Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2005-03-01 Packet
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:30 P.M. Time: Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 6:30 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 1429 Oak Street. Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and County of Alameda. Under negotiation: Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:40 P.M. Time: Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 6:40 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: 1435 Webster Street (Webster Parking Lot D - APN 074 - 0427 - 005 -01). John E. Farrar Living Trust and Community Improvement Commission. Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Illi°...4°••■••■• Beverly Joh o ' , C . % m Commission h it Community Im e_ t Comm' CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:50 P.M. Time: Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 6:50 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board on agenda items only may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of cases: Housing and Urban Development [Claim No. 178760 and 177448]. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment Beverly Jahn, ayor Chair, Hou Au hority Board of Commissioners Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 7:25 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. None. 3. AGENDA "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Board of Commissioners Meeting March 1, 2005 Page 2 3 -A. Recommending to authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to enter into an agreement for the sale of real property to purchase two real estate parcels from the East Bay Municipal Utility District for the sum of $110,800 plus closing costs and exchange those parcels with the City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department for approximately 21,000 square feet of property at Neptune Park for additional parking for Independence Plaza. 3 -B. Recommendation to authorize the Chair, Chief Executive Officer, or designee to send letters opposing the Bush Administration's proposed HUD budget and in support of full funding of the Section 8 Program, Public Housing Operating Subsidies and Capital Fund Grants. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT * ** Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Commission meetings. SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by Council may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting of February 15, 2005. AGENDA ITEM 1. Recommendation to award a grant in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the cleaning of the public sidewalk and to authorize the Executive Director to execute a standard grant agreement. ADJOURNMENT Beverly Jo Community I it t Commission AGENDA CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY MARCH 1, 2005 - - - - 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 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 6:40 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:50 P.M. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council on February 15, 2005. 4 -B. Bills for ratification. , Community Reuse and 1, 2005; and the Special Meeting held 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the third calendar quarter of 2004. 4 -D. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and /or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant Program and related federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Commending Recreation and Park Director Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05- 0001 /R 05 -0001 Zoning Text Amendment /Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater Overlay District; and • Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30 -2 (Definitions); Amending Subsection 30 -3.2 (Combining Districts); Adding a New Subsection 30 -4.22 (T- Theater Combining District); and Repealing Subsection 30- 6.23(2)(b) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater Combining District. [To be continued to March 15, 2005] 5 -C. Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in the City of Alameda. 5 -D. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2 -9.1 (Commission Created; Composition), 2 -9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2 -9.3 (Voting) of Section 2 -9 (City Golf Commission) . 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. Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the League of California Cities East Bay Division representative. 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: February 24, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Interim City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Special Meetings of the CIC of March 1, 2005. Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meetings, the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, the Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and the Special Meetings of the CIC of March 1, 2005. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3 -A. Recommending to authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to enter into an agreement for the sale of real property to purchase two real estate parcels from the East Bay Municipal Utility District for the sum of $110,800 plus closing costs and exchange those parcels with the City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department for approximately 21,000 square feet of property at Neptune Park for additional parking for Independence Plaza. It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners authorize entering into an agreement for the sale of real property to purchase two real estate parcels from EBMUD for the sum of $110,800 plus closing costs and exchange those parcels with ARPD for approximately 21,000 square feet of property at Neptune Park for additional parking for Independence Plaza. The two real estate parcels from EBMUD are on Bridge View Isle and make up 5,200 square feet of land on the estuary near Towata Park and could expand this park by providing shoreline access to residents as well as providing an extension of the Bay Trail. 3 -B. Recommendation to authorize the Chair, Chief Executive Officer, or designee to send letters opposing the Bush Administration's proposed HUD budget and in support of full Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers February 24, 2005 funding of the Section 8 Program, Public Housing Operating Subsidies and Capital Fund Grants. It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners authorize sending letters opposing the Bush Administration's HUD budget and in support of full funding of the Section 8 Program, Public Housing Operating Subsidies and Capital Grant Funds. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISION MINUTES Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting of February 15, 2005. It is recommended that the CIC accept the minutes of the Special CIC meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council, CIC and ARRA Meeting of February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting of February 15, 2005. AGENDA ITEM 1. Recommendation to award a grant in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the cleaning of the public sidewalk and to authorize the Executive Director to execute a standard grant agreement. It is recommended that the CIC authorize funding for the acquisition of a used vehicle to tow the Green Machine operated by WABA to clean City sidewalks. This funding will be provided by reallocating existing BWIP funding. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers February 24, 2005 CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council on February 15, 2005. , Community Reuse and 1, 2005; and the Special Meeting held The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, CIC and ARRA Meeting held on February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2005. 4 -B. Bills for ratification. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the third calendar quarter of 2004. It is recommended that Council accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the third quarter of 2004. Quarterly sales tax revenues decreased by 1.7% as compared to the same quarter of the prior year. Sales tax projections for 2004 -05 have taken into consideration declining trends. 4 -D. Recommendation to authorize the Mayor, City Manager and /or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant Program and related federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. It is recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor, City Manager, and/or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination of the CDBG Program and related federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. The President's proposal would make new funds available on a competitive rather than an entitlement basis and could severely impact the City's financial resources for community, housing and economic development activities. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. Adoption of this resolution approves Parcel Map No. 8574, subdividing three parcels containing 32.85 acres into sixteen parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Isle Business Park and are bounded by North Loop Road, Harbor Bay Parkway, former Lucent Campus, and the Cheese Works, Allergy Research Group and Venture Corporation buildings. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 4 Councilmembers REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption Director Alameda. February 24, 2005 of Resolution Commending Recreation and Park Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Adoption of this resolution acknowledges Recreation and Park Director Suzanne Ota for her service to the community. Ms. Ota is retiring on April 3, 2005. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05- 0001 /R 05 -0001 Zoning Text Amendment /Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater Overlay District; and • Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30 -2 (Definitions); Amending Subsection 30 -3.2 (Combining Districts); Adding a New Subsection 30 -4.22 (T- Theater Combining District); and Repealing Subsection 30- 6.23(2)(b) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater Combining District. [To be continued to March 15, 2005] A continuance to the March 15, 2005 Council Meeting is requested to allow further review by the Planning Board. 5 -C. Recommendation to establish a Task Force that will propose strategies to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in the City of Alameda. It is recommended that Council establish a task force to propose strategies to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in Alameda. The task force will consist of one staff member, one Council member, one AUSD Board member, three members representing tenant interests, and 3 members representing property owner interests. 5 -D. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2 -9.1 (Commission Created; Composition), 2 -9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2 -9.3 (Voting) of Section 2 -9 (City Golf Commission) . Final passage of this ordinance amends the AMC to increase the composition of the Golf Commission from five to seven members. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Page 5 Councilmembers February 24, 2005 7 -A. Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the League of California Cities East Bay Division representative. At this time the Mayor will select the Council's representative and alternate representative to the League of California Cities East Bay Division. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners FROM: William C. Norton Interim Chief Executive Officer DATE: February 23, 2005 RE: Recommending to authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to enter into an agreement for the sale of real property to purchase two real estate parcels from the East Bay Municipal Utility District for the sum of $110,800 plus closing costs and exchange those parcels with the City of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department for approximately 21,000 square feet of property at Neptune Park for additional parking for Independence Plaza Background: Since April 7, 1998, the Board of Commissioners has authorized an extraordinary maintenance project (EMP) to add parking spaces for the senior residents at Independence Plaza. When originally designed, the number of seniors having cars was underestimated. Though the Housing Authority has been able to provide residents with adequate parking, the residents in buildings 707 (38 units) and 711 (44 units) have very few spaces. See Exhibit A for a site plan of the complex. The result has been that residents have to walk fairly long distances with groceries and other packages. This has been a hardship for residents. The answer to this problem is to provide additional parking on the north side of Independence Plaza, using part of Neptune Park. This property was deeded to the City of Alameda by the federal government under the condition that it be parkland. Even though this is an underused park, turning even a small portion of it into a parking lot requires the approval of the federal General Services Administration (GSA) and the National Parks Service (NPS). The GSA and NPS will only approve the release of the parks and recreation restrictions contained in the deed conveying the property to the City of Alameda only if the Housing Authority would provide another park area of similar size or if it pays fair market value for a portion of Neptune Park. At the December 7, 2004, special meeting of the Board of Commissioners, the Board authorized the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to negotiate a purchase and "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service " Report #3 -A HABOC 3 -1 -05 Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners sales agreement for these two parcels execute this transaction. Discussion: February 23, 2005 Page 2of3 . Final action by the Board is needed in order to East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has two real estate parcels on Bridge View Isle that make up 5200 square feet of land. The subject property is described as the newly combined parcel consisting of APN 074 - 0955 - 006 -12 and the eastern half of APN 074 - 955 -92 and the existing APN 074 - 0955 -010. See Exhibit B for a map of these parcels. Government Code Section 54222, Surplus Lands Act, requires EBMUD to offer the property to public agencies for a sale price at its fair market value before privately marketing the property. The property is located on the estuary near the 1.5 acre Towata Park and could expand this park by providing shoreline access to residents as well as providing an extension of the Bay Trail. The Housing Authority has expressed interest in purchasing this property and exchanging it with the Recreation and Parks Department for a portion of Neptune Park. The Housing Authority has no intention of developing or owning this property for a long term. GSA has valued the 21,000 square foot parcel desired by the Housing Authority at Neptune Park at $113,000. Should the Housing Authority pay this amount to GSA directly the money would go to the National Park Service. By purchasing the EBMUD property the money would stay in the City of Alameda. The City of Alameda Recreation and Park Department is willing to make this exchange, determining that it would be beneficial for the senior residents at Independence Plaza and the community in general. A park area on Bridge View Isle would have far more use. Another option for the Housing Authority instead of purchasing this property from EBMUD would be to exchange the Community Garden site on the corner of Eagle and Bay with the Recreation and Parks Department. The Housing Authority has received approval from the GSA and NPS for this land swap and will release the deed restriction on Neptune Park on the condition that the same deed restriction is placed on the two parcels purchased from EBMUD. Staff also has a request into HUD to use Independence Plaza reserves for the purchase of the property in exchange for the desired property at Neptune Park. That approval should also be received within a couple of weeks. If HUD does not approve the use of Independence Plaza reserves, other Housing Authority reserve funds or bond proceeds from the refinancing of Parrot Village and Eagle Village will be used for the land purchase. The recommended action to the Board of Commissioners is subject to these approvals. The actual exchange of the parcels with the City will require City Council action at a subsequent meeting and may involve a long term lease of the Neptune Park property. A copy of the agreement for the sale of real property is attached as Exhibit C. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members February 23, 2005 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 3 Fiscal Impact: Staff proposes offering $110,800 for the property. Closing costs would add another $5,000 to $10,000 to the purchase. The Housing Authority has reserves or bond proceeds from the refinancing of Parrot Village and Eagle Village that could be used to cover the cost of this purchase. Recommendation: The Housing Commission and staff recommends to the Board of Commissioners to authorize the Chief Executive Officer or his designee to enter into an agreement for the sale of real property to purchase two real estate parcels from the East Bay Municipal Utility District for the sum of $110,800 plus closing costs and exchange those parcels with the City of Alameda Department of Recreation and Parks for approximately 21,000 square feet of property at Neptune Park for additional parking for Independence Plaza. Respectfully submitte Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:ED Exhibits U: \bocreports\ BOC EBMUD purchase 2 parcels Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service SITE PLAN - OPTION 1 SCALE 11' 30' JOB NO. 02 -299 03 -06 -02 ALAMEDA SENIOR HOUSING PARKING LOT STUDY ALAMEDA , CALIFORNIA NUMBER OF SPACES : 25 STALLS : sz , I A, i i, � ul 'i v . 1c, 4 _ - _• t.. tom- -- = x k — • 4 be x Z Ito • - A / Exhibit B j CZJ CO' /, p p. / Svc 0 / 0,C) Q) � �, �� CC/ �/ CY / °°° • P�GF � �`'�p° , .6, e� SAS � FRA r IS co $AY I 1 0 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OAKLAND , CALIFORNIA IPPI 1 I`: PPI)PFP -TY q,41 Exhibit C Property: Bridge View Isle, Alameda Sale: 1167 East Bay Municipal Utility District AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of March, 2005, by and between East Bay Municipal Utility District ( "District ") and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda ( "Authority ") for the purchase of certain real property. It Is Hereby Agreed As Follows: 1. District agrees to sell to Authority and Authority agrees to purchase from District upon the terms and for the consideration set forth in this Agreement, all that certain property ( "property ") situated in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California and described in exhibit "A" and shown in exhibit "B". 2. Consideration: Authority agrees to pay District in cash the total sum of one hundred ten thousand eight hundred dollars ($110,800) for the purchase of said property. Payment shall be made payable to: East Bay Municipal Utility District. 3. Term: Except for as noted herein, the term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution of Agreement by both parties and shall terminate upon close of escrow but no later than sixty days from date of execution of Agreement. 4. Joint Escrow Instructions: This Agreement constitutes the joint escrow instructions of District and Authority and hereby empowers the escrow agent, to whom these instructions are delivered, to act under this Agreement. The parties hereto agree to do all acts necessary to close this escrow. In the event the parties mutually agree to terminate this Agreement, Authority shall be responsible for payment of the escrow fees due at the time. In addition, any funds paid into the escrow account by Authority shall be refunded. Prior to the close of escrow, Authority will deposit into escrow, or cause to be deposited into escrow, all funds and/or documents, required from Authority to enable escrow to close. District agrees to deposit with the escrow agent a Grant Deed conveying the property to Authority. 1 Escrow officer shall send Authority a copy of the Grant Deed and Authority shall prepare and execute a formal acceptance of Grant Deed, returning original of such to the escrow officer for recordation purposes. Title to the property shall be vested as such: "Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, a corporate and politic public body ". The District shall convey to the Authority fee title to the property by Grant Deed. The right, title and interest in the property shall not exceed that vested in the District, and this sale is subject to all title exceptions and reservations whether or not of record. The Authority may obtain a policy of title insurance at its own expense. Authority acknowledges receipt and acceptance of the Preliminary Title Report of the subject property, dated November 5, 2004 ( #54606 - 54311141) prepared by North American Title Company. Escrow services shall be provided by North American Title Company, 5980 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 116, Pleasanton, CA 94588. The escrow officer will be Evelyn Chambers. Her contact information is as follows: phone number (925) 847 -9570, facsimile (925) 847 -0663. The Authority shall pay all closing costs including but not limited to escrow, title, recording, documentary stamp taxes, or other real estate transaction taxes or fees by whatever name known, although the parties should be exempt from paying transfer tax and recordation fees. It is the understanding of the parties that neither District nor the Authority has employed the services of a real estate broker in connection with this transaction. 5. When the sale has been approved by the District's Board of Directors and the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and all necessary funds and/or documents have been deposited into escrow, the Authority may take possession once the Grant Deed is recorded. 6. The District is selling the property in an "AS IS" physical condition and Authority accepts this, with no warranty, guarantee, representation or liability, express or implied on the part of the District as to any matter, including, but not limited to the physical condition and/or contents of and/or on the property, and/or the condition and/or possible uses of the land or any improvements thereon, the condition of the soil or the geology of the soil, the condition of the air, surface water or groundwater, the presence of known and unknown faults, the presence of any hazardous substance, materials, or other kinds of contamination or pollutants of any kind in the air, soil, groundwater, building or the suitability of the property for the construction and/or use of the improvements thereon. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Authority, at its sole cost and expense, to investigate and determine the suitability of the soil, water, geologic, environmental, physical and seismic conditions of the property, for the intended use contemplated by Authority, and to determine and comply with all building, planning, zoning and other laws and regulations relative to the property and the uses to which it can be put. Authority relies solely on Authority's own judgment, experience and investigations as to the present and future condition of the property or its suitability for Authority's intended use and is not 2 relying in any manner on any representation or warranty by District. Authority agrees that neither Authority, its agents, Authority officials, employees, successors or assigns shall ever claim, have or assert any right or action against District for any loss, damage or other matter arising out of, or resulting from, any hazardous substance or any other condition of the property existing at the close of escrow or from the release of any hazardous substance in, on or around any part of the property or in the soil, water, subsurface strata or ambient air by any person or entity. As used herein, "hazardous substance" means any substance, material or waste which is or may become designated, classified or regulated as being "toxic ", "hazardous" or a "pollutant" under any federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance. The obligations contained in this Section shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. District has previously supplied, and Authority acknowledges receipt and acceptance of, a copy of the District - commissioned report "Commercial Natural Hazard Disclosure Report, dated 11/3/04, prepared by JCP Geologists as well as a copy of the "Commercial Property Owner's Guide to Earthquake Safety ". 7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and neither party relies upon any warranty or representation not contained in this Agreement. The Agreement may only be modified by amendment in writing signed by each party. Mailing address of Authority: Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Executive Director 701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 -2161 Mailing address of District: East Bay Municipal Utility District Manager of Real Estate Services 375 11th Street/ MS 903 Oakland, CA 94607 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Authority By: William C. Norton Interim Chief Executive Officer Approved as to form: 2e4,/ac By: • Teresa L. Highsmith Assistant City Attorney 3 District By: Stephen J. Boeri Manager of Real Estate Services By: Lynelle M. Lewis Secretary of the District Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 February 18, 2005 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners FROM: William C. Norton Interim Chief Executive Officer RE: Recommendation to authorize the Chair, Chief Executive Officer, or designee to send letters opposing the Bush Administration's proposed HUD budget and in support of full funding of the Section 8 Program, Public Housing Operating Subsidies and Capital Fund Grants Background On February 7, 2005 the President revealed his proposed budget for 2006. Below is information on the impact HUD's proposed budget will have on Housing Authority programs which is similar to the information sent to the Board of Commissioners in an Off - Agenda report dated February 16, 2005. Discussion Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program The President's budget includes an increase of approximately $734 million dollars over 2005 funding. It also proposes to expand the "dollar based" approach to funding housing authorities, which it has used over the past two years resulting in Tess funding and fewer families housed. HUD also has stated it will again propose a block grant of voucher funds to housing authorities. Legislative language, however, has not been drafted or included in the budget document. The block grant proposal was turned down by Congress in 2004 and 2005. Should HUD's formula for calculating the amount of budget authority awarded to each housing authority remain the same as in 2004 and 2005, the Alameda Housing Authority could expect to receive about the same amount of funding in 2006 as received in 2005, which is approximately $18.2 million or enough to fund 96 percent to 98 percent of the 1,625 vouchers allocated to the Housing Authority. The number of "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service " Report #3 -B HABOC 3 -1 -05 Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners February 18, 2005 Page 2 of 3 units assisted could go down should the rental market change resulting in a significant increase in rents. Public Housing Operating Subsidies HUD's budget states that they are requesting an additional $1 billion for Operating Subsidies in its 2006 budget. The current year formula (2005) will fund housing authorities funded at only 89 percent of their funding formula. When housing authorities were forced to switch to a calendar year last year, it reduced the Operating Subsidy "base" on which next years funding is calculated by $984 million. HUD, therefore, had to "find" almost $1 billion to make whole housing authorities in the coming year. So the "increase" in Operating Subsidies is not really an increase at all. In fact, in FY2004, Operating Subsidies were funded at $3.6 billion, $200 million more than the amount proposed by HUD for FY2006. The Housing Authority is receiving $90,917 in operating subsidies this fiscal year and is eligible to receive $142,929 next fiscal year but will only receive 89 percent or $127,207. If the President's budget is adopted housing authorities will only receive 80 percent of the operating subsidy they are eligible to receive. A decrease in Operating Subsidy may result in a decrease in basic services to our tenants including the after - school program for teenagers residing at Esperanza. Public Housing Capital Grant The President's budget proposes to decrease this item by $300 million from $2.6 billion to $2.3 billion. This fiscal year the Housing Authority is receiving $230,048 in Capital Grant funding. It is unknown what amount will be allocated for next fiscal year. A decrease in Capital Grant funding will result in the deferment of much needed repairs at Esperanza such as replacement of kitchen cabinets and painting of buildings. There will be much debate on Capitol Hill on the President's proposed budget before a final budget is adopted. Although the federal fiscal year begins on October 1, for the past three years, a budget hasn't been passed before the end of the federal fiscal year and in some years not until after January 1. Because of the 2004 elections, there are new members in the House and Senate, and the House also has made a major realignment of Appropriation Subcommittees and their jurisdictions. This could further complicate and prolong the budget process. At this time, it is very difficult to predict how the budget will finally end up, when it will be voted into law, and what its impact will be on the Housing Authority. Staff will continue to keep abreast of the debates and discussions which will affect Housing Authority programs. Attached are copies of some recent articles on the HUD budget from the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials and the Housing Affairs letter. Fiscal Impact The Housing Authority will receive $20,402,475 for the Section 8 and Public Housing programs this fiscal year. For the Section 8 program, $9,801,950 is expected for the "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners February 18, 2005 Page 3 of 3 first six months (July — December 2005) of the 2005 -06 fiscal year which is $477,610 less than the same period in 2004. It may not be known until this December or January, 2006, what the full amount of funding will be for next fiscal year. Recommendation Authorize the Chair, Chief Executive Officer, or designee to send letters opposing the Bush Administration's HUD budget and in support of full funding of the Section 8 Program, Public Housing Operating Subsidies and Capital Grant Funds. Respectfully submitt Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:caw attachments U.• I bocreports lletters of support "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Direct News - Section 8: FY 2006 Budget's Impact on Housing Choice Vouchers Page 1 of 4 NALIRQ Lu'iihit C1kYx(Mr11J'if.t'.i together Home j About Us Conferences Programs and Policies Search l Sitemap Members Pages: Committees J Monitor Jobs l News News 2004 1 2003 1 2002 1 2001 1 2000 1 1999 1 1998 Direct News - Section 8 FY 2006 Budget's Impact on Housing Choice Vouchers The president's proposed FY 2006 budget requests $15.385 billion for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, of which $14.09 billion would go to voucher assistance and $1.295 billion would be allotted to administrative fees. Although the administration has posited that the Section 8 voucher program's costs are spiraling out of control and causing cuts in other HUD programs, a close look at the FY 2006 budget numbers does not bear this out. The administration proposed a $6.9 billion cut in funding for housing and community development programs including public housing and the Community Development Block Grant, yet requested a $735 million increase in Section 8 tenant -based voucher payments, a 5.5 percent increase above the FY 2005 enacted level. This year, the administration proposes $2.5 billion in unobligated balances for FY 2005 and prior years be rescinded from the voucher program no later than Sept. 30, 2006. At a public interest group budget briefing on Feb. 7, department officials said if the full amount of funds cannot be recouped from the voucher program, it will look to the Section 8 project -based program and other HUD programs for the necessary funds. The following analysis and information is derived from the president's FY 2006 budget document, HUD's own budget document, and information provided by HUD officials at a Feb. 7 departmental briefing for public interest groups. Housing Choice Voucher housing assistance payment (HAP) funds: The administration has requested $14.090 billion to renew Section 8 HCV contracts, a 5.5 percent increase above the $13.355 billion enacted by Congress in FY 2005. A $45 million central HAP reserve is proposed to pay for cost increases in FY 06 resulting from unforeseen exigencies including natural disasters or criminal activities such as arson, at the secretary's discretion. NAHRO will continue to analyze the overall FY 2006 funding request relative to national average per voucher costs the number of authorized leased families and to determine how many families would be supported this funding level. Tenant -Based Funding Distribution Formula: The proposal calls for FY 2006 renewal funding of both Section 8 tenant -based and enhanced vouchers contracts, based on each housing agency's (HA) 2005 annual budget for renewal funding as calculated by HUD prior to pro- rations, and by applying the 2006 annual adjustment factor (AAF). These funds would be adjusted for the costs associated with first -time renewal of tenant protection or HOPE VI vouchers. Therefore, FY 2006 funds would be based on each agency's formula eligibility in FY 2005. Following HUD's final determination on agencies' Voucher Management System (VMS) data appeals for the months of May - July 2004, reflected in agencies' confirmation notices of their unit months leased and corresponding weighted HAP amounts, NAHRO will continue to work with HAs to assess the impact of the FY 2005 distribution formula on their communities. httn•/ /xxmnx/nahrnnrn /mamhArc/n.“s7r. )nnc /nc(Y)1n Direct News - Section 8: FY 2006 Budget's Impact on Housing Choice Vouchers Page 2 of 4 The analysis will help build a model of the impact of this distribution formula for FY 2006. Administrative Fees: The administration requested a total of $1.27 billion for administrative fees, an increase of $95 million or 5.8 percent above the FY 2005 enacted level, to be distributed on a pro rata basis based on the amount an HA was eligible to receive in calendar year 2005. HUD proposed up to an additional $25 million to allocate to HAs that need additional funds to administer their Section 8 programs. (HUD has not announced this yet, but it would likely coincide with administering vouchers issued from natural disasters or unforeseen exigencies such as arson.) Pending Budget -Based Voucher Proposal: At the budget briefing, department officials announced plans to introduce a legislative proposal in 2005 that will expand the budget -based approach adopted by Congress in FY 2004. The new proposal would include necessary flexibility to run effective and efficient programs. Tenant - Protection Vouchers: The administration proposed a $192 million increase (218 percent above the FY 2005 enacted level) for certain special -use vouchers, including tenant - protection, enhanced, HOPE VI relocation, mandatory and voluntary conversions replacement housing or relocation. Also included are vouchers necessary to complete the consent decree requirements in Walker vs. HUD. Any residual funds may be used for the witness relocation program. Unlike previous years, there does not appear to be any language to use residual funds to be used for Family Unification Program (FUP). Moving -to -Work Demonstration: The proposal appears to eliminate language that would explicitly direct the department to calculate Moving -to -Work (MTW) agencies' Section 8 funds in accordance with the terms of their MTW contracts. In the past, this language instructed HUD to calculate MTW agencies' base eligibility for Section 8 pursuant to their MTW agreements, but subject to the same pro rata adjustments as other non -MTW agencies. To date, the MTW demonstration has provided unprecedented autonomy and flexibility to a select group of high - performing HAs in order to assess the potential impacts of Federal deregulation on resident households, housing developments, and local housing programs. HUD has previously announced that it would not renew or extend any expiring contracts under the MTW demonstration program as they expire. FSS Coordinators: The proposal requests a $9 million increase for the Family Self- Sufficiency (FSS) program to $55 million from its enacted levels in FY 2005 of $46 million. This increase covers the cost of living the department projected was needed in prior years. Rescission: The department will rescind $2.5 billion in unobligated balances, including recaptures and carryover, remaining from funds appropriated to HUD under the Section 8 tenant -based program for 2005 and prior years, to be rescinded no later than Sept. 30, 2006. During the briefing, HUD officials said if it cannot recoup the $2.5 billion from the HCV program first, it will look to the Section 8 project -based program and all other HUD programs. Project -Based Rental Assistance: The administration proposed increasing the Section 8 project -based program to $5.545 billion or 6.7 percent above FY 2005 enacted levels, and to continue renewal funding based on the actual cost of Housing Assistance Payments (HAP). Unlike HUD's rescission under the tenant -based program, HUD requests augmenting funding for additional costs attributable to contract amendments at expiration, to be funded in 2006 by utilizing carryover of unobligated balances within the program. Contract Administration: The administration's proposal calls for increasing Contract Administration for Section 8 Project -Based assistance, from $101 million to $147 million. There 1, ++ . / /.. ., L . ...,.L,..._/_____._ /'nnc Inc ne.sin _r Direct News - Section 8: FY 2006 Budget's Impact on Housing Choice Vouchers Page 3 of 4 are presently 53 HAs under contract to manage approximately 15,000 contracts with 775,000 units. An additional 4,000 contracts with 287,000 units are anticipated to be added to the Performance Based Contract Administration (PBCA) inventory in 2006. Additional funding is also requested under the Project Rental Assistance heading for PBCA administration of an estimated 3,772 non - Section 8 contracts with 125,499 units. These will include Rent Supplement and Rental Assistance Program (RAP) contracts, Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC) and Project Assistance Contracts (PAC), and Section 236 contracts. Funding for 2006 is proposed to be derived by $147.2 million of new budget authority, putting the entire account at a proposed FY 2006 funding level up to $332 million. Rental Housing Integrity Improvement Program (RHIIP): The FY 2006 budget stipulates that 15 federal agencies, including HUD, will continue to implement and enforce measures to reduce improper payments of federal assistance, including the Section 8 tenant -based program. Prior to enactment of the Improper Payment Information Act of 2002, HUD had already established an erroneous payments reduction program under the President's Management Agenda for rental housing assistance programs - including Section 8 Tenant -Based Assistance as well as Public Housing, and Multifamily Housing Project -Based Assistance. Under the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Public Law 107 -300 and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) implementing guidance, Memo No. M- 03 -13, agencies are to annually review all programs and activities they administer and identify those that may be susceptible to significant erroneous payments. IPIA applies to a multitude of federal agencies and will continue to have the force of law, irrespective of future Section 8 legislative reform proposals. The combined results of HUD's FY 2003 error estimate updates for the Section 8 tenant -based and Moderate Rehabilitation program showed a 33 percent reduction in gross erroneous payments and a 74 percent reduction in net annual overpayments compared with FY 2000. HUD estimates that in FY 2003 there was a total of $109 million in annual overpayments under the Section 8 tenant -based and Moderate Rehabilitation program, attributable to tenant underreporting of income. The reduction in improper payments from FY 2000 to FY 2003 is partially attributed to an improved methodology for reviewing income discrepancies identified through computer matching to better determine actual cases of underreported income impacting subsidy levels. The reduction is also attributed to: improved income verification efforts by housing program administrators; increased voluntary compliance due to promotion of the issue; and HUD's initiation of improved computer matching processes for upfront verification of tenant income. In FY 2004, HUD developed and began implementation of the Upfront Income Verification System to share state wage data matching information with public housing agencies for use in verifying annual re- certifications of tenant income and subsidy levels. HUD's Office of Inspector General began pursuing egregious cases of false income certifications using data from the Upfront Income Verification System. HUD also received statutory authority from the Congress to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to pursue enhanced computer matching capability using other federal income data sources. HUD plans to expand the Upfront Income Verification System to include these new sources for PHA use in FY 2005. In FY 2006, HUD will migrate the Upfront Income Verification System to an Enterprise Income Verification System that will include all available income match data sources for controlled use by program administrators in all HUD rental housing assistance programs, including multifamily housing. This increased computer matching capability has the potential to eliminate the majority of the remaining estimated erroneous rental housing assistance payments. /nnncincnnin _r. Direct News - Section 8: FY 2006 Budget's Impact on Housing Choice Vouchers Page 4 of 4 U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey: In 2006, the Census Bureau will continue survey implementation and release of data from the American Community Survey (ACS). The Census Bureau will also continue a multi -year effort of aligning map feature locations with global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for 700 of the nation's 3,233 counties. Once it is fully implemented the ACS will provide HUD, HAs and other program stakeholders with annual local data on rents, home prices, household incomes, housing quality conditions, and other housing statistics, in an effort to provide more accurate data on funding formulas and for housing and community development policy. Members of Congress Weigh -In with HUD on FY 2006 Budget: Several Senate Democrats sent a letter to HUD expressing their concerns about the department's proposed FY 2006 funding cuts in housing and community development programs. The letter can be accessed at: http : / /www.nahro.org /members /news /2005 /DemsBudget.pdf. For more information, please contact Policy Analyst Jonathan Zimmerman. HOME 1 JOBS 1 NEWS 1 PROGRAMS National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 630 Eye Street, NW, Washington DC 20001 Toll Free: 877 - 866 -2476 Phone: 202 - 289 -3500 Fax: 202 - 289 -8181 E -mail: nahro @nahro.org © Copyright 1998 -2004 NAHRO �._,,. /nnncincnlin r - Direct News - Action Alert: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Resolution Page 1 of 3 NA.IIRO Home ( About Us 1 Conferences 1 Programs and Policies Search 1 Sitemap Members Pages: Committees 1 Monitor 1 Jobs 1 News Ouncling csuurun ?lief tolxib er News 2004 1 2003 1 2002 1 2001 1 2000 1 1999 1 1998 Direct News - Action Alert FY 2006 Congressional Budget Resolution Your voice is needed NOW to ensure that the FY 2006 Budget provides adequate funding for housing and community development programs! February 17, 2005 The issue: During the week of Feb. 28, the House and Senate Congressional Budget Committees will begin writing their FY 2006 Congressional Budget resolution. While the budget resolution does not determine funding levels for individual programs, it does set limits on the overall amount of spending for the coming year, including the total amount available for appropriations. The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees have stated that they will try to model the outlines of their FY 2006 Budget Resolution after the President's budget proposal. The President's budget represents a disturbing retreat from the federal government's role as a partner in affordable housing and community development. The budget would cut HUD funding by 11.5 percent. It would eliminate the CDBG program and provide 20 percent less funding for public housing than agencies received in FY 2001. In addition, the President's budget would severely reduce housing and community development services over the next 5 years by setting tight caps on appropriations from 2006 to 2010. By 2010, total funding for domestic appropriations falls 16 percent below 2005 inflation- adjusted levels. What you can do: Contact your representatives in Washington and ask them to ensure that the FY 2006 Congressional Budget resolution provides adequate funding for housing and community development in FY 2006 and over the next 5 years. When: Because the budget committees will begin writing their budgets during the week of Feb. 28, your outreach will have the most impact during the week of Feb. 21. Members are on recess during the week of Feb. 21, so you may have the opportunity to see them either through an appointment in their offices or at public meetings scheduled during the break. Call the local office or visit the website to check for scheduled public meetings. Who to contact & targeting your message: If your representative sits on the House or Senate Budget Committee, which is charged with developing the budget resolution, he or she has an especially large role in influencing the outcome of the budget resolution. Ask him or her to support your requests when writing the FY 2006 Budget Resolution. See below for a roster budget committee members. http: / /www.nahro.org /members /news /2005/050218.cfm 2/23/05 Direct News - Action Alert: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Resolution Page 2 of 3 If your member is not on the budget committee, ask them to contact the chairman of their Budget Committee in support of your positions. If you cannot meet with the member of Congress directly, be sure to leave a message with the appropriate staff person. For contact information for your representatives, see: • 109th Senate roster: http: / /www.nahro.org /legislative /2005 /109thSenate.pdf • 109th House roster: http: / /www.nahro.org/ legislative /2005 /109thHouse.pdf • 109th Budget Committee rosters and explanation of the committee's role in housing and community development: http : / /www.nahro.org /legislative/ programs / budget /NAHRO109th BudgetCmteRosters.pdf • To find your Member of Congress, enter your zip code online at: http: / /congress.org /congressorg /home/ • More information about working with Congress see the NAHRO Advocacy page: http: / /www.nahro.org /members /advocacy /index.html Suggested talking points: In meeting with your representative, it is important to share the housing and community development needs in your community (numbers of families on housing waiting lists, homeless families, etc.) as a picture of how your programs serve the community (number of elderly assisted through meals on wheels, number of families living in public housing, jobs created, etc.). The talking points below suggest areas where local information can be added. (Please remember to remove these suggestions if you are cutting and pasting the document.) • Ensure that the FY 2006 budget contains adequate funding for housing and community development programs, and reject five -year caps on appropriations set at the president's recommended levels. I understand that the President's budget would actually reduce funding for domestic appropriations for FY 2006 below last year's levels and freeze them there through at least 2010. I am very concerned that, if adopted, these caps will trigger deep reductions in housing and community development services in our community over the next five years. In FY 2005, housing and community development programs were cut by approximately four percent due to the squeeze on appropriations. As a consequence, my community lost [insert examples of the consequences of the FY 2005 budget, such as CDBG funds cut, public housing services curtailed, families unserved in the voucher program] We must make sure that the FY 2006 Congressional Budget provides adequate funding for domestic programs now and in the future. • Reject the proposal to eliminate CDBG. CDBG is a successful program. In our community, CDBG [insert local activities, families served, jobs created, etc.]. If this program is eliminated, our community stands to lose [examples of activities not funded] • Fully fund public housing: The President's budget requests 20 percent less for public housing than Congress provided in 2001, undermining the viability $90 billion in affordable housing assets across the country.[In our community, cuts in public housing funding have meant...] As proposed, the FY 2006 budget provides an estimated 15 to 20 percent Tess in operating fund than is necessary to support existing families in public housing (an 80 to 85 percent pro- ration). In addition, the budget would cut the capital fund nearly 10 percent below last year's levels and take back HOPE VI funds provided in 2005. http: / /www.nahro.org /members /news /2005/050218.cfm 2/23/05 Direct News - Action Alert: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Resolution Page 3 of 3 • Section 8 Vouchers: Ensure adequate funding to support all vouchers that can be leased by families in FY 2006. Let us know how it's going As you make contact with members of Congress or their staff, please send feedback to us at bcooper @nahro.org. Additional Background Information • More information on the President's FY 2006 Budget: Visit our FY 2006 Budget and Appropriations page at: htt_p:llwww.nahro.org/ legislative /programs /budget/FY2006.cfm for summary information about the President's FY 2006 budget proposal, including: NAHRO's Statement on the President's FY 2006 Budget, NAHRO's analysis of the FY 2006 budget, and a short table showing HUD program funding. • Community Development Block Grant Talking Points: NAHRO has developed initial talking points to help you in your discussions about the proposed elimination of the Community Development Block Grant. In addition, we recommend gathering information about your local programs to provide to local leaders, the media, and Congress about the potential impact of the program's elimination. These talking points are available online at: http: / /www.nahro.org/ members / advocacy /CDBGEliminationFactSheet.pdf • Information on Proposed Cuts to Domestic Discretionary programs in the President's FY 2006 Budget: For more information on the budget's impact on domestic discretionary programs - -- such as housing and community development programs - -- see a short paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities "UNPUBLISHED ADMINISTRATION BUDGET DOCUMENTS SHOW DOMESTIC CUTS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE FUNDING FOR MOST PUBLIC SERVICES" at http : / /www.cbpp.org /2- 9- 05bud.htm NAHRO Contact for additional information: Please contact Beth Cooper if you have any questions about this information. HOME 1 JOBS 1 NEWS 1 PROGRAMS National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 630 Eye Street, NW, Washington DC 20001 Toll Free: 877 - 866 -2476 Phone: 202 - 289 -3500 Fax: 202 - 289 -8181 E -mail: nahro nahro.org © Copyright 1998 -2004 NAHRO http: / /www.nahro.org /members /news /2005/050218.cfm 2/23/05 JAN -27 -2005 15 :55 United e$tatts bate WASHINGTON, DO 20510 January 21, 2005 President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue \ 'ashiG1gtorl, DC 20500 Dear President Bush: P.01 We are concerned with reports that the Fiscal Year 2006 budget request submitted by your Administration will seek significant cuts to housing and community dov'elopi, ent programs and dismantle core parts of the Department of Housing and Urban (,Development (HUD), These housing and community development programs have bet /. cut each of the past several years, and any further cuts may severely undermine their ciT ciiveness, These iartporf;ant programs work to $trengt ens communities round the country and help nail /ions of families afford stable housing. Housing programs assist millions of families around the country, including many of this nation's most vulnerable •• the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children. Without housing assistance, many families would lack the stability to find and retain employment, and ninny children would be unable to adequately perform in school because of multiple troves or health problems induced by inadequate housing, including asthma, poor nutrition and lead poisoning. Despite ,assisting milliutis, federal housing assistance is inadequate to meet the growing needs of families around the country, It is estimated by the .National Uotising Conleivrice that nearly 15 million American families are paying over hailer their i n=110 for housing, leaving them in an extremely precarious economic position. The JoinL Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found in their report, .the- -Stgle cif tl�� �ilicar�,e Housinrz 2004, that '*crowding is on the increase, some 2.5 -3,5 million people are homeless at some point in a given year, and nearly 2 million households still live in severely inadequate Units_" The Joint Center found that "many of the low -wage jobs created by the economy do not pay enough for a household to afford (at 30 percent of income) everi a modest one-bedroom rental anywhere in the country." The sigrliticant gap between the wages of lows - income workers and housing costs makes evident that housing assistance is .necessary for many working Americans. Unfortunately, the budgets submitted to Congress over the past fel,v years do not idequate1v fund programs designed to assist low-income families afford housing. or help local governments and developers create new affordable housing and job opportunities. Many policy proposals in these budgets have been inconsistent, contradictory, from year to year, or directly JAN -27 -2005 15:55 P.02 harmful, and give the impression that your Administration is not interested in malting these core programs work, Indeed, even where programs have proven extremely successful, the Administration has, proposed cuts. , We are concerned that the FY2006 budget request will contain additional cuts, rikrhich we strongly, oppose. We also oppose eliminating the Office of Community Plying and LDe e 45pui.ent at HUD. integrating community and cconoinic development programs with housing programs .improves the overall effort to deliver services and create new opportunities for the American people. We are happy to work with you. and Secretary Jackson to make changes to improve the results of HUD's operations and programs. However, further cuts to important HUD activities, or the dismantling of the Agency, threaten to erode the programs that so many millions of American families use to climb the ladder of housing and economic opportunityr, We appreciate your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Senator l:'a.ul S. Sarbaa yes Senator Charles 1:, Schumer Senator Christopher J, Dodd Senator Evan Bayh nator Deb 110W TOTAL P.02 1 Housing Affairs Letter THE INDEPENDENT WEEKLY WASHINGTON REPORT ON HOUSING CD PUBLICATIONS EST. 1961 WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 11, 2005 BUDGET: Vouchers Gain, Public Housing Loses 1 CDBG Earmarked For Commerce 2 Bush Budget Called Alarming Retreat 2 FNMA/FHLMC: Opening Salvos In GSE Changes 3 White House Shift On GSE Regulator 3 DC Mayor Takes On Fannie Mae 4 HOMEOWNERSHIP: Annual Property Appraisals Required 4 End Of Federal Tax Credit Sought 4 OUTLOOK: Increase Seen In Single - Family Loans 5 Realtors See Home Sales Dip 5 PUBLIC HOUSING: Tenants Face Eviction Over Work Rule 5 No. 05 -06 RURAL HOUSING: RHS Tightens Alien Loan Policy 6 ASSISTED HOUSING: HUD Bars Rent - Subsidy Change 6 HAC Issues Colonias Guidebook 6 FAIR HOUSING: Cash Offer Triggers Housing -Bias Suit 6 CONGRESS: Senate Approves Class- Action Shift 7 HUD: HUD Thinning Employee Ranks 7 INSURANCE: Storms Surpass 9/11 Insurance Losses 7 STATE & LOCAL: CA, FL, IL, OH 8 INDICATORS: Mortgage Interest Rate Still Sliding 8 BUDGET Vouchers Gain, Public Housing Loses Funding for Sec. 8 housing vouchers is bumped up in the Bush administration's proposed FY 2006 budget, but most other housing programs take a direct funding hit. The budget recommends a total of $15.8 billion for tenant -based Sec. 8 assistance, an increase of about $1.1 billion over FY 2005. But the increase is largely illusory because it is ear- marked for vouchering out the public and assisted housing units Lost as public housing is renovated and downsized and multifamily units are lost when HUD contracts with land- lords expire and are not renewed. Even with the increase, Sec. 8 vouchers are expected to cover only about 95% of the families covered at the begin- ning of 2004. The public- housing operating fund shows a large jump in funding to $3.4 billion from $2.4 billion in FY 2005. But it amounts to only a slight increase. Congress saved $994 million this year when the operat- ing fund was converted from federal fiscal year funding to calendar -year funding. When the numbers are juggled and annualized, FY 2005 funding amounts to $3.3 billion, which amounts to a real increase of about $65 million for FY 2006. Meanwhile, the public- housing capital fund would receive $2.3 billion, a cut of $252 million, while the esti- mated backlog for capital improvements in public housing now surpasses $21 billion. The Public Housing Authorities Directors Assn. calls both amounts inadequate and says the capital -fund cut is in- tolerable. PHADA director Tim Kaiser tells HAL public- housing agencies are already laying off staff as a result of present cuts and anticipated reductions. And Kaiser reopens a politically- sensitive argument, say- ing the escalating cost of the Sec. 8 voucher program is having a direct impact on the nation's other housing priori- ties. Actual funding for public housing has increased little since 1998, PHADA says. While public housing was funded at $4,732 per unit in 1998, the proposed FY 2006 budget calls for per -unit funding at $4,778, a $46 or 1% in- crease which doesn't match cost increases attributed to in- flation. In real dollars, it is a 15% cut, says PHADA. In the interim, public housing lost 123,000 units, says HUD. HOPE VI is again earmarked for extinction and HUD is attempting to persuade Congress to rescind the $143 mil- lion it allocated to the program in FY 2005. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program would get $1.941 billion, a paper increase of $41 million. But the American Dream Downpayment Initiative set -aside built into the total increases from $50 million to $200 million, an actual program cut of more than $100 million. Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited. Copyright 2005 • 8204 Fenton St., Silver Spring, MD 20910 • 301/588 -6380 • www.cdpublications.com PAGE 2 HOUSING AFFAIRS LETTER FEBRUARY 11, 2005 ADDI would receive the full amount called for in its leg- islation. Congress has partially funded the program since its inception two years ago. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS would re- ceive $268 million, a $14 million cut. Homeless assistance grants would receive $1.440 billion, a $199 million increase. Project -based rental assistance would receive $5.072 bil- lion, a $123 million cut from FY 2005's allocation. CDBG Earmarked For Commerce As HAL told you weeks ago, the Bush administration's proposed FY 2006 budget calls for shifting the community development block grant program to the Commerce Dept. (HAL, 1/14p1). But the shift is more far - reaching than first thought. The administration intends to wipe out the $4.7 billion a year program and immerse it into Commerce's Economic De- velopment Admin. (under a new name) along with 17 other programs now scattered over several other agencies. The combined program would have a $3.7 billion budget and the revenue - sharing grants to cities would go only to what the administration calls the neediest communities. Why the White House is shifting a $4.7 billion program into a $350 million -a -year program with no human re- sources aboard to administer it remains a mystery. But speculation rests on EDA administrator David Sampson, who is a close friend of President Bush and a col- league of another close friend, just- retired Commerce Sec- retary Donald Evans. In recommending transfer of the programs to Commerce, the administration fails to acknowledge why it ignores housing programs outside HUD and didn't recommend shifting them to the housing agency. The Agriculture Dept. administers the Rural Housing Service with a budget of about $50 million a year. The Vet- erans Affairs Dept. operates a housing program as well. Loans in both are backed by Ginnie Mae, housed at HUD. And the Defense Dept. administers housing for military families, which is being diverted to the private sector under DOD oversight. None of the three are considered for a move to HUD, which, if Congress approves dismantling its urban devel- opment administration, will be left with only housing pro- grams. Sources tell HAL the CDBG proposal is dead on arrival in Congress. Lawmakers aren't about to tamper with the one revenue - sharing program near and dear to the hearts of mayors and governors. In a show of support, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Nat'l League of Cities and the Nat'l Assn. of Counties, backed by several advocacy groups, publicly denounced the plan one day after it was unveiled. Officials say they are mystified why the White House wants to dismantle a program which created or retained 90,637 jobs last year, assisted 178,000 households and lev- eraged $2.79 for every CDBG dollar. Bush Budget Called Alarming Retreat Housing advocates immediately pounce on the FY 2006 budget proposed by the Bush administration, which amounts to a 12% cut in HUD's budget. The proposal "represents an alarming retreat from the federal government's partnership with local governments," says Saul Ramirez, head of the Nat'l Assn. of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. Ramirez slams the White House concentration on homeownership as well. While it is impor- tant, homeownership alone "does not constitute a responsi- ble, comprehensive federal agenda to ensure the future vi- ability of our communities," he says. Ramirez's sentiments are echoed by Sunia Zaterman, who heads the Council of Large Public Housing Authori- ties. "We hear frequently from this administration about its commitment to help working families buy homes, to end homelessness, to encourage pubic - private partnerships and self - sufficiency. Yet the public- housing budgets being pro- posed will have the opposite effect," Zaterman says. And the Nat'l Low Income Housing Coalition calls the proposal grossly inadequate, saying unwarranted changes to essential programs will undermine past successes and planned solutions. Housing Affairs Letter (ISSN 0018 -6554) is an independent news service published weekly, est. 1961. Copyright 2005 by CD Publications, 8204 Fenton St., Silver Spring, MD 20910. Fax: 301 - 588 -6385. Web site: www.cdpublications.com. Editorial or Subscription inquiries: 301 - 588 -6380 (9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time) or e -mail infoCu�cdpublications.com. Editor: Tom Edwards; Publisher: Mike Gerecht. Subscrip- tion rates: $559 /year print or online. Back issues: $20 prepaid. Multi- year /multiple copy /site license discounts available. GSA Schedule #GS- 02F -0047R Subscriptions are allowable ex- penses under certain federal grants. Reproduction: Unauthor- ized reproduction, electronic forwarding or access to nonsub- scribers violates federal copyright law and is subject to dam- ages. For reprint authorization contact Copyright Clearance Center at 978/750 -8400 or the publisher at 301 - 588 -6380. *CDS- Community Document Service: CDS will supply any document we reference with a CDS number (for subscribers only). $7 per item, plus 25 cents per page, prepaid only (check, MCNisa /AmEx). For one -day service, double fees, plus $15 express charges; one -.day fax service, triple fees. No billing. Mailed to subscriber addresses only. Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited. Copyright © 2005. 8204 Fenton St., Silver Spring, MD 20910 • www.cdpublications.com UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 6:55 P.M. Acting Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Matarrese, and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4. Absent: Chair Johnson - 1. deHaan, The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Acting Chair Gilmore announced that the Commission obtained briefing from staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:32 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 January 18, 2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M. Acting Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Matarrese, and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4. Absent: Chair Johnson - 1. MINUTES deHaan, (05- ) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meetings of December 7, 2004; the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting of December 21, 2004; and the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of January 5, 2005. Approved. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Chair Johnson - 1.] Note: Commissioner deHaan abstained from voting on the December 7 and 21, 2004 Minutes. AGENDA ITEM (05- ) Recommendation to approve a contract with Michael Stanton Architecture for design review services for the proposed Historic Alameda Theatre, Parking Structure and Cinema Multiplex Project in an amount not to exceed $92,500. Commissioner Matarrese stated the contract is one step closer to getting the theatre; moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Chair Johnson - 1.] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission January 18, 2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - AGENDA ITEMS Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners /Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. JOINT ACTION: (05- CC /05- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report and approve mid -year budget adjustments. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated that the report shows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the Fiscal Year and recommended adjustments. The Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view; matters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8 million deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented at the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the estimated revenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget; the estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and appropriations. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Daysog inquired how much of the projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which the Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese inquired whether there would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded that a budget adjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of $4.8 million. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious problem. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of the staff recommendation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 1 Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION: (05- CIC) Resolution #05 -133, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS, Inc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs)" Adopted. Lars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the resolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic Alameda theatre. Duane Watson encouraged building the parking structure. Debbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution. Robb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in moving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the Alameda theatre, and the new theatre complex. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre project has been a long time coming. Chair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the theatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be taken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M. Acting Mayor /Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint 6:20 p.m. Roll Call - Meeting at Present: Councilmember /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor /Chair Gilmore - 4. Absent: Mayor /Chair Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05- CC /05- CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of cases: Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda v. Alameda Belt Line. Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office. Adjournment There being adjourned the no further business, Acting Mayor /Chair Gilmore Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2005 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: William C. Norton Interim Executive Director Date: February 16, 2005 Re: Recommendation to Award a Grant in an Amount Not to Exceed $5,000 from BWIP Tax Increment Funds for the Purchase of a Used Vehicle to Tow the Green Machine Operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the Cleaning of a Public Sidewalk and to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Standard Grant Agreement BACKGROUND On January 4, 2005, the City Council authorized the open market purchase of a Green Machine and trailer for the West Alameda Business Association (WABA). Development Services identified $30,000 to purchase both the machine and hauling trailer. WABA selected a less expensive demonstrator model, with the same warranty as a new model, for a total cost of $24,631.88; $5368.12 remains from the initial $30,000 identified funds. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Green Machine was acquired with a trailer for its transport for regular cleaning and maintenance. A vehicle to tow the trailer and Green Machine is needed. The remaining $5,000 from the $30,000 originally identified within the Development Services budget could be used to acquire a used vehicle for the needed transport of this machine. WABA would be the registered owner of the vehicle to avoid any potential liability issues. Additionally, the City Attorney's office advises that transferring funds to WABA for the vehicle purchase would not raise a transfer of public funds issue since the funds are being used to provide a benefit to the entire community. The grant funds of up to $5,000 will be handled by way of the standard grant agreement form used by the City in similar situations. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. Up to $5,000 can be provided by reallocating existing Business and Waterfront Improvement Project funding, specifically, the increment not expended from the $30,000 previously identified. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #1 CIC 3 -1 -05 Honorable Chair and February 16, 2005 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Award a grant in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from BWIP tax increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the cleaning of a public sidewalk and authorize the Executive Director to execute a standard grant agreement Re • e/ lly submitted, Leslie A. Little evelopment Services Director by: WCN/LAL/DES /SGR:ry cc: West Alameda Business Association Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Dev,@lepment Division Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\BUSASSOC \GREENMAC\staff report for acquiring truck.doc UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners /Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEMS JOINT ACTION: (05- CC /05- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report and approve mid -year budget adjustments. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated that the report shows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the Fiscal Year and recommended adjustments. The Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view; matters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8 million deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented at the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the . estimated revenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget; the estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and appropriations. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Daysog inquired how much of the projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which the Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese inquired whether there would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded that a budget adjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of $4.8 million Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious problem. Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of the staff recommendation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 1 Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION: (05- CIC) Resolution #05 -133, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS, Inc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs)" Adopted. Lars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the resolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic Alameda theatre. Duane Watson encouraged building the parking structure. Debbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution. Robb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in moving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the Alameda theatre, and the new theatre complex. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre project has been a long time coming. Chair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the theatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be taken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 1, 2005 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M. Acting Mayor /Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:20 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmember /Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor /Chair Gilmore - 4. Absent: Mayor /Chair Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05- CC /05- CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of cases: Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line v. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda v. Alameda Belt Line. Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor /Chair Gilmore adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:30 P.M. Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations: Management and Confidential Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Police Association Non - Sworn. Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor Johnson announced that the Council obtained a briefing and instructions were given to Labor Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note: Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02 p.m. to travel on City business.] Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (05- ) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to designate the City of Alameda as an official "Coast Guard City." Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Hadi Monsef and Barbara Price representing the Alameda Council of the Navy League. Ms. Price presented a book on the history of the Coast Guard to the Mayor and City on behalf of Coast Guard Admiral Breckenridge. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with a correction to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting minutes. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *05- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 1, 2005. Approved. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the February 1 regular meeting minutes adjourn time be corrected to indicate a.m. instead of p.m. ( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,200,868.59. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 1 ( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the second calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted. ( *05- ) Resolution No. 13815, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2." Adopted. ( *05- ) Resolution No. 13816, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove)." Adopted. ( *05- ) Resolution No. 13817, "Amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by Establishing a Salary Range for the Position of Inventory Control Clerk." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05- ) Resolution No. 13818, "Appointing Dennis J. Hanna as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Hanna with a Certificate of Appointment. (05- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2 -9.1 (Commission Created; Composition), 2 -9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2 -9.3 (Voting) of Section 2 -9 (City Golf Commission). Introduced. Mayor Johnson stated that she suggested the membership increase because there is a lot of upcoming activity at the golf course, including the new clubhouse; having two more members would help with the workload.; the Golf Commission Chair supports the idea. The Interim City Manager stated the golf course has become a large operation; the golf budget is over $5 million; there will be major changes at the golf course that require financial overview in the next few years. Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission was lowered from nine to seven members; the Recreation and Park Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 2 Commission has five members; inquired whether the membership of the Recreation and Park Commission should be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; commissions are established by ordinance and Council has flexibility to make changes; boards established by Charter would be difficult to change. Councilmember deHaan stated having seven members provides flexibility to bring people with different expertise aboard. Mayor Johnson concurred the matter should be reviewed. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05- ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $2,110,000, including contingencies to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, Phase I, No. P.W. 10- 02 -13, and authorize the allocation of additional funds from the Merged Areas Bond Issuance of 2003. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated the new streetlights will look like 1927 streetlights on the outside, but are state -of- the -art inside; hopefully, a later phase to complete Alameda Avenue will happen quickly; urged Council to approve the Contract. Mayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with how well the Webster Street Streetscape project is going; that she has not received any complaints. Councilmember deHaan stated the City decided to replace the entire sidewalk on Webster Street; inquired how the decision was made regarding Park Street. The Public Works Director responded the entire sidewalk on Park Street is not being replaced due to cost and basements extending into the public right of way; stated replacing the Park Street sidewalks would require roofs to be built above basements, which would be very expensive; PSBA agrees with the approach. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 3 PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (continued) (05- A) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to designate the City of Alameda as an official "Coast Guard City." Admiral Breckenridge thanked the Council for the proclamation and for supporting the effort to become a Coast Guard City; stated the book presented to the Mayor and City is to thank the City for very strong support of the Coast Guard; thanked the Mayor, Council and citizens for supporting the Coast Guard. Mayor Johnson stated the Council appreciates the excellent working relationship between the Coast Guard and the City; the Council is proud to have the Coast Guard as part of Alameda; thanked Admiral Breckenridge for the book. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (continued) (05- ) Resolution No. 13819, "Approving the Form of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Related Documents with Respect to the Sale of the Seller's Vehicle License Fee Receivable from the State, and Directing and Authorizing Certain Other Actions in Connection Therewith." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Interim City Manager provide a brief summary. The Interim City Manager stated the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) was 2% of the vehicle's value; Governor Schwarzenegger lowered the VLF to 0.65 %, which reduced the City's revenue; the Governor pledged that cities would be made whole; the State does not have funding to provide backfill, which amounts to $1,270,770 for Alameda; the Governor promised to pay in two years; the concern is the State will not be able to pay the legal obligation when the time comes; in the past, the City has received a letter that the State does not have funds to pay for mandated costs, which the State is legally required to pay; receiving full payment can take several years; the State may not have adequate funds to pay the VLF backfill in two years; several cities decided to factor receivables; the City will net over 90% of the amount due from the State and could have the money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin earning interest to mitigate the reduction. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds; inquired how the liability would be covered. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 4 The Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover any State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state the bondholders' recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the State. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no impact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to deal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year. Mayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was very interesting and a good strategy. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05- ) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue and appropriations. The Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget adjustments. Mayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. The Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing emergency medical coordination. The Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance overview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS, which is the medical authority responsible for administering licenses, classes, and protocol; the fee is for overhead and quality assurance. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS budget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives a copy of the budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which the Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 February 15, 2005 which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy. The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the County reviews compliance with protocols and licensing. Mayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to determine why it is so expensive to be part of the system. The Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with more detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in mutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual aid assistance from outside agencies. The Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to enter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response (AMR) provide backup; AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and Alameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided and received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in Oakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often times it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR takes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the Advanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money back from the County contract. Mayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for ambulance service is set by the County contract; the City should charge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher than the cap set by the County; the City should review the rates charged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to charge more to recover service costs from users. The Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum charge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to charge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not pay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not charged more and only charges a prevailing rate. The Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased permit fee could be charged for providing premium service since there is such a high demand, the Interim City Manager stated there is an expedited permit fee and some developers have paid for an outside contract service that the City administers. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 15, 2005 The Interim City Manager continued his review. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors would remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total reduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions in non - departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983; the budget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on the General Fund reserves for the fiscal year. Mayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December; inquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million. The Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had expenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased another $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council, resulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate funds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager, Chinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately $256,000 impact. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional Firefighters would have an impact on overtime. The Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would start the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in salaries for the five Firefighters in the academy; there will not be a net benefit for the current fiscal year. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in future years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was required to be set aside. The Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside for accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the total accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10 million. The Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 15, 2005 million required in set aside and removing loans to other funds, the amount remaining is $8.9 million; if action is not taken, the reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State governments have deficits; other cities are making staff reductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per month; Alameda's financial problems are not unique; the problem is due to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in the PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments have not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be raised significantly. Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being made without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has been a dramatic shift in the State's economy; the budget has to be brought in line with economic realities; the City might face equally or more difficult choices in the next budget; the City needs to focus on core services; the ten -year budget forecast will be integral in forming the next budget; the reserves do not allow the City to postpone dealing with the situation. Councilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to implement budget changes; the budget would evolve over the next four or five years; the City needs to be prepared. Councilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were needed; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent overtime and short staffing issues. The Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two positions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but he is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is absolutely required. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in police and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the streets. The Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced in a department without recognizing that there will be an impact; both the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort to have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay in processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill following officer promotions, there will be an impact. Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should hear about the impacts; there will be ramifications to service; five Firefighters would be hired instead of eleven; inquired whether other vacancies are projected in the Fire Department. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 February 15, 2005 The Interim City Manager responded only eleven vacancies are known. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether putting people through the academy later would cost more than putting additional people through the academy now. The Interim City Manager responded the decision was made as a result of discussions that he had with the Fire Chief; based upon the needs of the Fire Department, the decision was that hiring five people was best. Mayor Johnson stated the Council is concerned about not hiring in the Police and Fire Departments since the Council gave direction to avoid cuts in police and fire; the budget situation has become much worse; that she is looking at the measure as a way to get the City through the current fiscal year; the City cannot run a deficit budget; for the current fiscal year, the City does not really have a choice; the City does not have a large reserve; there is no hope things will be better next year; the budget should continue to be reviewed to make fundamental changes to try to do more with less; there will be changes in service levels to the public; the Council has to set funding priorities; that she supports the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog stated tonight, the General Fund budget was balanced to maintain reserves while preserving soft priorities, such as neighborhood park directors and library hours on Sundays; going forward in the next fiscal year there will be challenges regarding hard priorities, such as police and fire; there would be additional hardships in the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) budget; now is the time to start making tough decisions and move forward with the staff recommendation; the City might also have to consider furloughs to save money, due to ARRA budget issues. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired when the Council would be provided the next fiscal year budget, to which the Interim City Manager responded in May. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2005 9 * * * Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02 p.m. to travel on City business. * * * Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City has to take these steps; requested that staff monitor service levels; if damage is being done and appropriations are needed, information should be brought to Council before the situation is an emergency; the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its services; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft priorities; Council has laid out priorities; the park and library services are intangibles that prevent the need for additional police officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to ensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole. Acting Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity of the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of the issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the best decision given the resources available; the City needs to continue to get out the word because sooner or later the average citizen will be impacted. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider direction to review terminating the police boat water services; stated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay property taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as well; that he would like to have options to help find an alternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or some other service levy that can be presented to the public; the matter should be brought back to the Council. Councilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million budget for public safety; stated that he understands the one -time expenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1.4 million hole in the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA budget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is reviewing alternatives. The Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the ARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development Services Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA budget as much as possible, as soon as possible; the current ARRA budget cannot be sustained; one or two months into the next fiscal year, keeping the operation going will be problematic. Councilmember Daysog stated problems in the ARRA budget could seep into to General Fund budget. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 15, 2005 Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a review of the ARRA budget shortly, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (05- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, noted a Calgrant workshop would be held February 22 and a community meeting would be held February 23 to discuss extraordinary maintenance projects around the West End. (05- ) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, encouraged residents and workers in Alameda to shop in Alameda; stated sales tax revenues need to increase. (05- ) Reginald James, West Alameda Teen Club, invited everyone to attend the West Alameda Teen Club black history basketball event February 24 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chipman Middle School. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05- ) Acting Mayor Gilmore stated an Association of Bay Area Governments meeting on April 28 in San Francisco is about Casinos on the Bay Area Landscape; suggested that a Councilmember attend the meeting or staff attend, if a Councilmember cannot, to listen to the discussion. (05- ) Councilmember Daysog stated the last representative to the League of California Cities was Barbara Kerr; that he has been involved in the East Bay Division employer subcommittee; that he would be willing to be the City's representative. Acting Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be placed on a future agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:18 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 11 February 15, 2005 February 24, 2005 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 Amount 133378 - 133801 2,318,099.99 Void Checks: 133302 (3,320.00) 133483 133791 (50.00) 33791 131428 (525.00) 31428 (1, 750.00) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibl ,. Council Warrants 03/01/05 2,312,454.99 BILLS #4 -B 03/01/05 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: February 16, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Interim City Manager Re: Quarterly Sales Tax Report For the Period Ending December 31, 2004, For Sales Transactions in the Third Calendar Quarter of 2004 BACKGROUND This sales tax report and the accompanying charts relate to sales tax receipts for the period ending December 31, 2004, and are for sales transactions occurring July — September 2004 (third calendar quarter). DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Quarterly sales tax revenues decreased by 1.7% as compared to the same quarter of the prior year after adjusting for one -time payments. Key declines came from office equipment, miscellaneous retail, leasing and miscellaneous vehicle sales. The three economic areas vital to the City's sales tax revenue are: transportation (29.24% of total), general retail (22.26 %) and food products (21.61%). These three categories produced 73.11% of the City's sales tax revenue for the first calendar quarter. A comparison of the major business groups is as follows: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -C CC 3 -1 -05 2nd Quarter 2004 2nd Quarter 2003 Percent Change Economic Category Total Percent of Total Total Percent of Total -9.7% Transportation $ 380,208 29.24% $ 421,147 31.82% -6.9% Food Products 280,981 21.61% 301,707 22.80% 2.5% General Retail 289,549 22.26% 282,593 21.35% 8.7% Business to Business 278,371 21.40% 255,976 19.34% 19.34% Construction 60,384 4.64% 51,139 3.86% 0.6% Miscellaneous 11,006 .85% 10,940 .83% -1.7% Total - Quarter $1,300,499 100.00% $1,323,502 100.00% Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -C CC 3 -1 -05 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers February 16, 2005 Page 2of3 A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the quarter just ended as compared to the same period in 2003 follows. The top 25 sales tax generators contributed 47.2% of the total sales tax revenue for this quarter. The sales tax digest attached (see page 2) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Current Year Prior Year Percent Change Geographic Areas 1st Qtr 2004 Total Percent of Total 1st Qtr 2003 Total Percent of Total -8.8% Park - North of Lincoln $ 295,056 22.69 $ 323,496 24.44 -6.2% South Shore Center 240,286 18.48 256,266 19.36 2.3% Park - South of Lincoln 133,006 10.22 129,976 9.82 14.7% Marina Village Business Park 156,307 12.03 136,322 10.30 6.2% Webster -North of Lincoln 72,483 5.57 68,265 5.16 -13.6% Neighborhood Commercial Districts 57,568 4.44 66,606 5.04 -27.7% Northern Waterfront 38,986 3.00 53,938 4.07 0.4% Harbor Bay Landing 49,981 3.84 49,803 3.76 -9.5% Marina Village Shopping Center 34,664 2.68 38,295 2.89 -14.9% Alameda Point 42,156 3.24 49,522 3.74 21.5% Harbor Bay Business Park 39,200 3.01 32,274 2.44 76.6% Balance of City 81,787 6.29 46,323 3.50 -4.0% Mariner Square 16,236 1.24 16,915 1.29 0% Webster - South of Lincoln 26,770 2.05 26,763 2.02 -4.0% Fernside Center 11,108 .85 11,570 .87 -71.5% Ballena 4,889 .37 17,143 1.30 6.3% Heritage Bay 17 0.00 16 0.00 -1.7% Total - Quarter $1,300,500 100.00 $1,323,493 100.00 The top 25 sales tax generators contributed 47.2% of the total sales tax revenue for this quarter. The sales tax digest attached (see page 2) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers February 16, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Following is a three -year comparison by business class. The percentage change reflects the change from 2003 to 2004. Percent Change Economic Category 2004 Percent of Total 2003 Percent of Total 2002 Percent of Total 1.0 Transportation 1,546,989 29.80 1,532,331 29.37 1,603,165 30,59 1.4 Food Products 1,194,385 23.01 1,177,678 22.57 1,117,628 21.32 -10.4 General Retail 1,178,651 22.71 1,316,010 25.22 1,252,934 23.90 7.6 Business to Business 1,007,961 19.42 936,403 17.95 1,021,457 19.49 13.7 Construction 220,662 1.25 194,154 3.72 205,775 3.93 -31.5 Miscellaneous 41,709 .81 60,926 1.17 40,471 .77 -0.5 TOTAL - QUARTER 5,190,357 100 5,217,502 100 5,241,430 100 BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT Our sales tax projections for 2004 -05 have taken into consideration declining trends. We continue to monitor this revenue source closely. RECOMMENDATION This data is provided for informational purposes only and requires no action from the City Council. Respectfully submitted, William C. Norton Interim City Manager JB /dl Attachment cc: Rob Ratto, PSBA G: \FINANCE \CO UNC IL\2005 \021505 \SALESTAXreport.doc leAnn Bo - r ief Financial Officer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service cityof Ieda `( connaclad State Overview City of Alameda Sales Tax Digest Summary FOURTH Quarter Collection of THIRD Quarter Sales 08/13/2004 - 11/12/2004 Quarter 3, 2004 AI [31A MBIA MuniServices Company The overall sales & use tax for California increased 5.1% for the 3rd Quarter of 2004 compared to the same quarter of 2003. While the sales & use tax increased, the cash flow to the local governments decreased due to the implementation of the "Triple Flip ". The State is now reducing local sales & use tax by 25% in a maneuver to cover debt issued to help balance the State budget. Local governments will wait until 2006 before they fully recover the 25% borrowed by the State. Northern California experienced a taxable sales increase of 3.7% for the third quarter 2004 compared to the same quarter of 2003. Northern California gained primarily in the general retail, food products, and construction economic categories. Southern California experienced a stronger taxable sales increase of 6.2% in the same comparison with primary gains in general retail, transportation, business -to- business, and construction economic categories. Regional Overview (% A Yr - Percentage Change by Benchmark Year Comparing 2004Q3 to 2003Q3) Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 1 North Coast %AYr S.F. Bay Area %DYr Central Coast %AYr South Coast %AYr Inland Empire %AYr Sacramento Valley %AYr Central Valley %DYr General Retail 4.7 3.6 0.6 7.0 7.7 3.0 5.2 Food Products 3.7 2.4 -0.2 4.7 4.9 0.4 4.1 Construction 11.2 11.2 10.5 16.1 30.0 11.0 21.2 Transportation 5.6 2.3 7.0 5.1 8.6 2.3 4.2 Bus. to Bus. -0.7 0.5 -1.5 2.5 1.9 -2.8 8.3 Miscellaneous -3.7 -0.7 3.5 -1.7 -2.6 -2.2 -2.0 Total 5.3 3.1 2.5 6.0 8.8 2.7 7.0 Segment;w the F Highest.% Growth ; Heavy ti . Industry r , Energy ;:, Sales ;~Used Auto r Sales ` Energy Sales, Chemical ` Prooducts Energy :Sales Bk!&:' Matls' :. Retail. Segment'with 2 "d' 4{' ` Highest %d Growth �Fiornst�-/ ;:•' Nursery Bldg 1V1`atls. Retail ' f ti� Service ` Station!, Service Station's .. Heavy ' Industry B1dg°Matls , Wholesale • Energy,. Sales <' Segment with 3'd ;Highest, % Growth , Furtuture / Appliances Service Stations {Furniture'/ Appliances . Bldg .Matls " Wholesale Bldg. Matls:., ; Retail Bldg:; Matls.:' 'Retail . . Leasing Segment with Greatest % Decline Business Services Business Services Energy Sales Food Markets Electronic Equipment Food Process Eqp. Electronic Equipment Food Process Eqp. Segment with 2 "d Greatest % Decline Liquor Stores Leasing Business Services Leasing Business Services Light Industry Segment with 3rd Greatest . Decline Light Industry Chemical Products Food Process Eqp. Health & Government Food Markets Office Equipment Health & Government Segment .with the`, Most Taxable Sales Department Stores ' New Auto , Sales ' Restaurants New'` Auto': Sales :' New Auto. Sales New Auto'; Sales ; Department Stores . . Segment with 2"d?` Most Taxable:Sales , New Auto Sales . Restaurants Department., Stores .r ' 'Restaurants ' Restaurants Department :: Stores', '. New Auto Sales Segment. with 3'd'`: Most Taxable, Sales Bldg ,Matis. Retail ' Department Stores :' New Auto Sales ' Department Stores Department'' Stores Bldg,'Matls. Wholesale Restaurants (% A Yr - Percentage Change by Benchmark Year Comparing 2004Q3 to 2003Q3) Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 1 City of Alameda Reconciliation Summary SBE Collections Analysis Local Collections $1,319,761 Share of County Pool (2.62 %) 166,861 Share of State Pool (.12 %) 2,807 SBE Net Collections 1,489,429 Less: Amount Due County 5.00% (74,471) Less: Cost of Administration (8,863) Net 3Q2004 Receipts 1,406,095 Net 3Q2003 Receipts 1,261,105 Actual Percentage Change 11.5% THIRD Quarter Economic Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 3Q2004 Collections Projected 3Q2004 Late Payments Projected 3Q2004 Final Results Actual 3Q2003 Results Projected Percentage Change Historical Cash Collections Analysis by Quarter $1,319,761 (121,069) 1,198,692 101,805 1,300,497 1,323,494 -1.7% $1 ,8 00 $1,600 $1,4 00 . • $1,200 03 ,,, $1,0 00 „ $8 00 at • $6 00 Z $400 $2 00 $0 (in thousands of $) •111•111•11M IN NM • I IN• I MN 1 i INN INN I1111U1i1Tli 2Q2002 3Q2002 4Q2002 1Q2003 2Q2003 3Q2003 4Q2003 1Q2004 2Q2004 3Q2004 $ 90 $ 80 $ 70 e $60 . co $ 50 '1% $40 W $30 ° E $ 20 $10 $0 ■Net Recei pts 1 1St ate & County Pool Receipts •••utS BO E Adm in Fees Due C o u nt y She d ng Du e Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 2 City of Alameda City of Alameda Overview Top 25 Sales /Use Tax Contributors The following list identifies the top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors in City of Alameda. The list is in alphabetical order and represents the most current four quarters. The top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 47.2% of the jurisdiction's total sales /use tax revenue. ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS CAVANAUGH CHRYSLER/PLYMOUTH CELERA DIAGNOSTICS CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS DATA 911 FUTURE COMPUTING SOLUTIONS GOOD CHEVROLET LONGS DRUG STORES MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS MERVYN'S DEPARTMENT STORE OFFICEMAX ONE WORKPLACE PAGANO'S ACE HARDWARE PITNEY BOWES INC. RITE AID DRUG STORES RON GOODE TOYOTA ROSS STORES SAFEWAY STORES SVENDSEN'S BOAT WORKS TRADER JOE'S WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES WIND RIVER SYSTEMS XTRA OIL COMPANY Historical Sales Tax Amounts Year End THIRD Quarter 2002 to Year End THIRD Quarter 2004 Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 3 (in thousands of $) MD Q2004 ♦High EL ow $ 1,0 00 $9 00 $8 00 $7 00 $6 00 $5 00 $4 00 $3 00 $2 00 $100 $0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . . . . . . . . 4> 9,61 �`' tee' • g el �N9 �`��~ i °0 e��1 �0 6- `!' K�yt O� �'�`'� ,y4 t y'` / �� .k.cv °�� 4e9 �e4A t °fie ��° �a �t`14' tit �,o �e P4 0 4 5� `y1 i. y $v zs • 44 V Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 3 City of Alameda Economic Segment Analysis by Benchmark Year — Top 10 Segments Largest Sales Tax Dollar Change by Economic Segment Miscellaneous Closed Acct - Adjustmt Health & Government Construction BIdg.Matls -Whsle BIdg.Matls- Retail General Retail Miscellaneous Retail Recreation Products Business To Business Office Equipment Heavy Industry % Change -31.5 13.7 -10.4 7.6 $ (000) Change 0 -13 23 3 -133 -4 129 -13 Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 4 (m thousandsof $) $900 113Q2003 M3Q2004 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 w�`1 " O< 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 �0� �`e �9 °4 O..D 4' t- 4 ON, .1P\ 'O to 4- p�' +" p e No`e a s44. ,69 5A .S� J�es� w°: °`1�¢ `. its 4 t. �¢' .0' °Q�� i �o 44 -C." 1° P d6 �sr 46' V Largest Sales Tax Dollar Change by Economic Segment Miscellaneous Closed Acct - Adjustmt Health & Government Construction BIdg.Matls -Whsle BIdg.Matls- Retail General Retail Miscellaneous Retail Recreation Products Business To Business Office Equipment Heavy Industry % Change -31.5 13.7 -10.4 7.6 $ (000) Change 0 -13 23 3 -133 -4 129 -13 Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 4 City of Alameda Quarterly Key Gains and Declines for THIRD Quarter 2004 Electron i c E q u ip m en t Leasing Food Processing Eqp H ea vy In d ustry Auto Pa rts/R epair Business Sery ice s R ecre alio n Products C hem ica 1 Products M iscel la ne ou s 0 th er B Idg.Matls -W hsle L igh t I n d ustry 0 Ric e Equipment ( in tho u s a n d s of $ ) -$ 80 -$ 60 -$4 0 -$ 20 $0 $ 20 $ 40 $6 0 $ 80 $ 10 0 Annual Sales Tax by Business Category (in thousands of $ ) -14 .13 -10 k ;g: : 1�Si,cde' ,, v' 2Q 2 00 4 1Q 2 00 4 #.xs rte,. �. °' 4ys' ,e. t S -'' -, - ._ -- - 4Q 2 00 3 2Q 2 00 3 1Q2003 ,eis OZ4 -5 ■ iy I -'mss° rl� T Ski r im - a � � �� li�ir`,�4 :Mt:, 4Q 2 00 2 r x= 0. 343`., '�° „, zs'� -nisi �. L M 4i_ _ .. -,,. -3 , 3Q 2 00 2 ''..ar'.,.. e.i.'r 6,99, 'x_? +: 2Q 2 00 2 ate': 2 1'; 519a._FUn r "...i. ..e.'. I' $0 $1 ,00 0 $2 ,00 0 $3 ,0 00 $4 ,0 00 $5 ,0 00 $6 ,0 1•General Retail Miro od Pro ducts -3 1 -1 I 11 10 24 83 -$ 80 -$ 60 -$4 0 -$ 20 $0 $ 20 $ 40 $6 0 $ 80 $ 10 0 Annual Sales Tax by Business Category Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 5 (in thousands of $ ) 00 3Q 2 00 4 k ;g: : 1�Si,cde' ,, v' 2Q 2 00 4 1Q 2 00 4 #.xs rte,. �. °' 4ys' ,e. t S -'' -, - ._ -- - 4Q 2 00 3 2Q 2 00 3 1Q2003 ,eis OZ4 iy I -'mss° rl� T Ski r im - a � � �� li�ir`,�4 :Mt:, 4Q 2 00 2 r x= 0. 343`., '�° „, zs'� -nisi �. L M 4i_ _ .. -,,. 3Q 2 00 2 ''..ar'.,.. e.i.'r 6,99, 'x_? +: 2Q 2 00 2 ate': 2 1'; 519a._FUn r "...i. ..e.'. I' $0 $1 ,00 0 $2 ,00 0 $3 ,0 00 $4 ,0 00 $5 ,0 00 $6 ,0 1•General Retail Miro od Pro ducts Transportation ®Construction illEBu sin ess To Business MI iscellaneous Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 5 City of Alameda Five -Year Economic Trend: Construction $7 0 (in thousands of $) $6 0 I $50 $3 01�I $20111IhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII $10IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII $ol1111111111111111111I w n n ' n I I I 1 1 I l I I I l I l I l I I I i I I a , a 8 a 8 a Q8 a R is R is 88 R 8 R p8 M �' �' e� S' ti A' M d N t� O a a t�l a a t�l Per Capita by Business Segment: Benchmark Year Ending THIRD Quarter Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 6 Per C ap ita b y B usine ss S egm en t Au toSales - New R esta u ran is office Equipment Service Station s Miscel la neo u s Re ta il Food Markets D ru g S tore s L ight Industry M isc. Ve hicle Sale s Dep a rtm ent S tore s Ap par elS tore s B Id g.Malls -W hsle Electronic Equipment ALL OTHER S $0 $2 $ 4 $6 $ 8 $1 0 $ 12 Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 6 City of Alameda SECOND Quarter 2004 Final Results • $1,548,138 Local net cash collections • $94,135 Less pool amounts • $146,546 Less prior quarter payments • $95,604 Add late payments • $1,403,060 Local net economic collections after adjustments • UP BY 8.0% compared to SECOND Quarter 2003 MMC's Audit Results MMC performs an on -going audit for the City of Alameda. This quarter, the City received $74,644 in sales tax from MMC audit efforts, bringing the total sales tax revenue produced by MMC to $1,637,027. The net return to the City on MMC fees is currently 703.4 %. Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 7 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: William C. Norton Interim City Manager Date: February 23, 2005 Re: Authorizing the Mayor, City Manager and /or Designee to Send Letters Opposing the Proposed Elimination of CDBG and Related Federal Programs in the Administration's 2006 Budget Background The President's Fiscal 2006 budget request, announced on February 7, proposes to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and several economic development programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD.) In their place the administration is proposing a new Economic Development Challenge program at the Department of Commerce. The proposal would make new funds available on a competitive rather than an entitlement basis, and could severely impact the City's financial resources for community, housing and economic development activities. This report discusses possible impacts on the City and seeks authorization to send letters to legislators and other appropriate bodies opposing the administration's proposal. Discussion /Analysis Attachment A shows the HUD programs that would be eliminated under President Bush's budget proposal. While the CDBG program is by far the largest of the programs being eliminated, other programs which have benefited the City and its residents and businesses also are slated for de- funding, including the Section 108 Loan Guarantee program, the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI), Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants and the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG). In place of these and thirteen other programs, the Department of Commerce would be funded - at approximately half the original level - to carry out a new non - formula Economic Development Challenge program. The Home Investment Partnerships program and an expanded American Dream Home Ownership program will remain at HUD and the City should continue to receive funding from these sources through the Alameda County HOME Consortium. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Report #4 -D CC 3 -1 -05 The Honorable Mayor February 23, 2005 and Members of the City Council Page 2 Alameda receives approximately $1.5 million annually in CDBG funding. The program has been in place in Alameda (and throughout the nation) for 30 years, and during this time it has achieved substantial success in improving conditions in urban areas and helping lift families and neighborhoods out of poverty. CDBG is one of the few sources of federal funding that allows local discretion regarding its use; in Alameda the program has been tailored to meet the needs of the community as determined through citizen participation and City Council decision - making. Attachment B shows nearly two decades of expenditures and accomplishments of the Alameda CDBG program. Similarly, Attachment C shows outcomes related to CDBG expenditures in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. The administration's proposal would severely limit the City's future ability to provide these services to lower- income residents and neighborhoods. Through the CDBG and a related HUD program, the City recently received a Section 108 loan for $7,000,000 and a BEDI grant for $800,000. This is the first time the City has participated in these programs, which will facilitate the construction of a downtown parking garage and the creation of 335 jobs in the Park Street business district. The opportunity for future participation to carry out other large development projects will be lost. The City has benefited from a number of EDA grants over the years, including $10 million for improvements at and adjacent to Alameda Point. Finally, CDBG funding has increased the ability of local non - profits, such as the Alameda Point Collaborative and Xanthos to serve residents for more than 20 years. Opposition to the administration's proposal is developing on several fronts. National organizations, such as NCDA (National Community Development Association), NAHRO (National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials) and the U.S. Conference of Mayors have expressed grave concerns regarding the "gutting" of programs with a long history of success, and opposition appears to be mounting in Congress as well. Communities are urged to send letters and make presentations to their Congressional representatives in support of continued CDBG and other funding in HUD's 2006 budget. The Mayor addressed the impacts of the proposed cuts when she met with representatives in Washington D.C. last week. Letters of opposition (Attachment D) have been prepared to convey the City's concern regarding the proposed cuts to the administration, legislators and other appropriate bodies. Fiscal Impact The current annual appropriation for the CDBG program nationwide is, by itself, $4.1 billion. If the administration proposal is enacted and total community development programs (all 18) are funded at $3.7 billion, the impacts will be severe across the country. While the current funds do not appear to be in jeopardy, the elimination of these programs would have significant impacts on funding starting in FY 2006 -07. Alameda currently receives $1.5 million annually in CDBG funding. The allowable maximum (15 %, or $254,000 in FY 05 -06) is allocated for public services carried out Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 1, 2005 Page 3 through community -based organizations (CBOs). This is the only source of financing for City- sponsored safety net services. Direct programs, such as residential and non - profit rehabilitation and small business assistance also would be affected, and funding for public improvements in lower- income neighborhoods would be reduced as well. Staffing would have to be reduced commensurate with the Toss of funds for various programs and activities. The Section 108 loan guarantee and the BEDI grant have already been approved by HUD and do not appear to be in jeopardy at this time. It is unclear how remaining grant funds and program income would be treated under a revised program, however, administrative inefficiencies are likely if, as proposed, the program(s) are transferred to another federal department. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor, City Manager and /or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination of CDBG and related federal programs in the administration's 2006 budget. ./ Respe ;fully submitt Leslie Little D- velopment Services Director By: Carol Beaver Community Development Manager CB:sb Attachments G :CDBG \CounRpts \CDBG Cuts March 1 Council Agenda F: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service ATTACHMENT A Presidential Budget Proposal Housing and Community Development Federal Fiscal Year 2006 Program ($ in millions) 2005 Enacted 2006 Proposed Agriculture Department Rural Business Enterprise Grants $ 40 $ Rural Business Opportunity Grants $ 3 $ Economic Impact Grants $ 21 $ Rural Enterprise Zone /Communities $ 12 $ Commerce Department Economic Development Administration Grants $ 255 $ Department of Health and Human Services Community Services Block Grant $ 727 $ Urban and Rural Community and Economic Devt $ 33 $ Rural Community Facilities $ 7 $ Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants* $ 4,110 $ CDBG Set - Asides $ 302 $ Brownfields* $ 24 $ Urban Enterprise Zones* $ 10 $ Rural Housing /Economic Development* $ 24 $ Section 108 Loan Guarantees* $ 7 $ National Community Development Initiative $ 30 $ Treasury Department Community Development Financial Institutions $ 55 $ Bank Enterprise Award Program $ - $ CDFI.Native Initiatives $ 4 $ Total Reduction in "Community Development" Programs $ 5,664 $ Housing Programs Continued within HUD HOME $ 1,900 $ 1,941 American Dream Home Ownership $ 50 $ 200 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS $ 282 $ 268 Homeless Assistance Grants $ 1,241 $ 1,440 Public Housing Operating Fund ** $ 2,438 $ 3,407 Public Housing Capital Fund $ 2,579 $ 2,327 HOPE VI $ 143 $ (143) Section 8 Vouchers $ 14,766 $ 15,845 Section 8 Admin Fees $ 1,200 $ 1,295 Family Self- Sufficiency Coordination $ 46 $ 55 Project -Based Section 8 $ 5,195 $ 5,072 Total Housing Programs $ 29,840 $ 31,707 * Eliminated in favor of the new Strengthening America's Communities Initiative in Commerce Department ** In FY '05 Congress saved $994 million by converting the operating fund to a calendar year distribution schedule. When anualized, total FY 2005 funding was effectively $3,342 million. Attachment B CUMULATIVE CDBG EXPENDITURES SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1985 -2004 SPENT THRU NUMBER OF 'INDIVIDUALS/ 29TH YR 6/30/2004 HOUSEHOLDS SERVED (IF APPLICABLE) PROJECT ACQUISITION Alameda Family Literacy Portable Acquisition 30,506 Alameda Family Services 46,000 Emergency Food Bank 94,843 Emergency Shelter Operations 45,000 Main Street Greenway and Street Imprvmts 350,000 Midway Trailer Acquisition 75,000 Midway Trailers 150,802 Supportive Housing 25,000 Program Delivery 97,813 SUBTOTAL ACQUISITION 914,964 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EDCA/Operatg Funds /Cert Dvpt. Corp 283,792 Facade Improvements 119,200 Projects Fund /Commercial Loans 138,200 Program Delivery 517,683 SUBTOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1,058,875 PUBLIC FACILITIES & IMPROVEMENTS Alameda Girls' Club Rehab 24,900 Alameda Point Collaborative HeadStart Facility 150,000 Boys Club Rehab 164,379 Building 1 Improvements 141,690 Building 1 Elevator 335,000 Bus Shelters /Benches 32,907 Bus Stop ADA Improvements 100,584 Bus Stop Loading Pads 10,514 Child Care Plans /Specs. 17,403 Curbside Improvements 286,030 Downtown Entryways 23,800 Emergency Food Bank Fac. Upgrade 24,081 Esperanza Community Center Imprvmts 17,463 Food Bank Annex Improvements 9,900 Food Bank Security 1,990 Landscpg & St. Furntr. Impvts 205,300 Mastick Senior Center 1,109,129 Midway Shelter Security 3,000 Non - Profit Rehabilitation Loans 287,175 Parrott Village Minipark 38,000 Pedestrian Signals 42,802 Public Parks Improvements 569,297 St. Reconstrn. /Citywide L/M Areas 193,800 Streetlight Rehabilitation 111,169 Temporary Library Access 85,031 Treatment Facilities Expansion (Seneca) 1,076 Tree Planting 56,404 West End Annex 211,083 West End Neighborhood Improvements 17,092 Woodstock Childhood Dvpt. Center 23,000 Program Delivery 1,156,722 SUBTOTAL PUBLIC FACS. IMPRVTS. 5,450,721 1 Attachment B CUMULATIVE CDBG EXPENDITURES SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1985 -2004 SPENT THRU NUMBER OF 'INDIVIDUALS/ 29TH YR 6/30/2004 HOUSEHOLDS SERVED (IF APPLICABLE) PROJECT PUBLIC SERVICES ACCESS /Homeless Prevention 686,615 12,927 Alameda Kids Coach 9,750 Continuum of Care 2,930 Child Care Vouchers 876,732 535 Domestic Violence Services 79,666 248 Earned Income Tax Credit Outreach 1,074 Emergency Food Bank Ins /Util 72,059 21,075 Emergency Services Network 19,252 Emergency Shelter Operations (UPA) 123,006 1,393 Employment Training Support 2,000 59 Four Bridges Creative Living 323,416 1,480 Housing Placement 3,964 59 Housing Counseling 428,612 11,565 Midway Homeless Shelter 434,713 2,817 Multi- Cultural Center 127,631 353 Public Housing Security 57,100 Recreation Afterschool Scholarship Program 6,149 51 Recreation Campership Program 10,000 32 Refugee Support Services 4,868 321 Rent Guarantee Program 18,500 15 Rev. Annty. Mortgage Cnslg. 9,200 Senior Services 7,500 105 Shared Housing 23,600 Teen Assault Awareness 1,000 214 Virtual Visits 15,000 42 Webster Street Foot Patrol 179,800 West Alameda Teen Club 83,791 393 West End Teen Program 173,161 1,652 WoodChip Afterschool Program 15,000 183 Youth Ldrshp & Job Skills Trng /PAC 24,463 44 Program Delivery 228,949 SUBTOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES 4,049,501 ASSISTANCE TO HIGHER EDUCATION Alameda One -Stop Career Center 40,606 225 SUBTOTAL ASSISTANCE TO HIGHER ED. 40,606 REMOVAL OF ARCH. BARRIERS Audible Traffic Signals 5,546 Fire Stations Access Design 34,071 Main Library Access 217,932 Mastick Senior Center 43,893 Public Bldgs. Access (Citywide) 34,400 Public .Prks. Imprvt. /Access Const. 798,089 Public Prks. Imprvt. /Access Design 457,485 West End Library/Access Design 70,000 West End Library/Access Const. 362,000 Wheelchair Ramps 275,573 Program Delivery 172,752 SUBTOTAL ARCH. BARRIERS 2,471,741 MICROENTERPRISE Alameda Youth in Business 13,640 Microenterprise Loan Fund 6,902 33 2 Attachment B CUMULATIVE CDBG EXPENDITURES SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1985 -2004 SPENT THRU NUMBER OF 'INDIVIDUALS/ 29TH YR 6/30/2004 HOUSEHOLDS SERVED (IF APPLICABLE) PROJECT Small Business Assistance Program 91,558 Program Delivery 222,325 SUBTOTAL MICROENTERPRISE 334,425 73 HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE Down Payment Assistance Loan Program 76,800 2 SUBTOTAL HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE 76,800 RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION ARRA Building Improvements 79,571 Building 7 Improvements 177,113 Commercial Predevelopment 33,012 Commercial Rehab 178,836 Housing Rehabilitation Loans 1,362,986 349 (also includes Rental & Sub Rehab) Minor Home Repair 334,741 486 (also includes MHR) Public Housing Rehabilitation 99,300 Rental Rehab (CDBG) 823,618 included in HR Rental Rehab Grant - CD Admin Costs 298,237 Residential Rehab Predevelopment 46,214 Roof Leader /Sewer Lat. Abmt. 7,926 Substantial Rehabilitation 4,442,122 Weatherization 4,371 included in HR Utility Underground Rebate 595 included in MHR Program Delivery 3,565,983 SUBTOTAL REHABILITATION 11,454,626 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Alameda Kids Coach 19,926 Conflict Resolution Training 20,500 Demand - Response Transportation 31,242 Harbor Island Neighborhood 12,190 Housing Scholarship 13,153 Shared Housing 9,605 West End Neighborhood 44,244 SUBTOTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 150,860 SUPPORT OF HOME - FUNDED ACTIVITIES Down Payment Assistance Program Management 8,483 Housing -Jobs Scholarship Program Management 35,000 Security Deposit Assistance Program Mgmt 16,000 SUBTOTAL SUPPORT OF HOME - FUNDED ACT 59,483 PLANNING /ADMINISTRATION Continuum of Care 8,937 Fair Housing Counseling 122,901 General Administration 4,271,456 General Plan Update 22,993 HOME Administration 11,309 Legislative Analyst 20,000 Planning (Env. Rev. & HAP) 21,300 Mortgage Revenue Bonds 37,000 SUBTOTAL PLANNING /ADMIN. 4,515,896 TOTAL CDBG EXPENDITURES 30,578,498 3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT C A year of serving Alamedans, by the numbers City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds assisted more.than 6,000 low - income individuals in FY 2003. Each CDBG- funded residential rehabilitation dollar leveraged about $1.02 in private and other public investment, contributing more than $500,000 million dollars to the local economy. The City of Alameda is pleased to provide the following services and improvements to low- and moderate - income residents and neighborhoods in our community: Alameda Continuum of Community, Emergency and Social Services Alameda Kids Coach Bus Stop Improvements Child Care Vouchers Conflict Resolution Training Domestic Violence Services Earned Income Tax Credits Food Bank Utilities Four Bridges Creative Living Center Housing Counseling Littlejohn Park Improvements Mastick Senior Center Midway Homeless Shelter Recreational Afterschool Program Scholarships Residential Rehabilitation Small Business Assistance Program West Alameda Teen Club Woodchip After - School Program 1,108 households avoided homelessness through case management and support services to increase household resources. American Red Cross 23 low- income children rode on the Alameda Kids Coach to quality child care or summer programs. Alameda Development Services Department 30 bus stops were enlarged and retrofitted to accommodate physical disabilities. Alameda Public Works Department. 38 childcare vouchers were provided for children from 23 families, enabling low- income households to obtain and/or maintain employment. BANANAS, Inc. 48 representatives of community based organizations received training in conflict management. Information and referrals for 205 individuals and legal assistance and counseling for 28 victims of domestic violence. Family Violence Law Center Tax preparation assistance for 63 low- income households. Households received an average tax return of $1,874. American Red Cross Operating funds for insurance and utilities allowed food distribution to 3,388 individuals. Alameda Food Bank, Inc. 45 emotionally disabled adults benefited from independent living skills and peer support sessions. 8 participants in the vocational program secured work. Bay Area Community Services 563 tenant households and property owners were served by landlord- tenant mediation and eviction prevention. 27 households were served through fair housing counseling. Sentinel Fair Housing Renovation of landscape and playground equipment completed. Alameda Recreation and Parks Department 105 seniors received case management services to assist with procuring health care /health insurance, transportation, financial support and housing. Alameda Recreation and Parks Department 110 women and their families were temporarily housed and received case management and supportive services. 62% who resided for at least 30 days exited to safe housing and /or fuller employment. Building Futures for Women and Children 51 youth served with recreational scholarships for Afterschool and summer programs. Alameda Recreation and Parks Department 9 owner- and 15 renter - occupied units were repaired through the Housing, Rental Rehabilitation and Minor Home Repair Programs. 1 new unit was completed through the Substantial Rehabilitation Program. Private owners Citywide 21 entrepreneurs received financial assistance and an additional 61 received technical assistance. Microenterprises Citywide 144 youths participated in the activities of the West Alameda Teen Club, including arts, recreation, leadership development and computer programs. Alameda Boys & Girls Club 183 low- performing youth received tutoring, homework assistance, literacy training, and arts education. Alameda Unified School District Development Services Department, 950 W. Mall Square, 2 "d Floor, Alameda, CA 94501, 510.749.5800 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service February 22, 2005 The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: ATTACHMENT D We need your help in saving the Community Development Block (CDBG) Program. The President's FY06 budget proposes the total elimination of CDBG. In lieu of the long- standing CDBG program, the Administration is proposing the creation of a smaller program within the Depaitinent of Commerce that will focus mainly on economic development. CDBG has served communities for 30 years as a resource to help cities, counties and States met their community development, affordable housing and economic development needs. In the City of Alameda alone, CDBG has had the following impact: • A jobs creater: Through CDBG and a related HUD program, the City recently received a Section 108 loan for $7,000,000 and a BEDI grant for $800,000. This funding will facilitate the construction of a downtown parking garage and the creation of 335 jobs. • A powerful economic engine: Every CDBG dollar spent on residential rehabilitation leveraged, on average, $1.28 of private and/or other public funds during the last 4 years. Nearly $2.6 million was contributed to the local economy through residential rehabilitation alone. In addition, CDBG funds the City's Small Business Assistance Program, which provides technical assistance to over 80 small businesses each year and helps to generate new jobs and business tax revenue. CDBG also supports child care vouchers and several after - school programs that enable parents to work full -time. • A catalyst for creating more affordable housing: CDBG funds have been used to reclaim and create new affordable rental units in vacant or underutilized residential buildings. More than 100 such units have been developed in the past 15 years of CDBG participation. CDBG has also helped to establish residences for 200 formerly homeless families at the former Alameda Naval Air Station, now known as Alameda Point. CDBG funds also support work by the Bay Area Red Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Senator Dianne Feinstein February 22, 2005 Page 2 Cross, Building Futures with Women and Children and Family Violence Law Center to prevent homelessness through rental assistance, case management, and domestic violence services. Each year, approximately 1,300 Alameda residents take advantage of these services. Since its enactment in 1974, the CDBG program has been, and continues to be, a critical affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization tool for communities. While providing essential services to citizens nationwide, CDBG also improves local economies. According to HUD, in FY04 alone, CDBG assisted over 23 million persons and households. CDBG funds a broad spectrum of activities, including: homeownership opportunities; elimination of slums and blight; housing rehabilitation; public facilities and infrastructure, such as roads, street trees, furniture, parks and community centers; public services, such as employment training, child care, transportation services and services for seniors, the disabled and you; business development and job creation. In fact, according to HUD, more than 78,000 jobs were created or retained by CDBG in FY04 alone. We need you to fight on the City of Alameda's behalf to maintain this vital program within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at a funding level of no less than $4.350 billion in formula funding in FY06. This would fund the program at its FY04 level and restore the cuts made to the program in FY05. Respectfully submitted, CB:sb cc: League of California Cities Leslie Little Carol Beaver G: CDBG\ CounRpt \CDBGFundingLettersFeinstein 021405.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Senator Dianne Feinstein February 22, 2005 Page 3 The Honorable Peter Stark U.S. House of Representatives 239 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Senator Barbara Boxer 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Ms. Genevieve Morelos League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 16, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Interim City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 BACKGROUND On February 28, 2005, the Planning Board will consider a recommendation that the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 8574, subdividing three (3) parcels containing 32.85 acres into sixteen parcels. The parcels are located within the Harbor Bay Isle Business Park and are bounded by North Loop Road, Harbor Bay Parkway, former Lucent Campus, and the Cheese Works, Allergy Research Group and Venture Corporation buildings. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Approval of the parcel map by the City Council is required per Chapter 30, Subsection 78 -5 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC). If approved, the applicant will have six (6) months in which to file a Final Parcel Map in accordance with Section 66452.6 of the State of California Subdivision Map Act. The site is currently undeveloped and is zoned C -M -PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development District. Public Works has provided conditions of approval that are incorporated into the Planning Board Resolution. The applicant has deposited sufficient funds to cover stated charges for the review of the parcel map. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Approval of the parcel map and resolution does not affect the General Fund. �U mvof� Department PublicWorks frYb! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -E CC 3 -1 -05 Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers February 16, 2005 RECOMMENDATION The Interim City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution approving Parcel Map No. 8574. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director C d VYmA22g /.fir By: Ed Sommerauer Associate Civil Engineer MTN:ES:gc G:\PUB WORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \030105 \tpm.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GlyafAlameda Public Works epalttnent Public Wmla Work for You! 0 6) CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 8574 FOR A SIXTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION AT HARBOR BAY BUSINESS PARK WHEREAS, an application was made on December 22, 2004, by SRM Associates requesting a Parcel Map approval in order to subdivide three parcels into sixteen parcels for future industrial/business park users; and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map was deemed complete with comments dated February 2, 2005, >.and was accepted as Complete on February 9, 2005; and cc WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan ®Diagram; and 1— 0 WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C -M -PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District; and 0 WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on February 28, 2005 and recommended approval of the Parcel Map 8574 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 1, 2005, to consider the Parcel Map and examined pertinent maps, drawings and documents; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the applicable General Plans and Specific Plans. Because the proposal does not propose a change in the existing consistent land use or planned development. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The proposed project site is level, undeveloped, and therefore physically suitable for the proposed type of development. The design of the subdivision or proposed improvement is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no significant wildlife habitat on the site. 4. The design of the subdivision or improvement will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. The Parcel Map meets all easement and access requirements. 5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The subdivision layout will not affect public health. The business park was evaluated previously in the 1974 Environmental Impact Report prepared by A. D. Little, certified in March 1974 and the 1988 Addendum to the EIR certified in 1989. The EIR did not identify any health issues associated with the approval of the business park. No additional health issues have been identified in conjunction with subdivision of land within the business park. Resolution # 4 -E CC 3 -1 -05 6. Conformity with the Planned Development is achieved. Approval of this Parcel Map shall be subject to the applicant securing approval of easements which addresses parking and landscaping. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board and the City Council of the City of Alameda finds in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that an Environmental Impact Report 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 previously found to be infeasible become feasible since the EIR was adopted; therefore no additional review pursuant to CEQA is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby recommends that the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 8574, subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing median openings are spaced at approximately 500' intervals. 2. Section 30 -7 -9 of the City of Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) "limits the number of driveways (curb cuts) to one per lot unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Building Services Department and Public Works Director ". Three parcels remain of the original parcel map, which would correspond to three driveways. There is one existing driveway opposite a median opening along Harbor Bay Parkway. 3. Generally, per Section 30 -7 -9 of the AMC, "Driveway widths for commercially and industrially zoned lots shall occupy no more than forty (40 %) percent or twenty (20') feet in width (whichever is less) ". However, in conditions where driveways are shared or turning movements require additional width, the Public Works Director has allowed thirty (30) feet. a. There is an existing median opening along Harbor Bay Parkway across from the common line between Parcels 7 & 13. Although this is not a street intersection, there are four other locations within the Business Park where median openings are opposite shared driveways. One additional median opening will be allowed approximately 500' west of the existing opening or in alignment with the common line between Parcels 15 & 16. b. The driveway for Parcels 7 and Parcel 13 shall be shared as one common driveway. The driveway for Parcel 15 and Parcel 16 shall also be shared as one common driveway. Shared driveways are prevalent throughout the existing Harbor Bay Business Park development. Alignment of these shared driveways with the parkway median openings will allow for adequate vehicle sight distance for all turning movements as well as any ingress and egress from the parcels with shared driveways. c. Should common parcel lines be adjusted or parcels combined in the future such that access to the parcels are no longer in alignment with the median openings, then internal circulation between parcels shall be provided and easements obtained. The location of the driveway is to remain in line with the median cut. d. The existing Harbor Bay Parkway median has only one turn pocket. The median shall be reconstructed, by the property owner, to have two turn pockets similar to the existing median along the parkway at the time that the fronting parcel(s) is developed and at no cost to the City. Similarly, the proposed western most median shall be constructed at the time that Parcel 15 and/or Parcel 16 is developed, also at no cost to the City. e. Thirty (30) foot driveway widths will be allowed to facilitate truck - turning radii's. Parcels fronting North Loop Road 4. Section 30 -7 -9 of the City of Alameda Municipal Code "limits the number of driveways (curb cuts) to one per lot unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Building and Public Works Director. Driveway widths for commercially and industrially zoned lots shall occupy no more than forty (40 %) percent or twenty (20') feet in width (whichever is less)." a. The driveway for Parcel 14 shall be located 150 feet, more or less, east of the adjacent Cheese Works driveway. b. Parcels 1 -12 access is shared by a private street having a common driveway. One additional North Loop Road common driveway will be allowed between Parcel 14 and Parcels 8- 12 if necessary to facilitate truck traffic. Should development of Parcels 1 -6 require truck access from the rear of these parcels a driveway access will only be allowed if shared with the adjacent development (formerly Lucent campus). c. Driveways shall be located at least 200' from adjacent parcel driveways or shall be shared similar to those occurring throughout most of the existing Harbor Bay Business Park development, except as noted in 4f above. CONDITIONS APPLICABLE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PARCEL MAP BY CITY COUNCIL. 5. The final Parcel map shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Alameda Municipal Code regulations (Chapter 30, Article VI), City Council Resolution approving the Parcel Map and shall be satisfactory to the City Engineer and Planning Director. Easements shall be provided on the Parcel Map as necessary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director. 6. All conditions conferred in the City of Alameda Planning Board and City Council resolutions approving the Parcel Map applicable to the final Parcel Map must be satisfactory to the City Engineer and Planning Director. 7. Deed, title reports (not older than six months), adjoiner deeds and closure calculations shall be provided. 8. The final parcel map shall include a statement on the number of driveways and median openings allowed along Harbor Bay Parkway and the number of driveways along North Loop Road based upon the Parcel Map Planning Board and City Council Resolutions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director. 9. A declaration of easements, CC &R's, or similar instrument shall be provided for Parcels 1 -12 for maintenance of the private street, common storm drain and sewer mains, utilities, etc. An annual maintenance cost per parcel with escalator, or similar rate structure shall be included in order to assure adequate funds are available when needed. The document shall be recorded concurrent with the Parcel Map. The document including recording information shall be included in the owner's statement of the parcel map. 10. The subdivider shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including overhead, in conjunction with reviewing the Parcel Map and in obtaining the map signature of the City's consulting surveyor. 11. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $200 to guarantee that a mylar copy of the recorded Parcel Map is provided in the form approved by the City Engineer. 12. Before approval by the City Council of the Final Map, the subdivider shall execute and file an agreement between the subdivider and the City specifying the period within which the subdivider shall complete the private street improvement work in accordance with the approved Parcel Map. 13. The subdivider shall also file with said agreement such good and sufficient security as the City deems sufficient in the form of cash deposits, bonds of duly authorized corporate securities or acceptable instruments of credit. Such improvement security shall be not less than fifty percent (50 %) nor more than one hundred percent (100 %) of the total estimate cost of the improvement, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the agreement, an additional amount within the same limitations securing labor and materials. Bond shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 14. A bond in the amount of 10% of the cost of the improvements shall also be provided to guarantee and warrantee the work for a period of one (1) year following the completion and acceptance of the improvements by the City Council against defective work, labor or materials. 15. The Parcel Map shall expire six (6) months from the date of approval unless vested by the recordation of the Final Parcel Map. Alternately, the applicant may seek an extension by the City Council prior to the end of the six (6) month period. 16. Improvements plans, landscape plans, geotechnical/traffic reports or letters, specifications, storm drain and sanitary sewer calculations, urban runoff, waste management, and other applicable submittals shall be provided as either part of the building plans or separate from the building plans for each parcel development for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director. The improvements plans for the entire private street shall be provided prior to or in conjunction with the first parcel building submittal application for the development within Parcels 1 -12. Submittals shall be prepared by licensed engineers, geotechnical engineers, landscaped architects, etc., and shall be in conformance with City Standards and applicable codes. 17. Any damage to existing City streets during construction shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and depending upon the severity may include but not be limited to pavement reconstruction in the affected areas, pavement overlays and seal treatments. 18. Grading along exterior boundaries of the new parcel developments shall not interfere with the natural drainage of the surrounding areas. Slope areas or retaining walls shall be provided where proposed grades do not match existing grades. Sloped areas shall not direct drainage across adjacent property lines. 19. Obtain all necessary City permits (i.e. grading, excavation, encroachment, etc.) and other governmental permits (i.e. requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board) and conditions. 20. The developer shall pay for all reasonable office and engineering costs expended by the City Engineer's office, including inspection and overhead during the review and construction process. CONDITIONS APPLICABLE PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 21. The property owner shall enter into a storm water treatment measures maintenance agreement with the City of Alameda assuring both the responsibility for the operation and maintenance (O &M) of the treatment measures and the access by public agency personnel strictly for the purpose of O &M verification. This maintenance agreement shall be recorded by the Property Owner among the deed records of the County Recorder's Office (Alameda County). Additionally, and as terms of the above - mentioned agreement, an O &M Plan and an annual Inspection Report for storm water treatment measures shall be provided for review and approval by the City of Alameda Public Works Department Environmental Services Division in compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R2- 2003 -0021 NPDES Permit No. CAS00298313, Section C3e. 22. Submit a report to the City's Environmental Services Division on actual tonnages disposed or recycled for each material, and the actual destination/processor. 23. Submit as -built plans of all civil and landscape plans in both mylar and AutoCAD. CD- ROM form. HOLD HARMLESS 24. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the City of Alameda requires as a condition of this Parcel Map approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the developer shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the ninety (90) day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this ninety (90) day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. 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 1st day of March, 2005, 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 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda C •\PUB WORKS\ pwadmin\ COUNCIL\2005 \030105\resotmp.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. COMMENDING RECREATION AND PARK DIRECTOR SUZANNE OTA FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA records its appreciation for the years • • >- of service faithfully rendered by SUZANNE OTA, for the City of Alameda; and LL. w - WHEREAS, SUZANNE OTA's career spanned from 1973 until present and included - the following positions: Administrative aide for the City of Glendora; Finance Director for the City I of Norco; Administrative Services Director /City Clerk for the City of Thousand Oaks; Community Services Director & Assistant to the City Manager for the City of Fairfield; Community Services 0�. Director for the City of Whittier; Assistant Director of Culture & Community Services Department for the City of Santa Monica; Community Services Director for the City of Rancho Cucamonga; a. Parks & Community Services Director for the City of Menlo Park; and Recreation and Park Director for the City of Alameda; and WHEREAS, SUZANNE OTA has made significant contributions to the City of Alameda in her four and one -half year tenure, among those being: • Completion of the following projects: Main Street Linear Park, Littlejohn Park Playground Renovation, Washington Park Playground Renovation, Franklin Park Playground Renovation; Alameda Point Multi- Purpose Field, Marina Cove Waterfront Park, Renovation of Lincoln Park Picnic Area; Joint Use Agreement with AUSD for Catellus/Bayport Park, and Renovation of McKinley Park Play area. • Suzanne is responsible for three new programs: the Public Art program, the Wee Play program and Earth Day program. WHEREAS, SUZANNE OTA served as the Interim Assistant City Manager from December 2003 through March 2004; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2005, SUZANNE OTA will officially retire from her position as Recreation and Park Director for the City of Alameda. Resolution #5 -A 3 -1 -05 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby congratulate SUZANNE OTA for her outstanding achievement in her service to the City of Alameda and to the profession of local government management. Mayor Beverly Johnson Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore Councilmember Doug deHaan Councilmember Tony Daysog Councilmember Frank Matarrese 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 , 2005, 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 , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum Date: To: February 23, 2005 Honorable Mayor and Council Members From: William C. Norton, City Manager Re: Public Hearing to consider ZA05- 0001/R05 -0001 Zoning Text Amendment/Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater Overlay District. A continuance is requested to the City Council meeting of March 15, 2005 to allow for further consideration and recommendation of the ordinance by the Planning Board at their meeting of February 28, 2005. By: Respectfully submitted, J-. L Cormack Interim Planning Director Cy hia Eliason Supervising Planner Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Public Hearing and Intro of Ordinance #5 -B 3 -1 -05 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: February 24, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: William C. Norton Interim City Manager Re: Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in the City of Alameda BACKGROUND On July 23, 2004 the City was notified that the Fifteen Group, owners of the Harbor Island Apartment complex, was sending out notices of termination of tenancy to approximately 370 of their residents. The mass eviction has created severe hardships on those tenants as well as the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) and the community. On February 1, 2005, the City Council discussed a proposal submitted by the Harbor Island Tenants Association which described their proposed relocation assistance legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction, condominium conversion, and demolition in the 'West End Atlantic Corridor Area." The City Council heard extensive public testimony and directed the City Manager to "provide the framework for a committee which would include defining what happened at Harbor Island Apartments and how to prevent the situation from happening again." DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The following structure for the Task Force is planned in order to represent and balance the interests of the entire Alameda community: 1 City Council member 1 AUSD Board member 1 City staff member 1 representative of the Harbor Island Tenant Association 1 representative of a local housing advocacy organization 1 at -large tenant who resides in the City of Alameda Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Agenda Item #5 -C 3 -1 -05 Honorable Mayor and February 24, 2005 Councilmembers Page 2 of 2 1 representative of a rental housing association 1 realtor who represents Alameda rental property owners 1 at -large rental property owner in the City of Alameda The mission of the Task Force is to develop strategies to prevent future mass evictions for rental apartment complexes in the City of Alameda. Potential strategies that may be considered are in the areas of code compliance, legislation, education, and new initiatives to provide affordable housing. It is expected that the Task Force will exist for ninety days at which time it will submit a list of recommendations to the City Council for consideration. It is planned that the Mayor will appoint the Task Force members. FINANCIAL IMPACT Establishing this Task Force will have minimal financial impact as it will be staffed by existing City staff and will not be subject to public meeting requirements. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only. No Council direction or action is required to establish the task force. WCN: cj Respectfully submitted, • William . C Norton Interim City Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: "Bill Trento" <btrento @hotmail.com> To: Doug DeHaan Date: Thursday - February 3, 2005 10:51 AM Subject: No Rent Control in Alameda ' Mime.822 (1116 bytes) {View] [Save Asl Dear Mr. deHaan, I am strongly AGAINST rent control in Alameda. Bill Trento N Re: Agenda Item #5 -C 3 -1 -05 http: / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet /webacc ?action= Item.Read &User. context= co4lsdXk l lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mai t Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: Lisa Fowler <lisaglr @pacbell.net> To: Doug DeHaan, Marie Gilmore, Beverly Johnson, Tony Daysog, " fmataresse@ ci. alameda. ca. us" .SMTP /MIME.Alameda @ci.alameda.c Date: Wednesday - February 2, 2005 2:55 PM Subject: Landlord/Tenant Committee 1 Mime.822 (2035 bytes) [View] [Save Asl Hon. Mayor, Vice -Mayor and Members of the City Council, I attended the meeting last night, and want to thank you for your extreme patience and perseverance on all the issues, but particularly 5 -C. Toward the end of the meeting, one of the ideas which came from the Council was the formation of a committee with representatives from the Harbor Island Tenants' Association. I believe it was Marie Gilmore who asked for landlord participation. As I said during the meeting, our portfolio represents roughly 1,000 units, most of them residential, and nearly 300 clients. I have been in property management for 15 years, and I own two small rental properties with my husband. Our company has worked with many of the Harbor Island tenants to find them other housing, and we are quite familiar with the situation. Like the rest of the community, we felt deeply affected by the actions of the Fifteen Group. I am writing to offer my time and involvement if such a committee is formed. Thanks again, Lisa Fowler Senior Property Manager Gallagher & Lindsey, Inc. http: // smtp. ci .alameda.ca.us /servlet/webacc? action =Item. Read &User.context= co4lsdXk l lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Phone Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: Christina Baines To: Tony Daysog, Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore Date: Tuesday - February 1, 2005 6:03 PM Caller: Rosemare Company: Meals on Wheels Phone: 865 -6131 Just wanted to let you know that four of the tenants of Harbor Island Apartments who were displaced (and receive their meals from Meals on Wheels) are now living elsewhere in the City thanks to the Housing Authority. They are much better off and doing great. N http: / /smtp.ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action= Item.Read &User. context= co4lsdXk l lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: Vivian MORAN To: Tony Daysog, Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore Date: Tuesday - February 1, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Phone Message Mr. William Gonsalves, a landlord of the property at 2220 Lincoln Avenue, phoned to voice his opinion regarding any changes /ordinances re handling of tenants, leases, etc. in Alameda. He is strongly opposed to any changes. It is difficult enough for landlords now, and never has he seen so many units unrented in Alameda http:// smtp. ci .alameda.ca.us /servlet/webacc? action= Item.Read &User.context= co4lsdXk 1 lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: Elizabeth Acord To: gilmores @alamedanet.net, tdaysog @aol.com, Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, frank_matarrese @yahoo.com Date: Tuesday - February 1, 2005 4:36 PM Subject: Phone Message Hello all, Randy Reed would like to speak with you re: your position on the proposed rent control /landlord assistance issue, hopefully before the meeting this evening. He can be reached at 715 -5821. -Liz N http: / /smtp.ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action= Item.Read &User. context= co4lsdXk l lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Page 1 of 1 Mail Message Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: Jeanne Allen <allen.jeff @comcast.net> To: Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore, Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Tony Daysog Date: Tuesday - February 1, 2005 4:30 PM Subject: f Mime.822 (1643 bytes) Niewl'Save Asl Honorable Mayor and Council members, Did you know that section 8 pays? Studio $842 per month 1 bedroom $1,019 per month 2 bedroom $1,278 per month 3 bedroom $1,752 per month Even though these are for low income tenants the rents are higher than what we charge. Did you know that in Alameda there is currently an 8% vacancy rate? How many tenants from the Harbor Lights apartments didn't find apartments to move into? How many tenants just don't want to move? This ordinance will open the door to rent control and unfortunately that will ultimately benefit the middle class, not the elderly or working low income tenants. Check with the other cities that have rent control. Please vote no, on this excessive ordinance. Jeanne Allen http: / /smtp.ci. alameda.ca.us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User.context= co4lsdXkl lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: <IKHANSON @aol.com> To: Beverly Johnson CC: Marie Gilmore, Doug DeHaan, tdaysog @ci.alameda.cs.us Date: Tuesday - February 1, 2005 3:25 PM Subject: Rent Control Mime.822 (5271 bytes) Mewl [Save Asi Dear Mayor Johnson, I cannot attend the meeting tonight regarding rent control. I own units in Alameda and pride myself on being a good landlady. We all know that the price of property in Alameda is higher than most cities. It becomes harder and harder to keep rents at a reasonable rate. It is almost impossible to get ANY rate of return on a "rented" single family home, particularly if the owner acquired the property within the last few years. In order to maintain rental property, and provide the tenant with all that the tenant deserves for his or her money, it does dictate that the owner get SOME sort of return and maintain SOME rights of ownership. While rent control on the surface appears to be a GOOD thing, it can be very unfair to owners. As it is now, tenants have more rights concerning "bad" owners, than owners have remedy against any "bad" tenants. Please consider the hardship that RENT CONTROLS place on an owner. It makes it almost impossible for them to SELL or refinance a piece of property. The amount of income does effect the Appraisal of the property . Rent controls, LIMIT the VALUE of the property. If an owner cannot raise money by means of a refinance, in many ....in..tangA.c__th.A.v..n.. i.. nr. .rnAritQ... #. th.A..,.nrnn .rtm...........1..�.__ N http:// smtp. ci .alameda.ca.us /servlet /webacc? action =Item. Read &User.context= co4lsdXk l lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: "Paula Rainey" <PRainey @mail.cho.org> To: Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore, Tony Daysog Date: Tuesday - February 1, 2005 3:26 PM Subject: oppose rent control Mime.822 (1963 bytes) [View] {Save As] February 1, 2005 Dear Mayor Johnson, Vice Mayor Gilmore, and council members Daysog, deHaan, and Matarrese I am a West End Alameda resident. My sister and I recently inherited a family home in Alameda that is rented. We have been involved in renting this home for the past 4 years since our elderly Aunt Mary needed assistance to manage her affairs, was no longer able to live in her home, and required the rental income to meet her expenses. We are small time landlords and desire to follow the scrupulous standard that Aunt Mary set. I have followed the Harbor Island apartment evictions with great interest. My sympathy is with the tenants. This has been a debacle on all counts. A great injustice has been done. However, I oppose rent control, just cause eviction, and mandatory moving payments. Emergency ordinances now will not benefit the many small time landlords in Alameda. The Fifteen Group can pay moving fees. This landlord can be held to a reasonable standard in the future. The city council can play a pro- active role on such "bad landlord" situations in the future. Thankyou Sincerely, Paula Rainey 556 Palace Court Alameda, CA 94501 510 522 -8005 http: / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action =Item. Read &User. context= co4lsdXk 1 lm... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: "David Turner" <eastbaydt @alamedanet.net> To: Beverly Johnson, Marie Gilmore, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Tony Daysog CC: dctrnvp @aol.com Date: Monday - January 31, 2005 8:52 PM Subject: Opposition to rent control, just cause eviction, mandatory moving payments Mime.822 (5887 bytes) flLiewi [Save As] 1 Beverly Johnson, Mayor Marie Gilmore, Vice -Mayor Tony Daysog, Councilmember Doug deHaan, Councilmember Frank Mataresse, Councilmember It is unfortunate that Alameda's Rental picture has been marred by some outside group from another state. As a property owner and landlord for the last 30 years, I personally do not feel Article XIII is the right answer. I did not know that this was even at the City Council until this week thanks to a mailing I obtained from a realtor here in Alameda. Placing controls on the trust worthy owners here in Alameda will cause even more problems in the Island's housing market. Local trustworthy citizens who have supported Alameda in taxes and soforth from these rental units have been dealt another slap in the face if this passes. In a city that already is having problems financially, a further reduction in revenues cannot help. Too many restrictions will force landowners to take units off the market reducing new people who will move here to Alameda and spend their money here in Alameda. If I wanted to surrender my units to the control of others, I would have chosen to buy property in Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland just to name a few. I was born and raised here and always have taken pride in saying I live in Alameda. I might have to reconsider this if control from my own property is taken away. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow evening due to another scheduled activity. http : / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca. us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User. context= mtfiobXk7ko... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 2 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: "Valerie Ruma" <valerie @inkgraphics.com> To: Beverly Johnson, Marie Gilmore, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Tony Daysog Date: Monday - January 31, 2005 4:49 PM Subject: Rent Control etc. Mime.822 (3168 bytes) Niew] {Save As] To the Mayor and Alameda City Council, As a property owner and long time resident of Alameda both as a renter and more recently as a homeowner, I object to the proposed ordinances involving; Rent Control, Just Cause Eviction and Mandatory Moving Payments. I also object to the city of Alameda spending taxpayer dollars toward ongoing involvement in what should be a private matter between landlord and tenant just because a few disgruntled residents have raised their voices in protest. The evictions of tenants at Harbor Island, while perhaps not handled in the most diplomatic manner, were perfectly legal on the part of the complex owners. If the tenant had a long term lease with the owner, then perhaps there should be some compensation, but if the tenants were on a month to month agreement and the landlord provided 30 -90 day notice, these tenants have nothing to complain about whether there was one or 100 notices served. In fact, it seems that they were compensated far beyond what the landlord was required by law to provide. Yet they still are not satisfied. As a longtime resident of Alameda, I am aware of the problematic history of the Harbor Island complex requiring an abundance of city resources in the form of law enforcement etc. I, for one, am glad to see that the owners have an interest in cleaning up what has become an eyesore and constant source of problems for a large part of Alameda's West End. If we want to make and keep Alameda a desirable place to live and work, we need to stop being bulldozed by advocacy groups which represent a very small portion of the population with nothing but their own self interest in mind. Finally, I would not like to see Alameda become bogged down in Rent Control and other disincentives for landlords to upgrade and maintain their http : / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca. us /servlet/webacc? action =Item. Read &User. context= mtfiobXk7ko... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Page 2 of 2 properties in a manner which is consistent with the proud heritage of this very special island city. Please vote NO on requests for Rent Control, Just Cause Eviction and Mandatory Moving Payments. Thank you. Valerie Ruma http: / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca. us /servlet/webacc ?action =Item. Read &User. context= mtfiobXk7ko... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: Vivian MORAN To: Tony Daysog, Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore Date: Monday - January 31, 2005 2:39 PM Subject: Phone Message Re Item 5C - Landlords Mr. T. V. Germono phoned today, 1/31/05. He wishes to express his concern about Item 5C on tomorrow's City Council Agenda. He believes that the City Council should leave things as they are now in Alameda. We should not have rent control nor further penalize landlords. N http: / /smtp.ci. alameda.ca.us /servlet/webacc? action= Item.Read &User. context= mtfiobXk7ko... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: <Ophelia.Garcia @sf.frb.org> To: Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore, Tony Daysog CC: afnic @comcast.net Date: Monday - January 31, 2005 2:01 PM Subject: Email Supporting Park Centre Animal Hospital Building Plan and Re- zoning Petition DUCHESS5X7.jpg (157366 bytes) [Viewl [Open] [Save As' Mime.822 (222570 bytes) [Viewl [Save As] To Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council: We are writing in support of Park Centre Animal Hospital's plans for a new hospital and encourage the city council to approve its design for a new building and its petition to re -zone the second lot involved in the construction from residential to commercial. We are long- term residents of the city and have been clients of Park Centre since 1996. The growing number of pet owners in Alameda and the success of pet- oriented businesses indicate that the community could benefit from Park Centre's plan to build a new veterinary hospital. Park Centre personifies and fulfills the spirt of the city's vision for successful "small town" types of business in the community. It is not owned by a large corporation, but by three women doctors who live in this area. It is a member of the Park Street Business Association and supports community activities, e.g., Girls Soccer Club and Alameda Boys & Girls Club. We understand the concerns of the gentleman who protested the building's construction in view of its modern design. However, the building's functionality requirements make it impractical to architecturally design the hospital with the layout of a house or perhaps even the facade of a house. The proposed building has http: / /smtp. ci.alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User.context= mtfiobXk7ko... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: ANNE HARRIS <anneharrisseaside @msn.com> To: Tony Daysog, Beverly Johnson, Marie Gilmore, Doug DeHaan, dc2doug @aol.com, frank_matarrese @yahoo.com Date: Monday - January 31, 2005 12:41 PM Subject: Possible rent control or other laws limiting rental property from anne harris Mime.822 (8743 bytes) Mewl [Save As} de Dear Mayor Johnson and Alameda Council members: I e- mailed you several weeks ago concerning possible rent control, but have an additional comment. As I mentioned, I am now living in Oregon (but hope to return to Alameda eventually), but own a 4 unit apartment building in Alameda. When I bought my building, it was in horrible shape. Everything inside and outside the building had to be repaired /replaced — floors, walls, water damage both inside and outside, etc. The contractor hired to do the work said he had to work on all 4 units at once. He would do, e.g., all the sheet rocking, then all the tile work, etc. As a result, I gave notice to all tenants to move, which they did. I relate this story because I understand that the primary motivation for the council wanting to act is a mass eviction at an apartment building in Alameda. There are many reasons for asking more than one N http : / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca. us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User. context= mtfiobXk7ko... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: "Florence Lamm Coustier" <ladybug @alamedanet.net> To: Beverly Johnson, Marie Gilmore, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Tony Daysog Date: Friday - January 28, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: Alameda Rental Property Owners Mime.822 (2526 bytes) Niewl'Save As] January 28, 2005 - At this time we do not need rent control or an emergency ordinance in Alameda. I am apposed to it. I have been renting my duplex apartment for over 44 years with few problems and recommend you keep regulations as they are at this time. Florence Lamm Coustier, 2105A Pacific Avenue - 523 -5570 http: / /smtp. ci. alameda.ca.us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User.context= gl9tzeXk7tre... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: Ellen Ferris <ellen_ferris @yahoo.com> To: Doug DeHaan Date: Thursday - January 27, 2005 3:07 PM Subject: against proposed ordinances ' Mime.822 (2370 bytes) [View] [Save As] Councilmember Doug deHaan: I am a Rental Property owner in Alameda and I am opposed to the proposed ordinances for Rent Control, Just Cause Eviction, and Mandatory Moving Payments. I strongly urge you to vote against these ordinances. Sincerely, J. W. Silveira J. W. Silveira Co. 499 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606 510- 834 -9810 Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. N http: / /smtp. ci. alameda.ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action= Item.Read &User. context= erany9Xk7hp... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: Vivian MORAN To: Tony Daysog, Beverly Johnson, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore Date: Thursday - January 27, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Phone Message Shirley Lee phoned and asked that we give the following message to the City Council: She and her husband, David Louis, are Alameda residents and property owners. They are opposed to any form of rent control in Alameda. http : / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca. us /servlet/webacc ?action =Item. Read &User. context= erany9Xk7hp... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View N From: dex hong <dex_hong @yahoo.com> To: Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese, Marie Gilmore, Beverly Johnson, Tony Daysog Date: Thursday - January 27, 2005 1:17 PM Subject: Proposed Alameda Rental Ordinances f Mime.822 (3857 bytes) [View] [Save Asi Dear Sirs: As landlords in the County of Alameda, City of Alameda for the past 20 plus years, we find it unconscionable that because of the action of one landlord that you would try to legislate rental laws to all owners of rental property in favor of tenants. No one seems to remember the hard working owners who have been fair and reasonable with their tenants. This number of owners would be far greater than those few who take advantage of the system. Many of us have put money aside for rental investments to help us with our retirement income. By limiting our ability to dictate rents because of increasing expenses such as utilities, deferred maintenance, etc.; having the ability of "just cause evictions" for deadbeat tenants, and mandatory moving payments are tying our hands to operate our businesses. The only time we have had to evict a tenant is for non - payment of rent. Giving renters the right to delay evictions will cost us. We oppose these ordinances. Sincerely, Dexter and Mei -Mei Hong http: / /smtp.ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User.context= erany9Xk7hp... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 N Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: <Conreyl0 @aol.com> To: Doug DeHaan Date: Thursday - January 27, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: We are against rent control Mime.822 (7046 bytes) [View] [Save As] Councilmember Doug deHaan: My husband, Jerry Reynolds, and myself have been Landlords in Alameda for the past 10 years. We have approximately 25 units, mainly 4- plexes and 2- plexes in Alameda. We also live in Alameda and vote in every election. We are opposed to any rent control or other restrictions that are now being proposed by the City Council. Why should we who are already distressed by high vacancy rates in our properties and, just as important, are Vi._. -..4, a_ http: / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action= Item.Read &User. context= erany9Xk7hp... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: <NDSnpal @aol.com> To: Frank Matarrese, Doug DeHaan, Marie Gilmore, Tony Daysog, bjohnson @ci.alameda.ca Date: Thursday - January 27, 2005 9:36 AM Subject: rent control, etc. Mime.822 (1533 bytes) Mewl [Save Asl I am against the proposal for rent control in Alameda, against the proposal for mandatory moving payments. Nancy Stiner 2009 San Antonio Ave. N http: / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet /webacc ?action =Item. Read &User. context= erany9Xk7hp... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: "tgalt" <tgalt @comcast.net> To: Doug DeHaan Date: Wednesday - January 26, 2005 4:30 PM Subject: Oppose Rent Control, Just Cause Eviction, or Mandatory Moving Payment Ordinances Mime.822 (5230 bytes) [view] ]Save Asl Dear Councilmember deHaan: We urge you to oppose any Rent Control, Just Cause Eviction, or Mandatory Moving Payment ordinances. One need only look at the decline in the quality of rental housing in the Cities of Berkeley and San Francisco to conclude that ordinances of this type only reduce the quality of life for all city residents. Such ordinances place an undue burden on those who strive to provide desirable, high quality rental housing. Respectfully, Thomas E. Galt and Tamara L. Galt 1613 Benton Street Alameda, CA 94501 N http: / /smtp.ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action= ltem.Read &User. context= erany9Xk7hp... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 1 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: Elizabeth Acord To: gilmores @alamedanet.net, tdaysog @aol.com, Doug DeHaan, frank_matarrese @yahoo.com Date: Wednesday - January 26, 2005 9:18 AM Subject: Phone Messages Hello all, Both Lee and Carol Haux called to register their opposition to the idea of rent control in Alameda. If you'd like to speak to either /both of them, they can be reached at 865 -8050. -Liz N http: / /smtp. ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet /webacc ?action =Item. Read &User. context =oj 6gtOXk2ps... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Mail Message Page 1 of 2 Close Previous Next Forward Reply to Sender Reply All Move Delete Read Later Properties Print View From: Mili M. Delbecq <mdelbecq @alamedanet.net> To: Tony Daysog, Marie Gilmore, Doug DeHaan, Frank Matarrese Date: Friday - January 21, 2005 12:51 PM Subject: Proposed landlord laws and housing policies for the poor Part.001 (2393 bytes) [Mewl [Open] [Save Asl Mime.822 (5782 bytes) [Mewl [Save As] Mili M. Delbecq 427 Cola Ballena Alameda, CA 94501 1/21/05 City Council members I am writing to say that I am opposed to the idea to require landlords to pay a relocation stipend when emptying more than 40 apartments and to put a moratorium on development in the West End. There are so many potential unintended consequences. If we make it any more difficult for owners to improve and upgrade rental properties, Alameda will be known as a place for slum lords and unattractive properties. Such properties generate less tax income for the city and drag down the value of other residential property in the area. This complex has been known as a source of a large percentage of the police calls by Alameda police. Tenants from this complex who are law abiding will not have difficulty in finding other housing in Alameda and would probably be welcomed back to the complex in question. However I, for one, would be happy to have criminals move out of Alameda. I am puzzled and dismayed at most of the actions you have taken in recent months with regard to this complex. Here you have a owner that is trying to upgrade his property and you appear to be blocking it at every opportunity. What kind of message does that send to people who might be interested in investing in Alameda? Businesses thinking about relocating to Alameda will look at what kind of housing is available for their employees, as well as schools and crime. Would you want to move today into the neighborhood where that complex is located? This does not mean that I am opposed to housing for the poor, but I do N http: / /smtp.ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc ?action= Item.Read &User. context= pt3rw6Xk9rn... 2/3/2005 Novell WebAccess Page 2 of 2 believe it should be accomplished by "in- fill" whenever possible and interspersed with market rate housing, not in one huge complex and not all in the West End. I think you and the City Council have done a great job with securing affordable and low income housing in the new developments that have been built in the last few years. It is time to rethink and apply this formula and strategy to other housing actions such as this complex as well as at Alameda Point. Sincerely, Mili M. Delbecq http: / /smtp.ci. alameda. ca.us /servlet/webacc? action = Item. Read &User.context= pt3rw6Xk9rn... 2/3/2005 Dear City Officials: I live in Alameda and have owned rental units in Alameda for over 30 years. In your actions regarding rent control, please consider the rights and interests of property owners. Any form of rent control is unfair and has not worked. If the tenants control the property, then who owns the property? A tenant signs a month -to -month contract with an owner. I shudder to think that the rental agreement becomes a life long contract if the tenant goes to city council meeting and makes a lot noise. I hope that the subject of rent control is not connected to the events at the Harbor Island Apartments. While I feel sorry for some of the tenants, the remodeling project was something that had to be done. The property owner did the City of Alameda a long time favor with short time consequences. The amount of time the Alameda police spend answering calls is significant. Knifings, shootings, drug deals, and spousal abuse are reported in the paper regularly. I believe some of the burglaries at Alameda Point are connected to the Harbor Island Apartments. Ultimately, would you want the HIA crime incubator in your neighborhood? Thanks Craig Roberts E 0 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNCIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOLF COMMISSION FROM FIVE TO SEVEN MEMBERS BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2 -9.1 (COMMISSION CREATED; COMPOSITION), 2 -9.2 (MEMBERSHIP; APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL) AND 2 -9.3 (VOTING) OF SECTION 2 -9 (CITY GOLF COMMISSION) >-BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: ELI CC Section 1. Subsection 2 -9.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ott a- 0 2 -9.1 Commission Created: Composition. There is hereby established a Commission which shall be known as the Golf Commission of the City of Alameda, which shall consist of seven (7) members. Members shall at the time of their appointment and continuously during incumbency be electors of the City. Section 2. Subsection 2 -9.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 -9.2 Membership; Appointment; Removal. The seven (7) members of the Commission shall upon nomination of the Mayor, be appointed by the City Council. The terms of such members shall be for four (4) years and thereafter until the successor of such member is appointed and qualified, and all terms shall begin on October 1. A vacancy in the office of any such member shall be filled for the unexpired term of appointment in the manner hereinabove set forth. A member may be removed by the affirmative vote of four (4) members of the City Council. Section 3. Subsection 2 -9.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 -9.2 Voting. The votes of four (4) members of the Commission shall be necessary for any action thereof. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D 3 -1 -05 Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2005, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda