurer or Supervising Accountant (Revenues)* Supervising Accountant ** (General Ledger) Supervising Accountant ** (General Ledger) Treasurer All transactions, excluding purchases of Certificates of Deposits, are on delivery versus payment basis to a third party. Treasurer Independently assigned reviewing authority. * ** With input from Finance Director via consultation This individual may be an Assistant Finance Director or Supervising Accountant Personnel assigned to this task should have the capabilities commensurate with the responsibilities. This position requires a knowledge of investments and familiarity with the formal Investment Policy. CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM February 3, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Recommendation to Name the Ball Field in Lower Washington Park in memory of former Recreation and Park Commissioner Toby Chavez Background In late December 2003 the Recreation and Park Department received a petition signed by more than 125 individuals requesting that the softball field in Lower Washington Park be named in honor of former Recreation and Park Commissioner, Toby Chavez. The request was placed on the Commission Agenda January 8, 2004, and was unanimously approved. Discussion /Analysis Mr. Chavez was a prominent local sports enthusiast having co- founded both the Alameda Babe Ruth Baseball and Pop Warner Football Youth Sports Programs. He was heavily involved in the local softball scene as a player, manager, and tournament organizer. Mr. Chavez also served two terms as a member of the City of Alameda Recreation and Park Commission. During his tenure a number of significant projects were completed. Among these many projects was the design and construction of Towata and Tillman Parks as well as the completion of Harrington Soccer Field. Toby was also appointed to serve as the Recreation representative on the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) and Alameda Point Advisory Committee (APAC) from 1993 -1999. He was an enthusiastic advocate of the benefits of recreation facilities and programs to the community. Toby also served on the Sports Complex Task Force which developed the conceptual plan for the Sports Complex at Alameda Point. Mr. Chavez clearly meets both the Council's and Recreation and Park Commission's adopted guidelines for naming of Facilities having made, "significant contributions to the advancement of the City" through his service on the Commission and involvement in youth sports activities. Copies of both policies are attached for your review. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Report #4 -G CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Page -2- Councilmembers Budget Consideration /Financial Impact The naming of the softball field in Lower Washington Park in memory of Mr. Chavez will result in a very minimal one -time cost to the City. The placement of a sign denoting the name change will require an expenditure of approximately $300 -500. This cost would be absorbed in the current Recreation and Park Department Budget. Recommendation The City Manager recommends that Council approve naming the softball field in Lower Washington Park in memory of Toby Chavez. JMF:DL:bf Attch. Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: Dale Lillard, Acting Director Recreation and Park Department "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" _Alameda Recreation and Park DepartmeilL PROCEDURES FOR THE RECREATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR NAMING OR RENAMING OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (Facilities include, but are not limited to, City parks, swim centers, boat ramps, etc.) RENAMING OF EXISTING FACILITIES Existing facilities will not be renamed after the original naming and/or dedication. It matters not whether the facility is named after an individual or for a geographic location. NAMING A FACILITY WITHIN A FACILITY NOTE: Possible named areas within a park could be: A park name, recreation center, play lot, picnic area, park maintenance building, fields, courts, horseshoe pits and rose gardens, etc. Components within a park site may be identified as having special significance for an individual and could be recognized by a special one -time program or event. The installation of a lasting marker or plaque will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Applications for recognition events will be accepted on an annual basis. These will be limited to no more than two events per year to be determined by the Recreation and Park Commission. Donations of trees, park benches, water fountains, etc., in recognition of individuals are permitted but without commemorative markings. Appropriate ceremonies are arranged through the Recreation and Park Department. NAMING OF NEW FACILITIES The Recreation Commission will accept applications from the public to review potential names for new facilities based on the criteria listed below. National or State prominence or service to the City. Selected individuals may be alive or deceased. And according to the established City criteria: A name which reflects the location of the facility by geographic area. A name which reflects the history of a facility such as the family name of the builder, developer, or person who may have donated the land. A name which recognizes a significant contributor to the advancement of the City, such as a former Mayor, Councilmember, Board/Commission Member, officers or employees of the City (excluding a person currently holding the position). A name which is listed on the Street Naming Policy of the City of Alameda. Revised: 10/4/2001 Adopted: 11/10/94 bfh/ recom,'nameplcv.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA C A L 1 R O A N I A pQLICY FOR NAMING CITY PROPERTY • INTRODUCTION: • It is the City of Alameda's• desire to establish a uniform policy to name City facilities and portions thereof, including • but not limited to: Parks.and Park facilities, dol! Complex, Bureau of Electricity taoilitieb, Libraries, Housing Authorit • facilities, fire stations, City Nall,. Police. Departlent = facilities, parking lots, -ferry terminals, City streets and. entryways to the City.. PURPOSE: It is the City of Alamsda's desire to honor persons. *and /or event's in the history of the City by naming City facilities after thee. This process acknowledges and • memorializes a specific person or event and entrances the value and heritage of the City. PROCED(RES : • • • . C Boards and Commissions represent the community, and have direct responsibility for various City- faoilitie‘ as •.i prescribed in the City Charter. and Alameda Municipal Code. -:) The Boards /Commissions- most closely - related to these•-: facilities will make the name recoamendation.to the Council: It shall be the responsibility of the following Boards /Commissions to make recommendations to the City Council . on naming these City facilities: 'Recreation Commission - City Parks,•Swim Canters, Boat Ramps Golf Commission - Golf Complex and Associated Facilities Public Utilities Board.- Bureau-of Electricity Facilities Library Board - Libraries r • • • Housing Commission - Housing Authority Facilities Planning Board - Streets and all other City Facilities ■ Croups from wit,_ _n the community and inuA.viduals may make recommendations to the Board /Commission et the consideration is given to naming a facility, time such action. The Board/Commission will then forward initiate recommendation to the City Council. If a facility does not have a connection to Board /Commission, the Planning Board will be the body which makes a name recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Board will continue to be responsible for making street name recommendations to the City Council using the existing Street Naming Policy, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Historical Advisory Hoard will continue to add to the.pool of suggested names available for selection to name City property. • The City Council will make the final decision to name a City facility. Recommendations may come from Boards and Commissions. The City Council Will consider,a recommendation ••for naming a City facility, at a public meeting in order to receive comments in an•open forum. • CRITERIA: In selecting the name for a City facility, the following criteria will be used: A name which reflects the location of' the facility bym ? geographic area; A name which reflects the history of a facility such as the' family name of the builder, developer or person who may have donated the land= A name which 'recognizes a significant contributor to the :.• advancement of the • City, such as • a former Mayor,::_ Councilmember, Board /Commission Member, officers or employees - of thelyt city,. :excluding a person holding the position • A name which is listed on the Street Naming Policy of the City . of Alameda. • RE— NAMING CITY PROPERTY: Should the City contemplate renaming a City property which is named, research will be done to determine how the existing name was conceived,. and consideration. will be given to the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. At that time, it will . be at the discretion of the Council whether or not to rename a City property or- facility. Adopted 10 -1 -91 PET -ETZ*0 LO ER AlASINGI t \- \RK M -0...AAcuKk E AME") °T-OBY C‘AN\IEZ_ 3OJj FIE ; E L FeRgAti,kber.7 • /,,• 0 ja.40-74)c4e- , 3t4c 0 . nick e :104z-c, cJ 5-0A1 AUL c4, //cc:IL( j1 f e No/-)C L1. , iJgy t4t)( r-pw L3; C. V- V_ u .0 La T., A3 94 EA-, 1E11 GrOwt•-/ (.1›! P-\is4:E14,1\10n8E—.1 - n-74- (5' PI - 7/7-6/q9 773-cg---za. 29Z3S 6Z2.0 svo 7-(Ar-a-ie 9 2c) z-ciz - qc/fiz) 9:27/- 2C- g5 7-.26 776 2 cre) 72 7 IC) (7 150 -q65.-0.?4?‹5 570 5-0 ?? 6zo 71"-677? 35,0 -966 -077 6 Cd2,0 1,7/-, 31 fsk (-0 NAVVY► L- F T-1a. S I co, �Ju►.SL�— C- A'k 'f 2 t t7 vI LK G'� i sy-r 3L.`` Mid v 7, j /yi iMJnfic _ 8 , . 5 ; 5 / 3` P tl�s Sys of &f .LAJGZYvi yRO6Efir �h (4Ss 46:;1 � 46,1 C I (-Fr p / /vO 1 _ Ar `a ; S. -i6-N _40.:_i c et .61. / (..) 0,1,6 570- 2'YZ- slo_ gk5-- .a)c"�3 -/'S i (6-(> 779 - 6 7/ (Tv)7Y7- 7S6 feAtreW s -- 2 2 i° y 52 -0 ,65 7G1 -7°5-)s 522 711z 52_2r-6604j 45A2 P, z3 -2S7o 523 3�s -G3a3 76.f —eLyze-g- 1.1 A AA, C-7 b---1 0 ,e4J-n, /1/4( 681. No/e<14,4-• 1).1, Cep z_6" Dftt-11.--' WC-3P fle< 011-i114-2- 73 777C (c_ C/a-U 15 7iJkL 76 rri-. Lk 53f) (579 Ze-17 433 /Z(0 -L> ,27 6 ca,2 Y StA.-teTIC1 /I 'es% tl Ur-v (.°1- 76 9 - 2 6e7 209- 21r-/ f39- 570 3 5-2-2 ve „sa 510 - k , NA--1/Y\ 11 PP\ Fir-sr 5IGt4 ci4 tP4 Jf e Chau-g- 2- e \eb., k/orzc.., D-e,vnt.km v S tK ‘5ThrbptvB ui Afoe_ti Fij Yea-k rNycluk- 1,,ffituct__ eA./ ,se,ciAS e4c. c):= &zz--538 sys-9 - -734-1 W, -?1 8y& 514 - 7 106 LA-57- 5:11- c4- eD, ■ rvul\L t; )40 tve S7d -3 2 - OU/tA'i° /7r7 7677- —33671-661_ 21:2, S2,- r2z- SP, 13 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: February 4, 2004 Re: Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties BACKGROUND Ballena Isle Marina and a developer, Mission Valley Properties (brochure on file with the City Clerk), propose to renovate the Ballena Isle Marina and, as a way to assist in financing the upgrade, to develop a public open space /residential project on a 16 -acre portion of premises. The purpose of this report is to present a proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ( "ENA," on File with the City Clerk) to initiate and provide a roadmap for negotiations between the City, the Marina (the "Lessee "), and the Developer, and to provide a reimbursement agreement whereby the Lessee and the Developer agree to reimburse City staff and consultant cost for all tasks related to amending the existing Ground Lease and negotiating a purchase and sale agreement for a portion of the leased premises. Negotiations during the ENA term would likely focus on the following major project components. All of the transactions are inter - related and inter- dependent. If one of the key components should fail, the project would in all likelihood not go forward. DISCUSSION Background and History of Sites. Ballena Isle Marina leases 54 acres from the City, including 27 acres of dry land and 27 acres of submerged lands, under 50 -year Ground Lease executed in 1979. Early in 2001, Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties proposed the idea of exploring Marina renovation financed by a new open space and residential development. Under a cost reimbursement agreement, the City required that Ballena Isle Marina and Mission Valley Properties prepare a conceptual site plan and reimburse the City's out -of- pocket cost for City legal and planning consultant staff work to test the concept with State Lands Commission (SLC) staff. Mission Valley Properties placed $50,000 on deposit with the City pursuant to a City Cost Reimbursement Agreement. In March 2002, the City made an informal proposal to SLC staff. After touring sites in Alameda, they expressed willingness to further consider the concept. Project Description. Ballena Isle Marina proposes a complete renovation of the Marina, including: dredging, upgrade of dockside facilities, and redesign/replacement of all docks and boat slips in order to more efficiently accommodate modern boating requirements. They request that the City consider extending the length of their lease (currently due to terminate in 2029) in order to facilitate securing new loans and equity. They are also relying on being able to generate Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -H CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and February 4, 2004 Members of the City Council Page 2 proceeds from their interest in the 16 acres. Their initial analysis suggests that if they were able to generate value from their leasehold interest, they could raise the balance of funding through additional equity investment and increased borrowing. Mission Valley Properties proposes to acquire and develop a portion of the 16 acres as duplexes. (The number of units and the acreage may be increased or decreased according to site conditions and the site planning process.) Approximately two of the remaining acres would be devoted to streets and public parking. Preliminary site analysis suggests that the site might be able to support development of roughly 35 duplex residential units on approximately four (4) acres, while still preserving an approximate l0 -acre, continuous linear public waterfront open space around Ballena Isle promontory (Attachment 1 - Conceptual Site Plan). Note: the estimated number of residential units is subject to change, based on site geologic testing and further due diligence. Selection of Developer. The Marina, as Lessee, controls the Leased Premises through 2029, and has selected Ballena Shores LLC (formed by Mission Valley Properties) as developer and development partner. The Lessee has approached the City and makes this project proposal based upon their development partner's residential development experience and prior involvement in Alameda development projects. Mission Valley Properties spent approximately $75,000 since entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City in 2001, to reimburse City costs and to hire BMS Design Group to complete the conceptual site plan. Furthermore, the City expects to sell the residential property based on its fair market value as determined by independent MAI appraisal. Therefore, the price that the City expects to receive would be the same regardless of the identity of the purchaser /developer. Tidelands Trust Considerations. All of the lands of the Ballena Bay Isle Ground Lease are part of lands granted to the City of Alameda by the State of California as Tidelands (Attachment 2). Uses that are generally not permitted on Public Trust lands include residential and non - maritime related commercial and office uses. The Lessee proposes to substitute a public park/residential project in lieu of an hotel project (which had been approved by the City in the late 1980s but never developed), as the economic engine that would finance improved public open space uses, roadway and public parking on approximately 10 acres of Public Trust lands. This would require negotiating a Tidelands Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission to remove the lands to be used for residential. The City recently negotiated such an exchange at Alameda Point. In March 2002, City staff presented a conceptual site plan to State Lands Commission staff. State Lands Commission staff thought that the proposal had sufficient merit for further consideration. The City would need to work with State Lands Commission staff to conduct a joint appraisal of lands to be traded into and out of the Trust (Attachment 3); we would need to negotiate with SLC staff the terms of a Trust exchange agreement; and, the City must draft and have a representative to the State legislature introduce special State legislation approving and authorizing the Tidelands Trust exchange. The legal cost of negotiating and executing a Tidelands Trust exchange agreement is estimated to be approximately $250,000, plus the cost of mapping and appraisal. These are City expenditures that must be borne and reimbursed by the Developer. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004 \CC 2- 10- 04.doc F: CP /Ballena Shores/ENA Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 4, 2004 Page 3 Outline of Potential Transaction Components. A simplified description of the major financial components of the transaction includes the following: • The City would negotiate to buy out the fair market value of the Lessee's leasehold interest in the 16 acres of uplands, as determined by appraisal. This transaction would be contingent on obtaining State Lands Commission approval of a Tidelands Trust swap. The City would use the proceeds from sale to buyout the leasehold interest. A simultaneous escrow could be used to manage the timing of transactions. The entire project would be contingent on the City's being able to generate enough proceeds from sale to cover the cost of acquiring the leasehold interest. The City would also negotiate an extension of the term of the Lease and a new ground rent structure for the remaining lands; • City would negotiate with State Lands Commission to extinguish (or swap out of) the Tidelands Trust the portion to be developed as residential; • CITY and Developer would negotiate a sale to Developer of the residential site at fair market value free of Tidelands Trust restrictions taking into account Developer's obligation and agreement to: construct the necessary streets and public parking; finance and build open space improvements on the public waterfront park; and create a homeowners association and a landscape and lighting assessment district to maintain the streets and open space. • Lessee would use the proceeds of sale of the leasehold interest plus new equity and new loans to finance renovation of the Marina; and, • Developer would construct and sell duplex residential units. The number of units may be increased or decreased according to site conditions and the site planning process. ENA Terms. The term of the ENA is proposed to be twenty -four (24) months, with possible extensions, and it would provide for reimbursement of City staff and consultant costs (Attachment 4). Next Steps. Neighborhood residents and the Planning Board and the Recreation and Park Commission have been briefed (Attachment 5). If the . Council approves execution of the proposed ENA, the City, the Lessee and the Developer would begin working simultaneously on three parallel tracks: ❑ The developer begins engineering studies at the site and due diligence regarding the potential economic viability of residential development on this site, and they begin the site design/project proposal entitlement process; ❑ The City renews discussions with State Lands Commission staff regarding a potential Tidelands Trust swap; and, ❑ Ballena Isle Marina and the City begin negotiating an amendment to business terms of the existing Lease and removal of approximately 16 acres from the leased area. This is one of the first critical path milestones. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004 \CC 2- 10- 04.doc F: CP/Ballena Shores /ENA Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FINANCIAL IMPACT February 4, 2004 Page 4 There is no impact to the General Fund related to executing an ENA. The ENA provides for the Lessee and the developer to reimburse City costs. The Lessee and the Developer would make Negotiating Cost Deposits on a quarterly basis with the first deposit due upon execution of the ENA in the following amounts: Lessee - $37,611 and Developer - $81,785. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the proposed ENA. PB/BJMK:ry Attachments: Respectfully submitted, P ul Benoit evelopment Services Dir tor By: Bruce J. Redevelopm anager cc: Martha Buxton, Mission Valley Properties, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170, Pleasanton, CA Chris Hawke, Mission Valley Properties, 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170, Pleasanton, CA 94588 Randy Short, Almar Management, 3001 Peninsula Road, Oxnard, CA 93035 -4071 Kevin Fiore, 800 Wilshire Boulevard, twelfth floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004 \CC 2- 10- 04.doc F: CP /Ballena Shores /ENA ATTACHMENT 1 One Map: Conceptual Site Plan G:\econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment 1 cover sheet.doc Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1 Tidelands Trust Considerations All of the lands of the Ground Lease (Ballena Bay Isle) are filled, formerly submerged lands, and are part of lands granted to the City of Alameda by the State of California as Tidelands subject to the provisions of Chapter 594, California Statute 1913. Lands subject to the Tidelands Trust may not be used for uses which are prohibited pursuant to California Statutes 1917, Chapter 594, as said statute may be amended from time to time. The Public Trust Policy document of the California State Lands Commission states: 1. "Lands under the ocean and under navigable streams are owned by the public and held in trust for the people by government. These are referred to as Public Trust lands, and include filled lands formerly under water. Public Trust lands cannot be bought and sold like other state -owned lands. Only in rare cases may the Public Trust be terminated, and only where consistent with the purposes and needs of the Trust." 2. Uses of Trust lands, whether granted to a local agency or administered by the State directly, are generally limited to those that are water dependent or related, and include commerce, fisheries, and navigation, environmental preservation and recreation. Public Trust uses include, among others, ports, marinas, docks and wharves, buoys, hunting, commercial and sport fishing, bathing, swimming, and boating. Public Trust lands may also be kept in their natural state for habitat, wildlife refuges, scientific study, or open space. Ancillary or incidental uses, that is, uses that directly promote Trust uses, are directly supportive and necessary for Trust uses, or that accommodate the public's enjoyment of Trust lands, are also permitted. Examples include facilities to serve visitors, such as hotels and restaurants, shops, parking lots, and restrooms. Other examples are commercial facilities that must be located on or directly adjacent to the water, such as warehouses, container cargo storage, and facilities for the development and production of oil and gas. Uses that are generally not permitted on Public Trust lands are those that are not Trust use related, do not serve a public purpose, and can be located on non - waterfront property. Typical examples include residential and non - maritime related commercial and office uses. While Trust lands cannot generally be alienated from public ownership, uses of Trust lands can be carried out by public or private entities by lease from the Commission or a local agency grantee. The Lessee proposes to substitute a public park/residential project in lieu of an hotel project (which had been approved by the City in the late 1980s but never developed), as the economic engine that would finance improved public open space uses, roadway and public parking on approximately 10 acres of Public Trust lands. This would require negotiating a Tidelands Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission to remove the lands to be used for residential. The City recently negotiated such an exchange at Alameda Point. The State legislature approved SB 2049, the Naval Air Station Alameda Public Trust Exchange Act, which authorized an exchange of specified Public Trust and non - Public Trust lands at Alameda Point. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Tidelands Trust Considerations.doc Attachment 3 Page 1 of 4 Process and Amount of Land to be Exchaneed In March 2002, City staff presented the conceptual site plan to State Lands Commission staff. State Lands Commission staff thought that the proposal had sufficient merit for further consideration. The City would need to work with State Lands Commission staff to conduct a joint appraisal of lands to be traded into and out of the Trust; we would need to negotiate with SLC staff the terms of a Trust exchange agreement; and, the City must draft and have a representative to the State legislature introduce special State legislation approving and authorizing the Tidelands Trust exchange. State Lands Commissions must be able to make two findings in order to recommend special legislation and elimination of the Trust from a particular parcel of land: 1. The land is no longer needed for Trust purposes, and 2. The Trust would receive in exchange, something of equal or greater value. The presentation to SLC staff summarized a citywide planning rationale for reallocating lands in Alameda from/to the Trust. The status of lands were reviewed around the Island, outside of Alameda Point where a Tidelands Trust swap has been approved and is now in the process of being implemented. It was noted that there are City -owned properties that have been improved and provide public access to the waterfront in ways that implement the objectives of the State Tidelands Trust, such as the 12 -acre Waterfront Park in Marina Village, even though these lands are not considered part of Tidelands Trust. There are a number of properties in this category around the Island, including (Exhibit A — Alameda Trust Study Areas): • 36 acres of improved public shoreline around Bayfarm Island; • 12 acre improved Marina Village Waterfront Park; • 17 existing acres at Washington Park and Portola Triangle, was originally proposed because it is ostensibly adjacent to, although upland of, State -owned Crown Memorial Beach. However, SLC staff does not feel that Washington Park would be a good candidate for the Trust, because it is not located along the waterfront; • 1.5 acre, existing Towata Park. In addition, an 11 -acre Waterfront Promenade has been approved and will be developed as public waterfront as part of the FISC Enterprise Landing Project. There are also 37.2 acres at Doolittle Landfill designated as open space in the General Plan. Approximately half is zoned open space, and half is zoned commercial - recreation. While none of it is part of the Tidelands Trust, the City does not currently expect to be considering this site as part of the proposed exchange discussions. Property at Ballena Isle was also reviewed with SLC staff. Site plan analysis concludes that if it is important to provide improved public access to the waterfront, then an economically viable use will have to be found, and residential development of a portion of the property seems to be the most promising option. Ten acres of public access G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment- Process and Amount of Land to be Exchanged.doc Attachment 3 Page 2 of 4 waterfront shoreline could be achieved if an interior four (4) acre portion were developed for residential uses. The Attached spreadsheet summarizes the value of parcels that could be traded in as well as parcels that may need to be traded out. CONTEXT: Considering the mission of Tidelands Trust, we prepared a presentation to SLC Staff which portrayed Ballena Isle planning as part of a larger planning vision for the City, all of which is based on sound waterfront planning principles. The City is now in the process of updating its General Plan, which was adopted in 1991. In the last decade, as maritime and other industrial uses have moved to other more efficient locations and the military installations at the Alameda Naval Air Station and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center have been closed, new opportunities to connect the City to its waterfront have become available. Recent projects and current planning for South Shore Center, Enterprise Landing Waterfront Promenade, the public trails at the proposed Alameda Point Golf Course, and the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan process, for example, all envision abundant linkages with the waterfront. This strategy involves not only the waterfront edge, but important interior commercial, open space, office, and residential uses within the interior districts. This is part of a long- standing desire to connect the City and its neighborhoods more effectively with the waterfront. Certain basic waterfront planning principles guide this effort, including: 1) Continuous public access should be provided around the entire perimeter of the island, except in those cases where public access may be unsafe. 2) Uses along the waterfront should be appropriate to a waterfront location. They should be either water - dependent, water - related, or improve the safety, security and attractiveness of the waterfront to enhance public enjoyment. This may mean residential in some areas that would otherwise be isolated. 3) Each portion of the waterfront edge should be planned and designed with uses that are appropriate to the particular location and adjacent inland neighborhoods. 4) Waterfront residential uses should be planned in such a manner that they do not interfere with public use and enjoyment of the waterfront. In particular, residential uses could be encouraged in remote waterfront areas where 24 hour surveillance is desirable in order to enhance the public safety of adjacent public open space areas. Residential uses can be planned to provide "eyes on the park ": near waterfront open spaces that would otherwise be isolated and unsafe during various times of the day or night. Other City Tidelands Trust Considerations In the presentation to SLC staff, it was pointed out that there are areas of waterfront that were not going to be addressed at present, for example, the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan area. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment- Process and Amount of Land to be Exchanged.doc Attachment 3 Page 3 of 4 State Lands Commission Staff Response SLC staff liked the proposed planning approach and they were impressed after having toured the City and seen the coexistence of residential uses adjacent to the Bay Farm Island shoreline trail. They toured Ballena Isle and saw the underdeveloped portion of the promontory and understand the need to find both an active and economically viable use for the property and the one that could support the cost of improving the public waterfront. Swap Process The Trust appraisal process generally takes six to nine months, depending on the workload at the State Lands Commission. The legislative process generally takes twelve months. In order to introduce special legislation, the City would need to not only complete the appraisal process but also present a terms sheet outlining the business terms of a purchase and sale agreement for sale and development of the residential lands and a terms sheet for amendment of the tidelands trust Ballena Isle Marina Lease. The terms sheet would need to show the flow of funds between all parties and it would need to describe the sources and uses of funds to renovate the Marina and to improve the 10 -acre, open space, waterfront park. The legal cost of negotiating and executing a Tidelands Trust exchange agreement is estimated to be approximately $250,000, plus the cost of mapping and appraisal. These are City expenditures that must be borne and reimbursed by the Developer. Attachments Exhibit A: Alameda Trust Study Areas G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment- Process and Amount of Land to be Exchanged.doc Attachment 3 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A One Map: Alameda Trust Study Areas G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004 \Feb 17 2004\Attachment- Process and Amount of Land to be Exchanged.doc i �fi� NS oar Wer , imaufmliug ei 4 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 2 Summary of ENA Terms Duration and Extensions: The term of the ENA is proposed to be twenty -four (24) months. The City Manager may, at the written request of the Developer, approve a first extension of the Negotiating Period for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days, on the condition that Lessee and the staff of the CITY have reached agreement on the terms of a Lease Amendment which staff is prepared to recommend to the City Council for approval. Good Faith Deposit: a) The Lessee will submit to the CITY a good faith deposit (the "Lessee's Good Faith Deposit ") in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to ensure that the Lessee will proceed diligently and in good faith to perform all of the Lessee's obligations under the Agreement. b) CITY acknowledges that there remains approximately twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) of an original Fifty- Thousand Dollar ($50,000) cost reimbursement deposit submitted to the CITY by the Developer in conjunction with the execution of a Cost Reimbursement Agreement, dated July 31, 2001, whose purpose was to undertake initial planning tasks related to the Project. Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) of this will be considered to be the Developer's Good Faith Deposit. The balance would be applied toward reimbursement of City Costs, as described below. CITY Cost Recovery/Reimbursement: a) The Lessee shall reimburse the CITY for costs incurred by the CITY pursuant to negotiation of an Amendment to the Ground Lease. Such costs include, but are not limited to, actual and reasonable costs of staff salary and benefits and the fees the CITY pays to its consultants, advisors, and attorneys. b) The Developer shall reimburse the CITY for costs the CITY incurs pursuant to this Agreement, except for those costs the City incurs pursuant to Amendment of the Ground Lease. Such costs include, but are not limited to, actual and reasonable costs of staff salary and benefits and the fees the CITY pays to its consultants, advisors, and attorneys. Subjects of Negotiation a) Specific Subjects for Negotiation — Amendment of Ground Lease. The following issues, among others, would be covered in negotiating an amendment to the Ground Lease: i. Terminating the Ground Lease with respect to the Residential Site; ii. An extension of the term of an amended Ground Lease; iii. An increase in payments to the City under the Ground Lease; G:\econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004 Attachment - Summary of ENA Tenns.doc Attachment 4 Page 2 of 2 iv. The timing and method for providing financing commitments for renovation of Ballena Isle Marina; v. The process for ensuring compliance with applicable environmental review laws; vi. The timing and manner the Lessee will use to provide drawings, elevations, models and other depictions of the design and construction details for renovation of the Marina; vii. The timing and method for securing all required regulatory approvals; and viii. The method by which completion of the Marina renovation will be secured. b) Specific Subjects for Negotiation — Purchase and Sale Agreement. The following issues, among others, would be covered in negotiating a Purchase and Sale Agreement: i. The timing and manner for extinguishing the Tidelands Trust on the Residential Site; ii. The timing and method for providing financing commitments for development of the Residential Site and the Open Space/Waterfront Park; iii. The amount and timing of payments to the CITY to acquire the property pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement; iv. The manner in which property at the Residential Site will be transferred to and held by the Developer; v. The process for ensuring compliance with applicable environmental review laws; vi. The timing and manner the Developer will use to provide drawings, elevations, models and other depictions of the design and construction details for development of the Residential Site including the Open Space/Waterfront Park; vii. The timing and method for securing all required regulatory approvals; and viii. The method by which completion of the Residential Project and the Open Space/Waterfront Park will be secured. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Summary of ENA Terms.doc Attachment 5 Page 1 of 12 Public Engagement On October 20, 2003, the Developer and the Lessee held a meeting with the neighborhood to brief residents on preliminary project plans. The Developer clarified that all project details regarding acreage and numbers of units were at an extremely preliminary stage. No site analysis, soils analysis, survey work or traffic analysis has yet been performed. Areas of interest and area of concern expressed by some people attending this neighborhood meeting included community and site design issues related to the following (Letter and Email, dated October 23, 2004): 1. Addressing deferred maintenance of the Marina; 2. At a minimum, retaining parking at levels to serve current needs, with an appropriate expansion to serve the proposed new residential; 3. Hours of public access to the waterfront and providing security; 4. Traffic; 5. Preservation of community gardens; 6. A request from the Ballena Isle Yacht Club for a new building; 7. Maintaining the quality of life, in general, for current marina users and area residents; and 8. Enthusiasm that there were plans for something to improve the area. On November 24, 2003, the Planning Board held a study session (Minutes attached) to provide a briefing to the Planning Board on the potential General Plan and Zoning amendments that would be required if this project goes forward. Many of the same issues raised at the neighborhood meeting were also raised at the Planning Board Study Session. New questions and concerns were related to design, open space design and Tidelands Trust, including the following: 1. Width of roadways and shoreline trails; 2. Confirmation that the requirements of Measure A would apply (Note: Measure A requirements do apply); 3. Use and potential development of Tidelands Trust areas; 4. Preference for residential use over hotel use; 5. Mechanisms to fund maintenance of the new open space; 6. Shortage of active open space along Alameda's waterfronts; and, 7. Project time frame. On January 8, 2004, the Recreation and Park Commission also held a briefing session on the proposed project. The Commission's main question related to the amount of children's playgrounds and park space that would be provided as part of the proposed development plan. G:\econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 2 of 12 MISSION VALLEY 1'RO1'ERTIES October 23, 2003 To: Bruce Knopf, City of Alameda From: Marti Buxton, Mission Valley Properties RE: Ballena Neighborhood Meeting On Monday, October 20, 2003 a neighborhood meeting was held at the Ballena Isle Yacht Club for owners and tenants of the four residential developments at Ballena and also included those that live aboard their boat in the marina. Approximately 45 residents attended the 2 hour meeting. It was a very good meeting with the attendees asking more than 50 questions. They genuinely appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on the plans at this very preliminary stage. They expressed support for the project because they believe the development will improve the area. They did not make negative comments regarding the development but did make constructive suggestions as to issues that should be addressed. There were negative comments regarding the maintenance of the marina that were directed at Almar, particularly by the liveaboards. Almar stated that development of the residential project would allow them to improve the marina. In analyzing the questions that were asked it is clear that parking was the primary concern. The liveaboards were worried that there would not be enough parking if one of the existing parking lots was removed and redesigned as a series of smaller lots scattered throughout the project. While we told them that we based the parking on the numbers that Almar gave us from their daily count of actual cars parked, it still remains an issue. The residential residents were more concerned about cars parked along the street by "outsiders" driving in to use the open space. Surprisingly, there was very little comment on traffic in general. The liveaboards have a number of concerns unique to there living situation. In addition to parking it includes the provision of restrooms, showers, storage lockers, a garden for their use and support services in general. One of the major concerns of the residential residents was the issue of security and some even inquired if the project could be gated and include the existing development. Other individual requests included: dry dock storage, a new facility for the yacht club, and a swimming pool. Other topics included: G:\econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004 \Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 3of12 • CEQA environmental studies including traffic, wildlife, infrastructure, soils • Development, maintenance and access to the open space • Time frame of the approval process and development of the site In summary, there was substantial support for the residential development of two story duplexes on what is now a very unattractive site. We promised to keep them involved and informed throughout the design, approval and development process. G:\econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 4 of 12 From: "Marti Buxton" <mbuxton @us - buxton.com> To: "Bruce Knopf' <bknopf @ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: Thu, Oct 23, 2003 11:31 AM Subject: FW: Ballena Meeting Bruce - Irv's notes as to the questions asked and his count of attendance. Marti Original Message From: Iry Hamilton [mailto:ih @avisoinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 4:59 PM To: Marti Buxton; Chris Hawke Subject: Ballena Meeting I counted about 45 attendees, excluding people involved in the project, such as Rich, Steve and Bill. The total was about 50. There were 48 questions asked. When the answers are obvious, I haven't transcribed them. But some answers, particularly from Randy, are shown in parentheses. 1. Who will maintain the common open -space areas? 2. Will there be restrooms dedicated to the marina tenants, with key or card access? 3. Will there be environmental studies, such as the impact on wildlife? Particularly birds. 4. Will the amount of parking be downsized? Will you have a means of controlling parking, such as the permits that are now used? 5. Will the number of bathroom and shower facilities be reduced? 6. You say this development will benefit the marina. How? (There will be a complete renovation of the marina.) 7. Maintenance on the docks is poor. We have been hearing for years about projects to improve the Marina, will this one ever happen? We are tired of promises. (applause) Used to have trash receptacles inside the gate. Now on the outside, which makes it less convenient for the liveaboards. 8. Are you going to handle the residential development and the marina renovation as two separate projects? (They will be done hand in hand.) 9. If the hotel project has been approved, why aren't you going ahead with it? (We decided it was not compatible with the site.) 10. Who approved the hotel project? (The City and BCDC.) 11. Ballena Bay Yacht Club has outgrown its facilities. We want a new building. Can that be included? G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 5of12 12. What affect will the development of new townhouses have on our units? And what will the new homes cost? 13. What is the timeframe for the new development? 14. Will there be on- street parking for visitors? If you allow parking for two cars, that won't be enough. Some of us have more than two cars. And we need parking for visitors. 15. Will there be space for dry storage of boats? 16. How many stories high will the townhomes be? 17. Can the access to the public park be limited to provide better security? Can the project be gated? 18. If the project is gated where the guard shack is now, people will park in front of our homes, taking up on- street parking space. Can the gate be moved? 19. How will security be handled for existing units? And how will traffic be controlled? Can there be traffic lights? 20. Will the liveaboard gardens be removed? 21. How will the parking be configured within the development? What parking will be available for the public? Will the public park in spaces intended for liveaboards. 22. Will there be infrastructure improvements? 23. Yes. We have had sewer problems. Also, will there be problems with soil stability? 24. What will happen to the storage lockers? We need them. 25. There used to be a swimming pool here. Will a new one be built? 26. With the dredging that has gone on will the soil be stable enough to build on? 27. A lot of us walk out there. Will the houses be set back from the shoreline? 28. It looks as though the houses will be very close to the walking paths. 29. Is the renovation of the marina contingent on this residential project? 30. How can you build a new project, when you can't maintain what you have? 31. Will the new townhouses on the marina side have their own docks? 32. Will you be moving the current street? 33. Need more restricted parking for the marina tenants. 34. Why not make the park into a parking lot? Provide more parking? 35. Who owns the land? (The City. Almar has a 50 -year lease of which 24 years have passed. Mission Valley properties would buy the land from the City.) 36. What is the policy regarding the number of liveaboards? (No formal policy. Private marinas typically have 10 %, which is what we have.) G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 6 of 12 37. Need to provide support services for the liveaboards. 38. What's the process from this point on? 39. It's nice to have these plans to look at and comment on. We appreciate it. (applause) 40. Can you provide printed materials when the plan is further along so we can study them? 41. The emphasis is on the development plan. We need to make certain there's enough open space. 42. What is the width of the peninsula? Is there enough room for parking, houses and open space? 43. What other local projects have you done? It would be helpful to know more about your company's experience. 44. We're happy to know that development is planned to improve this area. (applause) 45. Just be careful not to squeeze in too many units. Don't make it too crowded. 46. Will you have a Web site? 47. We really appreciate your being here. (applause) 48. There are probably a lot of government requirements that you have to meet. I assume you've taken all that into account. (applause) Iry Iry Hamilton AVISO, Inc. (510) 865 -5100 x.124 ih @avisoinc.com www.avisoinc.com G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004 \Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 7 of 12 Notes From Planning Board Study Session November 24, 2003 8 -C. Study Session regarding a possible General Plan Diagram and Text Amendment and Rezoning to allow 16 acres immediately adjacent to Ballena Isle Marina to be developed primarily as open space and residential. The site is located within the C -2/PD, Commercial- Manufacturing Zoning District (BK). Mr. Bruce Knopf, Redevelopment Manager, summarized the staff report. He noted that there had been no previous Council meeting on a proposed negotiating agreement with the existing marina or with the developers. Council's feedback was sought regarding a potential amendment to the Marina. Council stated that it would be very important for the developer and the Marina to have a neighborhood meeting. Staff also believed it was very important to hold a working session with the Planning Board. He noted that it was unusual to bring such a long -range project to the Board at this stage. Mr. Knopf presented a comprehensive display and description of the project. He noted that General Plan Amendments would proposed in the future as part of the project, and added that a Tidelands Trust exchange would be part of the process. The site design- related considerations would be brought before the Board as the project moved forward. The next step by the City Council would be consideration of the Marina and developer's request to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement that would lay out the responsibilities of all the parties, and then begin the process. The process would involve three steps: 1. The City must negotiate an amendment to the lease with the Marina. 16 acres must be removed, and they must develop a plan for reinvesting in, and renovating the Marina. The terms of the underlying ground lease must be renegotiated; 2. The City must begin the process of meeting with State Lands Commission staff, as well as the process of examining the potential of the Tidelands Trust swap. All of those costs would be covered by the developer. The reimbursement agreement would be part of the negotiating agreement; and 3. The developer must begin all of the due diligence. They had not begun the geologic site testing on -site, and did not know the conditions of the soils, what kinds of foundations would be required, what areas were buildable for residential use. The site design may shift substantially based on the basic due diligence. The developer must begin the preapplication process through Planning. Mr. Knopf advised that those three tracks must begin and work simultaneously. He added that if one piece did not work, the entire concept would unravel. G:\econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 8of12 In response to President Piziali's question, Mr. Knopf explained the Tidelands Trust exchange. He introduced Mr. Marc Mihali, who is under contract with the City Attorney's Office, and has been advising Mr. Knopf's staff about this process since 2001. He also introduced Mr. Randy Short, President and CEO of Almar Management, who is the General Partner of Ballena Isle Marina; Mr. Bill Chase, the Harbormaster for Ballena Isle Marina; and Mr. Chris Hawke, of Mission Valley Properties, the developer that Ballena Isle Marina brought to the City as a potential partner. In response to Ms. Cook's question, Mr. Knopf replied that no one from BMS was in attendance. He noted that they would attend future meetings. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio Avenue, said that on his way to the meeting he had been expecting to be opposed to the project, but having heard Mr. Knopfs excellent presentation he found that his major concerns had been addressed. Mr. Spangler did express concern about emergency evacuation and egress. He noted that if a large event or a fire occurred, requiring a mass evacuation or emergency effort, the access may not be sufficient for heavy traffic flow in both directions simultaneously. He inquired what the intended width of the road was, and whether there were on- street bike paths intended for the new street. He inquired what affordable housing provisions would be implemented. He inquired what the intended widths of the shoreline bike paths would be, and noted that they should be 15 feet to permit safe multiple use recreation activities simultaneously. He noted that a path narrower than 15 feet would be very problematic. Ms. Eliason noted that with respect to Mr. Spangler's zoning question, the C -2 -PD is a commercial zoning district, and the area in question would be rezoned from a C -2 -PD to a residential zoning district, as well as open space for those areas. They would be subject to Measure A, and there would be no grandfathering of zoning. Regarding access, Ms. Eliason advised that any proposal would be reviewed by staff and the Fire Department as part of the Design Review team. She added that the City also had a fire boat. Regarding the bike path, Ms. Eliason did not believe that the Bike Plan showed any on- street bike path; the bike path was a Class I, which would be located within the Open Space. The City was not yet ready to determine the bike path widths. Regarding affordable housing, the Board has given staff direction in creating an inclusionary housing ordinance, which will be addressed in December. Because it is not located within a redevelopment area, the property would be subject to the 15% inclusionary requirement, should that ordinance be recommended by the Board and adopted by the City Council. Mr. Craig Coker noted that he had attended the original meeting at the Yacht Club. One of the residents' specific concerns was that that parking lot was to be converted to a grass G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 9of12 field. He expressed concern about the number of available parking spaces for the Marina, and noted that the Sea Scouts were entitled to a location, a building, and a parking lot. In his letter, he had requested the total number of parking spaces in the Marina, and was concerned that the already critical parking situation would be worsened. He noted that the Marina has become very run down. Ms. Anne Weinser, 451 Central Avenue, Commodore - Elect, Ballena Bay Yacht Club, noted that it was too early to have an opinion on the item. The Yacht Club would like to own their own facility, and requested that the Sea Scout pier be allocated as a land lease for future development for a new Yacht Club facility. They proposed a two -story facility that would take in the views of the City. There was currently no such site on the Island that was for lease. The Club was very concerned with turning maritime uses into residential uses, and would like to continue public access to the waterfront. They supported retaining retail, including mitigations for Marina residents, such as laundry, rest rooms, shower facilities, and parking. She noted that 90% of their membership came from the Marina, and that their several restroom facilities were being replaced by one restroom. Mr. Jeff Fuller, Tideway Drive, noted that the residents were told at the meeting that the same number of parking spaces would be retained. He noted that they would need more parking if 70 houses were to be added. He hoped that the houses would not be too crowded together. Mr. Guy Frank, Tideway Drive, noted that he had been involved in five businesses within the Marina, and sat on the Board of Directors of the Yacht Club. Speaking as a private resident, he would support the project if the environmental concerns were thoughtfully addressed. He anticipated that concerns would be brought forward about what the infrastructure can support. He noted that the developers were still in the conceptual stage, and suggested that the maintenance of the existing facilities should be considered as well. He noted that the assessment of what the existing infrastructure can support, as well as the parking, was a critical issue. He believed this project presented an excellent opportunity to make the site of jewel of Alameda. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Cunningham noted that developing the Tidelands Trust area was the first question to address, rather than any specifics about the development. He noted that a precedent may be set by this project, and that issue should be examined as well. He requested direction from staff regarding those fundamental questions. Ms. Eliason advised that there were relatively few locations that were large enough for development in the Tidelands, such as portions of Alameda Gateway and Bay Ship & Yacht. She noted that the Tidelands Trust ran through Alameda Gateway and through the middle of the Sawtooth Building. Tidelands were also present at Encinal Terminal that may need to be moved or removed if that site were to be developed for non - maritime uses. Exchanges had been performed at Alameda Point. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 10 of 12 In response to President Piziali's inquiry, Ms. Eliason advised that Mount Trashmore could not be developed for residential uses due to the gasification and issues of previous land use. It would likely remain as Open Space; it was not in the Trust, but could be exchanged. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham regarding the shoreline area near South Shore, Mr. Knopf replied that it already is subject to the Trust. In response to President Piziali's question whether the minimum 70 unit figure was a deal - breaking figure, Mr. Knopf replied that the question of whether the project was economically viable had not yet been answered. If the conditions of the soils were such that any new structures would require piles, that may make the cost prohibitive. President Piziali noted that all of the waterfront homes were sitting on piles. Mr. Knopf noted that the existing homes were developed on an area that was not developed in the same way and under the same ownership. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Eliason confirmed that an EIR for the residential use would be performed. Staff may use it for a resource for areas that had not changed, but they expected that the new environmental review must be done. Mr. Knopf noted that the Alameda Point exchange was quite complicated, and took approximately three years to complete. Ms. Cook noted that she liked the idea of moving forward with consideration of a residential use, but did not like the idea of a four -story hotel on the edge of the shoreline. She would expect to see the building heights to be stepped down as they neared the shore. She preferred residential uses to commercial uses, and believed that a residential use would enable the open space to be attended to. She noted that she had visited the site, and expressed sympathy for the comments by the residents regarding the dilapidated state of the site. She hoped that the renegotiation of the lease would enable the City to tighten up the maintenance requirements, and noted that was an extremely important item. She inquired how the new open space would be maintained. Mr. Knopf advised that a landscape and lighting assessment district was created for that area through bond funding. He noted that there would be provision for those assessment districts that would maintain the open space, as well as other types of districts that would fund maintenance of the streets. President Piziali agreed with Ms. Cook's opinion with respect to the maintenance of the site. He agreed that the area has been run -down, and would be very concerned about ensuring that conditions for maintenance be put in place. He expressed concern about parking in the area, and recalled the proposed hotel that was not approved. He believed that the parking problem was instrumental to the lack of public support for the hotel. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 11 of 12 President Piziali believed that the comments from the Yacht Club regarding getting property at the end of the island were interesting. Mr. Knopf noted that may be a City issue with respect to lease amendments on City property. Mr. Chris Hawke, Mission Valley Properties, concurred with Mr. Knopf's assessment, and noted that idea was presented as a concept only. He wished to clarify that there was no requirement for a building or parking for the Sea Scouts; there is a requirement for access to a pier, which they currently have. Ms. Cook inquired whether the 10 acres of open space was new open space. Mr. Knopf replied that the public access was a passive gravel path through ice plant. Ms. Cook believed there was a shortage of active open space on Alameda's waterfront. She noted that there were many models for linear open space with the availability of general activities, such as the Hudson River Parkway project in New York. She noted that use had a variety of activities as people walk by, such as picnicking or playing on a small sports court. She noted that if a great lawn were to be installed, she would like to see more restroom facilities there. She noted that it was difficult to feel connected to the water on either side while driving on the center road. Mr. Knopf noted that they were working on visual corridors. With respect to Ms. Cook's comment about the central road, Mr. Cunningham suggested that the road should be undulated, rather than a straight path. He noted that would create semi - protected pockets of space on either side of the road. President Piziali believed that miniparks were a waste of space, and would rather see that square footage somewhere else. He noted that miniparks were difficult to use. In response to President Piziali's question whether the waterfront belvedere would become a pier or a trail to the water, Mr. Knopf replied that they had not been designed, but that his question would be considered. President Piziali noted that many people fished in that area. Ms. Cook advised that the idea of belvederes along the water was so that people could step out of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic and relax or fish. She believed that a small coffee shack would be a useful element on the waterfront, so that people could get out of the elements and get a snack without spending $25 on a full meal. President Piziali noted that there was an excellent deli in that area with inside and outside seating. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc Attachment 5 Page 12 of 12 In response to Ms. Mariani's question regarding the estimated timeframe for this project, Mr. Knopf replied that they would begin the process of negotiating with the Marina around the amendments, renovation, reinvestment in the Marina, and maintenance requirements. The developer would begin the due diligence on the site. He noted that the entire project may go off the radar screen for six months during that process, and that staff may be working with the State Lands Commission about identifying parcels, and joint instructions for an appraisal. He noted that there may not be any visible activity or reportable progress for six to nine months. At that point, staff would hopefully reach some agreements with the Marina; a Council action may be possible at that time. He estimated that the State Lands Commission process would take between 12 to 18 months to complete the appraisal process and create a package. He noted that there may be a flurry of activity following that process in terms of development plans being submitted in the redevelopment phase. Ms. Cook believed that the entire project should seamlessly blend together. G: \econdev\PROJECTS\BALLENAB \Council Reports\2004\February 2004\Feb 17 2004\Attachment - Public Engagement.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 4, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Resolution in Support of Regional Measure 2, Regional Traffic Relief Plan BACKGROUND In 2002, the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Transportation determined that new investment in bridge corridors, particularly new mass transit options, was needed to address projected population and traffic increases. The Select Committee further concluded that a $1 toll increase on the seven state -owned bridges was the most appropriate funding mechanism for the needed transportation improvements. A transit expenditure plan was developed and adopted by the Legislature in September 2003 and signed by the governor as Senate Bill 916 (Perata). On March 2, 2004, Regional Traffic Relief Plan- Regional Measure 2 ( "RM 2 ") goes before voters in the City and County of San Francisco, and the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano. If approved by voters, RM 2 will generate over $125 million a year for new Bay Area transportation improvements. In March 2003 Council approved a resolution in support of funding future Alameda ferry service from a portion of the proposed new state bridge toll revenues and in support of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority's Implementation and Operations Plan for enhancements to Alameda ferry service. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS RM 2 is a 35 -year financial plan allocating $1.51 billion for capital projects and $1.63 billion for transit operations. Expenditures by project type are: • 32% BART and other rail • 28% Express Bus Investment • 21% Ferry Service Expansion • 8% Freeway Bottleneck Improvement • 7% Transit Hubs • 3% Connectivity • 1% Bike/Ped. Transit Access GhdAhmeda tublicWorks Department Public Works Warkvx,-You/ Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -I CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 February 4, 2004 RM 2 provides for expanded ferry service through: • New San Francisco Routes from South San Francisco and Berkeley /Albany • More frequent service in Alameda, Oakland and Vallejo • A Study of a new Marin County ferry terminal at San Quentin With the exception of funds dedicated to the City of Vallejo BayLink Ferry service, the Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) will receive the RM 2 funds earmarked for ferry expansion. The WTA will use RM 2 funds to implement their Implementation and Operations Plan ( "IOP "). The IOP proposes increasing Alameda/Oakland and Harbor Bay ferry services to San Francisco to 30- minute headways during peak periods and 60- minute headways during off -peak and weekend periods. The IOP provides for the purchase of additional and spare vessels and assumes that Alameda's Main Street ferry terminal will be relocated to Alameda Point at some future date. The IOP recommends $220 million for existing service expansion. This $220 million includes funding for terminals, vessels and landside vehicles, and $44 million for operations. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS There is no impact to the General Fund at this time. The financial commitment of the City resulting from inclusion of Alameda ferry expansion in RM 2 depends on local match requirements and supplementary funding sources (Measure B, MTC Measure 1 -5 %, developer contributions, etc.) RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve a resolution in support of the Regional Measure 2 Regional Traffic Relief Plan. MTN /ES:dl G:\PUB WORKS \PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004\021704\Meas2.doc Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director [JJ/U4J By: Ernest Sanchez Ferry Services Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtvof0Janwda tubli(Works apartment Kohut Wod, Work* ! CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. SUPPORTING THE REGIONAL MEASURE 2 REGIONAL TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN WHEREAS, regional traffic is expected to increase 250% by 2020; and WHEREAS, commuters are prevented from maximizing public transportation due to inconvenient connections between transit operators; and WHEREAS, those commuters forced to drive alone on our bridges and freeways cause significant traffic congestion and air pollution; and WHEREAS, residential growth into suburban areas without regional transit >- services creates a greater strain on our freeways; and WHEREAS, additional federal, state and local funding for transit improvements and expansion is getting more and more scarce; and f- ��� WHEREAS, Regional Measure 2 Traffic Congestion Relief Plan on the Alameda County March 2, 2004 ballot was created to help reduce traffic congestion on Bay Area bridges V and their freeway connectors; develop a regional transit system for the Bay Area by investing in mass transit programs that have a demonstrated ability to get people out of their cars; and create seamless connections between BART, commuter rail, ferries, and express buses to make using mass transit convenient and reliable; and WHEREAS, the Regional Measure 2 Traffic Congestion Relief Plan would be funded through an additional $1 toll on the region's seven state -owned bridges (not including the Golden Gate); and WHEREAS, Regional Measure 2 would fund new terminals, infrastructure and routes to make it more convenient to connect to BART, improve corridors on Interstate 580, and connect BART to the Oakland Airport; and WHEREAS, all new bridge toll revenue generated by Regional Measure 2 may only be used for the benefit of the projects detailed in the Expenditure Plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda strongly supports Regional Measure 2 on the March 2, 2004 ballot. Resolution # 4 -I CC 2 -17 -04 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 , 2004, 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 , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: January 27, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Four (4) Vehicles using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award BACKGROUND On June 17, 2003, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 operating budget. The budget authorized the Public Works Department to purchase three (3) replacement vehicles and one (1) new vehicle. For the past few years, because of the competitive prices received, the Public Works Department has purchased vehicles using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS In order for the City to maintain a satisfactory vehicle fleet, it is necessary to replace vehicles on a regular basis. Four (4) vehicles are authorized as follows: One (1) new vehicle and one replacement vehicle are authorized for the Public Works Department Sanitary Sewer Division (602) and two (2) replacement vehicles are authorized for the Public Works Department Maintenance Services Division (4230). Please note that under the new GASB 34 regulations, all capital equipment purchases under the Sanitary Sewer Division (602) are purchased as new capital equipment, even though they may, in fact, be replacement vehicles. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The current budget appropriations for the four (4) vehicles are as follows: two (2) vehicles — one at $30,000 and one at $20,000 from the Sewer Fund (602- 73020), and two vehicles at $20,000 each from the Replacement Fund (4239- 91010). These monies are restricted and may only be used for replacement of vehicles. arvornlimed+ QubIICWoiks apartment Public Works Nfkvfor Yon! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -J CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 January 27, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the purchase of four (4) vehicles using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. MTN/PJC:sd/dl Respect ly submitted, Ma ew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Paii By: Pete J. Carrai Public Works Superintendent G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \021704\Purchase Vehicles.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CityofNametli uubIi(Works apartment Public Wale War 1afor You! CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF FOUR VEHICLES USING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, PROCUREMENT DIVISION, COMPETITIVE BID AWARD WHEREAS, replacement of four vehicles is authorized in the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Public Works Department budget; and WHEREAS, Section 2 -61.7 of the Alameda Municipal Code authorizes joint purchases made with public agencies where the purchase is the result of competitive bidding or proposal and is made in compliance with the competitive bid requirement of any participating agency; and WHEREAS, the four vehicles are being obtained at the lowest price available through purchase directly from an authorized Competitive Bid Award dealer; and WHEREAS, the purchase of four vehicles is the best option of equipment available to the City at this time and can be obtained at a considerable savings to the City through this purchase; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that all practical alternatives were examined and that these vehicles are the best option for vehicles available to the City of Alameda at this time which can be purchased at the lowest price available using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda, the City Manager, or his designee, in cooperation with the Finance Director, is hereby authorized to purchase four vehicles using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award. Resolution # 4 -J CC 2 -17 -04 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 , 2004, 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 , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 2, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Re: Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 BACKGROUND On June 7, 1984, Council established the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2. The purpose of this assessment district is to provide enhanced maintenance in certain business or neighborhood districts throughout the City. DISCUSSION There are currently seven zones in the assessment district. District Maps are also attached. Zone 1: Zone 2: Zone 3: Zone 4: Zone 5: Zone 6: Zone 7: Lincoln Avenue between Sherman and St. Charles Streets. Webster Street between Central and Lincoln Avenues. Webster Street between Lincoln and Atlantic Avenues. Park Street between Blanding and San Jose Avenues, and Santa Clara and Central Avenues between Oak Street and Broadway. Harbor Bay Parkway between Doolittle Drive and the west end of roadway, including North Loop and South Loop Roads. Alameda Marina Village Bay Street between San Antonio Avenue and the Lagoon. It is necessary to appoint an Engineer -of -Work for preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount, by parcel, within the zones of the assessment district. It is also necessary to appoint an attorney to perform the legal services required in the conduct of these proceedings. Past practice has been to use the services of the City Engineer and City Attorney. As it has worked well for us in the past, it is proposed to again appoint the City Engineer, as the Engineer -of -Work and also the City Attorney, as attorney for the District. It would be advantageous to the City to once again avail themselves of their services. [R n{�. awlALme& Veparlment Public Works Wad's for Yon! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -K CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT February 2, 2004 Page 2 The fees associated with this work are payable by the Assessment District, and apportioned to each zone, based on the individual zones' percentage of the total Assessment District budget. Only the direct costs for services are charged to the Assessment District. It is recommended, therefore, a contingency budget for this work be set at $2,000 for attorney fees and $8,600 for the engineering, advertising and mailing fees for a total of $10,600. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council pass a Resolution appointing an engineer and an attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2. MTN/MAM:dl Attachment Respectfully submitted 7(f. T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Marge Lean Acting blic Works Coordinator G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \021704\APPOINT ATTY ENG LLAD.DOC Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service myof .ubHkWorks QpartmQnt Public Works Wk Yam! s' vir L V N bif')•F[d ZPO - ELo 1 $ $ as as a wry� H lc • N M1 O O 13781S' • p 4 M1 O O O bZV_ -PLO 0 C.5 a O aZPO -i Z2C0 - EL O 0 O 0 C Op C?PO - EGO ,113.L rg3M O O °o, o 4 a 0 O O O N O LZbO -PLO ■ 9aro -rco . t t I . ...t 4. .' : • 1 c .- . A .' ' • %. ‘ :a ? ■: • a. A. ,.. . • C 4 t 4 , k...t. • t, o) 7; 4.4 1 ...;4-.1' 1 1 i 9 a . -• 4 0 r o "-•s NI ql, 3 sts -4 ■ 1 14 4,1 0 0... fly I k 1 N. 1r "■.. , .1.. 4 N.Es•‘. ,Z 4. v. 4 Vs. I. as 4 lif ;If go to t. . Z N % (• in,'s n0 0311N/1N0.9 •27/ -0205 7/ -0204 20..00 00.5'00 00 -700 10.000 c•u -�On 00.010 A v 70. POC 70 -S00 /0.500 00.100 00 -000 00-400 00. WO 00 -110 3,..y n /NOLNd NYS p71- 0207 ►0O 00 -J00 700 00 -1 00.000 00 -400 00-010 oo.110 •3A TT 00-710 00.520 00-ieO 7VN /J N3 C0.100 ZO -CZ0 00-ZZO 00.1(0 00.0(0 00.610 00 -9 /0 00 -1 /0 00 -710 0e -510 3sor NO'S M D 90/0 -01 0 O N 1 W W h ON /ON 0' 79 00.100 rO -c /0 oo. s,0 JN3iY37) 00-100 00-110 10 -010 00- w0 00 -1 /0 007/0 r -377V.7 00 -0 /0 00 -110 00.710 00.1/0 00 -010 '314 d /31)vd /OZO -/10 00- 000 00.r1O ,0.1.0 /0-100 010 - Pro /O -5E0 070-0/92 f/N3n 9 P n 1050 wag L 00-700 00-110 00./10 N70,7N/ 7 -- O o c � 0 0 8 $ 1 06 /0-040 ZOZO, /(O • tC 3 A�993M 137MP MO 03!,M/1 M07) 1 v 1 1 1 u I I II I I I I ig III 111 z7 % a - 4 4a4a4a4a ra Sot88o3440;o QQ .11 ii^ • ti 4 o • a +a +a +a +a .a..a r a::aa =: :$o w,4'o 0,00,0...0000000 • 0 w . • � a„a..a..a..5 ♦..a +a 00,00.0000 00. 0 •• 000 .0 O 00000000000000 ,000..00000.00.0000000 • Z. n .I d o 0 +a ..._a ra., +atia..a wwwk2�7� 2.404000000$% 3 ti xw � -w 0 040000....0.. 00.00.0...00.0.... w.w�oe.o SO w 0 4 a..�� += .. ..a +s .a .ars .a .s . may• ..1%*::tt,te2.; ::011 :12.74;xxx +x42:; 3/7 A/34 074 -/27S O/N2 air 10-000 00 /00 CO-000 /0.000 00.1,00 00-700 00-000 CO-900 44 Ct 0/ 0 00-[10 00-5/0 00•000 OC • C.:0 NY Ss 00 -1.-0 00.010 COA.00 00-900 00-z CO 00 1E0 00.,' CO 00.700 00-110 — N — CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUITON NO. APPOINTING AN ENGINEER AND AN ATTORNEY FOR ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 84 -2 WHEREAS, on June 7, 1984, by its Resolution No. 10353, the Council of the City of Alameda ordered the formation of and levied the first assessment within the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 (hereinafter the "District ") pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Highways Code) (hereinafter the "Act "); and WHEREAS, Sections 22620, et seq., of the Act provide for the levy of annual maintenance assessments after formation of the District; and WHEREAS, the purpose of said assessments is to provide for enhanced maintenance in business district Zones 1 through 6 and residential Zone 7 located throughout the City and described in proceedings in and for said District heretofore approved by this Council and herein incorporated by this reference; and CD sue\ et 0 WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience will be served by appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for assessment and legal services; and s- U WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City to continue with the services of the City Engineer as the Engineer -of -work and the City Attorney as the Attorney for said District. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the City Engineer for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as Engineer for preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount by parcel within the zones of the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as Attorney to perform the legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings. Resolution # 4 -K CC 2 -17 -04 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 , 2004, 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 , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 2, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1 BACKGROUND On June 7, 2002, Council established Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1. The purpose of this assessment district is to provide maintenance in the Marina Cove development. DISCUSSION It is necessary to appoint an Engineer -of -Work for annual preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount, by parcel, for the Maintenance Assessment District. It is also necessary to appoint an Attorney -of- Record to perform the legal services required in the conduct of these annual proceedings. Past practice has been to use the services of the City Engineer and City Attorney. As it has worked well for us in the past, it is proposed to again appoint the City Engineer, as the Engineer -of -Work and the City Attorney, as the Attorney -of- Record for the District. It would be advantageous to the City to once again avail themselves of their services. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The fees associated with this work are payable by the Assessment District, and apportioned to each zone, based on the individual zones' percentage of the total Assessment District budget. Only the direct costs for services are charged to the Maintenance Assessment District. It is recommended, therefore, a contingency budget for this work be established at $2,000 for attorney fees and $ 1,600 for the engineering, advertising and mailing fees for a total of $3,600. GlyefAlamedi PIiblic WOKS Uep rbnent Public Work FJf d fo. Y ! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -L CC 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 February 2, 2003 The City Manager recommends that Council pass a resolution appointing an Engineer -of -Work and an Attorney -of- Record for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01, Marina Cove. MTN/MAM:dl Respectfully submitted, ,z,&Y,eGeer" Matthew T. Naclerio P blic Works Director By: Marge I ean Administrative Management Analyst G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \021704\APPOINT ATTY ENG MAD.DOC Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service avoralameda tUbliCWodts apartment PublicWolics Works for You! CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING AN ENGINEER AND AN ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF ALAMEDA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01 -1 WHEREAS, by its previous proceedings, the Council of the City of Alameda determined to undertake the formation of the first maintenance assessment district within the City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1 (hereinafter the "District ") pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda Municipal Code (the City of Alameda Maintenance Procedure Code) (hereinafter the "Code "), which also incorporates the procedural requirements of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (hereinafter the Act); and WHEREAS, the formation of a Maintenance Assessment District Sections 22620, et. seq., of the Code provide for the levy of annual maintenance assessments after formation of the District; and WHEREAS, the purpose of said assessments is to provide for enhanced maintenance in the district established via the Code located throughout the City and described in proceedings in and for >. said District heretofore approved by this Council and herein incorporated by this reference; and LU cc WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience will be served by appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for assessment and legal services; and 1-- to WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City to continue with the services of the City Engineer as the Engineer -of -work and the City Attorney as the Attorney-of-Record for said District. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the City Engineer for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as Engineer for preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount by parcel within the zones of the City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as Attorney to perform the legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings. Resolution # 4 -L CC 2 -17 -04 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 , 2004, 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 , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda February 12, 2004 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 120188 - 120638 E11892 - E11992 Void Checks: Amount 4,095,933.45 56, 201.70 96427 98585 ($65.23) 98870 ($97.53) 120150 ($43.10) ($3,020.00) GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: Respectfully submitted, �/. City Clerk Pamela J. Sibley 4,148,909.29 Approved for payment: Date: Finance Director Council Warrants 02 -17 -04 BILLS #4 -M 2/17/2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING NANCY GORMLEY AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY HOUSING COMMISSION (SENIOR TENANT SEAT) BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 2 -12.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, NANCY GORMLEY is hereby appointed to the office of Senior Tenant Seat member of the Housing Commission of the City of Alameda to fill the unexpired term of Edward Flanagan, for the term commencing on February 17, 2004, and expiring on June 30, 2005 and to serve until her successor is w appointed and qualified. cc 0 1— * * * * * 1- s- 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 , 2004 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 , 2004 Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution # 5 -A 2 -17 -04 City of Alameda Inter - Department Memorandum Date: February 10, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Subject: Recommendation for Letter in Opposition to Senate Bill SB 744 Background: The California State Senate narrowly approved Senate Bill SB 744 (Dunn) on Monday, January 26t. This measure gives the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the authority to overturn local land use decisions after hearing appeals from housing development applicants who were previously denied approval or granted approval with conditions by a local agency. Under this proposed bill, HCD would be empowered to overrule local decisions that it views as "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs." Discussion: The Planning Board or City Council makes land use decisions at a local level. On deciding on an application, they weigh community needs and desires factoring in the potential impacts on the community. Quality of life issues such as traffic, historic resources, economic development, and livability are all considered along with public comment. The Planning Board and City Council live in the community and are familiar with its needs. When a land use decision is challenged, the courts in accordance with existing law decide them. Senate Bill 744 would remove the court system from being the arbiter and replace it with the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Developers unhappy with a local decision or conditions placed on their housing developments could appeal the conditions or denial to HCD. HCD could then overturn the City's decision and order Alameda to modify or remove a condition or HCD could overturn the project denial on its interpretation of the denial or the condition being "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs." This bill is a clear loss of local authority and places development decisions in the hands of an agency swayed by politics and special interests. HCD has no political accountability to the community and has no understanding of broader community concerns. SB 744 also empowers HCD staff, who may never have been to Alameda, to overrule local decisions. The legislation restricts the ability for local citizens to have an impact on the type development that occurs in their neighborhood. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -B 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers February 10, 2004 As of, February 6, 2004, 32 other communities across California have voiced their opposition to SB744. This list includes the local Bay Area communities of Fremont and Lafayette. In addition, the League of California Cities has gone on record in opposition to this legislation. Budget Consideration/Financial Impact: None Recommendation: The City Manager recommends that the City Council direct the Mayor to sign a letter opposing Senate Bill SB 744. Respectfully submitted, CI' Il 4, a.,(.__, Pr Gregory Fuz Planning And Building Director Attachment: Draft Letter CLC Chronicles Volume I G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \SB 744.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service City of Alameda California The Honorable Don Perata California State Senate State Capitol Building, Room # 313 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Wilma Chan California State Assembly State Capital Building, Room #4098 Sacramento, CA 95814 February 18, 2004 RAFT RE: SB 744 (Dunn) HCD State Housing Accountability Committee Notice of Opposition Dear Senator Perata and Assemblymember Chan: The City of Alameda OPPOSES SB744 (Dunn), because the bill gives the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the authority to overturn local land use decisions. After hearing appeals from housing developers who were denied approval or granted approval with conditions by a local agency, HCD would be empowered to overrule local decisions that the agency views as "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs." This measure significantly increases the power of developers over local communities by authorizing a developer to attempt to overturn local conditions imposed on a housing development. If HCD decides that local decisions are "not reasonable ", that agency could nullify the decision of the local government and "order" the local government to modify or remove any such conditions. The developer could then enforce this decision in court. This measure is a clear transfer of local land use authority to non - elected employees of the state and places the interests of the developers over the interests of the people who live in the community and their elected representatives. Under this legislation, even if conditions imposed by a local government are legally valid, they may still be overturned based upon a political decision by the Department. Besides the loss of local authority, this level of state oversight is unwarranted. Developers who believe that a local government has unjustly treated their project currently have recourse to the courts under Anti -Nimby Law [Section 65589.5 of the Government Code]. Office of the Mayor 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #320 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.4701 Office • Fax 510.747.4704 • TDD 510.522.7538 The Honorable Don Perata The Honorable Wilma Chan February 18, 2004 Page 2 For the above stated reasons, we join other communities throughout California and strongly oppose SB 744. Very truly yours, R AFT Beverly Johnson Mayor cc: City Council James Flint, City Manager Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal, Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee Assemblyman Simon Salinas, Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee League of California Cities Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITIZENS TOR LOCAL CONTROL CLCC { ONICG9S VOLUME I - THE WINTER DISPATCH CITIZENS FOR LOCAL CONTROL IS AN INFORMATION NETWORK DESIGNED TO UPDATE CONCERNED CALIFORNIA CITIZENS ABOUT PROPOSED I OR PENDING STATE LEGISLATIVE OR OTHER ACTIONS WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE ABILITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES TO ADDRESS LAND USE AND OTI -IER ISSUES IN A MANNER THAT REFLECTS UNIQUE LOCAL ISSUES AND PRIORITIES. SB 744 (Dunn) moves from the Senate to the Assembly The California State Senate approved SB 744 (Dunn) by a vote of 21 -12 on Monday, January 26th. This measure gives the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) the authority to overturn local land use decisions after hearing appeals from housing development applicants who were previously denied approval or granted approval with conditions by a local agency. HCD is empowered to overrule local decisions that it views as "not reasonable or consistent with local housing needs." Although the League had hoped that SB 744 would remain in the Senate, we were fully aware that Senator Dunn had the ability to move SB 744 to the Assembly. Already a prominent member of the Senate, Senator Dunn was working closely with the powerful California Building Industry Association (CBIA) to lobby the measure on the Senate floor. However, it is important to note that opposition to the bill prevented SB 744 from passing through the Senate with significant momentum. Opposition letters and phone calls helped convince more legislators to vote "no" or abstain from voting on the measure than otherwise would have, and we were even able to pick up a few key Democratic opponents to the bill (Senators Chesboro, Sher, Speier and Karnette) as wel as many Republicans. Roll call votes on SB 744 are included below. SENA 1E FLOOR VOTES - ROLL CALL ON SB 744 (Dunn) DALE:: 01/26/2004 (AYES 21. NOES 12.) (PASS) AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Burton, Cedillo, Ducheny, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Florez, Hollingsworth, Kuehl, Machado, McPherson, Murray, Ortiz, Perata, Romero, Scott, Soto, Torlakson, Vincent NOES: Ackerman, Battin, Chesbro, Denham, Karnette, Knight, McClintock, Morrow, 011er, Poochigian, Sher, Speier ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING: Aanestad, Ashburn, Bowen, Brulte, Johnson, Margett, Vasconcellos What impact would SB 744 (Dunn) have on neighborhood decision-making? Land use decisions are often controversial. New development projects bring with them jobs, an expanding economy, and create housing and businesses to meet community needs; however, depending on their size and scale, these projects can also increase traffic, noise, affect natural and historical resources, and local quality of life. Traditionally, the merits of these projects are debated and decided locally at local city councils, planning commissions, and other public forums, where affected residents can have a voice. When legal issues arise, they are decided by the courts in accordance with existing law. SB 744 represents a recent trend in legislation which seeks to create a more favorable forum for developers by shifting these decisions to the state level, where they can be decided by developer - friendly agencies, which, unlike elected city councils, have no direct accountability to the affected community. In short, this measure seeks to place the interests and concerns of the developer above that of the broader concerns of the residents of the affected community. California cities are opposed to this measure because they believe that land use issues are best decided at the level of government that is closest to the people, not by a remote state agency with no political accountability to the community. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager Date: February 10, 2004 SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Declaring Support for Alameda Unified School District Measure C - School Repair Measure BACKGROUND This item is brought to you at the request of Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese. Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Board of Education has placed Measure C on the March 2, 2004 ballot. Measure C will enable AUSD to issue $63 million in school facilities bonds to renovate aging neighborhood schools; improve student safety conditions; relieve classroom overcrowding; construct, equip and upgrade classrooms, facilities and school sites; and qualify for over $17 million in State matching funds. DISCUSSION Measure C has been placed on the March 2, 2004 ballot to provide local funding to AUSD without increasing existing tax rates. Measure C will replace a 1989 school facilities bond and takes effect in 2014. Proceeds from the school facilities bonds will be used only for the purposes of repair and renovation of existing school facilities, construction of a new K -8 school and district -wide projects. In addition, Measure C establishes a Superintendent's Oversight and Advisory Committee to advise the Superintendent and the Board of Education about the proper expenditure of the proceeds of Alameda School Repair measure. No proceeds shall go to the State, and all funds shall remain in Alameda to benefit neighborhood schools. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City's General Fund. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Re: Resolution #5 -C 2 -17 -04 The Honorable Mayor February 10, 2004 and Members of the City Council Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council, by motion, adopt a resolution declaring support for Measure C, the Alameda Unified School District School Repair Measure. SO:adl G:\ccausdmeasCstaffrpt104.doc Respectfully submitted, Suz. - Ota Interim Assistant City Manager "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING SUPPORT FOR MEASURE C - ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND MEASURE FOR ALAMEDA SCHOOL REPAIR (MARCH 2, 2004) WHEREAS, children need the support of schools and educational programs in order to thrive; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) educates and serves 10,546 students from grades K -12; and WHEREAS, Measure C has been placed on the March 2, 2004 ballot by the AUSD Board of Education to provide local funding for Repair and Renovation of Existing Alameda School Facilities, Construction of a New K -8 School and District -wide Projects; and ▪ wWHEREAS, the Alameda School Repair Measure will renovate aging 0 neighborhood schools, improve student safety conditions, relieve classroom ▪ •1 CC y - o overcrowding, construct, equip and upgrade classrooms, facilities and sites, and qualify - for over $17 million in State matching funds; and CD WHEREAS, the Measure establishes a Superintendent's Oversight and Advisory - Committee to advise the Superintendent and the Board of Education about the proper C. = expenditure of the proceeds of the Alameda School Repair Measure; and WHEREAS, the approval of Measure C will enable the Alameda Unified School District to issue $63 million of school facilities bonds without increasing existing tax rates and with all funds remaining in Alameda to benefit neighborhood schools. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda, in keeping with the principle of improving the quality of life for children and youth in Alameda, does hereby endorse Measure C, the Alameda Unified School District — Alameda School Repair Measure. so/ccausdmeasuresupport 1 04 Resolution # 5 -C 2 -17 -04 EXHIBIT A Alameda School Repair Measure. "To renovate aging neighborhood schools, improve student safety conditions, relieve classroom overcrowding, construct, equip, upgrade classrooms, facilities and sites, and qualify for over $17 million in State matching funds, shall the Alameda City Unwed School District issue $63 million of bonds at legal rates, with annual audits and citizen oversight, with no proceeds going to the State and all funds remaining in Alameda to benefit neighborhood schools without increasing existing tax rates ?" Bonds - Yes Bonds — No From: "Exhibit A" — (Text of School Bond Ballot Measure, March 2, 2004 Election" Approved by the Alameda Board of Education November 25, 2004 B -1 DOCSSF\41136v4 \24301.0002 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 , 2004, 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 , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum February 9, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Subject: Recommendation to Support Resolution of the Statewide Ballot Initiative to Require Voter Approval Before State Government may take Local Tax Funds Background Since 1991, State government has "seized" more than $30 billion of local property taxes from local governments in California, $6.9 billion of which has come from cities. In recent years, the state also has shifted costs for state - sponsored programs and delayed constitutionally required reimbursements to local government for state mandated programs and services. In the last two fiscal years, the state has" deferred" over $1 billion in constitutionally required reimbursements to local governments for mandated services and programs. These deferments have adversely affected the City's ability to maintain a consistent stream of funds for public protection and safety services for the City of Alameda. Discussion The League of California Cities has joined forces with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative in November 2004, entitled the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act, to empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax funds to fund state government. The initiative will require approval by a majority of the electorate before a proposed state law may take effect that reduces the sales, property, and VLF funds of cities, counties, and special districts, including redevelopment agencies. It also clarifies the state's duty to reimburse local governments in a timely manner for a new mandated program or higher level of service, protecting local governments from hidden cost shifts. The League has requested that cities offer support for the November 2004 ballot initiative. As of December 19, 2003, 172 cities have passed resolutions in support of the initiative. This ballot question affecting local government finance is one of the most important resolutions that the City should support in order to protect the few remaining discretionary revenues needed to fund local services for the community. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #5 -D 2 -17 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Fiscal Impact February 9, 2004 Page 2 The City is anticipating State budget impacts for FY 2003 -04 exceeding $2.3 million as a result of property tax shifts, tax increment shifts from redevelopment projects, unreimbursed mandates and vehicle license fee revenue cutbacks. These are revenues that are allocated for public safety services (i.e., police and fire) and could have significantly improved local services and facilities. Projected impacts for FY 2004 -05 included an additional $1.4 million shift in property taxes from the local agencies to schools (ERAF) and continuing the redevelopment of property tax increment shift to this fund as well. State leaders will continue to use local tax funds to balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor. Recommendation The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the proposed resolution supporting a statewide ballot initiative to require voter approval for the state government to take local tax revenues. JF:LA Respe t s. .mitted, ames M. Flint City Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service C: \Lucretia's Docs \CouncilReports\League Ballot Initiative.Staff Report.Feb17_2004.doc moo uJ CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE LOCAL TAX FUNDS WHEREAS, state government annually seizes over $800 million in city property tax funds (ERAF) statewide, costing cities over $6.9 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years and seriously reducing resources available for local public safety and other services; and WHEREAS, in adopting the state budget this year the Legislature and Governor appropriated local vehicle license fee backfill and redevelopment property tax funds that are needed to finance critical city services such as public safety, parks, street maintenance, housing and economic development; and WHEREAS, the deficit financing plan in the state budget depends on a local property and sales tax swap that leaves city services vulnerable if the state's economic condition fails to improve; and WHEREAS, the adopted state budget assumes an ongoing structural budget deficit of at least $8 billion, putting city resources and services at risk in future years to additional state revenue raids; and WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that state leaders will continue to use local tax funds to balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor to do so; and WHEREAS, the voters of California are the best judges of whether local tax funds should be diverted, confiscated, shifted or otherwise taken to finance an ever - expanding state government; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Voting Delegates of the League of California Cities at its September 10, 2003 meeting voted to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative to empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax funds to fund state government; and WHEREAS, the League has requested that cities offer support for a November 2004 ballot initiative that will allow voters to decide whether state government may appropriate local tax funds to fund state government operations and responsibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby expresses its strong support for a statewide ballot initiative to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds may be taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted or otherwise used to fund state government operations and responsibilities. Resolution # 5 -D 2 -17 -04 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council and staff are authorized to provide impartial informational materials on the initiative as may be lawfully provided by the city's representatives. No public funds shall be used to campaign for or against the initiative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the residents of the City are encouraged to become well informed on the initiative and its possible impacts on the critical local services on which they rely. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby directed to send a copy to the Executive Director of the League of California Cities. 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 , 2004, 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 , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Arthur A. Autorino Rick G. Baldonado Paul A. Bergamaschi Thomas N. Billings Robert A. Bonta Horst Breuer Jeffrey A. Cambra Penny L. Cozad Michael K. Henneberry Greg J. Klein John W. Knox White Clarence E. Knuth John D. Lesak Samuel Downer Mayhew Margaret M. McNamara John S. Merritt CURRENT APPLICATIONS PLANNING BOARD ONE (1) VACANCY Partial term expiring 6/30/2005 Christopher G. Monahan Raymond E. O'Loan Tom Pavletic Cookie Robles James M. Sickles Roderick L. Smith II William J. Smith Jean S. Sweeney Roger D. Wise Lawrence R. Witte Council Communications # 7 -A 02 -17 -04