2004-09-21 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, September 21, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
Note: Councilmember Matarrese will be teleconferencing from
Windsor Park Hotel, 2116 Kalorama Road NW, Washington DC
20008.
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. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - (54957)
Title: City Manager.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory.
Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association,
Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Police
Association Non - Sworn.
4. Announcement of. Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
AGENDA
TUESDAY
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor,
approach the 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
SEPTEMBER 21, 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 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing their
efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
3 -B. Proclamation declaring September 20 -26 as Pollution Prevention
Week in Alameda. [To be accepted by Anne Rockwell of East Bay
Regional Park District]
3 -C. Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness Month.
[To be accepted by Ed Cooney]
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on September 7, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of Bluewater Services, Inc.
for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8320 (1601,
1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and 1750 North Loop Road).
4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 1 -A, Protection
of Local Government Revenues, on the November 2, 2004 State-
wide Ballot. [Councilmember Kerr]
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 65, the Local
Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), on the
November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot. [Councilmember Kerr]
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the Positions of Housing
Assistance Manager and Financial Services Supervisor.
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by Establishing a
Salary Range for the Position of Street Light Maintenance
Technician.
4 -H. Bills for ratification.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Transportation
Technical Team's decision to approve the installation of a red
curb for the eastbound bus stop on Santa Clara Avenue and
Morton Street.
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. Considerations of Mayor's nominations to the Housing
Commission.
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Transportation
Commission.
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: September 13, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings of September 21, 2004
Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City
Council Meetings of September 21, 2004.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation to the Fourth•of July Committee recognizing their
efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
At this time the Mayor will present certificates of appreciation to the members of the
Fourth of July Parade Committee.
3 -B. Proclamation declaring September 20 -26 as Pollution Prevention
Week in Alameda. [To be accepted by Anne Rockwell of East Bay
Regional Park District]
At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation declaring September 20 -26 as
"Pollution Prevention Week" in Alameda to be accepted by Anne Rockwell of
EBRPD.
3 -C. Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness Month.
[To be accepted by Ed Cooney]
At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation declaring the month of October as
Disability Awareness Month to be accepted by Ed Cooney of the Commission on
Disability Issues.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 13, 2004
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on September 7, 2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special and Regular
City Council meetings held on September 7, 2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of Bluewater Services, Inc.
for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
It is recommended that Council accept the work of Bluewater Services, Inc., for the
demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue. The final construction cost was $310,850.
Funds for the demolition project are available in the New Main Library Project, with
65% of the cost from the State of California Office of Library Construction Grant and
the remaining 35% from Measure 0 funds.
4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8320 (1601,
1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and 1750 North Loop Road).
It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution approving Parcel Map 8320,
which provides for the subdivision of one parcel into five parcels. The parcel is
located at 1601, 1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and 1750 North Loop Road
and is the former Lucent Development. There are currently five existing
office /research and development buildings on the property.
4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 1 -A, Protection
of Local Government Revenues, on the November 2, 2004 State-
wide Ballot. [Councilmember Kerr]
It is recommended that Council support Proposition 1 -A, Protection of Local
Government Revenues, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide ballot. If approved by
voters, Proposition 1A will become effective in FY 2006/07 and will offer significant
constitutional protections of local government revenues.
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 65, the Local
Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), on the
November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot. [Councilmember Kerr]
It is recommended that Council support Proposition 65, the Local Taxpayers and
Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), on the November 2, 2004 State -wide ballot.
If approved by voters, Prop 65 would require voter approval for any legislation that
reduces local governments' sources of revenue. Prop 65 will have a long -term
positive effect on City finances as it will result in higher and more stable sources of
revenue.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers September 18, 2004
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the Positions of Housing
Assistance Manager and Financial Services Supervisor.
It is recommended that Council approve the amendment to the MCEA salary
schedule. This resolution establishes a salary range for the Housing Assistance
Manager classification equivalent to that of Senior Management Analyst (Housing
Authority), and for the Financial Services Supervisor classification (AP &T).
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by Establishing a
Salary Range for the Position of Street Light Maintenance
Technician.
It is recommended that Council approve the amendment to the IBEW salary
schedule by establishing a salary range for the position of Street Light Maintenance
Technician. On August 16, 2004, the PUB adopted a resolution for AP &T to .
assume the responsibility of maintaining the City's street light system. The
maintenance of this system requires this classification of worker, which currently
does not exist.
4 -H. Bills for ratification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Transportation
Technical Team's decision to approve the installation of a red
curb for the eastbound bus stop on Santa Clara Avenue and
Morton Street.
It is recommended that Council deny the appeal of the Transportation Technical
Team's decision to approve the installation of red curb for the eastbound bus stop
on Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street. This location provides improved safety
for pedestrians and does not require the expenditure of limited capital funds.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
7 -A. Considerations of Mayor's nominations to the Housing
Commission.
At this time the Mayor will make nominations to fill the current vacancy on the
Housing Commission.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers September 13, 2004
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Transportation
Commission.
At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the
Transportation Commission.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
City of Alameda California
Proclamation
Whereas, the City of Alameda supports a clean and safe environment for its residents; and
Whereas, pollution prevention is an approach to environmental protection that focuses on
source reduction, and is therefore a preferable strategy because there is less waste
to handle and thereby, protects public health and the environment; and
Whereas, pollution prevention can increase industrial efficiency and save businesses money
by avoiding the need for expensive investments in waste management and
cleanup; and
Whereas, pollution prevention fosters both environmental protection and increased
economic competitiveness; and
Whereas, by focusing attention on pollution prevention, the City of Alameda will meet the
challenges for improving economic competitiveness, strengthening environmental
protection, and streamlining environmental regulation; and
Whereas, National Pollution Prevention Week is an opportunity for government, industry,
and environmental organizations to recognize the potential of pollution prevention
and work together toward a prosperous and sustainable future,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby
recognize the week of September 20 -26, 2004 as
National Pollution Prevention Week, 2004
and urge all citizens, businesses, civic groups, government agencies and other organizations to
participate in local and regional celebratory and educational activities, including, but not
limited to, the Alameda Beach Clean-up on Saturday, September 18, 2004.
erly John
Mayor
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
Proclamation #3 -B
9 -21 -04
City of Alameda California
Proclamation
ereas, the month of October has been designated National Disability Awareness
Month; and
Whereas, Disability Awareness Month was first recognized on August 11, 1945, by
a joint resolution of the United States Congress as the National
Employment of the Physically Handicapped Week; and
Whereas, Disability Awareness Month was supported with the signing of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by President George
H.W. Bush; and
Whereas, Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way
diminishes the right of individuals with disabilities to live independently,
enjoy self - determination, make choices, contribute to society and
experience fully in the economic, political, social, cultural and educational
mainstream of American society; and
Whereas, Disability Awareness Month highlights the progress the City of Alameda
has made in improving employment opportunities, government services,
public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications for those
with disabilities; and
Whereas, Disability Awareness Month also recognizes that there is still work to be
done to remove barriers, whether physical or social, that unreasonably
prevent the full participation of Americans with disabilities,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby
proclaim the Month of October 2004 as
DISABILITY AWARENESS MONTH
everly Johnson
Mayor
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
Proclamation #3 -C
9 -21 -04
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - - - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Manager.
(04- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations:
Alameda City Employee Association, Management and Confidential
Employees Association, and Police Association Non - Sworn.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and the Mayor announced that Council discussed public employment of
the City Manager; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the
Council obtained briefing and gave directions to labor negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - - - 6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:20 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 Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1825
Park Street; Negotiating parties: Ron Goode Toyota and Community
Improvement Commission; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of
payment.
(04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:
Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC); Negotiating Parties:
Catellus Development Corporation and Alameda Community Improvement
Commission; Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that regarding 1825 Park Street Avenue,
the Commission gave instructions to real property negotiators, and
the Commission discussed the Former Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(FISC) .
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 7, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmember Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr and
Matarresse - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
Mayor Johnson announced that the discussion regarding development
of a policy that governs private use of City of Alameda parks
[paragraph no. 04- ] would be addressed before Oral
Communications.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04- ) Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing
their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
Continued to September 21, 2004.
(04- ) Presentation of Certificates of Service to: Jean C.
Gaskill, Civil Service Board; Doug deHaan, Economic Development
Commission; Scott Brady, Historical Advisory Board; Neil G. Coe,
Frederick A. Chew and Lee Stuart Darrow, Housing and Building Code
Hearing and Appeals Board; C. Richard Bartalini, Susan Jeffries and
Michael Torrey, Housing Commission; and Gary Bard, Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson presented certificates to Scott Brady, Neil Coe, Lee
Stuart Darrow, and Michael Torrey and thanked all members for their
service to the City.
(04- ) Proclamation declaring September 19, 2004 . as Craftsman
Day throughout the land of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented proclamation to Judith Lynch,
Alameda Legacy Home Tour Committee.
Ms. Lynch thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated
Craftsman Day is the most important fundraiser for the Alameda
Museum and Preservation Society.
(04- ) Presentation by West Alameda Business Association
regarding the Peanut Butter and Jam festival.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
1
Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), presented wine
to Council and thanked the sponsors of the Peanut Butter and Jam
festival.
Sherri Stieg, WABA, invited everyone to the festival.
Mayor Johnson stated that last year's festival was a great success
and this year's event is sure to be successful also.
(04- ) New Main Library Project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update and budget outline on
the Library Project.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the rebidding process would pose
a risk for losing the State grant, to which the Project Manager
responded the grand would only be lost if square footage was
reduced.
(04- ) Councilmember Kerr announced that the Art in the Park
would take place at Jackson Park on Sunday, September 12, 2004.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to reject the sole
bid for the New Main Library Project [paragraph no. 04- ) was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *04- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of August 11,
2004, Special City Council Meeting, Special Joint City Council and
Alameda and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Regular City
Council Meeting held on August 17, 2004, and Special Closed Session
and Special City Council Meeting held on August 24, 2004. Approved.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for the period ending June 30, 2004. Accepted.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
Fiscal Year 2002 -04. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
2
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the period ending June 30, 2004. Accepted.
( *04- ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$174,383, including contingencies, to Republic Electric for
Crosswalk In- Pavement Lights (SR2S) for Donald Lum and Haight
Elementary Schools, Wood and Chipman Middle Schools, No. P.W. 01-
04-01. Accepted.
(04- ) Recommendation to reject the sole bid; approve a finding
that the construction of the Alameda Free Library - New Main
Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01, constitutes a great necessity
or emergency that requires immediate action, and authorize the City
Manager to negotiate an Agreement with S.J. Amoroso Construction.
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Library Building Team, urged approval of the
staff recommendation.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, urged approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the agreement with S.J. Amoroso
would return to Council for approval, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project could be rebid
if the project estimate was not acceptable, to which the Project
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the staff
recommendation; Council would review the value engineered
components; there is an opportunity to work with a premier
construction firm; the Library project is more difficult than the
Webster Street streetscape project.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated whether Alameda is being served well by
the bidding process is a question that needs to be answered;
Webster Street rebidding occurred because of the sole bid was above
the estimate; common practice is not having just one bidder;
recommended restarting the process; sated seven months may be lost,
but the City would not be at risk of losing the State grant.
Councilmember Gilmore stated other City library bids have been over
budget; material costs are continually rising; recommended
identifying additional funding sources and the ramifications of
using one source over the other.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
3
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is pleased with the library
project contractor; rebidding could result in a seven -month delay;
rebidding can be done if necessary; stated that she supports the
staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
and requested a listing of funding sources that could be used to
close the gap that may occur if the project cannot be engineered
down to the original estimate.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 4/. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1.
( *04- ) Recommendation to appropriate $50,000 and authorize the
Mayor to execute a Contract with Richard Hughes Consulting for
recruitment of the new City Manager. Accepted.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept improvements and release
Subdivision Bond for Tract 6877 (California Heritage Bay).
Accepted.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept report on the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant. Accepted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13758, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply for Regional Measure 1 -2% Bridge Toll Funds for Harbor Bay
Ferry Terminal Repairs, Enter into All Agreements Necessary to
Secure These Funds and Re- allocate Funds from Regional Measure 1 -2%
Grants." Adopted.
( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,859,728.22.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04- ) Resolution No. 13759, " Reappointing Harry Dahlberg as a
Member of the City Economic Development Commission
(Manufacturing /Industrial seat) ". Adopted.
Councilmember 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 Mr.
Dahlberg with a certificate of appointment.
(04- ) Resolution No. 13760, "Appointing Michael J. Schmitz
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
4
as a Member of the City Economic Development Commission (Community -
at -large seat) ". Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote -5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Schmitz with a certificate of appointment.
(04- ) Resolution No. 13761, "Reappointing Gail Wetzork as a
Member of the City Economic Development Commission (Community -at-
large seat) ". Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore 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 Mr.
Wetzork with a certificate of appointment.
(04- ) Resolution No. 13762, "Appointing Nancy Anderson as a
Member of the City Historical Advisory Board. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
(04- ) Resolution No. 13763, "Reappointing Robb Ratto as a Member
of the City Transportation Commission ". Adopted.
Councilmember Kerr 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 Mr.
Ratto with a certificate of appointment.
(04- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and
denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development
projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution.
The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning
District. The development project includes expansion of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
5
residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks.
Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding
48 %); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2
(Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property
line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a)
(Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves
above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side
property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into
side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard),
Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30-
4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend
into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens
around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The
Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window
encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance,
subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita
Mohlen. Continued to October 5, 2004.
Councilmember Kerr moved that the item be continued to October 5,
2004.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
(04- ) Report on Fiscal Year 2004 -05 Budget update;
(04- A Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 3 -28.9 (Payment In -Lieu of Taxes -
(PILOT); Adding a New Subsection 3 -28.10 (Return on Investments in
Enterprise Funds) of Section 3 -28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III
(Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18 -4.10
(Exemptions) of Section 18 -4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I
(Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) Not introduced; and
(04- B) Report regarding financial support to Alameda Unified
School District included in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 Budget.
Heather A. Burns, Alameda, requested an explanation of the 911 fee.
The City Manager responded the 911 fee pays for 17 dispatch
positions and can only apply to dispatch center costs; the 911 fee
was part of the original budget adoption but was placed in
abeyance; the fee is not being considered tonight.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the 911 fee was not placed on the
November ballot because a definite number of telephone lines was
Regular Meeting 6
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
not known.
Joe Cloren, Alameda, stated there is an existing utility tax on his
bill; questioned where the $4.50 911 charge goes.
Mayor Johnson responded the 911 fee is in abeyance and that Council
is not making any decision on the fee tonight.
Mr. Cloren stated his bill is 25% tax; inquired how service is
being enhanced.
Mayor Johnson responded that the City adopted a master Cellular
Tower Plan a couple of years ago; the cellular companies have not
had the economic ability to implement the Plan; the City does not
set up the infrastructure for cellular service; the best way to
encourage improvement is to call the cellular companies and
complain.
The City Manager noted that the Utility User's Tax (UUT) was voted
on by the community in November, 1998.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the number of cellular phones
could be determined by subtracting out the landline revenue from
the UUT, to which the Finance Director responded the figure would
result in the nominal amount billed by the cellular carriers; the
rate charged by cellular companies would be needed to establish the
number of cellular phones.
Vice Mayor Daysog noted a Statewide emergency fee would be on the
ballot in November; stated Council should review the Return on
Investment (ROI) for different enterprise funds.
Councilmember Kerr submitted the original sewer replacement
schedule to Council; stated that she wanted to know whether sewer
fund taxes are being spent according to the schedule before voting
on agenda item.
The City Manager stated that staff would provide an Off - Agenda
report on the matter.
Councilmember Gilmore stated staff was requested to provide
information on the budget cut impacts to various departments;
Council directed budget cuts not impact services; urged departments
to increase recovery costs, if possible; stated the Planning
Department cuts have gone against Council directive; the cuts make
it more difficult to serve constituents, making cost recovery
increases more difficult; she is hesitant to mandate a certain
percentage of cuts across all departments; inquired whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
7
transferring the Performance Improvement Program from Human
Resources Department to the City Manager's office applied to the
Human Resources Department's cut.
The Assistant to the City Manager responded in the negative; stated
the budget for the Performance Management Program was $50,000; the
Program was transferred to the City Manager's office because the
City Manager's office was managing it; the City Manager's office
budget was increased by $50,000; the City Manager's office cut
their budget by more than 10 %.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the budget indicates that
transferring $50,000 to the City Manager's office was treated as a
cut to the Human Resources Department.
The City Manager stated transfer was a baseline reduction in the
Human Resources' budget and was not applied to the Human Resources
10% reductions.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether all Human Resources Department
positions were filled, to which the City Manager responded the
employee eliminated was absorbed in the Housing Authority.
Councilmember Kerr requested an explanation on the layoff
absorption, to which the City Manager responded collective
bargaining units' Memorandum of Understanding include bumping
rights.
Councilmember Kerr inquired which employee was transferred from the
Human Resources Department to the Housing Authority, to which the
City Manager responded the Intermediate Clerk.
The City Manager noted that some Human Resources Department
positions are funded by enterprise departments.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Training Program still
exists, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated that she does not think the Training
Program is in line with delivery of services to the public.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council directive was to make cuts in a
way that did not impact service to the public; cuts were made to
public service; staff development is not a direct service to the
public; inquired how the Training Program is justified.
The City Manager responded that the classes directly affect
employees' ability to deliver services.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
8
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council's mandate was not to cut
service to residents; library hours were cut; he cannot justify
maintaining staff development classes in lieu of library hours.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would rather have money spent
on library staffing between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. instead of
staff training programs.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the City operated without the
training position for 150 years.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would prefer to have
another budget workshop, to which Mayor Johnson responded that
Council has given direction; she has confidence that staff can
review the budget.
Councilmember Kerr stated that Council has been clear on direction;
having another session would not make it any clearer.
Councilmember Gilmore recommended budget cuts made resulting in the
library service reduction be reviewed; stated the Planning
Department is problematic; pending retirement of senior staff adds
to the problem; the Planning Department's revenue comes from permit
fees; fee recovery is not possible without good customer service;
the 911 fee was included in the adopted budget; the City now has a
large revenue gap.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated filling the gap can be done in a way that
satisfies the need of the public safety departments and also works
within the framework of the ROI strategy; the ROI is a strategy to
generate revenues from different City enterprise funds, namely,
AP &T and Golf; the 1% ROI on the AP &T fund will generate $720,400;
the 1% ROI for Golf will generate $190,600; changing the ROI from
1% to 3% for AP &T, would generate funds of $2.6 million; requested
clarification on the $1.8 million revenue gap figure presented in
the report.
The Finance Director responded eliminating the 911 fee and the
payment from the sewer fund adds up to $1.8 million.
Mayor Johnson noted a reduction in the General Fund transfer from
AP &T would impact the budget.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an Off - Agenda report on personnel
charts.
Councilmember Kerr requested an explanation of the term "foregone
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
9
revenue ", to which the Finance Director responded foregone revenue
means revenue not collected.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether foregone revenue is
collectible, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the youth employment activities
are part of the WAY Program and whether the Program still exists.
The City Manager responded staff would provide an Off - Agenda report
on the matter.
Councilmember Kerr stated the Youth Collaborative was initiated by
Wilma Chan and is a communication liaison between volunteer groups;
inquired whether the City should fund the Program at all or at a
lower rate.
Mayor Johnson stated that there was only one City paid part -time
staff person for the Youth Collaborative, the Youth Collaborative
is a good tool for the City and staff to facilitate communication
between the organizations and to keep track of issues that need to
be addressed regarding youth; that she feels the $25,000 cost is a
good investment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a $419,000 contribution to
the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) from the Police
Department for 3 police officers; the return on safety is well
worth the money; other AUSD charges include staff time; unless the
City is willing to lay off said staff, a whole lot will not be
saved.
Councilmember Kerr recommended utilizing social workers at the
school district instead of three sworn police officers.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the crossing guards were approved in
the budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council direction was not to lay off
any sworn officers.
Councilmember Kerr stated the budget was adopted with the exception
of everything in the AUSD list.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Kerr.
Councilmember Kerr stated Council did not vote to fund the three
school resource officers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
10
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the three school resource
officers were funded under the Police Department budget, to which
the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated that she does not believe that Council
agreed to fund the three positions under the Police Department.
Mayor Johnson stated the budget did not include any cuts in the
number of officers; Council has not decided on the school resource
officers.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the direction given was that the
Police Chief work with the school district.
Mayor Johnson stated direction was given to work with the school
district on overtime staffing for football games and dances.
Councilmember Gilmore stated there are still three officers
approved as part of the Police Department budget; whether they
would continue to act as school resource officers is still
questionable; inquired whether the rest of the school district
funding was not approved, with the exception of the crossing guards
and resource officers
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when Council would address the
balance of the school district budget and revenue sources.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council needs to give direction to staff
to explore how to close the budget gap; she does not envision
having a 911 fee in the near future.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like an update on
the additional budget gap created by the 911 fee, to which Council
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested the City Manager to advise Council on
whether dipping into AP &T funds would be problematic because of
bond obligations and revenue expectations.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council needs to have all options
revisited, including additional draw down of the reserves.
The City Manager inquired whether Council direction still stands
regarding public safety and the Parks and Recreation Department as
top priorities from the General Fund, to which Mayor Johnson
Regular Meeting 11
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred; stated direction is with the
caveat that service is the last place to be touched; the
organization needs to be flattened; management staffing versus the
point of service delivery needs to be reviewed; there is an
indirect delivery versus the direct delivery.
The City Manager stated there would be a departmental review;
stated that 65% of the General Fund goes to the Police and Fire
Departments.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council needs to make some difficult
budget choices; cuts could be made and the gap would not be closed;
ways of raising revenue should be reviewed; Council has assumed the
current level of public safety is important to the community; the
City needs to raise revenue in order to maintain that level; if the
citizens do not support the 911 fees, Council may have overvalued
public safety.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated a one day a month furlough should be
considered.
(04- ) Ordinance No. 2932, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Section 24 -9 (Releases of Hazardous Materials -
Cost Recovery) to Chapter XXIV (Public Health), Authorizing the
Recovery Costs Incurred for the Abatement of Hazardous Materials
Releases ". Finally passed.
Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- ) Discussion regarding development of a policy that governs
private use of City of Alameda parks.
Michele Hullana, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, stated the children
have no where to go without the Club.
Shana Hullana, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, requested Council to
find a facility for Alameda's youth.
Maimah A. Jennings, Alameda, stated that she hoped a new facility
could be found.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
12
Erin Alfred, Alameda, stated the Club was a good place for
Alameda's youth to participate in many activities.
Kim Pinson, Alameda, expressed her support for the Club.
Kimberly Peters, Alameda, stated Alameda's youth need somewhere
safe to go.
Kesha Vennings, Alameda, stated there never seems to be money for
the children.
Steven Rundle, Alameda, stated the McKinley Park neighborhood is
opposed to having open space used for private purposes; submitted
petition.
Mary Patt Glass, Alameda, stated parents should provide program
options.
George Phillips, Boys and Girls Club, stated the first closure
notice was provided to parents through a take -home letter; a notice
was posted on the building listing McKinley Park open playground
area and BANANAS as options.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether alternative program information
could be sent to members, to which Mr. Phillips responded in the
affirmative.
Linda Gilchrist, Alameda, discussed the importance of Alameda
Parks.
Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park Advisory Committee (EPAC), stated
retaining McKinley Park is important.
Edward Kofman, President, Alameda Boys and Girls Club Board of
Directors, stated that it makes fiscal and moral sense for the City
to partner with willing and capable organizations to offer programs
at Alameda's parks that would otherwise not be available.
Dorothy Freeman, EPAC, stated the more open space in Alameda is
important.
Ginni Dofflemyer, Alameda, stated the main issue is limiting open
space at McKinley Park.
Norma Wall, Alameda, stated that she would prefer the school
property be used for after school programs.
Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated that Alameda is underserved by parks.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
13
Jim Sweeney, Alameda, urged voting against taking away the open
space at McKinley Park.
Lynn Lebo - Pianas, Alameda, stated the relocation process should be
handled in a rational and honest manner.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he requested the item be placed
on the agenda; the issue is not a question of the offered programs;
in budget deliberations, the Council voted to fully staff the
parks; a policy is required that would govern the construction of
structures in City parks.
Councilmember Kerr concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated
the crises would not have developed if a policy was in place; a
breakdown in communication resulted in the misconception that the
move was definite; the City did not close the Club; there are
strict standards for temporary recreation center rentals but not
for permanent or semi - permanent uses; that she is concerned with
the future building behind Woodstock School; the School will not be
empty until the new school at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
(FISC) is built; Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) has
community rooms available; the Youth Collaborative should inform
the public of programs available; stronger standards for private
use of public parks are needed; suggested placing item on a future
agenda.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current facility needed to be
retrofitted, to which Mr. Phillips responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Council request the Recreation and
Parks Commission develop a policy regarding private use of public
parks, including structures, for Council review.
Councilmember Kerr responded that Council should not request the
Commission to operate in a policy vacuum; the Council is the
policy making body; Council should set the policy guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council could provide the framework and
request that the Commission recommend a policy for review.
Councilmember Kerr stated that Council should be setting policy
boundaries before requesting the Commission to establish a policy.
Councilmember Gilmore responded that the Recreation and Parks
Commission is well qualified to review the matter; the Commission
has a better understanding on park uses; the Council can accept,
reject or amend the Commission's recommendation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
14
Councilmember Matarrese stated that policy should prohibit
construction of substantial structures on parkland; a criteria for
non - substantial structures should be developed; he feels that it is
a good function of the Recreation and Parks Commission to develop a
policy, using the guidelines such as the General Plan; the
Commission should work within the City's current policy documents
to develop criteria that Council could adopt as the City's policy.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City has a policy in
place that would allow a private group to use the parks on a
permanent or semi - permanent basis without building a structure, to
which Mayor Johnson responded that policy would include both the
use of parks by private organizations and building structures on
the park.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City should create a
distinction between a private entity using the parks for profit
versus non - profit.
Mayor Johnson responded that creating the policy is complicated;
distinctions need to be made; having the Recreation and Parks
Commission make a recommendation to Council would be beneficial.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated there are good citizens on both sides of
the issue that deserve the Council to make a decision on the issue
at hand [Boys and Girls Club issue]; having a policy discussion
runs the risk of raising other issues that would concern many
organizations; policy discussions should come at a latter time.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council should move forward a process to
adopt a policy.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Boys and Girl's Club request
has to go through the public process; a Planning Board decision can
be appealed to the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that normally applicants that go
through the permit process have entitlement to the property; the
Boys and Girls Club has no entitlement to McKinley Park.
Mayor Johnson stated that planning applications come from
individuals that have no entitlement; the Boys and Girls Club needs
to decide whether to continue on with the process, knowing the
Council is developing a policy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated individuals or organizations with no
entitlement were not trying to build on City property.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
15
Councilmember Kerr concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether someone with no property entitlement
is prohibited from going forward with a permit application.
The City Attorney responded that there have been instances where
permits have required either the owner's or tenant's consent.
The Assistant City Manager stated that if an applicant does not
have title to the property, a letter or signature from the property
owner is required.
The City Manager stated that staff would provide an Off - Agenda
report on the matter.
Councilmember Kerr stated a policy process needs to consider 1)
does the City turn over parkland on a quasi- permanent basis, and 2)
displacement of public programs; the issue of charging rent needs
to be considered.
The City Manager stated there could be a moratorium on any requests
until after the Council adopts a policy.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the moratorium be added.
Councilmember Kerr stated the moratorium was necessary; inquired
how long the unreinforced masonary building requirement has been in
place, to which the City Attorney responded over 10 years.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(04- Sandra Williams spoke about police harassment and
violation of civil rights.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Williams to provide her telephone
number.
(04- ) Lee Harris, Alamedans for Responsible Transit (ARTS),
stated that bus shelter advertising is bad for Alameda; a policy
decision should be made at the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Kerr stated that ARTS has raised enough money to have
a number of free - advertising shelters; inquired whether non -
advertised bus shelters was the reason for fundraising, to which
Mr. Harris responded the promise was that there would be no
advertising on the bus shelters.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
16
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City has submitted a letter
stating that the shelters will only be free of advertising if the
City has enough money to maintain the shelters for which ARTS has
paid, to which Mr. Harris responded that the letter stated that the
City wants to have the option to give the money back, leaving the
door open to convert non - advertising shelters to advertising
shelters.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there is no guarantee that the
shelters would remain free of advertising, to which Mr. Harris
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she recalled that the advertising
shelters were a two -prong problem: 1) the money to install the
shelters, and 2) the money to maintain the shelters; she thought
ARTS was formed for both purposes.
Mr. Harris stated that the City was to take care of the
maintenance; ARTS would be funding the purchase, construction and
installation of the shelters.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to provide information on the
matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the type of shelter is being
reviewed, to which Mr. Harris responded in the affirmative;
options, such as map holders are expensive.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City should receive money from AC
Transit for map holders.
The City Manager stated that staff would follow up with AC Transit.
(04- ) Jim Sweeney, ARTS, stated shelters should be fenceforth
and forever ad free.
(04- ) Jean Sweeney, ARTS, urged the Council to remove the
clause allowing the City to buy the shelters back.
(04- ) Norma Wall, ARTS, stated that ARTS had previously
requested the City to rescind the ordinance regarding advertising,
if funding was obtained; there is approximately $5,000 or $6,000
which ARTS is unable to grasp because a letter is needed regarding
the City's 501 C3 status.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether having the letter agreement would
resolve the funding issue, to which Ms. Wall responded in the
affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
17
(04- ) Bob Sikora, Alameda, stated direction was given to staff
regarding shelters; the community has been brushed off.
(04- ) Reyla Graber, ARTS, stated that ARTS is a fundraising
organization, not a maintenance organization; ARTS opposes a
buyback option in the funding agreement; unless the buyback option
is eliminated, ARTS will halt the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of shelters are included in the
first phase, to which Ms. Graber responded the shelters are noted
in the funding agreement under recitals.
Ms. Graber stated that ARTS needs a letter from the City stating
that the City is a 501C3 to allow funds to be transferred.
(04- ) Lorraine Lilly, Harbor Island Tenants Association,
thanked Council and staff for continued services addressing the
crises of the massive Harbor Island Apartment evictions.
(04- ) Michael Torrey, Alameda, suggested the O'Club be used as
a temporary site for the Boys and Girls Club.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination to the Transportation
Commission. Continued to September 21, 2004.
(04- ) Selection of Council alternate liaison for the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
Mayor Johnson moved nomination of Councilmember Kerr.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(04- ) Vice Mayor Daysog stated that about a month ago there was
an informal discussion on rescinding the work /live ordinance;
requested the matter move forward.
(04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated that Proposition 1 -A and 65 will
appear on the November ballot; Proposition 65 is the original
ballot measure that the League of California Cities placed on the
ballot to limit the amount of money the State can take from cities;
Alameda only receives approximately 24% of property taxes; the
Governor requested a moratorium for two years and stated he would
campaign for Proposition 1 -A; can vote for both; the highest vote
will win; endorsed Proposition 65 and 1 -A.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 7, 2004
18
(04- ) Councilmember Gilmore requested that Council receive draft
agendas via email.
(04- ) Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Catellus /AUSD
litigation would be on an upcoming agenda, to which the City
Attorney responded item would be placed on the September 21, 2004
Closed Session agenda.
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
September 7, 2004
19
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 9, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of Bluewater Services, Inc., for the Demolition of
2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08 -03 -16
BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2003, Council approved plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids
for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16, in advance of the construction
of the new Main Library at the same site. On February 17, 2004, Council authorized the City
Manager to complete the process of re- advertisement, re -bid, award and construction. On March
11, 2004, the City entered into a contract with Bluewater Services, Inc., of San Leandro in the
amount of $372,420, which included 20% for contingencies.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The project has been completed in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Department. The final construction cost was $302,315. A total of four (4)
change orders totaling $10,500 were approved for the project. One change order was the result
of a request for the contractor to provide compacted fill in the area were the pool had been
located. The second change order was required because the contractor was asked to remove an
additional small structure and the third change order was required because the contractor
encountered additional hazardous material when demolishing the elevator. The fourth change
order was the result of an incentive payment of $2,000 to the contractor for completing the
project four (4) days early.
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.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
andA am.dl
bliCWOlb
Public H 'k, . ]Su!
Report #4 -B CC
9 -21 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 9, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, accept the work of Bluewater
Services, Inc., for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue, No. P.W. 08- 03 -16.
Respect ly submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:MPD:gc
G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004 \092104\Bluewater_accept.doc
Mike Di Blasi
Project Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtyofAlsaeda
D�rtment
PuhlicWo,ks Works( You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 7, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8320 (1601, 1751, 1801,
1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and 1750 North Loop Road)
BACKGROUND
Parcel Map No. 8320 provides for the subdivision of Parcel 6 in the grant deed recorded December
12, 2003, into five parcels. The parcel is located at 1601, 1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and
1750 North Loop Road and is the former Lucent Development. There are currently five existing
office /research and development buildings on the property.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The parcel map has been reviewed and determined to be technically correct and in substantial
conformance with the approved tentative parcel map and conditions of approval. There are no new
improvements required. The existing lighting and landscape improvements within the 25' setback
along Harbor Bay Parkway is maintained by the property owners through the City's Landscape and
Lighting Assessment District (AD# 84 -2). Existing public utility easement (PUE), pathway
easement (PE), and street light easement (SLE) within the property along Harbor Bay Parkway will
remain. The property is subject to declaration of easements (similar to covenants, conditions and
restrictions) that provide for reciprocal private easements for ingress, egress, parking and utilities
over common areas, maintenance and repair of common areas as well as building improvements.
The declarations of easements have been amended to include all five new parcels and will be
recorded concurrently with the recording of the parcel map.
The subdivider has posted a $200 cash deposit to guarantee delivery of a mylar copy of the recorded
parcel map.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Acceptance of this resolution does not affect the General Fund. The existing lighting and landscape
improvements within the 25' setback along Harbor Bay Parkway is maintained by the property
owners through the City's Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (AD# 84 -2).
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glyafiameda
PublicWotls
Department
Public Work Wakefru. You!
Re: Resolution #4 -C CC
9 -21 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 7, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution approving Parcel
Map 8320 (1601, 1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Bay Parkway and 1750 North Loop Road).
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Barbara Hawkins
Supervising Civil Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIU2004\092104`council letter Parcel Map 8320.dcc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�1! cnvofal a
Department
Public Wale Work-vier You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 8320
(1601, 1751, 1801, 1851 Harbor Pay Parkway and 1750 North Loop Road)
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 8320 was approved by the Planning Board
per Resolution No. PB -04 -40 on June 14th, 2004; and
WHEREAS, a Planned Development Amendment to Planning Board Resolution
1203 to find the created parcels meeting parking and open space requirements individually, thus
amending the standards with regard to those parcels, was approved by the Planning Board per
Resolution No. PB- 04- on September 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, Parcel Map 8320 was found in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Harbor
Bay Business Park, including this site, was approved and pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no
new significant environmental impacts have been identified, nor have mitigation measures
0 >. previously found to be infeasible become feasible since the EIR was adopted; therefore, no
LL! additional review pursuant to CEQA is required; and
•ate.• � e
® WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has reviewed Parcel Map 8320 and
f- has proposed a number of Conditions which have been incorporated as Conditions in City
`s Planning Board Resolution No. PB- 04 -40; and
WHEREAS, Condition #5, requires that the existing Declaration of Easements for
ingress, egress, parking and utilities over the common areas, (Alameda County instrument
#2003 - 722235, recorded December 12, 2003) be amended and recorded concurrently with the
recordation of Parcel Map 8320; and
WHEREAS no improvements are required for approval of Parcel Map 8320.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereto accepts the Planning Board Resolutions No. PB -04 -40 and No. PB -04- , and
pursuant to Section 30 -81.8 of the Alameda Municipal Code, hereby approve Parcel Map 8320
and give permission to the subdivider to record same.
Resolution #4 -C CC
9 -21 -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
6th day of July, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
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
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
DATE: September 14, 2004
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 1 -A, Protection of Local Government
Revenues, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot.
Background
This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Kerr.
Since 1991, more than $30 billion of local property taxes have been diverted from local governments by
the State to finance the State's constitutional funding obligations and discretionary programs. This
diversion of local property tax revenue into the State's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
has continued even though the State experienced large budget surpluses in recent years. Through the
ERAF program, the State has taken a total of $36.9 million from the City of Alameda since 1991,
resulting in cuts to the programs and services provided to Alameda residents.
In addition to taking local tax revenue, the State continues to shift costs for state - sponsored programs to
local governments and to delay constitutionally required reimbursements to local governments.
In September 2003, the League of California Cities (League) sponsored a statewide ballot initiative, the
Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), to empower voters to limit the ability of
state government to confiscate local tax funds to finance state government. It also clarified the State's
duty to reimburse local governments in a timely manner for a new mandated program, protecting local
governments from hidden cost shifts. Since that time, the following actions have occurred:
• On October 7, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution #13638 which formally supported the
League's LOCAL ballot initiative.
• On February 17, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution #13687 which also formally
supported the League's LOCAL ballot initiative.
• On April 16, 2004, the Secretary of State qualified the LOCAL initiative for the November 2004
ballot — Proposition 65. Subsequently, the Governor offered to secure legislative and voter
approval of a proposed alternative November 2004 constitutional amendment with equivalent or
better revenue and mandate protection for local agencies.
• On May 12, 2004 the League adopted a resolution accepting and supporting the Governor's
proposal for an alternative constitutional amendment.
Re: Resolution #4 -D CC
9 -21 -04
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
September 14, 2004
Page Two
Discussion
Proposition 1A is the agreement reached during recent state budget negotiations among local government
leaders, public safety representatives, Governor Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican state
legislators, healthcare advocates, taxpayers and community leaders. Details of the agreement are outlined
in Attachment A. Proposition 1A, if approved by the voters, becomes effective in the 2006/07 fiscal year.
In summary, it offers significant constitutional protections of local government revenues, including:
complete protection of the remaining Vehicle License Fee, the property tax backfill for sales tax in the
Triple Flip, complete protection of the Bradley -Burns sales tax, a prohibition against future ERAF
property tax shifts, and a requirement of a super majority vote of the State Legislature to reallocate
property tax (now a simple majority). It also reforms the unfunded mandate reimbursement process,
providing for suspension of mandates if not paid.
In exchange, the agreement provides the State with $2.6 billion in contributions from cities, counties,
special districts, and redevelopment agencies over two fiscal years.
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact
Proposition 1 -A implements provisions of the recently adopted State budget. The impact of the adopted
State budget on the City's General Fund is $1,067,024 in FY 04 -05. Passage of Proposition 1 -A will have
a long -term positive effect on City finances as it will result in higher and more stable sources of revenue.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution supporting Proposition 1 -A, Protection of Local
Government Revenues, on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot.
Attachments
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
By:
Christa Jo l nson
Assistant to the City Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
PROPOSITION
1 A
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REVENUES
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney (;enci.al
Protection of Local Government Revenues
• Protects local funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other locally
delivered services.
• Prohibits the State from reducing local governments' property tax proceeds.
• Allows the provisions to be suspended only if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity
and two - thirds of the Legislature approve the suspension. Suspended funds must be
repaid within three years.
• Also requires local sales tax revenues to remain with local government and be spent for
local purposes.
• Requires the State to fund legislative mandates on local governments or suspend their
operation.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government
Fiscal Impact:
• Significant changes to state authority over local finances. Higher local government rev-
enues than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annu-
ally over time. Any such local revenue impacts would result in decreased resources to
the state of similar amounts.
Final Votes Cast by the Legislature on SCA 4 (Proposition 1A)
Assembly: Ayes 64 Noes 13
Senate: Ayes 34 Noes 5
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Local Government Funding
California cities, counties, and special districts
provide services such as fire and police protection,
water, libraries, and parks and recreation pro-
grams. local governments pay for these programs
and services with money from local taxes, fees, and
user charges; state and federal aid; and other
sources. Three taxes play a major role in local
finance because they raise significant sums of gen-
eral- purpose revenues that local governments may
use to pay for a variety of programs and services.
These three taxes are the property tax, the uni-
form local sales tax, and the vehicle license fee
(VLF). Many local governments also impose
optional local sales taxes and use these revenues to
support specific programs, such as transportation.
Figure 1 provides information on these major rev-
enue sources.
4 Title and Summary /Analysis
State Authority Over Local Finance
The State Constitution and existing statutes give
the Legislature authority over the taxes described
in Figure 1. For example, the Legislature has
some authority to change tax rates; items subject
to taxation; and the distribution of tax revenues
among local governments, schools, and communi-
ty college districts. The state has used this
authority for many purposes, including increasing
funding for local services, reducing state costs,
reducing taxation, addressing concerns regarding
funding for particular local governments, and
restructuring local finance. Figure 2 describes
some of these past actions the Legislature has
taken.
Requirement to Reimburse for State Mandates
The State Constitution generally requires the
state to reimburse local governments, schools, and
community college districts when the state
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
FIGURE 1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES
Property Tax
• Local governments receive general - purpose revenues from a
1 percent property tax levied on real property.
• During the 2003 -04 fiscal year, local governments received
approximately $15 billion in property tax revenues. (An
additional $16 billion in property taxes went to schools and
community colleges.)
•There is wide variation in the share of property taxes
received by individual local governments. This variation
largely reflects differences among local agency property tax
rates during the mid- 1970s, the period on which the state's
property tax allocation laws are based.
Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
•The VLF is a tax levied annually on the value of vehicles
registered in the state.
• For about a half century, the VLF rate was 2 percent of
vehicle value. In 1999, the Legislature began reducing the
rate charged to vehicle owners, with the state "backfilling"
the resulting city and county revenue losses.
• During 2003 -04, the VLF (set at a rate of 0.65 percent of
vehicle value) and the VLF backfill would have provided
about $5.9 billion to cities and counties. The state,
however, deferred payment of part of the backfill to 2006.
•Under current law, most VLF revenues are allocated to
counties for health and social services programs. Some VLF
revenues are allocated to cities for general purposes.
Local Sales Tax (Uniform)
•Cities and counties receive revenues from a uniform local
sales tax levied on the purchase price of most goods —such
as clothing, automobiles, and restaurant meals. This tax is
sometimes called the "Bradley- Burns" sales tax.
• During 2003 -04, this tax was levied at a rate of 1.25
percent and generated about $5.9 billion.
• Under current law, 80 percent of sales tax revenues is
distributed to local governments based on where sales
occur —to a city if the sale occurs within its boundaries, or
to a county if the sale occurs in an unincorporated area.
The remaining 20 percent of local sales tax revenues is
allocated to counties for transportation purposes.
• Beginning in 2004 -05, local governments will receive
additional property taxes to replace some local sales tax
revenues that are pledged to pay debt service on state
deficit- related bonds, approved by voters in March 2004.
Local Sales Tax (Optional)
•Cities and counties can impose certain additional sales
taxes for local purposes.
• During 2003 -04, 40 jurisdictions levied these optional sales
taxes and generated about $3.1 billion.
• Most revenues are used for transportation purposes.
PROP
lA
"mandates" a new local program or higher level of
service. For example, the state requires local agen-
cies to post agendas for their hearings. As a man-
date, the state must pay local governments,
schools, and community college districts for their
costs to post these agendas. Because of the slate's
budget difficulties, the state has not provided in
recent rears reimbursements for many mandated
costs. Currently, the state owes these local agencies
about $2 billion for the prior -year costs of state -
mandated programs. In other cases, the state has
"suspended" state mandates, eliminating both
local government responsibility for complying
with the mandate and the need for state reim-
bursements.
PROPOSAL
Limitations on Legislature's Authority to Change
Local Revenues
This measure amends the State Constitution to
significantly reduce the state's authority over
MAJOR STATE ACTIONS AFFECTING LOCAL FINANCE
Increasing Funding for Local Services. In 1979, the state shifted
an ongoing share of the property tax from schools and
community colleges to local governments (cities, counties,
and special districts). This shift limited local government
program reductions after the revenue losses resulting from
the passage of Proposition 13, but increased state costs to
backfill schools' and community colleges' property tax
losses.
Reducing State Costs. In 1992 and 1993, the state shifted an
ongoing share of property taxes from local governments to
schools and community colleges. In 2004, the state
enacted a similar two -year shift of property taxes ($1.3
billion annually) from local governments to schools and
community colleges. These shifts had the effect of reducing
local government resources and reducing state costs. The
state also reduced its costs by deferring payments to local
governments for state mandate reimbursements (most
notably in 2002, 2003, and 2004) and for a portion of the
vehicle license fee (VLF) "backfill" (2003), described below.
Reducing Taxation. Beginning in 1999, the state reduced the
VLF rate to provide tax relief. The state backfilled the
resulting city and county revenue losses.
Addressing Concerns Regarding Funding for Specific Local
Governments. In the past, the state has at various times
adjusted the annual allocation of property taxes and VLF
revenues to assist cities that received very low shares of the
local property tax.
Restructuring Local Finance. In 2004, the state replaced city
and county VLF backfill revenues with property taxes
shifted from schools and community colleges.
Analysis 5
1
PROP
lA
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
major local government revenue sources. Under
the measure the state could not:
• Reduce Local Sales Tax Rates or Alter the Method of
Allocation. The measure prohibits the state from:
reducing any local sales tax rate, limiting exist-
ing local government authority to levy a sales tax
rate, or changing the allocation of' local sales tax
revenues. For example, the state could not
reduce a city's uniform or optional sales tax rate,
or enact laws that shift sales taxes from a city to
the county in which it is located.
• Shift Property Taxes From Local Governments to
Schools or Community Colleges. The measure gen-
erally prohibits the state from shifting to schools
or community colleges any share of property tax
revenues allocated to local governments for any
fiscal year under the laws in effect as of
November 3, 2004. The measure also specifies
that any change in how property tax revenues
are shared among local governments within a
county must be approved by two- thirds of both
houses of the Legislature (instead of by majority
votes). For example, state actions that shifted a
share of property tax revenues from one local
special district to another, or from a city to the
county, would require approval by two - thirds of
both houses of the Legislature. Finally, the meas-
ure prohibits the state from reducing the prop-
erty tax revenues provided to cities and counties
as replacement for the local sales tax revenues
redirected to the state and pledged to pay debt
service on state deficit- related bonds approved
by voters in March 2004.
• Decrease VLF Revenues Without Providing
Replacement Funding. If the state reduces the VLF
rate below its current level, the measure requires
the state to provide local governments with
equal replacement revenues. The measure also
requires the state to allocate VLF revenues to
county health and social services programs and
local governments.
The measure provides two significant excep-
tions to the above restrictions regarding sales and
property taxes. First, beginning in 2008 -09, the
state may shift to schools and community colleges
a limited amount of local government property tax
revenues if: the Governor proclaims that the shift
is needed clue to a severe state financial hardship,
the Legislature approves the shift with a two- thirds
vote of both houses, and certain other conditions
are met. The state must repay local governments
for their property tax losses, with interest, within
three years. Second, the measure allows the state
6 Analysis
to approve voluntary exchanges of local sales tax
and property tax revenues among local govern-
ments within a county.
State Mandates
The measure amends the State Constitution to
require the state to suspend certain state laws cre-
ating mandates in any year that the state does not
fully reimburse local governments for their costs
to comply with the mandates. Specifically, begin-
ning July 1, 2005, the measure requires the state
to either fully fund each mandate affecting cities,
counties, and special districts or suspend the man-
date's requirements for the fiscal year. This provi-
sion does not apply to mandates relating to
schools or community colleges, or to those man-
dates relating to employee rights.
The measure also appears to expand the circum-
stances under which the state would he responsi-
ble for reimbursing cities, counties, and special
districts for carrying out new state requirements.
Specifically, the measure defines as a mandate
state actions that transfer to local governments
financial responsibility for a required program for
which the state previously had complete or partial
financial responsibility. Under current law, some
such transfers of financial responsibilities may not
be considered a state mandate.
Related Provisions in Proposition 65
Proposition 65 on this ballot contains similar
provisions affecting local government finance and
mandates. (The nearby box provides information
on the major similarities and differences between
these measures.) Proposition IA specifically states
that if it and Proposition 65 are approved and
Proposition 1A receives more yes votes, none of
the provisions of Proposition 65 will go into effect.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition IA would reduce state authority
over local finances. Over time, it could have signif-
icant fiscal impacts on state and local govern-
ments, as described below.
Long -Term Effect on Local and State Finance
Higher and More Stable Local Government
Revenues. Given the number and magnitude of
past state actions affecting local taxes, this mea-
sure's restrictions on state authority to enact such
measures in the future would have potentially
major fiscal effects on local governments. For
example, the state could not enact measures that
permanently shift property taxes from local gov-
ernments to schools in order to reduce state costs
for education programs. In these cases, this measure
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
ANALYSIS BY THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
would result in local government revenues being
more stable —and higher —than otherwise would
be the case. The magnitude of increased local rev-
enues is unknown and would depend on future
actions by the state. Given past actions by the state,
however, this increase in local government rev-
enues could be in the billions of dollars annually.
These increased local revenues could result in
higher spending on local programs or decreased
local fees or taxes.
Lower Resources for State Programs. In general,
the measure's effect on state finances would be the
opposite of its effect on local finances. That is, this
measure could result in decreased resources being
available for state programs than otherwise would
he the case. This reduction, in turn, would affect
state spending and /or taxes. For example,
because the state could not use local government
property taxes permanently as part of the state's
budget solution, the Legislature would need to
take alternative actions to resolve the state's budget
difficulties —such as increasing state taxes or
decreasing spending on other state programs. As
with the local impact, the total fiscal effect also
could be in the billions of dollars annually.
Less Change to the Revenue of Individual Local
Governments. Proposition IA restricts the state's
authority to reallocate local tax revenues to
address concerns regarding funding for specific
local governments or to restructure local govern-
ment finance. For example, the state could not
enact measures that changed how local sales tax
revenues are allocated to cities and counties. In
addition, measures that reallocated property taxes
among local governments in a county would
require approval by two - thirds of the Members of
each house of the Legislature (rather than majori-
ty votes) . As a result, this measure would result in
fewer changes to local government revenues than
otherwise would have been the case.
Effect on Local Programs and State
Reimbursements
Because the measure appears to expand the cir-
cumstances under which the state is required to
reimburse local agencies, the measure may
increase future state costs or alter future state
actions regarding local or jointly funded state -local
programs. While it is not possible to determine the
cost to reimburse local agencies for potential
future state actions, our review of state measures
enacted in the past suggests that, over time,
increased state reimbursement costs may exceed a
hundred million dollars annually.
PROPOSITIONS 1A AND 65
Propositions 1A and 65 both amend the State Constitution to
achieve three general objectives regarding state and local
government finance. The similarities and differences between
the two measures are highlighted below.
Limits State Authority to Reduce Major Local Tax Revenues
Effect on 2004-05 State Budget.
• Proposition 65's restrictions apply to state actions taken over
the last year, and thus would prevent a major component
of the 2004 -05 budget plan (a $1.3 billion property tax
shift in 2004 -05 and again in 2005 -06) from taking effect
unless approved by the state's voters at the subsequent
statewide election.
• Proposition IA's restrictions apply to future state actions
only, and would allow the planned $1.3 billion property tax
shift to occur in both years.
Effect on Future State Budgets.
•Proposition 65 allows the state to modify major local tax
revenues for the fiscal benefit of the state, but only with the
approval of the state's voters.
• Proposition 1A prohibits such state changes, except for
limited, short -term shifting of local property taxes. The
state must repay local governments for these property tax
losses within three years.
Reduces State Authority to
Reallocate Tax Revenues Among Local Governments
Effect an Revenue Allocation.
• Proposition 65 generally requires state voter approval before
the state can reduce any individual local government's
revenues from the property tax, uniform local sales tax, or
vehicle license fee (VLF).
• Proposition 1A prohibits the state from reducing any local
government's revenues from local sales taxes, but maintains
some state authority to alter the allocation of property tax
revenues, VLF revenues, and other taxes. Proposition iA
does not include a state voter approval requirement.
Local Governments Affected.
• Proposition 65's restrictions apply to cities, counties, special
districts, and redevelopment agencies.
• Proposition IA's restrictions do not apply to redevelopment
agencies.
Restricts State Authority to Impose Mandates on
Local Governments Without Reimbursement
•Proposition 65 authorizes local governments, schools, and
community college districts to decide whether or not to
comply with a state requirement if the state does not fully
reimburse local costs.
• Proposition IA's mandate provisions do not apply to schools
and community colleges. If the state does not fund a
mandate in any year, the state must eliminate local
government's duty to implement it for that same time
period.
PROP
lA
Analysis 7
1
PROP
lA
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
ARGUMENT in Favor of Proposition 1A
PROPOSITION IA —A HISTORIC AGREEMENT TO
PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND VITAL LOCAL.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
Proposition lA is a historic bipartisan agreement among
local governments, public safety leaders, the State
Legislature, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
and is authored by Democratic State Senator Tom Torlakson.
Proposition 1A prevents the State from taking and using
funding that local governments need to provide services like
fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, health care,
parks, and libraries.
These individuals and groups urge a YES vote:
• Governor Schwarzenegger
• State Controller Steve Westly
• California Professional Firefighters
• California Fire Chiefs Association
• California Police Chiefs Association
• California State Sheriffs' Association
• California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Stistenis
• League of California Cities
• California Special Districts Association
• California State Association of Counties
PROPOSITION lA IS NEEDED TO STOP THE STATE
FROM TAKING LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
For more than a dozen years, the State has been taking
local tax dollars that local governments use to provide
essential services —more than $40 billion in the last 12 years.
Even in years with state budget surpluses, the State has
taken billions of local tax dollars.
These State raids result in fewer ,firefighters, fewer law enforce-
ment officers, longer waits in emergency rooms —or higher local
taxes and fees.
PROPOSITION lA PROTECTS PUBLIC SAFETY, EMER-
GENCY HEALTH CARE, AND OTHER LOCAL SERVICES.
Local governments spend a vast majority of their bud-
gets providing critical services, including:
• Fire protection
• Paramedic response
• Law enforcement
• Emergency medical
• Health care
• Parks and libraries
Cities and counties also revitalize downtowns and create
jobs and affordable housing using redevelopment agency
funding. Redevelopment agency tax increment revenues are
already protected by the State Constitution and do not need
to he further protected b' Proposition IA.
PROPOSITION IA PROTECTS LOCAL TAXPAYERS
AND WON'T RAISE TAXES.
Proposition IA will not raise taxes. It simply ensures that
existing local tax dollars continue to be dedicated to local
services. It also helps ensure local governments corn't forced to
raise taxes or fees to make up for revenue raided 14 the State.
PROPOSITION lA PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY IN A
STATE BUDGET EMERGENCY—AND WON'T TAKE
FUNDING FROM SCHOOLS OR OTHER STATE
PROGRAMS.
Proposition 1A protects only existing levels of local fund-
ing. It does not reduce funding for schools or other state
programs. And, lA was carefully written to allow flexibility.
It allows the State to bonny local government revenues —
only in the event of a fiscal emergency —if funds are need-
ed to support schools or other state programs.
PROPOSITION 1A IS A BETTER APPROACH THAT
REPLACES THE NEED FOR PROPOSITION 65.
Proposition 65 was put on the ballot earlier this year
before this historic agreement was reached. Proposition
lA is a better; more flexible approach to protect local ser-
vices and tax dollars. That's why ALL of the official propo-
nents of 65 are now ENDORSING PROPOSITION lA
AND OPPOSING PROPOSITION 65.
Join Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator Torlakson, fire-
fighters, police officers, sheriffs, paramedics, health care
leaders, taxpayers, business and labor leaders.
PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
Vote YES on PROPOSITION 1A. Vote NO on PROPOSI-
TION 65.
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
CHIEF MICHAEL WARREN, President
California Fire Chiefs Association
SHERIFF ROBERT T. DOYLE, President
California State Sheriffs' Association
REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor of Proposition lA
Proposition IA was cooked up at the last minute as
part of a had budget deal.
There were no public hearings.
Proposition lA protects local governments, but it
hurts education by allowing the State to raid your
property taxes that fund your local schools. And it
puts that into the State Constitution!
Proposition lA prevents the Legislature from low-
ering taxes by locking in the local sales tax rate. That
goes into the State Constitution too!
Proposition lA jeopardizes critical programs. As
California's fiscal challenges continue, the State budget
8 Arguments
ax will fall even harder on funding for K -12 educa-
tion, higher education, children's health care, pro-
grams for seniors, and public safety.
Proposition lA gives local politicians a blank check
without any scrutiny over how the money is spent.
We can do better. We deserve better.
Vote NO on Proposition 1A.
CAROL.E. MIGDEN, Chainvom.an
.State Board of Equalization
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
PROP
lA
ARGUMENT Against Proposition 1A
We should protect local taxpayers, not irresponsible
spending by local governments. Vote NO on
Proposition 1A.
As Chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization, 1
know that too many branches of government waste too
much money.
Proposition IA gives local governments a spending
guarantee without any fiscal accountability or oversight.
It's a blank check for spending and turns a blind eye to
waste.
Did you know that the City of Stockton is emptying its
cash reserves to build a downtown arena, but at the
same time they're trying to raise taxes to pay for police
officers and firefighters? They've got their priorities
backwards.
Did you know that the City of Los Angeles raised their
water rates, but at the same time they're being audited
for wasting millions on unnecessary public relations
contracts?
California has a responsibility to help and support
local governments. We are all in this together. But NO
one should be exempt from fiscal oversight and
accountability. Checks and balances are essential.
Public schools in California are funded by
Proposition 98. But in 1988, California's teachers
included specific language to hold school districts
accountable for the money they spend.
There is NO fiscal accountability provision in
Proposition 1A.
Every new school bond we've placed on the ballot
contains specific accountability provisions to guarantee
that the money is spent the way the voters intend.
There is NO fiscal accountability provision in
Proposition 1A.
Every one of California's Water, Parks, and Wildlife
bonds had strict accountability provisions.
There is NO fiscal accountability provision in
Proposition 1A.
California is facing serious budget challenges. There
have been great sacrifices made to meet those chal-
lenges ... cuts in children's health care, nursing home
care, and college admissions.
Why should local politicians get a blank check? I say
NO they shouldn't. Why should local politicians get a
guarantee that sick children don't get? I say NO they
shouldn't.
This NO fiscal accountability Proposition deserves a
NO vote!
Please join me in voting NO on Proposition IA.
CAROLE MIGDEN, Chainooman
State Board of Equalization
REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 1A
Contrary y to misleading claims made by the opponent of
1A, THIS MEASURE INCREASES FISCAL ACCOUNT-
ABILITY
Prop. lA increases local budget accountability by keeping
tax dollars close to home, where voters have more control.
Prop. 1A will also make the State more accountable by
preventing it from taking and using local government funds
— except in a fiscal emergency.
FOR YEARS, THE S"IATE HAS HAD A BLANK CHECK
to take your local tax dollars. PROP. 1A TEARS UP THAT
BLANK CHECK and requires the State to live within its
means.
The opponent would have you believe the State is in a
better position to manage your local tax dollars than your
city or county leaders. In fact, over the past decade, cities
and counties have tightened their belts, increased account-
ability, and prioritized spending for essential local services.
Prop. IA does NOT increase local government funding
and does not take one dime from schools, state health care
services, or any other state program or service.
Prop. lA does NOT increase taxes. The measure PRO-
TECTS EXISTING LOCAL TAX DOLLARS—WHICH
ARE USED TO PROVIDE FIREFIGHTING, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, EMERGENCY ROOM CARE, PARA-
MEDIC RESPONSE, and other essential local services.
Prop. lA supporters know it's time to end business as
usual in Sacramento and stop the State from taking and
using local government funds.
join Governor Schwarzenegger, firefighters, law enforce-
ment officers, paramedics, and taxpayer groups.
PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY
SERVICES. VOTE YES on 1A.
SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Chair
Senate Committee on Local Government
LOU PAULSON, President
California Professional Firz: /ighiers
CAM SANCHEZ, President
California Police Chiefs Association
Arguments 9
�oEAGUE
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Proposition IA — "Protection of Local Government Revenues ":
Constitutional Protection for Local Government Revenues
Questions and Answers
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 4 (SCA 4) enacts substantial reforms to
the legislature's ability to raid the local government shares of the property tax,
sales tax and vehicle license fee to pay for state programs. It will appear on the
November 2, 2004, general election ballot as Proposition 1A and be entitled
"Protection of Local Government Revenues ".
This document contains key questions and answers about this important ballot
measure, which is strongly supported by the League of California Cities.
PROPERTY TAX
Background: Proposition 13 reduced the property tax rate to $1.00 per
$100 of assessed valuation countywide. This single rate replaced the
multiple property tax rates imposed by local governments prior to
Proposition 13. The revenue from the $1.00 rate is shared in each county
by the county, the cities, the special districts, and the schools. Each
jurisdiction's share of the $1.00 rate was based originally upon the property
tax rates in effect prior to Proposition 13. The shares have been modified
over the years by the Legislature.
1. What's the basic protection for the property tax in Proposition 1A?
Proposition 1A will end the practice of state raids on local property tax, by
allowing only two loans within a 10 year period — and those may occur only if the
state meets certain criteria.
Specifically, Prop. 1A prevents the Legislature from reducing the combined
property tax shares of cities, special districts, and the county, except to borrow
the funds on a temporary basis to address a "severe state fiscal hardship ". If, for
example, on November 3, 2004, the property tax shares of cities, special
districts, and the county of the hypothetical "California County" equaled 60% of
property taxes collected in that county, the Legislature cannot pass a law that
reduces the percentage below 60% except to respond to a significant state fiscal
problem. Additional restrictions are:
8/4/2004 1
• The 2003 VLF GAP Loan must be repaid before borrowing could occur;
• The loan could only occur twice within a 10 year period;
• The loan ( "the total amount of revenue losses ") must be repaid with interest
within 3 years, and prior loans must be repaid before borrowing could occur a
second time within 10 years;
• The amount of the loan is limited to no more than 8% of the total amount of
property tax allocated to cities, counties, and special districts in the previous
fiscal year; and
• The reduction could only occur with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
2. Can the Legislature continue to reallocate property taxes on the local
level?
Yes, but with a significant new restriction on that ability. Since the passage of
Proposition 13, the Legislature has had the power to reallocate property taxes
among local governments, but its major experience with this over the last 25
years has been to allocate city, county and special district shares of the property
tax to schools through ERAF and reduce state general fund support for schools.
Proposition 1A would prevent future allocations of local government shares to
schools (except on a temporary basis, when the funds may be borrowed, as
explained in questions 1 and 4). However, the state retains the authority to
transfer property taxes among cities, counties, and special districts with a 2/3
vote of the Legislature. Under current law, the state can make this type of
transfer with a majority vote of the Legislature.
3. Could the state reallocate property taxes in order to fund a state
mandate?
No. The amendments to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the state constitution
specify that, "Ad valorem property tax revenues shall not be used to reimburse
local government for the costs of a new program or higher level of services."
4. Does Proposition 1A allow the state flexibility to respond to a significant
state fiscal problem?
Yes, by allowing the state to borrow local property tax if it first meets the criteria
identified in Question #1. Beginning in the 2008 -2009 fiscal year, if the state has
already paid cities and counties the amount owed from the 2003 -04 VLF Gap
Loan (est. $1.22 billion), the governor may issue a proclamation that declares
that there is a "severe state fiscal hardship" that requires the state to temporarily
suspend Proposition 1A's basic protection for the property tax. Next, the
Legislature must first adopt a statute with a 2/3 vote that contains a suspension
of the basic protection for that fiscal year only. Then it must adopt a separate
statute that requires the state to repay cities, counties, and special districts the
total amount of property tax loss caused by the suspension within three years.
8/4/2004 2
5. What will suspension of the property tax protection in Proposition 1A
allow the state to do?
During the one -year period of a suspension, the state can take property taxes
from cities, counties, and /or special districts ( "local agencies ") and transfer them
to the schools or to some other agency that operates within the county in which
the property taxes were generated. This transfer will reduce the protected
property tax percentage. However, the reduction may not result in a property tax
loss that exceeds 8 percent of the total amount of property tax allocated to cities,
counties, and special districts in the previous fiscal year. Currently this
percentage is the equivalent of roughly $1.3 billion.
6. When will local agencies be repaid if property tax is taken during a
suspension period?
No later than the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the
reduction applies. If the reduction applies in the 2010 -11 fiscal year, then
repayment must occur no later than June 30 of 2014. Repayment will be for the
"total amount of revenue losses" including interest.
7. Can the Legislature suspend the Proposition 1A protection each time
there is a "severe state fiscal hardship ?"
No. Suspension of the protection may only occur twice in a ten year period; and
only if the VLF Gap Loan amount has been repaid; and if only any prior
suspension of property tax has been repaid with interest.
8. Why was the redevelopment property tax increment not explicitly
protected in the final version of SCA 4?
It was the opinion of key legislators and legislative staff that Article 16, Section 16
of the state constitution, already protects the redevelopment property tax
increment. Further, the Governor insisted on the inclusion of language in the
ballot arguments for Proposition 1A that declares that the redevelopment
increment is already protected by the state constitution.
SALES TAX
Background: The sales and use tax laws allow cities and counties to
impose the basic 1% sales tax as well as a variety of other use taxes such
as taxes for transit, jails, open space, etc. The basic 1% rate is distributed
back to the jurisdiction in which it was collected. Both cities and counties
may increase the sales and use tax by one - quarter cent for general
governmental purposes with a majority vote. Last year the Legislature
8/4/2004 3
suspended one - quarter cent of the basic 1% sales tax until the state's fiscal
recovery bonds are repaid.
1. What's the basic protection for the sales and use tax in Proposition 1A?
Proposition 1A prevents the state from borrowing or taking local sales and use
taxes. While the measure allows the state to borrow local property shares after
meeting specific criteria, Prop. 1A does not allow the state to reduce the current
funding that local governments receive from sales and use tax or require that
sales tax revenues be distributed based upon population rather than the location
or in any other way restrict a city or county from imposing sales and use taxes in
accordance with existing law.
2. What about the current suspension of one - quarter cent of the sales tax
occurring as a result of the passage of Proposition 57? Does Proposition
1A require the suspension to end when the fiscal recovery bonds are
repaid?
Yes. Proposition 1A prevents the state from extending the period during which
the one - quarter cent is suspended; from failing to pay the property tax backfill
during the period of suspension; and from failing to restore the full sales tax rate
when the bonds are repaid.
3. Can the state take any action that affects the sales and use tax?
Yes. It gives the Legislature the authority to authorize two or more local
agencies within a county to exchange property tax and sales tax but only if the
governing bodies of each of those agencies approves a locally- negotiated
exchange agreement. Voter approval is not required to make the exchange.
Additionally, the Legislature can change how sales tax is distributed if the change
is required by federal law or to participate in an interstate agreement that
addresses payment of sales tax for Internet purchases.
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
Background: The constitution currently guarantees all VLF revenue to
cities and counties. No particular amount of revenue is guaranteed,
however, because the amount depends upon the VLF rate that is set by the
Legislature. The current VLF rate is 2 %. Over the past several years, the
Legislature has reduced the portion of the 2% rate paid by the taxpayer and
made up the difference to cities and counties through a backfill of state
general funds. During this fiscal year, cities and counties have not
received a backfill of state general funds even though the taxpayer is
paying only 1/3 of the 2% rate (0.65 %). Under Proposition 1A, cities and
8/4/2004 4
counties will receive these funds in the form of increased allocations of the
property tax beginning in this fiscal year.
1. What is the basic protection for the VLF in Proposition 1A?
Proposition 1A provides constitutionally guaranteed VLF revenue to cities and
counties at the rate of 0.65% of the value of a vehicle. The Legislature will
decide how much of the revenue pays for realignment programs and how much
is distributed for general purpose local government programs. This is a
significant change for cities and counties, because currently the constitution does
not guarantee VLF revenues to cities and counties at any specific rate.
2. What happens if the Legislature lowers the rate below 0.65 %?
Proposition 1A requires the Legislature to enact a law that provides for an
allocation to cities and counties equal to the difference between the revenues
received from 0.65% rate and the lower rate.
3. What will cities receive in place of the 2004 -05 states General Fund VLF
backfill?
Beginning in the 04 -05 fiscal year, and continuing each year thereafter, cities and
counties will receive property tax, instead of VLF backfill from the state general
fund, in an amount equal to the difference between revenues that would be
received from the VLF if at the 2% rate and the revenue received from the VLF at
the 0.65% rate. The additional property tax will be distributed by reducing each
local agency's contribution to ERAF. The first receipt of this additional property
tax will occur in the January distribution of the FY 2004 -05 property tax. The
amounts received in subsequent years will increase at rates corresponding to the
rate of increase in local property tax within a county. The entitlement to backfill is
in a statute, not in the Constitution, but the new property tax has the same
protections as other parts of the property tax (see Property Tax section).
MANDATE REFORM
Background: The Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
governments for state - mandated programs. The Legislature has
sometimes "suspended" the mandate, rather than reimbursing local
governments. There are a group of mandates that the state has determined
require reimbursement for which the Legislature has never reimbursed
local governments. Finally, the Legislature has not reimbursed local
governments when it transfers additional responsibility for a state program
or service to local governments when the local government already had
partial responsibility for that program or service.
8/4/2004 5
1. Does Proposition 1A strengthen the requirement to reimburse cities,
counties and special districts for the costs of state - mandated programs
and services?
Yes. Beginning in 2005 -06, in each fiscal year's budget, the Legislature must
either appropriate sufficient fund to reimburse local governments for their costs of
complying with a mandate or suspend the operation of the mandate for that fiscal
year.
2. Does the "fund or suspend" requirement apply to all mandates?
No. There are two exceptions. The first is for employee and employee
organization related mandates. The second is for costs incurred prior to the
2004 -05 fiscal year that have not been paid prior to the 2005 -06 fiscal year.
These costs may be paid over a five -year period beginning in 2005 -06. The five -
year period is established in statute, not in the Constitution.
3. What happens when the state transfers additional responsibility for a
program or a service that the local government already had some
responsibility for?
Proposition 1A defines "mandate" to include a transfer of additional responsibility
for a state program or service.
8/4/2004 6
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
SUPPORTING PROPOSITION IA
PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES
ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 STATE -WIDE BALLOT
WHEREAS, state government currently seizes more than $5.2 billion annually in local
property tax funds statewide from cities, counties and special districts, costing local governments
more than $40 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years; and
WHEREAS, these ongoing shifts and raids by the state of local property tax funds and other
funding dedicated to local governments have seriously reduced resources available for local fire and
paramedic response, law enforcement, public health and emergency medical care, roads, parks,
libraries, transportation and other essential local services; and
WHEREAS, these funding raids also add pressure for local governments to increase fees and
taxes to maintain basic local service levels; and
WHEREAS, this drain of local resources has continued even during periods when the state's
budget has been overflowing with surpluses; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1A is a historic measure that will appear on the November 2, 2004
0
yo statewide ballot that would limit the State's ability to take and use local government funding; and
W
¢ WHEREAS, by protecting local government funding, Prop lA would protect local public
zJ 0 safety, healthcare and other essential local services; and
WHEREAS, Prop 1A will not raise taxes and, in fact, will help reduce pressure for local fee
Nand tax increases by limiting state raids of local government funding; and
WHEREAS, Prop lA does not reduce funding for schools or any other state program or
service, and Prop 1A was carefully written to allow flexibility in the event of a state budget
emergency; and
WHEREAS, Prop 1A is supported by a bipartisan, diverse coalition including Governor
Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican legislative leaders, local government officials, public
safety representatives, healthcare, business, labor and community leaders;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that
we hereby express strong support for Proposition 1A, the statewide ballot initiative that will prevent
the state from further taking local government revenues; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we will send a copy of this resolution to Yes on 1A -
Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety. Fax: 916 -442 -3510 or 1121 L Street, #803,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Resolution #4 -D CC
9 -21 -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
6t' day of July, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
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
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
DATE: September 15, 2004
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 65, the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety
Protection Act (LOCAL), on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot.
Background
This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Kerr.
In September 2003, the League of California Cities (League) sponsored a statewide ballot initiative, the
Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), to empower voters to limit the ability of
state government to confiscate local tax funds to finance state government. It also clarified the State's
duty to reimburse local governments in a timely manner for a new mandated program, protecting local
governments from hidden cost shifts.
On October 7, 2003, the City Council approved Resolution #13638 which formally supported the
League's LOCAL ballot initiative.
On February 17, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution #13687 which also formally supported the
League's LOCAL ballot initiative.
The California Secretary of State placed the LOCAL initiative on the November 2, 2004 State -wide ballot
as Proposition 65.
Discussion
Since 1991, more than $30 billion of local property taxes have been diverted from local governments by
the State to finance the State's constitutional funding obligations and discretionary programs. This
diversion of local property tax revenue into the State's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
has continued even though the State experienced large budget surpluses in recent years. Through the
ERAF program, the State has taken a total of $36.9 million from the City of Alameda since 1991,
resulting in cuts to the programs and services provided to Alameda residents.
In addition to taking local tax revenue, the State continues to shift costs for state - sponsored programs to
local governments and to delay constitutionally required reimbursements to local governments.
Re: Resolution #4 -E CC
9 -21 -04
Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
September 15, 2004
Page Two
a
Proposition 65 would require voter approval for any legislation that provides for any reduction of local
governments' vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and proportionate share of
local property tax revenues. Proposition 65 also permits local government to suspend performance of a
State mandate if the State fails to reimburse local government within 180 days.
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact
State leaders will continue to use local tax funds to balance the State budget unless the voters limit the
power of the Legislature and the Governor. Passage of Proposition 65 will have a long -term positive
effect on City finances as it will result in higher and more stable sources of revenue.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution supporting Proposition 65, the Local Taxpayers
and Public Safety Protection Act (LOCAL), on the November 2, 2004 State -wide Ballot.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
James M. Flint
City Manager
By:
1
Christa Johnson
Assistant to the City Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
PROPOSITION
65
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES.
STATE MANDATES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney General
Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
• Requires voter approval for any legislation that provides for any reduction, based on
January 1, 2003 levels, of local governments' vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers
and revenues, and proportionate share of local property tax revenues.
• Permits local government to suspend performance of state mandate if state fails to reimburse
local government within 180 days of final determination of state- mandated obligation; except
mandates requiring local government to provide /modify: any protection, benefit or employment
status to employee /retiree, or any procedural /substantive employment right for employee or
employee organization.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government
Fiscal Impact:
• Significant changes to state authority over local finances. Higher local government revenues
than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annually over
time. Any such local revenue impacts would result in decreased resources to the state of
similar amounts.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Local Government Funding
California has over 5,000 local governments —
cities, counties, special districts, and redevelop-
ment agencies —that provide services such as fire
and police protection, water, libraries, and parks
and recreation programs. Local governments pay
for these programs and services with money from
local taxes, fees, and user charges; state and
federal aid; and other sources. Three taxes play a
major role in local finance because they raise sig-
nificant sums of general - purpose revenues that
local governments may use to pay for a variety of
programs and services. These three taxes —the
property tax, the local sales tax, and the vehicle
license fee (VLF) —are described in Figure 1.
State Authority Over Local Finance
The State Constitution and existing statutes give
the Legislature authority over the three major
taxes described in Figure 1. For example, the
Legislature has some authority to change tax rates;
items subject to taxation; and the distribution of
tax revenues among local governments, schools,
10 I Title and Summary /Analysis
and community college districts. The state has
used this authority for many purposes, including
increasing funding for local services, reducing
state costs, reducing taxation, and addressing con-
cerns regarding funding for particular local gov-
ernments. Figure 2 describes some past actions
the Legislature has taken, as well as actions that
the state was considering during the summer of
2004 (at the time this analysis was prepared).
Requirement to Reimburse for State Mandates
The State Constitution generally requires the
state to reimburse local governments, schools, and
community college districts when the state "man-
dates" a new local program or higher level of serv-
ice. For example, the state requires local agencies
to post agendas for their hearings. As a mandate,
the state must pay local governments, schools, and
community college districts for their costs to post
these agendas. Because of the state's budget diffi-
culties, the state has not provided mandate reim-
bursements in recent years. Currently, the state
owes these local agencies about $2 billion for
prior - years' costs of state- mandated programs.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES. STATE MANDATES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
THREE MAJOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES
Property Tax
• Local governments receive general - purpose revenues from a
1 percent property tax levied on real property.
• During the 2003 -04 fiscal year, local governments received
approximately $15 billion in property tax revenues. (An
additional $16 billion in property taxes went to schools and
community colleges.)
•There is wide variation in the share of property taxes
received by individual local governments. This variation
largely reflects differences among local agency property tax
rates during the mid- 1970s, the period on which the state's
property tax allocation laws are based.
Vehicle License Fee (VLF)
•The VLF is a tax levied annually on the value of vehicles
registered in the state.
• For about a half century, the VLF rate was 2 percent of
vehicle value. In 1999, the Legislature began reducing the
rate charged to vehicle owners, with the state "backfilling"
the resulting city and county revenue losses.
• During 2003 -04, the VLF (set at a rate of 0.65 percent of
vehicle value) and the VLF backfill would have provided
about $5.9 billion to cities and counties. The state,
however, deferred payment of part of the backfill to 2006.
•State law generally requires that three - quarters of VLF
revenues be allocated to cities and counties on a
population basis for general - purpose uses and the
remaining VLF revenues be allocated to counties for health
and social services programs.
Local Sales Tax
• Cities and counties receive revenues from a uniform local
sales tax levied on the purchase price of most goods —such
as clothing, automobiles, and restaurant meals.
• During 2003 -04, this tax was levied at a rate of 1.25
percent and generated about $5.9 billion.
• Under current law, 80 percent of sales tax revenues are
distributed to local governments based on where sales
occur —to a city if the sale occurs within its boundaries, or
to a county if the sale occurs in an unincorporated area.
The remaining 20 percent of local sales tax revenues are
allocated to counties for transportation purposes.
• Beginning in 2004 -05, local governments will receive
additional property taxes to replace some local sales tax
revenues that are pledged to pay debt service on state
deficit - related bonds, approved by voters in March 2004.
For text of Proposition 65 see page 17.
PROPOSAL
Limitations on Legislature's Authority to Change
Local Revenues
This measure amends the State Constitution to
significantly reduce the Legislature's authority to
make changes affecting any local government's rev-
enues from the property tax, sales tax, and VLF.
Specifically, the measure requires approval by the
MAJOR STATE ACTIONS AFFECTING LOCAL
FINANCE
Past Actions
Increasing Funding for Local Services. In 1979, the state shifted
an ongoing share of the property tax from schools and
community colleges to local governments (cities, counties,
and special districts). This shift limited local government
program reductions after the revenue losses resulting from
the passage of Proposition 13, but increased state costs to
backfill schools' and community colleges' property tax losses.
Reducing State Costs. In 1992 and 1993, the state shifted an
ongoing share of property taxes from local governments to
schools and community colleges. This had the effect of
reducing local government resources and reducing state
costs. The state also reduced its costs by deferring
payments to local governments for state mandate
reimbursements (most notably, in 2002 and 2003) and for
a portion of the VLF backfill (2003).
Reducing Taxation. Beginning in 1999, the state reduced the
VLF rate to provide tax relief. The state "backfilled" the
resulting city and county revenue losses.
Addressing Concerns Regarding Funding for Specific Local
Governments. In the past, the state has at various times
adjusted the annual allocation of property taxes and VLF
revenues to assist cities that received very low shares of the
local property tax.
Proposals Under Consideration in July 2004
Reducing State Costs. The state was considering shifting
$1.3 billion of property taxes in 2004 -05 and in 2005 -06
from local governments to schools and community
colleges to reduce state costs. The state also was
considering deferring 2004 -05 mandate payments to local
governments.
Restructuring Local Finance. The state was considering
replacing city and county VLF backfill revenues with
property taxes shifted from schools and community
colleges.
Analysis l 11
PROP
65
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES. STATE MANDATES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
state's voters before a legislative measure could
take effect that reduced a local government's rev-
enues below the amount or share it would have
received based on laws in effect on January 1, 2003.
For example, this measure would require statewide
voter approval before a law took effect that:
• Shifted property taxes from local governments
to schools and community colleges.
• Changed how sales taxes are distributed
among cities and counties.
• Exchanged city sales taxes for increased
property taxes.
• Revised the formulas used to distribute prop-
erty taxes among local governments.
Proposition 65 also would suspend any law
enacted after November 1, 2003, that would have
required voter approval under the terms of this
measure. Suspended laws would take effect only if
they were approved by the state's voters at the next
statewide election.
The measure provides two exceptions to these
voter - approval requirements. The state could
enact laws that (1) shift property taxes among
consenting local governments or (2) replace VLF
revenues with an equal amount of alternative
funds.
This measure also places into the State
Constitution two existing state statutes relating to
local finance. These statutes require the state to
pay deferred VLF backfill revenues to cities and
counties ($1.2 billion) by August 2006 and
reestablish the local sales tax rate at 1.25 percent
after the state's deficit - related bonds are paid.
State Mandates
The measure amends the State Constitution to
reduce the state's authority over local government,
school, and community college programs.
Specifically, if the state does not provide timely
reimbursement for a mandate's costs (other than
mandates related to employee rights), local agen-
cies could choose not to comply with the state
requirement. The measure also appears to expand
the circumstances under which the state would be
responsible for reimbursing local agencies for car-
rying out a new state requirement. For example,
the measure may increase the state's responsibility
to reimburse local governments when the state
12 Analysis
increases a local agency's share of cost for a jointly
financed state -local program.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 65 would reduce state authority
over local finances. Over time, it could have signif-
icant fiscal impacts on state and local govern-
ments, as described below.
Long-Term Effect on Local and State Finance
Higher and More Stable Local Government
Revenues. Given the number and magnitude of
past state actions affecting local taxes, this mea-
sure's restrictions on the state's authority to enact
such measures in the future would have poten-
tially major fiscal effects on local governments.
For example, a legislative measure that reduces
local government revenues may not receive the
necessary voter approval required under this
measure. In addition, there may be other cases
where the Legislature and Governor do not pur-
sue legislation to reduce local revenues because
of the perceived difficulty in obtaining voter
approval. In these cases, this measure would
result in local government revenues being more
stable —and higher —than otherwise would be
the case. The magnitude of increased local rev-
enues is unknown and would depend on future
actions by the Legislature, the Governor, and the
state's voters. Given past actions by the state, how-
ever, this increase in local government revenues
could be in the billions of dollars annually. These
increased local revenues could result in higher
spending on local programs or decreased local
fees or taxes.
Lower Resources for State Programs. In general,
the measure's effect on state finances would be
the opposite of its effect on local finances. That is,
this measure could result in decreased resources
being available for state programs than otherwise
would be the case. This reduction, in turn, would
affect state spending and /or taxes. For example,
if the state's voters rejected a proposal to use local
government property taxes as part of the state's
budget solution, the Legislature would need to
take alternative actions to resolve the state's budg-
et difficulties —such as increasing state taxes or
decreasing spending on other state programs. As
with the local impact, the total fiscal effect also
could be in the billions of dollars annually.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES. STATE MANDATES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.)
Less Change to the Revenue of Individual Local
Governments. Proposition 65 restricts the state's
authority to reallocate local tax revenues to
address concerns regarding funding for specific
local governments or to restructure local govern-
ment finance. For example, measures that
changed how local sales tax revenues are allocat-
ed to cities and counties, or that shifted property
taxes from a water district to another special dis-
trict, would not become effective until approved
by voters at a statewide election. If the state's vot-
ers did not approve such reallocations, or if the
Legislature and Governor did not pursue them
because of the perceived difficulty in obtaining
voter approval, this measure would result in fewer
changes to local government revenues than other-
wise would have been the case.
Potential Immediate Effect on Local and State
Finance
This analysis was prepared in mid July, before
the state's budget for 2004 -05 was adopted. At
that time, the Legislature was considering the
Governor's proposal to shift $1.3 billion of prop-
erty taxes from local governments to schools and
community colleges in 2004 -05 and again in
2005 -06. This shift would reduce local govern-
ment resources by $1.3 billion in each of the two
years. It would also decrease state costs by compa-
rable amounts (because higher property taxes to
schools and community colleges result in lower
state education costs) . This property tax shift, if
adopted in the 2004 -05 budget, would be affected
by passage of Proposition 65. That is, the proper-
ty tax shift would be suspended until voted upon
at the subsequent statewide election (currently
scheduled for March 2006) . If voters approved the
shift proposal, it would go into effect. If voters
rejected the proposal, it would not go into effect,
and the fiscal impacts described above would be
reversed. That is:
• Local governments would retain the $1.3 bil-
lion in property tax revenues in 2004 -05 and
in 2005 -06.
• The state would experience increased costs of
comparable amounts.
Effect on Local Programs and State
Reimbursements
Because the measure appears to expand the
circumstances under which the state is required
to reimburse local agencies, the measure may
increase future state costs or alter future state
actions regarding local or jointly funded state -
local programs. While it is not possible to deter-
mine the cost to reimburse local agencies for
potential future state actions, our review of state
measures enacted in the past suggests that, over
time, increased state reimbursement costs could
exceed a hundred million dollars annually.
For text of Proposition 65 see page 17. Analysis i 13
PROP
65
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES. STATE MANDATES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ARGUMENT in Favor of Proposition 65
No argument in favor was provided for this measure.
14 Arguments
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES. STATE MANDATES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
ARGUMENT Against Proposit
VOTE NO on 65.
VOTE YES on 1A.
Our coalition of local governments submitted
Prop. 65 to the voters in order to protect local rev-
enues that are used to provide essential services,
including fire protection, law enforcement, para-
medic response, and emergency medical care. For
years, state legislators have taken local government
funds used to provide these essential local services.
HOWEVER, in the time since Prop. 65 was sub-
mitted, a new and better measure —Prop. IA- -has
been placed on the ballot to prevent state raids on
local government funding. Prop. 1A is supported
by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrats
and Republicans, local government and public
PROP
65
safety leaders because it is a better, more flexible
approach to protect funding for vital local
services. Please look in the ballot pamphlet at the
official arguments and the diverse groups support-
ing Prop. 1A.
VOTE NO on 65.
VOTE YES on 1A.
CHRIS McKENZIE, Executive Director
League of California Cities
CATHERINE SMITH, Executive Director
California Special Districts Association
STEVEN SZALAY, Executive Director
California State Association of Counties
Argurnentr painted on this page are the opinions o the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offirial agency. Arguments 1 15
E
O LI-
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 65, THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS
AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT (LOCAL)
ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004 STATE -WIDE BALLOT
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
w least $8 billion, putting city resources and services at risk in future years to additional state
®--- cc revenue raids; and
en d cu .1 1- WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that state leaders will continue to use local tax funds to
.4 balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor to do
f so; and
U
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 Proposition 65, 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 Proposition 65, the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety
Protection Act (LOCAL), 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 #4 -E CC
9 -21 -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 Proposition 65 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
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
DATE: September 21, 2004
RE: Resolution amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association
(MCEA) Salary Schedule by establishing salary ranges for the positions of
Housing Assistance Manager and Financial Services Superviser
BACKGROUND
The Memorandum of Understanding for the Management and Confidential Employees
Association (MCEA) was adopted in 2002 and covers the period September 9, 2002 through
December 31, 2004.
DISCUSSION
Housing Assistance Manager
On July 20, 2004 the Board of Commissioners of the City of Alameda Housing Authority
approved revision of the Housing Authority FY2004/2005 budget and department
reorganization. This reorganization includes upgrading the Program Services Coordinator
position to the equivalent of a Senior Management Analyst.
Financial Services Supervisor
The Administrative Services Division of Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) has reorganized to
meet its ongoing and future needs, and facilitate an efficient organization of the department's
fiscal functions. The Financial Services Supervisor classification will be responsible for the
department's budget and accounting functions.
This-resolution establishes a salary range for the Housing Assistance Manager classification
equivalent to that of Senior Management Analyst and establishes a salary range for the Financial
Services Supervisor classification.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the Housing Assistance Manager classification has been authorized by the Board of
Commissioners.
Re: Resolution #4 -F CC
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" 9.21 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 21, 2004
The Alameda Power & Telecom Enterprise Fund will pay the funds required to cover the
recommended salary range of the Financial Services Supervisor classification. Funding has been
authorized by the Public Utilities Board for this position and there is no addition to total
employees.
There is no financial impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the amendment to the
MCEA salary schedule.
Respectful y submitted
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
(MCEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING SALARY RANGES FOR THE
POSITIONS OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE MANAGER AND
FINANCIAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) is hereby amended by
establishing the salary rates, salary ranges, salary steps and benefits for the positions of Housing
Assistance Manager and Financial Services Supervisor, designating those as applicable to these
classifications in the service of the City of Alameda.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Effective September 19, 2004
Code
Classification
EXEMPT
BI- WEEKLY
Step
1
Step
2
Step
3
Step
4
Step
5
6655*
Housing Assistance
Manager
$2903
$3048
$3200
$3360
$3528
7495*
Financial Services
Supervisor
$3208
$3368
$3536
$3713
$3899
*Indicates classification within thirty-seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour original work week.
Resolution #4 -F CC
9 -21 -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
6th day of July, 2004, by the followirig vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
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
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: September 21, 2004
RE:
Resolution amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Salary Schedule by establishing a salary range for the position of Street Light
Maintenance Technician
BACKGROUND
The Memorandum of Understanding for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW) was adopted in 1999 and covers the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2004.
The resolution establishes the hourly salary range of a new classification on the IBEW salary
schedule.
DISCUSSION
On August 16, 2004, the Public Utilities Board adopted a resolution for Alameda Power &
Telecom to assume the responsibility of maintaining the City's street light system. The
Operations Division is responsible for the maintenance of the street light system. The
maintenance of this system requires an appropriate classification of worker that currently does
not exist.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Alameda Power & Telecom Enterprise Fund will pay the funds required to cover the
recommended salary range. There is no financial impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the amendment to the
IBEW salary schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Resolution #4 -G CC
9 -21 -04
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
(IBEW) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING A SALARY RANGE FOR THE
POSITION OF STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary
resolution of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) is hereby amended by
establishing the salary rate, salary range, salary steps and benefits for the position of Street Light
Maintenance Technician designating those as applicable to the classification in the service of the
City of Alameda.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
Effective September 19, 2004
Resolution #4 -G CC
9 -21 -04
HOURLY
Code
Classification
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
NON- EXEMPT
1
2
3
4
5
7789
Street Light Maintenance
$26.76
$28.10
$29.51
$30.99
$32.54
Technician
Resolution #4 -G CC
9 -21 -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
6th day of July, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
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
September 16, 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
128275 - 128747
EFT 092
E12608 - E12712
Void Checks:
Amount
1,452,076.54
2,988,628.75
58,268.37
128107
128307 (81.57)
126263 (121.51)
126262 (3,912.94)
126101 (5,870.43)
(2,231.60)
GRAND TOTAL
Allowed in open session:
Date:
City Clerk
Approved for payment:
Date:
Finance Director
Council Warrants 09/21/04
4,486,755.61
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibley
BILLS #4 -H
09/21/04
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 9, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision to Approve the Installation of
Red Curb for the Eastbound Bus Stop on Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street
BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2002, the City Council directed the City Manager to provide unobstructed curbside
access (No Parking Zone) at all bus stops in the City of Alameda by January 2005, in accordance
with AC Transit standards. Staff is working to meet this schedule.
On October 8, 2003, the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) approved a no parking zone at the
southeast corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street. This approval relocated an existing bus
stop from the southwest corner (near side) of the intersection to the southeast corner (far side) of the
intersection, in the eastbound direction. After the red curb was installed Ms. Wiley, resident of 1402
Santa Clara Avenue, where the bus stop was relocated, contacted the Public Works Department. She
stated that she did not receive notification of the item, and had notification been received, residents
would have appeared to oppose staff's recommendation. Public Works checked the public notices
and determined that notices were sent to Ms. Wiley and neighboring residents within 300 feet of the
proposed relocation. In addition, the US Postal Service returned none of the notices. Even though
staff had followed proper notification, we wanted to provide a public forum for Ms. Wiley, so the
item was rescheduled for TTT consideration. The item was re -heard on June 9, 2003, and was again
approved.
On June 14, 2004, Cathy Rodriguez (1410 Santa Clara Avenue), along with Eleanor Wiley and Paul
Warner (1406 Santa Clara Avenue), submitted a letter to appeal the TTT's decision (see Attachment
1) to approve the bus stop relocation and parking removal, resulting from installation of a red curb
zone, at the far side of the intersection at Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street. Due to various
schedule issues, Ms. Rodriguez requested the matter be considered by City Council in September
2004.
GlyorAhnwda
PLub6(Works
Department
Public Works Waksfin You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing #5 -A
9 -21 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers September 9, 2004
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Parking Removal
The relocation of the eastbound bus stop from the near side to the far side of the intersection has
resulted in the installation of a 45 -foot red curb zone and a loss of two parking spaces. Ms.
Rodriguez and her neighbors at the southeast corner (far side) of the intersection of Santa Clara
Avenue and Morton Street have appealed the relocation of the bus stop because of the subsequent
loss of parking spaces adjacent to their homes. If the bus stop were to remain at the near side of the
intersection, this location would also require the installation of a red curb zone and a loss of two
parking spaces. Staff has reviewed this intersection during various occasions and has determined
that parking is not in high demand at this location.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Accessible Bus Stops
In 2003, the City received limited funds from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to
install concrete pads and red curb zones at various bus stop locations to enhance bus stop
accessibility and ensure ADA compliance. Bus stop locations to receive improvements were
selected based upon which routes AC Transit first deployed their new Van Hool buses, due to their
rear loading handicap ramps. In this case, all but two of the bus stop locations selected for capital
improvements were along Route 50 (Otis Drive and Bay Farm Island).
Relocation of the Bus Stop
When evaluating bus stops citywide, staff carefully considered alternatives that would offer the most
cost effective result when providing unobstructed curbside access. In doing so, staff proposed that
some bus stops be relocated from one side of an intersection to another, if it were to reduce the
capital costs associated with ensuring a bus stop be ADA compliant. Bus stop locations that can
become ADA compliant by relocating from one side of an intersection to the other are not considered
high priority locations to receive funding for capital improvements. Locations that require capital
improvements to be considered ADA compliant are a higher priority to receive funding. Therefore,
staff recommended the eastbound bus stop at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Morton
Street (served by Routes 51 and 0) be relocated from the near side to the far side of the intersection.
At the near side location there exists a planter strip and landscaping, which would require additional
concrete work if it remained a bus stop location. At the far side location there exists a concrete pad,
which would render the location ADA compliant.
The cost of installing concrete pads at the near side of the intersection would be approximately
$5,000 (this figure is based upon the contract and work that was recently executed to install concrete
pads at bus stops throughout the City with CDBG funds). This work would include clearing and
grubbing, removal and compacting of the lawn, capping of irrigation lines, and pouring concrete.
The far side of the intersection does not require any work for the location to be ADA accessible.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GNofNaneda
�ubl(Works
Department
Public Wok w * f rTh !
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers September 9, 2004
Near Side versus Far Side Bus Stops
According to AC Transit, who also supports the relocation of this bus stop, a far side stop is
preferable to a near side stop because of pedestrian safety concerns. AC Transit prefers far side bus
stops at uncontrolled intersections because the sight distance for pedestrians to see on- coming traffic
is typically greater at a far side location when the bus is stopped. There are approximately seven
boardings and 41 alightings for the AC Transit routes that serve this bus stop location.
Conclusion
The City Manager and AC Transit agree that the location of the bus stop at the southeast (far side)
corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street is the preferred location. This location provides
improved safety for pedestrians and does not require the expenditure of limited capital funds. In
addition, either location would require the removal of 2 parking spaces.
A letter has been sent to Cathy Rodriguez and a notice has been sent to residents in the area
informing them of the Council meeting (see Attachment 2 and Attachment 3).
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no budget considerations for this item.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, deny the appeal of the
Transportation Technical Team's decision to approve the installation of red curb for the eastbound
bus stop on Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street.
Respect ,- submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Michael Margulies
Program Specialist II
MTN:MM:gc
cc: Cathy Rodriguez
Attachments
G:\PUB W ORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL \2004 \090704\s cmortonapp eal. doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
U GtvofAla Alameda
�
Department
Publw Wales W6nkfw Y!
Cathy Rodriguez
1410 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
510- 769 -0497
City Clerk
2263 Santa Clara Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
f j`*. !. A• t 11
i ({ h`
L.' � S
04 JIJN 1 4 PH 1: 14
::d`);MI:TCN.
RE: Appeal June 9, 2004 TTT decision
June 14, 2004
R licteivnerd 1
i.D
JUN 14 2004
PUBLIC WOE
CITY OF ALAMEDA
This is to provide you written notice of appeal of the TTT decision made on Wednesday, June 9,
2004. The specific item being appealed from the TTT meeting agenda reads as follows:
Review Previous TTT Decision to Install Red,Curb for the Eastbound Bus Stop
on Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street.
Due to various schedule issues, we would appreciate your assistance in having this matter
considered by the City Council in September.
Thank you,
Cathy Rodriguez
cc: Paul Warner
Eleanor Wiley
Ms. Cathy Rodriguez
1410 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
City of Alameda • California
September 9, 2004
Attachment 2
Re: Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision to Approve the Installation of
Red Curb for the Eastbound Bus Stop on Santa Clara Avenue and Morton Street
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
•
The Alameda City Council will be hearing the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's
decision to approve the installation of red curb for the eastbound bus stop on Santa Clara Avenue
and Morton Street on Tuesday evening, September 21, 2004. This meeting will be held at City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Council Chambers beginning at 7:30 p.m.
You are welcome to attend the meeting to express your point of view to the City Council. If you
have any further questions, please call me at 510- 749 -5860.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Michael Margulies
Program Specialist II
MM:gc
G: \PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL \2004 \090704\scmortonitr.doc
Public Works Department
Alameda Point, Building 1
950 West Mall Square, Room 110
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
510 749.5840 • Fax 510 749.5867 • TDD 510 522.7538
•
0 Printed on Recycled Paper
City of Alameda • California
September 9, 2004
Attachment 3
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL TEAM'S
DECISION TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF RED CURB FOR THE
EASTBOUND BUS STOP ON SANTA CLARA AVENUE AND MORTON STREET
Dear Residents:
The Alameda City Council will be hearing the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's
decision to approve the installation of red curb for the eastbound bus stop on Santa Clara Avenue
and Morton Street on Tuesday evening, September 21, 2004. This meeting will be held at City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, Council Chambers beginning at 7:30 p.m.
You are welcome to attend the meeting to express your point of view to the City Council. If you
have any further questions, please call me at 510- 749 -5860.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Michael Margulies
Program Specialist II
MM:gc
G:\PUBWORKSTWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004\090704\scmortonnotice.doc
Public Works Department
Alameda Point, Building 1
950 West Mall Square, Room 110
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
510 749.5840 • Fax 510 749.5867 • TDD 510 522.7538
C) Printed on Recycled Paper
Lou R. Baca
Charles H. Brown
Betsy P. Elgar
Arthur A. Kurrasch
Wendy R. Moorhouse
Patricia S. Rose
Timothy Kenneth Swischuk
Debra D. Turnage
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
TWO (2) VACANCIES
1 Member -at -large seat
1 Tenant seat (Two year term)
Member -At -Large
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tenant Seat
X
Council Communication #7 -A
9 -21 -04
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ONE (1) VACANCY
INCUMBENTS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Thomas G. Bertken
Jeff Knoth
Francisco J. Lira
Richard Neveln
Jonathan Soglin
Jon Spangler, Incumbent
Elizabeth Tuckwell
Council Communication #7 -B
9 -21 -04