2005-06-07 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 7, 2005 - - - 5:30 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, June 7, 2005, 5:30 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Manager.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: McGee v. City of Alameda.
3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig
Jory.
Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) and
Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA).
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 7, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, Santa Clara Avenue and Oak
Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission /Board on agenda
items or business introduced by Councilmembers /Commissioners /Board
Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when
the subject is before the Council /Commission /Board. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement
Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting
of May 17, 2005. [City Council and Community Improvement
Commission]
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures
Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06. [Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority];
• Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06. [Community
Improvement Commission]; and
• Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005 -06. [City
Council]
2. Recommendation to approve the Determination that planning and
administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004 -05 are
necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of
low- and moderate - income housing. [Community Improvement
Commission]
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Johns -! L ay
Chair, Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY JUNE 7, 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 5:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 7:25 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas & Electric
and Alameda Power & Telecom for prompt response in relocating
a gas line, thereby greatly aiding the City's efforts in the
construction of the new Main Library.
3 -B. Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our Gay
and Lesbian Citizens and encouraging the community to
recognize these contributions, particularly during the month
of June, Gay Pride Month.
3 -C. Update on the new main library project.
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 City Council Meeting held on May 12,
2005; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on May 17, 2005.
4 -B. Bills for ratification.
4 -C. Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to execute
a temporary Agreement with Alameda County for the exclusive
provision of ambulance services by the City of Alameda Fire
Department to the City of Alameda.
4 -D. Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Long -Term Park
Use Policy.
4 -E. Recommendation to approve First Amendment to Agreement with
Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope
of work and price for the New Main Library Project.
4 -F. Recommendation to set June 21, 2005 as the hearing date for
Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges.
4 -G. Recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services:
• Adoption of Resolution Applying for Five Percent
Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll
Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects
for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and Authorizing the
Acting City Manager to Enter into All Agreements Necessary
to Secure These Funds;
• Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Ferry Service Agreement with the
Port of Oakland; and
• Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Blue and Gold Fleet Operating
Agreements for the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Services (AOFS)
and adopt associated budget.
4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Paratransit Service Plan
and Applying for Measure B Paratransit Funding.
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase from
Cogent Systems, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda
City Charter, of Cogent Automated Palm /Fingerprint
Identification System Upgrade in the Amount of $37,815.
[Requires four (4) affirmative votes]
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Adopting an Agreement for Participation
in Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management
Organization.
4 -K. Adoption of Resolution Designating All Alameda Fire Stations
as Receiving Points for Surrendered Babies Under the
California State Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7, known
as the Safely Surrendered Baby Law.
4 -L. Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County
of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in
the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held
November 7, 2000.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Commending Alameda Police Department
Officer Frank Damian for His Contributions to the City of
Alameda.
5 -B. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park
Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections
2 -7.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2 -7.3
(Qualification; Voting) of Section 2 -7 (City Recreation and
Park Commission) .
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting
two Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce
Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new
development proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory
Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak
tree in 2001; and adoption of related resolution. The site is
located at 301 Spruce Street within the R -4 Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky
Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader. [To be
continued to June 21, 2005]
5 -D. Public Hearing to consider adoption of a Resolution,
"Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2005-
2006 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005 - 2006."
5 -E. Recommendation to accept the Donor Recognition and Names Gifts
Policy for the Library.
5 -F. Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic Plan
Report.
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. Discussion regarding City of Alameda Management Practice #37:
Staff - Council Communication Policy. [Mayor Johnson]
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Public Utilities Board. [Partial term expiring June 30, 2008]
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.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY- -MAY 17, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Commissioners / Board
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- CC /05- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 3, 2005. Approved.
(05- CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with
Michael Stanton Architecture (MSA) by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $40,000 for design review services for the
proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project. Accepted.
(05- CIC) Recommendation to accept revised Alameda West Strategic
Retail Implementation recommendations. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
(05- CIC) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to an
Acquisition Agreement by which the Community Improvement Commission
acquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for thirty units of very low income housing
at the Bachelor Officers' Quarters located within the Alameda Point
Improvement Project.
Commissioner /Board Member deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005
1
Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- CIC) Resolution No. 05 -136, "Resolution of Necessity to
Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes;
Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for
Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et
seq. (APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN 071- 0203 -015; 2315 -2323 Central
Avenue, Alameda, California - Alameda Theatre /Cineplex and Parking
Structure." Adopted.
Lester Cabral, Tenant, stated that a lot of information has just
been received; that he opposes the resolution until the tenants are
notified about what is going on; that he understands an eviction
notice might be forthcoming.
Chair Johnson requested staff to meet with Mr. Cabral to answer his
questions.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's question about the property
Mr. Cabral is concerned about, Mr. Cabral responded Hair Shapers at
2321 Central Avenue.
Lars Hansson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board
President, stated the PSBA Board supports the staff recommendation
and urges adoption of the resolution; the resolution will
springboard negotiations with the owner to allow reaching a fair
market value within a short period of time.
Duane Watson, PSBA Board Vice President, urged moving forward with
the project.
Robb Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, stated the project is
important for PSBA and all of Alameda; the restoration of the
historic theatre was identified as the number one priority in the
downtown vision process; urged support of the staff recommendation;
stated Video Maniacs has been successfully relocated with the
assistance of Development Services.
Daniel A. Muller, Attorney for Cocores Development Company,
submitted a letter; stated the letter submitted includes five
categories of objections to the Resolution of Necessity and right
to take the property; the offer of $1.5 million recently submitted
is less than half of the value that a qualified, MAI [Masters of
the Appraisal Institute] appraiser provided 1 years ago; said
appraiser, Mike Dunn, was jointly retained by the City and Cocores
and came up with a value of $3.7 million; the appraisal the City is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 2
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005
using is over a year old; for a jointly hired appraiser to come up
with $3.7 million and the City to disregard the offer and use a
year old appraisal that is less than half of the jointly appraised
value is fundamentally flawed; secondly, the City has not followed
the adopted owner participation rules required by law; the rules
specify that the City will give preference to property owners
within the project area, which has not occurred; the City allowed
Cocores to jointly pay for an appraisal and took half of the
$25,000 price for a feasibility study in 1996 that has been
shelved; the City has been willing to take Cocores's money in
partnership, but has not continued to follow through with any owner
participation rules; the third problem is that the City claims the
justification for the public use of the project is remediation of
blight; the area is not blighted; the blight findings are unfounded
and not supported by the evidence; additionally, there is evidence
that the outcome of the hearing is predetermined; news articles
indicate the City has commissioned construction reports and studies
and committed itself contractually towards the condemnation and
project; the City is conducting a sham hearing and is committed to
going forward with the project; requested adoption of the
resolution be delayed for a couple of meetings to allow the City to
re- engage Mr. Cocores on the fair market value issue; stated City
staff offered $2.5 million to Mr. Cocores at one point and even
offered $3 million if structured as $2 million upfront and $1
million over a period of years; similar negotiations could continue
if the resolution is delayed; if not, the City will face a right to
take challenge; good faith negotiations seem to have terminated but
could be restarted; additional evidence of predetermination is the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been entered
into with a developer; although the DDA is carefully worded that
the Commission is not committing itself to condemnation, the mere
fact that a DDA has been executed with a developer suggests there
is no longer a discussion with the owner; urged delaying action to
resume good faith negotiations and avoid spending resources on
unnecessary litigation; finally, there are fatal, fundamental
problems with the mitigated negative declaration; deferral of some
of the mitigation measures are impermissible under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); CalTrans raised problems, such as
traffic impacts and impacts to certain intersections, that were not
addressed; the City must comply with CEQA prior to adoption of the
Resolution of Necessity; failure to comply with CEQA can create
right to take challenges.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the Commission could adopt the
resolution and give direction to staff to continue negotiations, to
which Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005
3
The Development Services Director stated staff would continue to
talk to the owner about acquiring the property; staff has attempted
to talk to the owner and has not had success.
Chair Johnson stated it appears the owner is now willing to talk
and the City should enter into discussions if the owner is willing.
The Development Services Director stated the City has been working
on the project for many years; a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
redevelopment of the project was sent to the owner in December
2000; the owner sent a letter in January 2001 which thanked the
City for sending the RFP and stated: "the owner's desire is to
wholeheartedly endorse the City's effort to locate a developer to
redevelop the Alameda Theatre;" staff has been proceeding on said
basis for sometime; the DDA does not pre -commit the condemnation
action; staff has always intended and hoped to acquire the property
amicably; noted the property owner did not object at the CEQA
hearings or DDA adoption.
Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to comment on the claim of
defects in the appraisal.
Legal Counsel responded the Commission's action is not predicated
on the joint appraisal; staff has full faith and confidence in the
appraisal upon which the action is being based.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is important; the City
has an opportunity to save the Alameda Theatre; the City should
continue negotiating with the owner.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Commissioner Matarrese would amend
the motion to include approval of direction to continue
negotiations.
Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion to include
direction to continue to negotiate [with Mr. Cocores].
Chair Johnson stated negotiations should continue if the owner is
willing; the owner has indicated a willingness to continue to
negotiate; the City hopes to resolve the matter by agreement;
hopefully, the owner is sincere about being willing to negotiate.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated moving forward is in
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 4
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005
the best interest of the City.
Commissioner deHaan requested staff to clarify whether Hair Shapers
received notification.
The Development Services Director stated that on March 22, all the
tenants were notified that the City made a bona fide offer to the
owner; the City's relocation and acquisition agents provided
information to all of the tenants at that time; staff would ensure
the tenant has all the facts.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports the action to go
forward to allow a common position to be reached.
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 Joint meeting at 8:02 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
May 17, 2005
5
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 2005
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Resolution Approving and
Adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 -06, and Appropriating Certain
Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year;
Community Improvement Commission Resolution Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 -06, and Appropriating Certain Moneys for
the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year; and,
City of Alameda Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital
Improvements Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 -06, and Appropriating Certain Moneys
for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year
BACKGROUND
The City Council was presented with the proposed Operating and Capital Improvement
Budget for 2005 -06 in May 2005. Transmitted herewith are the recommended
appropriations for the 2005 -06 fiscal year. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) has previously reviewed a multi -year financial plan. The appropriations
for ARRA are included in the Budget document and revisions on file in the City Clerk's
Office. The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) is required to review and approve
the redevelopment plan and approve its funding. While ARRA and CIC will have had a
longer term financial plan to review, the City's 10 year plan will be presented in the early fall
to the City Council as the beginning groundwork for the 2006 — 2008 financial plan.
This is the first instance for all three regulatory bodies to act at one meeting to adopt
Operating budgets and Capital Improvement Budget.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Resos #1
Council /CIC /ARRA
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
May 31, 2005
Page 2
The total City of Alameda proposed budget is $279,509,954 (all City funds). The proposed
appropriations include salary increases for the public safety and miscellaneous bargaining
groups for which contracts have already been approved by the City Council.
As a budget balancing option for the General Fund, it is recommended that 11 Public
Safety and four miscellaneous positions, which will be vacant beginning July 1, and three
occupied miscellaneous positions not be funded for the fiscal year. Further, in
Development Services, it is recommended that six positions (three vacant and three
occupied) not be funded.
Service delivery impacts as a result of the recommended reductions will be provided orally
by appropriate departments at the Council's meeting.
General Fund
The General Fund ($69,381,432) makes up 24.8% of the budget and is 4% greater than
the 2004 -05 budget ($66,553,686).
General Revenues
General Fund revenue is projected to grow by 4% over 2004 -05 fiscal year revenues. The
major revenue items show the following growth:
Property Taxes + 14.6%
Utility Users Taxes .5%
Current Services 32.7%
Sales Taxes 1.6%
Property Transfer Tax 14.25%
All of these sources, with the exception of property taxes, are volatile. They will fluctuate
with severe economic changes. Therefore, these estimates are relatively conservative.
General Appropriations
The underlying assumption is that only those ongoing programs and costs, which can be
realistically paid by ongoing revenues, will be approved. The General Fund operating
budget has increased 4% over the 2004 -05 budget. The following table shows the year
over year changes before applying the recommended reductions and after applying the
recommended reductions.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
City Council
City Manager
City Clerk/Elections
City Attorney
Finance
Human Resources
Information Tech
Total Admin
Police
Fire
Pensions
Total Public Safety
Planning & Building
Public Works
Recreation & Parks
Maintenance Projects
Public Works
Planning
ARPD
Total Mtce Projects
Non Departmental
Debt Service - City Hall
Library
Other Post Employ Benefits
Risk Management
Capital Improvement
Urban Runoff
Total Transfers Out
GRAND TOTAL
Departmental Review
Year - over -Year Changes
Before Applying Reductions
Actual $s % Change
($13,403)
($195,815)
($19,345)
$84,120
$165,766
($26,232)
$15,721
$10,812
$3,009,968
$2,705,148
($1,594,200)
$3,486,420
$555,158
($77,839)
$283,272
-9.78%
- 18.63%
- 5.18%
8.62%
8.92%
- 2.30%
1.98%
0.17%
11.61%
15.60%
- 34.88%
8.23%
19.29%
- 1.40%
7.79%
($80,163) -7.47%
$18,941 72.69%
($50,000) - 100.00%
($111,222) -9.68%
($133,762) - 36.75%
($4,668) -0.48%
$68,644 4.61%
$1,441,778
$1,120 0.14%
($719,215) - 78.24%
$0 0.00%
$787,659 18.51%
$4,800,501 7.21%
May 31, 2005
Page 3
After Applying Reductions
Actual $s % Change
($13,403)
($195,815)
($19,345)
($90,530)
$165,766
($103,173)
$15,721
($240,779)
$1,749,842
$2,025,399
($1,594,200)
$2,181,041
$429,715
($77,839)
($10,468)
- 9.78%
- 18.63%
- 5.18%
- 9.28%
8.92%
- 9.06%
1.98%
- 3.81%
8.55%
11.68%
- 34.88%
5.15%
14.93%
- 1.40%
- 0.29%
($80,163) -7.47%
$18,941 72.69%
($50,000) - 100.00%
($111,222) -9.68%
($133,762) - 36.75%
($4,668) -0.48%
$68,644 4.61%
$1,441,778
$1,120 0.14%
($719,215) - 78.24%
$0 0.00%
$787,659 18.51%
$2,824,345 4.24%
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and May 31, 2005
Councilmembers Page 4
Other Major Funds
Economic Development, Community Development, and Housing, all under the aegis of
Development Services, total $47,293,449. The majority of this revenue is from property tax
increments, lease revenues, draw downs from previously sold bonds, federal grants and
other state or county grants. The details of these revenues can be found in a
comprehensive overview beginning at page 106 of the proposed budget document. (The
proposed budget document with revisions is on file in the City Clerk's office.)
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
The Authority has reviewed a long -range financial forecast. It included two major scenarios
and involved cost reductions including some personnel costs. The following is a summary:
Lease
Revenues
Bond Funds
TOTAL
Estimated
Revenues
$10,565,674
$1,065,232
$11,630,906
Detail
Appropriations Pages
$10,349,902
$1,065,232
$11,415,134
Community Improvement Commission
106 -108
State law requires that the Community Improvement Commission review and approve of
Economic Development/Redevelopment and Housing funds. The programs and projects
will have been reviewed during the budget consideration. Following is a summary:
Estimated Detail
Revenues Appropriations Pages
Econ.Dev. /Redev
BWIP $3,343,558
WECIP $3,952,144
APIP $720,000
FISC $13,953,857
$21,969,559
Housing
$3,521,177
$4,504,470
$601,173
$8,328,175
$16,954,995
BWIP $816,983
WECIP $950,485
APIP $136,367
$1,903,835
109 -111
115 -117
106 -108
112 -114
$736,028 109 -111
$981,242 115 -117
$98,996 106 -108
$1,816,266
GRAND TOTAL $23,873,394 $18,771,261
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 31, 2005
Page 5
It should be noted that the FISC developer advance repayment is not included in the above
appropriations.
State law requires that the Commission annually approve the agency's determination that
the planning and administrative expenses are necessary for the production, improvement
or preservation of low- and moderate - income housing. The details of these expenditures
are found on pages 106 -117 of the proposed budget document with revisions.
Other Funds
Measure B (ACTIA) provides approximately $2.4 million in revenues to be used for specific
transportation purposes. The majority of these funds are used for Capital Improvement
Projects.
Enterprise Funds (Golf, Sewer Service, and Ferry Services) have significant revenues that
are from rates set by the Council to meet operating and capital costs.
Other Funds Appropriations
Capital Projects Funds total $6,149,734 and include work on the Congestion Management
Program, Krusi Recreation Center Replacement, Street Resurfacing, Sidewalk Repairs,
Sewer and Storm Drain Upgrades and Urban Runoff projects.
Enterprise Funds (Golf, Sewer Service, and Ferry Services) have significant appropriations
to accomplish their specific missions. The total appropriations are $12,034,108.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
The Proposed Budget as presented is balanced. If adopted as presented, there will be no
impact on the General Fund reserves, which represents 26.9% of the operating budget.
Any reductions of revenues or increases to expenditures will require an equal and
offsetting increase to revenues or decrease in expenditures. The alternative is to authorize
the use of reserves for one -time capital expenditures. The use of reserves up to $1.3
million would leave reserves at a level that still meets the Council's policy of 25 %.
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE
Approval and adoption of the Operating and Capital Improvements Budget is in
conformance with the Alameda Municipal Code and applicable policy documents.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
May 31, 2005
Page 6
The Acting Executive Director of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
recommends the Authority, by resolution, approve and adopt the Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 2005 -2006, and appropriate certain moneys for the expenditures provided in
said fiscal year.
The Acting Executive Director of the Community Improvement Commission recommends
the Commission, by resolution, approve and adopt the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year
2005 -2006, and appropriate certain moneys for the expenditures provided in said fiscal
year.
The Acting City Manager recommends the City Council, by resolution, approve and adopt
the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 2005 -06, and appropriate
certain moneys for the expenditures provided in said fiscal year.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
s
By: IleAnn Bo
JB /dl
G: \FINANCE \COUNC IL\2005 \060705 \BUDGET0406CCRev.doc
Chief Financial Officer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET
AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR
THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Authority at this meeting,
a budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006
attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered this spending plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY that said budget as submitted to this Authority at this meeting,
and each and every part thereof, be, and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the Operating
-Budget for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for the fiscal year 2005 -06, and that
the expenditure of the various sums of money therein provided to be spent for salaries and wages,
maintenance and operation, and capital outlay listed in detail are hereby approved and authorized in
total as the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.
Resolution # 1
ARRA
CC /CIC /ARRA Meeting
6 -7 -05
[APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06
`General Fund
`Special Revenue Fund
$69,381,432 37.99%
Abandoned Vehicle $ 84,063
Low and Moderate Income Housing:
WECIP 981,242
BWIP 736,028
APIP 98,996
Redevelopment:
WECIP 4,504,470
BWIP 3,516,177
APIP 601,173
2003 CIC Tax AIIoc. 2003A1 1,050,000
2003 CIC Tax AIlo 2003A2 12,756,000
2003 CIC Tax Allo 2003B -
CIC -BWIP Hsg 2002 Bond Proceed 500,000
CIC- Housing In -Lieu Fee 1,146,591
Library 2,869,152
Gas Tax 1,067,500
Traffic Safety Fund 150,000
Measure B 2,458,102
Tidelands Trust 143,093
Narcotics Asset Seizure 15,000
Dwelling Unit Tax 173,000
Parking Meter Fund 222,682
Commercial Revitalization 305,156
CDBG 9,359,426
Rehabilitation Repayment 203,332
Fisc Lease Revenue Fund 8,328,175
Affordable Housing Fund 267,065
Human Services (SSHRB) 48,048
Garbage Surcharge 124,694
Curbside Recycling 19,939
Waste Management 422,397
Athletic Trust Fund 1,434,080
Senior Citizens Transportation 138,102
(Capital Projects Funds
$53,723,683 29.42%
Capital Improvement Fund
Construction Improvement Fund
Police /Fire Const Impact
Transportation Improvement Fund
Urban Runoff
3,528,000
515,000
35,000
186,000
1,885,734
$6,149,734 3.37%
19 (Revised 5/24/05)
(APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
"Debt Service Funds
(Enterprise Fund
(Internal Service Funds
'Fiduciary Funds
ITotal All Funds
Debt Svc -1990 Police Bldg
Debt Svc-Library/Golf Proj
Debt Svc - Library Bond 2003
Debt Svc -Debt Sery CIC Tx All Bd
Debt Svc-CIC Sub Bond
Debt Svc-Refin CityHall 2002
Debt Svc 2003 CIC Tax Alloc Bd
Debt Svc for 508 84 -3A
Debt Svc for 510 84 -3B
Debt Svc for 512 89 -1
1998 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
1999 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
Assessment District CFD #1
Assessment District CFD#2
$ 237,330
375,325
651,950
834,968
556,461
826,850
2,970,521
$ 330,000
101,480
3,499,515
2,812,119
3,629,858
1,521,710
178,905
Ferry Services $ 2,271,308
Golf 5,684,761
Sewer Enterprise 4,097,039
Central Stores Fund $ 46,500
Central Garage Fund 7,500
Techology Sery Fund 696,538
Worker's Comp Self Insur 3,323,924
Risk Management Fund 2,240,003
Dental Insurance Fund 610,000
Unemployment Insurance 31,000
Post Employment Fund 1,441,778
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment 11,415,134
Police /Fire Pension 1079 2,275,800
Police /Fire Pension 1082 700,000
20 (Revised _5/24/05)
$18,526,992
$12,053,108
10.14%
6.60%
$8,397,243 4.60%
$14,390,934 7.88%
$182,623,126 100.00%
(APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
'FUNDS Percent of Total Appropriations I
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Projects Funds
Debt Service Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Trust & Agency Funds
37.99%
29.42%
3.37%
10.14%
6.60%
4.60%
7.88%
$69,381,432
53,723,683
6,149,734
18,526,992
12,053,108
8,397,243
14,390,934
100.00% $182,623,126
29%
City of Alameda
2005 -06
10%
5%
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds
• Capital Projects Funds
El Debt Service Funds
• Enterprise Funds
• Internal Service Funds
• Trust & Agency Funds
21 (Revised 5/24/05)
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Alameda
in a Special Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 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
Authority this day of , 2005.
Irma Frankel, Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
is •
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET
AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR
THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06.
co
U
W
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Commssion at this
meeting, a budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the Community
Improvement Commission for the City of Alameda for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and
ending June 30, 2006 attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered this spending plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY
IMPROVMENET COMMISSION that said budget as submitted to this Commission at this meeting,
and each and every part thereof, be, and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the Operating
Budget for the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda for the fiscal year
2005 -06, and that the expenditure of the various sums of money therein provided to be spent for
salaries and wages, maintenance and operation, and capital outlay listed in detail are hereby approved
and authorized in total as the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Commission hereby approves the
agency's determination that the planning and administrative expenses are necessary for
the production, improvement or preservation of low- and moderate - income housing.
Resolution # 1
CIC
CC /CIC /ARRA Meeting
6 -7 -05
[APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
`General Fund
[Special Revenue Fund
$69,381,432 37.99%
Abandoned Vehicle $ 84,063
Low and Moderate Income Housing:
WECIP 981,242
BWIP 736,028
APIP 98,996
Redevelopment:
WECIP 4,504,470
BWIP 3,516,177
API P 601,173
2003 CIC Tax Alloc. 2003A1 1,050,000
2003 CIC Tax Alio 2003A2 12,756,000
2003 CIC Tax Ailo 2003B
CIC -BWIP Hsg 2002 Bond Proceed 500,000
CIC - Housing In -Lieu Fee 1,146,591
Library 2,869,152
Gas Tax 1,067,500
Traffic Safety Fund 150,000
Measure B 2,458,102
Tidelands Trust 143,093
Narcotics Asset Seizure 15,000
Dwelling Unit Tax 173,000
Parking Meter Fund 222,682
Commercial Revitalization 305,156
CDBG 9,359,426
Rehabilitation Repayment 203,332
Fisc Lease Revenue Fund 8,328,175
Affordable Housing Fund 267,065
Human Services (SSHRB) 48,048
Garbage Surcharge 124,694
Curbside Recycling 19,939
Waste Management 422,397
Athletic Trust Fund 1,434,080
Senior Citizens Transportation 138,102
'Capital Projects Funds
$53,723,683 29.42%
Capital Improvement Fund
Construction Improvement Fund
Police /Fire Const Impact
Transportation Improvement Fund
Urban Runoff
3,528,000
515,000
35,000
186,000
1,885,734
$6,149,734 3.37%
19 (Revised 5/24/05)
(APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
(Debt Service Funds
'Enterprise Fund
'Internal Service Funds
1Fiduciary Funds
(Total All Funds
Debt Svc -1990 Police Bldg
Debt Svc - Library/Golf Proj
Debt Svc - Library Bond 2003
Debt Svc -Debt Sery CIC Tx All Bd
Debt Svc -CIC Sub Bond
Debt Svc -Refin CityHall 2002
Debt Svc 2003 CIC Tax Alloc Bd
Debt Svc for 508 84 -3A
Debt Svc for 510 84 -3B
Debt Svc for 512 89 -1
1998 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
1999 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
Assessment District CFD #1
Assessment District CFD#2
$ 237,330
375,325
651,950
834,968
556,461
826,850
2,970,521
$ 330,000
101,480
3,499,515
2,812,119
3,629,858
1,521,710
178,905
Ferry Services $ 2,271,308
Golf 5,684,761
Sewer Enterprise 4,097,039
Central Stores Fund $ 46,500
Central Garage Fund 7,500
Techology Sery Fund 696,538
Worker's Comp Self Insur 3,323,924
Risk Management Fund 2,240,003
Dental Insurance Fund 610,000
Unemployment Insurance 31,000
Post Employment Fund 1,441,778
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment
Police /Fire Pension 1079
Police /Fire Pension 1082
11,415,134
2,275,800
700,000
20 (Revised 5/24/05)
$18,526,992
$12,053,108
10.14%
6.60%
$8,397,243 4.60%
$14,390,934 7.88%
$182,623,126 100.00%
Appropriations I
'APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
'FUNDS
Percent of Total
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Projects Funds
Debt Service Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Trust & Agency Funds
37.99%
29.42%
3.37%
10.14%
6.60%
4.60%
7.88%
$69,381,432
53,723,683
6,149,734
18,526,992
12,053,108
8,397,243
14,390,934
100.00%
$182,623,126
29%
City of Alameda
2005 -06
10%
5%
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds
❑ Capital Projects Funds
III Debt Service Funds
• Enterprise Funds
• Internal Service Funds
• Trust & Agency Funds
38%
21 (Revised 5/24/05)
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a
Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the day of
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
Commission this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
E
L
O
u >-
' w WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Council at this meeting, a
41. Z budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the City of Alameda for the fiscal
y — 0 year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006 attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
ca �
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this spending plan.
>-
o
V NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA that said budget as submitted to this Council at this meeting, and each and every part
thereof, be, and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvement Budget for the City of Alameda for the fiscal year 2005 -06, and that the expenditure of
the various sums of money therein provided to be spent for salaries and wages, maintenance and
operation, capital outlay and capital improvements by each department therein listed in detail are
hereby approved and authorized in total as the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2006.
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR THE
EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06.
Resolution # 1
CC
CC /CIC /ARRA Meeting
6 -7 -05
[APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
`General Fund
`Special Revenue Fund
$69,381,432 37.99%
Abandoned Vehicle $ 84,063
Low and Moderate Income Housing:
WECIP 981,242
BWIP 736,028
APIP 98,996
Redevelopment:
WECIP 4,504,470
BWIP 3,516,177
APIP 601,173
2003 CIC Tax Alloc. 2003A1 1,050,000
2003 CIC Tax Allo 2003A2 12,756,000
2003 CIC Tax AIIo 2003B
CIC -BWIP Hsg 2002 Bond Proceed 500,000
CIC - Housing In -Lieu Fee 1,146,591
Library 2,869,152
Gas Tax 1,067,500
Traffic Safety Fund 150,000
Measure B 2,458,102
Tidelands Trust 143,093
Narcotics Asset Seizure 15,000
Dwelling Unit Tax 173,000
Parking Meter Fund 222,682
Commercial Revitalization 305,156
CDBG 9,359,426
Rehabilitation Repayment 203,332
Fisc Lease Revenue Fund 8,328,175
Affordable Housing Fund 267,065
Human Services (SSHRB) 48,048
Garbage Surcharge 124,694
Curbside Recycling 19,939
Waste Management 422,397
Athletic Trust Fund 1,434,080
Senior Citizens Transportation 138,102
Capital Projects Funds
$53,723,683 29.42%
Capital Improvement Fund
Construction Improvement Fund
Police /Fire Const Impact
Transportation Improvement Fund
Urban Runoff
3,528,000
515,000
35,000
186,000
1,885,734
$6,149,734 3.37%
19 (Revised 5/24/05)
1
`APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06
`Debt Service Funds
'Enterprise Fund
!Internal Service Funds
(Fiduciary Funds
(Total All Funds
Debt Svc -1990 Police Bldg
Debt Svc-Library/Golf Proj
Debt Svc-Library Bond 2003
Debt Svc-Debt Sery CIC Tx All Bd
Debt Svc -CIC Sub Bond
Debt Svc-Refin CityHall 2002
Debt Svc 2003 CIC Tax Ailoc Bd
Debt Svc for 508 84 -3A
Debt Svc for 510 84-3B
Debt Svc for 512 89 -1
1998 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
1999 Revenue Bond Debt Fd
Assessment District CFD #1
Assessment District CFD#2
$ 237,330
375,325
651,950
834,968
556,461
826,850
2,970,521
$ 330,000
101,480
3,499,515
2,812,119
3,629,858
1,521,710
178,905
Ferry Services $ 2,271,308
Golf 5,684,761
Sewer Enterprise 4,097,039
Central Stores Fund $ 46,500
Central Garage Fund 7,500
Techology Sery Fund 696,538
Worker's Comp Self Insur 3,323,924
Risk Management Fund 2,240,003
Dental Insurance Fund 610,000
Unemployment Insurance 31,000
Post Employment Fund 1,441,778
Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment 11,415,134
Police /Fire Pension 1079 2,275,800
Police /Fire Pension 1082 700,000
20 (Revised 5/24/05)
$18,526,992
$12,053,108
10.14%
6.60%
$8,397,243 4.60%
$14,390,934 7.88%
$182,623,126 100.00%
(APPROPRIATION PROFILE - 2005 -06 I
Appropriations I
(FUNDS
Percent of Total
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Projects Funds
Debt Service Funds
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Trust & Agency Funds
37.99%
29.42%
3.37%
10.14%
6.60%
4.60%
7.88%
$69,381,432
53,723,683
6,149,734
18,526,992
12,053,108
8,397,243
14,390,934
100.00%
$182,623,126
29%
City of Alameda
2005 -06
10%
7%
5%
• General Fund
■Special Revenue Funds
o Capital Projects Funds
D Debt Service Funds
• Enterprise Funds
• Internal Service Funds
• Trust & Agency Funds
21 (Revised 5/24/05)
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 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: June 14, 2005
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
From: William C. Norton
Acting Executive Director
Re: Recommendation to Approve the Redevelopment Agency's Determination
that Planning and Administrative Expenses Incurred During FY 04 -05 are
Necessary for the Production, Improvement, or Preservation of Low- and
Moderate - income Housing
BACKGROUND
California Health & Safety Code §33334.3 (Low and moderate income housing fund)
requires annual determination by the Community Redevelopment Agency that planning
and administrative expenses incurred are necessary for the production, improvement, or
preservation of low -and moderate - income housing.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
It is the intent of the California Legislature that the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund be used to the maximum extent possible to defray the costs of production,
improvement, and preservation of low- and moderate - income housing and that the
amount of money spent for planning and general administrative activities associated
with the development, improvement, and preservation of that housing not be
disproportionate to the amount actually spent for the costs of production, improvement,
or preservation of that housing. Planning and general administrative costs allowed are
those expenses incurred by the agency which are directly related to the authorized
programs and activities and are limited to costs incurred for salaries, wages, and related
costs of the agency's staff or for services provided through interagency agreements,
and agreements with contractors and costs incurred by a nonprofit corporation which
are not directly attributable to a specific project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
None
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report #2
Council /CIC /ARRA
6 -7 -05
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
June 14, 2005
Page 2 of 2
It is recommended that the Community Improvement Commission approve the
Redevelopment Agency's determination that planning and administrative expenses
incurred during FY 04 -05 are necessary for the production, improvement, or
preservation of low- and moderate - income housing.
Respectfully submitted,
Willia C. Norton
„,,
tip•' xecuive Dir rntt0
By: Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
WCN /LAL /sf
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
G: /Banks/33334.3
Proclamation
WHEREAS, Alameda's forty-year effort to construct a new Main Library to replace the
1902 Carnegie building has finally begun, to the delight of citizens, library
supporters and elected officials; and
WHEREAS shortly after the project commenced, it was determined that a three -inch gas
Y P j �i
line owned by PG &E was located too close to the perimeter of the
construction site and would have to be relocated; and
WHEREAS, PG &E officials, knowing that delay in moving the line would trigger a delay,
potentially very costly to the City, put the relocation at the top of their "to do"
list and accomplished it without delay; and
WHEREAS, it was furthered determined that secondary electric cable located adjacent to
the new Main Library project would need to be relocated by Alameda Power
& Telecom; and
WHEREAS, Alameda P &T relocated the cable promptly with no impact to the project
schedule or cost;
NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVED that we, the Mayor and City Council of the City
of Alameda, do hereby express our thanks to PG &E, Alameda Power & Telecom, and to all
those who participated in the relocation of the gas and electric lines and do hereby proclaim
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 as
PG &E Appreciation Day and
Alameda Power & Telecom Appreciation Day
in the City of Alameda and e citizens of Alameda to join me in thanking PG &E and
Alameda Power & Telec
for th- . beyond- the - call -of -duty efforts on our behalf.
Mayor Bever
Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore
Councilmember Doug deHaan
Councilmember Tony Daysog
RATE°
Councilmember Frank Matarrese
; ,,•,- ? Proclamation 3 -A
6 -7 -05
ProcCamation
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community
recognize June as their international month of pride and
celebration; and
Whereas, members of our gay and lesbian community contribute to
and participate in activities beneficial to the City of Alameda;
and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community share
in and contribute to our collective culture of strong, loving,
and enduring friendships and families; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
and continue to dedicate their lives to our country in every
capacity, including the military and military reserves, in times
of peace and war; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community have
made numerous material and financial contributions in
support of various city -wide activities and projects; and
Whereas, members of the Alameda gay and lesbian community serve
on various City boards, commissions, and committees, such
as the Social Service Human Relations Board, Cable
Television Oversight Committee, Restoration Advisory
Board, Police Department Community Advisory Committee,
and Library Board.
Wow therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, hereby
recognize the contributions to our city by our gay and lesbian citizens and
encourage the community to recognize these contributions, particularly
during the month of June; Gay Pride Month.
Proclamation 3 -B
6 -7 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Date: May 26, 2005
Re: New Main Library Project Update
Attached to this memorandum is the June 1, 2005, Library Construction Report.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By:
Susan Hardie
Library Director
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report 3 -C
6 -7 -05
Construction R
Construction
b 0
• . C7
0
N
a) O y
O 0 O 'CS
O cn cn - to
R RO E 15
,.0 .O U s•• -+
c+-, Q)
3 0 0 0
•..4 U 0 a) U - �--• z O
• O ^C U 0 a) O b U
Q)
b U p 00
g�yy i4.
O s-, � 0) N
O O U CS Q %,e,
r
o.0 = C E g o'U Q N
}N, O
N 0 �, as 0• 0 CL) y0 'C O X �" 0
cn op ° 0 coy o R 0 a 3
3 g cb . w 0.
a U U U
S N _ O
•O O O b a) n 'C
Ia. O 0 U bA
.� �' U ti) 0) bA - 0 R
0 -4 U O U o 0 a) a) z a)
•-
• • • • • • • • • • • • a
Library Move
Planning process for move begins October 2005.
•
O
QI •
;
a)
U
Arci
CA
ric
N
0
CA
bA
oti
CA
O
a)
E--�
•
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
IS
d 000 0000
000 0000
2 it .a c Of-00
L0 0 0 O a) 0 0
O O O O N O O
L N a) CCoo — c0o�00°
C4 .Q V ct 0 1- N, 0c0
/3 to Co N i
W T
J Q
C 4
�ca O
2t
d o
Z E v
t ui
0
42 c▪ o 2 v co
J
ID i O
co a �LL
L. 4 a c O
LL d -a c u m
ca 0 = -0 Q) c as as
3 LL a) n a) a) cr
O p E W co o co
Q O E m "> o
O C 7 ) n c Q E-
a a) m ° a)
°cu a)
= —
cn CC Q
im
a
3
in
ti
27,073,249.00
Sources Subtotal:
4,510,456.00
Expenditures to date:
22,562,793.00
Balance Available:
G: \Library\New Main Library FS 04- 05.xls
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m.]
Absent: None.
Agenda Items
(05- ) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City
Attorney contract negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours
would be for the consultation services.
Mayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend
upon what the Council requests.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded $250.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not
outside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs
today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the
$300 to $350 per hour range.
Mayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no
fixed duties.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the
outside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours
would be anticipated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for
today's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor
responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
May 12, 2005
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do
that the Council could not do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney
services; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in
advising the Council on her contract.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated
on further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet
number of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the
conflict.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal
issues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question
regarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney's
contract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there
would be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide
information [legal advice]; another attorney's services would be
necessary.
Mayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign
[approve the form of] the City Attorney's contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the
City of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City
Attorney position should be an elected position.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and
clean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract
language is legal.
Mayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a
routine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of]
the contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a
very good procedure.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more
detailed information.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
May 12, 2005
the history of the current situation and review salary scales; an
outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the
contract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the
Council needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the
existing contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the
City Attorney a raise.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with
proceeding.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the
Council's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of
interpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the
outside attorney would be a go- between for the Council.
Mayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside
attorney's role.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly
represents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be
executed by the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a
copy of the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
only the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City
Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result
of a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process
to maintain the Council's prerogative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives
and would not give up anything.
Councilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have
a possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside
attorney to encroach on budget issues.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an
Agreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to
something that she has not reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
May 12, 2005
work in the Agreement; inquired who drafted the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was
meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of
work would be determined later; that she does not want her second
to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement
without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council
could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and
finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in
open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded the motion must be made in open session.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need
to come back to the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to
consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations
regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would
be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would
have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations
regarding her contract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.
Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is
very narrow.
Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks
fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or
as much as requested.
The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid
to outside counsel.
Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment
provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to
allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform
any services the Council does not want.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 12, 2005
4
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to
review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments],
provide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council
regarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the
previous amendments into one contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal
advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin
negotiations with the City Attorney first.
Mayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because
the Council needs legal advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary;
if issues were not resolved during negotiations, then
interpretation would be needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating
negotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract;
inquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be
removed from the Agreement.
Mr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City
Attorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.
Hartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance
on interpreting aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right
time; direction should be given in closed session.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the
modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any
prerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict
of interpretations.
Mr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]
attorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the
attorney.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 12, 2005
5
Mayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is
to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not
get into said situation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to
unintended destinations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated
the matter could be discussed in closed session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be
clarified to: "advising and /or representing the City Council."
Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,
except for the addition of: "as directed by the Council" at the
end.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within "additional
matters" in the scope of engagement.
Mr. Hartinger responded "additional matters" is a catchall phrase
if the Council requested him to do something else.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be
reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the
Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late
payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Matarrese -
1.]
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all
attorneys under the City Charter; the City Attorney is hiring the
outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of
her contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside
attorney would work for the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney
would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all
legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the
hook for the legal advice given.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
May 12, 2005
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal
advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City
Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would
hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney's
contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there
would be a problem.
The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which
the Council requests [outside counsel's] services would have to go
through the City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any
problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the
City Attorney to sign.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement] is
addressed to the City Attorney; the word "you" refers to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that the second "you" in paragraph 1 refers to
the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's
intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if
the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City
Attorney for advice.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;
the Council would need to stay within the scope.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether "you" in the sentence "provide legal
services for additional matters that you request..." refers to the
Council or City Attorney.
Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City
Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention
would occur.
* * *
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
* * *
(05- ) Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: Conference
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 12, 2005
7
with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Arthur Hartinger of
Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that discussed the City Attorney
contract and gave direction Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 12, 2005
8
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 17, 2005- -7:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance v. City of
Alameda.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 17, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Declaring
Support for Measure A [paragraph no. 05- ] would be addressed
first; and next, the Resolution Recognizing the Selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City [paragraph no. 05-
] would be addressed along with the welcome and presentation
honoring Friendship City delegation [paragraph no. 05- ].
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05- ) Resolution No. 13939, "Declaring Support for Measure A,
Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure." Adopted.
Michael McMahon, School Board President, stated voters approved a
$109 parcel tax in 2001, which gave the schools an additional $1.8
million; the Board is requesting that the Council adopt a
resolution supporting expansion of the tax for the next seven
years.
Amy Costa, District Director for Senator Don Perata, stated Senator
Perata could not be present due to budget negotiations; conveyed
Senator Perata's support for Measure A; State funding has been
volatile; Measure A would provide funding stability to the school
district.
Richard Heaps, Alameda Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council
President and 2001 Measure A Oversight Committee Member, stated
Measure A has the support of the PTA Council; the Oversight
Committee has seen the results of reduced class sizes and other
programs supported by the 2001 Measure A funding, and would like to
see the funding continue and expand.
Ron Mooney, Alamedans for Better Schools Co- Chair, urged adoption
of the resolution; thanked the Councilmembers for their individual
support; stated school funding is set by the State; the Measure
provides funding that the District uses to support critically
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
May 17, 2005
important programs; noted an argument was not filed against the
Measure.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the schools have an impact on the
whole City; the funding will keep programs in place and forestall
any possibility of outside control, which would consist of the
County or State telling Alameda how to run its school district.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated kids are owed a good, quality education;
the City cannot count on the State to provide funding.
Councilmember Daysog stated the resolution is of vital interest to
the City.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the quality of
education is one of the most important things in the City.
Mayor Johnson stated schools would face cuts if the Measure does
not pass; Senator Perata is trying to equalize State funding of
education; school facilities in other communities are higher
quality; the Alameda Unified School District has done an excellent
job with the amount of funding it receives; she was impressed with
the teacher and students when she visited a second grade class at
Miller School.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05- ) Welcome and presentation honoring Friendship City
delegation from Wuxi, China; and
(05- A) Resolution No. 13940, "Recognizing the Selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing
the Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the
Formulation and Implementation of Sister City Relations." Adopted.
Jim Franz and Stuart Chan of the Social Service Human Relations
Board introduced interpreter Tu Zhongliang, Deputy Director, Wuxi
Municipal Foreign Affairs Office, who introduced the Wuxi
delegation: Wang Zhuping, Vice Chairman, Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference (CPPCC); Zhou Yonggeng, Secretary General
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
2
CPPCC; Bian He, Deputy Secretary General CPPCC; and Jiang Guoliang,
Director of Study, Culture and History CPPCC.
Mayor Johnson introduced the Friends of Wuxi Committee: Nancy Li,
Chair; Hans Wong, Vice - Chair; and Otto Huang, Honorary Chair.
Mayor Johnson read the resolution, which the translator also read
in Chinese.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson and Wang Zhuping signed the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
Mr. Zhuping stated he is happy to sign the MOU to establish sister
City relations with Alameda and hopes relationships will develop
further.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire community is proud to be moving
forward with the Sister City relationship, particularly residents
of Chinese heritage and ancestry.
The delegation presented gifts to the City.
Mayor Johnson presented a pewter plate with the City seal.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize
installation of an All -Way Stop Control [paragraph no. 05- ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
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 May 3, 2005; and the Special City Council Meeting held on
May 4, 2005. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
3
( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,161,657.93.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the Period Ending March 31, 2005 for sales transactions in the
Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for one animal control vehicle. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4,
No. P.W. 05- 03 -11. Accepted.
(05- ) Recommendation to authorize installation of an All -Way
Stop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman
Street.
Don Patterson, Alameda, stated that he opposes the four -way stop
sign; the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) did not address the
real problem of why Sherman Street is operating as a major
thoroughfare; the General Plan Traffic Element's goal and intent is
to have a transportation plan with traffic controls and techniques
that direct and keep traffic on major streets; questioned how the
City can make decisions without the advice of a professional
traffic engineer on staff; stated said position has been vacant
since October 2003; urged Council to direct the Acting City Manager
to hire a traffic engineer; suggested the application be withdrawn;
noted the individual who filed the application has not participated
in any of the public hearings and must not be very serious about
the request; stated the stop sign should only be addressed in the
context of a total transportation plan, not a band -aid approach
that would only exacerbate the problem by moving traffic faster
along Sherman Street.
Stanton Scott, Alameda, stated that he has witnessed many accidents
at the intersection; increased traffic has become more aggressive;
that he supports some form of traffic controls; stop signs would be
good.
Mary Amen, Alameda, stated that she represents a group of Santa
Clara Avenue residents who are opposed to the stop sign; she
gathered signatures in the four blocks directly affected; the
residents would like the City to implement traffic calming devices
before deciding to have 7000 cars a day stop in front of homes,
including 12 buses per hour; accident statistics dropped to one per
year after the City addressed visibility issues; buses and cars
travel at 40 miles per hour (mph) during peak times; cross traffic
could pass safely if cars traveled at the 25 mph speed limit; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
May 17, 2005
U.S. Department of Transportation and CalTrans guidelines indicate
stop signs should not be used for speed control; the Police
Department is called to ticket cars parked in red zones at all
corners of the intersection on a daily basis; submitted photographs
of cars parked in the red zone.
Kathy Gardner, Alameda, stated the intersection does not have cross
walks; drivers on Santa Clara Avenue do not stop for pedestrians;
there should be a stoplight, not a stop sign, at the intersection;
drivers on Sherman Street cannot see traffic on Santa Clara Avenue;
something needs to be done; there have been multiple accidents; an
all -way stop sign is not the best solution; crosswalks and pressure
sensitive stoplights should be installed.
The Public Works Director stated the intersection meets the traffic
volume warrant and accident warrant; the TTT recognized that the
stop sign would impact residents; Council is being requested to
approve the all -way stop because it is the best short -term way to
address the traffic operation issues; the TTT recognized an all -way
stop is not the best long -term solution; Public Works staff is to
provide long -term traffic operation safety at the intersection,
including a review of installing a traffic signal or flashing
yellow signal; Public Works will review how to improve traffic
circulation in the area, how to de- emphasize Sherman Street, and
coordination of traffic corridors.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has asked for an overall,
comprehensive review of the issue over the years, instead of
putting in four -way stops when the City receives requests; inquired
what impact a four -way stop would have on Sherman Street; would the
stop encourage more traffic on Sherman Street; should the City
discourage additional traffic on Sherman Street; stated the City
has been trying to equalize traffic on Santa Clara, Lincoln and
Buena Vista Avenues; inquired whether the proposed stop sign would
put an unfair burden on Lincoln and Buena Vista Avenues; stated
every street in Alameda is a neighborhood; pushing traffic from one
street to another is not fair; a comprehensive review is needed to
•address traffic issues; that she wants a better sense of impacts
[before proceeding with a stop sign]; that she agrees with Santa
Clara Avenue residents because she would not want cars and buses
stopping and starting in front of her house.
The Public Works Director stated the Public Works Department is in
the process of completing a Transportation Master Plan (TMP), which
would strategically review how the City should assign traffic
street by street.
Mayor Johnson stated both residents speaking in support of some
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
May 17, 2005
form of traffic control are willing to consider other methods; one
stated a four -way stop sign is not the best way; if staff is
working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been
one accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone
review until information from the strategic plan is available.
The Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all
way stop warrants are met, the City might open itself up to
liability.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be many more four -way stop signs
if the City studied every intersection to determine whether
warrants are met.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City
Attorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not
in public; holding the matter over would not be a problem.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a
number of accidents are probably not reported; that he has
witnessed accidents; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles
travel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa
Clara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully,
traffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether
peak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are
probably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street
traffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier
for workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling
down Constitution Way and Eighth Street.
Mayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would
be interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention
to the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more
traffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution
Way; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from
using Constitution Way because of the traffic controls.
Councilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one
lane at Eighth Street; there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at
Santa Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it
more convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street.
Mayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of
the City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the
reason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get
around and off Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
6
Councilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get
onto Grand Street to travel to South Shore; drivers try to find the
easiest path; for example, changes on Buena Vista Avenue are
causing Pacific Avenue to become a major road; everything has
secondary impacts; that he understands the concerns about a four -
way stop; however, a measure of control is needed [at Santa Clara
Avenue and Sherman Street].
The Public Works Director stated Councilmember Daysog's idea has
not been reviewed; data could be analyzed; staff reviewed the
traffic characteristic on Sherman Street; the average daily volume
along Sherman Street is 5,500 vehicles at Buena Vista Avenue, 3,100
at Pacific Avenue and 2,500 at Santa Clara Avenue; the grid system
is designed to filter people and is working; both Sherman Street
and Santa Clara Avenue are minor streets; traffic volumes on Santa
Clara Avenue are higher than Sherman Street; since volumes on Santa
Clara Avenue are acceptable, then volumes on Sherman Street must
also be acceptable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Santa Clara Avenue is wider than
Sherman Street, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative; stated Santa Clara Avenue is designated as a minor
street in the General Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated Sherman Street should not be treated the same
as Santa Clara Avenue as far as traffic loads.
The Public Works Director stated that he agrees there needs to be a
strategic plan; the all -way stop is the best option for now with
the funding available; noted Council approved funding to complete a
Pedestrian Plan tonight, which is an element of the TMP.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should do anything possible
to decrease the volume of traffic on Sherman Street; the character
of Sherman Street is different than Santa Clara Avenue; the biggest
problem is the excessive speed on Santa Clara Avenue; suggested the
Police Department put together a program which tickets people
traveling above the speed limit on Santa Clara Avenue to slow down
traffic; stated most of the accidents are probably cause by
excessive speed, rather than lack of a stop sign on Santa Clara
Avenue; the City should review what can be done in the short term
to encourage people to take other north /south streets, such as
Constitution Way and Grand Street; noted the intersection is a
block away from Mastick Senior Center; suggested that Council
postpone the decision until there are answers about what can be
done to reduce the load on Sherman Street in the short term.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
7
Mayor Johnson stated that Council should wait; Council should
direct staff to review other ways to remedy the problem at the
intersection and review whether traffic would be pushed to Lincoln
and Buena Vista Avenues before a four -way stop sign is installed;
the traffic lights on Constitution Way should be timed to prevent
bottlenecking and encourage drivers to use it.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers mentioned that the City
does not have a certified traffic engineer; requested staff to
comment on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog noted there have been two pedestrian deaths on
Constitution Way, which should be kept in mind; stated there should
be a greater review of the data; requested a comparison with
previous levels to determine whether Gold Coast residents are
commuting down Sherman Street.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the problem is traffic traveling to the
Gold Coast or South Shore filters down Sherman Street, as well as
Bay and Saint Charles Streets, to avoid the bottleneck on Eighth
Street.
Councilmember deHaan noted people are using other routes because
Grand Street is becoming a bottleneck in the morning; a remedy is
needed while waiting for the traffic study; police activity is
temporary; pedestrian crosswalk paddles and blinking lights work
well and should be considered; the intersection was a high priority
for a traffic signal fifteen years ago; a solution is needed.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember deHaan's
suggestion to install pedestrian paddles; requested the liability
issue be addressed related to postponement.
The Public Works Director stated paddles could not be installed
until there are crosswalks at the intersection; Public Works would
need at least four weeks to compile data requested by Council.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion included direction for
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by the
Council.
Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to include direction to
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
8
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that police
officers begin enforcement in the area immediately to slow down
traffic while analysis is being completed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the speed board [radar
trailer] retains data, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the equipment has the capacity to
retain information, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated Oakland's equipment has messages, such as:
"please drive slowly this our neighborhood" or "children at play;"
suggested use of the radar trailer and, if effective, the purchase
of additional radar trailers.
Councilmember deHaan stated other cities have permanent speed
display devices.
The Public Works Director stated staff applied for grants and may
have received funding for a smaller device showing traveling speed
on Lincoln Avenue; suggested staff be authorized to proceed with
putting up pedestrian and speed limit signs, along with the
enforcement and radar trailer.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council would not object to staff taking
said actions; drivers forget everywhere in Alameda is someone's
neighborhood.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13941, "Authorizing the use of Measure B
Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant from Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and Matching Funds
from the City's Local Measure B Allocation to Complete a Citywide
Pedestrian Plan." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13942, "Extending Period for Providing Low
and Moderate Income Housing Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33334.16 for 30 Units Within the Bachelor Officers'
Quarters at Alameda Point." Adopted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13943, "Resolution of Intention to Levy an
Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for FY 2005 -06 and Set a Public Hearing for June 7,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
May 17, 2005
2005." Adopted.
( *05- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park
Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2 -7.2
(Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2 -7.3 (Qualification: Voting of
Section 2 -7 (City Recreation and Park Commission). Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05- ) Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit
(Appropriation Limit) for Fiscal Year 2005 -06; and
(05- ) Resolution No. 13944, "Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2005 -06." Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- ) Public Hearing to consider collection of
Business License Fees via the Property Tax Bills.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
carried by
Delinquent
Huong Anh Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated the company has
been closed since 1996 and does not have a contractor license.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Silver contacted the Finance
Department, to which Ms. Silver responded in the affirmative;
stated the Finance Department stated paperwork was not adequate and
SOS Urethane Foam Roofing has been listed in the telephone book.
Sherman Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated that he shut down
the roofing company; that he is keeping his license with the State
contractors board until he dies; he removed the sign in his front
yard tonight; outlined his medical condition; stated he is not
roofing anymore.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could vote on the rest and
hold over SOS Roofing to allow staff to take a closer look, to
which staff responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mr. Silver's question about review of his materials,
Mayor Johnson stated the Finance Director would review everything.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
May 17, 2005
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion was to exclude SOS
Urethane Foam Roofing, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded
in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would come back to
Council if additional action was necessary, to which staff
responded in the affirmative.
(05- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001; and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R -4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In Favor of Appeal): Patrick Lynch, Appellant; Jeanne
Nader, Appellant.
Opponents (Opposed to Appeal): Ivan Chiu, representing Applicant.
There being no further speakers Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Appellant's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired why
there has been uncertainty about whether there was a Code
violation.
The Supervising Planner responded the Police were called when
removal of the oak tree began; the officer was not aware Coast Live
Oaks are protected; Planning staff was very clear that there was a
violation when contacted about the tree.
Mayor Johnson requested the Appellants to provide staff with a copy
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
May 17, 2005
of a letter from former City Manager Jim Flint.
The Supervising Planner noted the Council is considering the
Historical Advisory Board (HAB) approval that the two replacement
oaks are in the proper place; a requirement of allowing the tree to
be removed was that the HAB would review the landscaping plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing two oaks would
remain in place, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative; noted one is partially on City property.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff reviewed damage to the
remaining trees.
The Supervising Planner stated the HAB required that the oak trees
be protected during development and required a registered arborist
advise the Applicant.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the two existing oak trees are being
maintained in their present condition and two more oak trees are
being planted in positions determined by a landscape architect;
inquired whether the complaint is that the two new oak trees are
not in the correct position.
The Supervising Planner responded the complaints are that the HAB
determined that the project was categorically exempt from
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and the two trees on the
site are not properly protected.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the landscape plan has been
modified since approved by the HAB.
The Supervising Planner responded the site plan has been modified,
not the landscape plan; the building was moved five feet from the
existing tree.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about whether building
a single family home is categorically exempt from CEQA, the
Supervising Planner stated CEQA permits construction of single
family homes to be categorically exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired why building of the house, which is
exempt from CEQA, could not proceed even if a CEQA review were
required for adding new trees.
The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Lynch is referring to
segmentation; CEQA and the courts do not look kindly upon
segmenting a project into pieces, which would be exempt
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
May 17, 2005
individually, but which taken together would not be exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether segmenting is clearly not the
case for the project, to which the Supervising Planner responded
staff does not believe segmenting has occurred.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why CEQA would be required for the
trees.
The Supervising Planner stated the project is a single family home;
there is a landscape plan which is part of the project; the HAB had
purview over the two new oak trees in the landscape plan as a
condition of a previous approval [to allow removal of an oak tree];
the HAB was concerned with ensuring the two new replacement trees,
which are required when an oak tree is allowed to be removed, would
be located in a spot where the trees would thrive.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the basis for
the appeal, Mayor Johnson stated the concern is the construction
process and the impact on and protection of the two existing trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an arborist was hired, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff believes there are adequate
measures in place to protect the two existing trees, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants believe the
measures are adequate.
Ms. Nader responded the problem is she understood there would be no
construction activity after the Appeal was filed; the Applicant
used a front end loader on top of the root system of the trees on
April 25, which the arborist instructed him not to do without
protection; the Applicant exposed and cut into several tree roots;
the certified arborist, which she hired to look at the trees,
determined the damage could be mortally wounding; that she was
informed by City staff that the City does not have money for a
certified arborist to ensure the trees are protected; the damage
occurred after the appeal; the owner has blatantly disregarded the
recommendation from his own arborist; the Applicant drove over the
root system to move fill across the property; Code Compliance
indicated tread marks were not apparent; her arborist indicated any
contamination in the fill would kill the trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the City could do about the issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
13
The Supervising Planner responded staff attempts to do everything
possible to ensure that property owners comply with regulations.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could require the arborist
to submit a periodic report regarding compliance with
recommendations, to which the Supervising Planner responded the
suggestion might be a good solution.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Ms. Nader's comments are
factually correct, to which the Supervising Planner responded that
she did not know.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants provided
information to staff, to which the Supervising Planner responded
staff probably visited the site since Ms. Nader mentioned Code
Enforcement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Code Enforcement staff
provided feedback about the site visit, to which the Chief Building
Official responded that he would review the matter and report back
to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the site; that he is
concerned about the disruption around the tree; the owner should be
requested to agree to stipulations overseeing the construction
activity.
Bill Wong, Architect for Applicant, stated the arborist recommended
a fence around the tree during construction.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council wants to allow the Applicant to
proceed, but the Applicant needs to protect the trees.
Mr. Wong stated the fence would be put in place once the project is
approved.
Mayor Johnson requested the arborist to explain what needs to be
done to protect the trees during construction; inquired whether he
was retained to provide oversight during construction.
Christopher Bowen, Project Arborist, stated that he discussed the
matter with Planning staff and determined the drip line should be
fenced off.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other measures were being
recommended.
Mr. Bowen responded the fence was to be installed prior to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
May 17, 2005
construction; that he recommends bails of hay be placed around the
three, the trunk be wrapped in carpet, and 2" x 4" lumber be
strapped to branches when construction commences; protecting the
root system is the most important action; that he recommends
placing a thin layer of compost, wood chips, and plywood to protect
the root system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Bowen last visited the sight,
to which Mr. Bowen responded about a month ago, on April 7.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Bowen has visited the site
to witness the activity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Bowen has seen the
exposed root system, to which Mr. Bowen responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan noted the fenced off area is only five feet.
Mayor Johnson stated Mr. Bowen should conduct further analysis and
determine whether restoration is needed before other measures are
implemented.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Bowen visited the site a month ago
and created a plan for protection of the tree; apparently the plan
was ignored; that she is not convinced a plan will be followed;
that she understands the neighbors' concern; inquired whether the
City could require the owners to post a bond for the security of
the trees.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted the
resolution states: "prior to issuance of building permits for the
development on the site, the Applicants shall sign and record with
the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak Trees on the
property. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be in effect
for five years from the date of the recording;" Council is
discussing having specific terms and conditions as part of the
recorded Agreement that runs with the land and any violations can
be enforced through Code Enforcement; the terms and conditions
could include posting of a bond to ensure protection.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the City Council has certain powers
under the City Charter with regard to compelling testimony;
inquired when the arborist heard about the disturbance at the site.
Mr. Bowen responded tonight; the last time he spoke to the owner
was to give advice on how to set up a fence around the drip line of
the tree; the he understood the site would be untouched until the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
May 17, 2005
building process began; he was unaware any site work was being
done; his recommendations were to take place before construction
began; he was informed that the fence was installed; that he was
not hired to install the fence.
Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be continued since there has
been some disruption on the site; the arborist could inform the
City about ways to protect the tree, which could be used as
conditions in the approval and the matter could return to Council;
the owner needs to understand the conditions are serious and cannot
be disregarded, and there should not be any other activity on the
site.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the arborist's assessment should
include whether the damage jeopardizes the tree; the City needs to
take a close look and have a binding report.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in determining
what occurred at the site: were conditions disregarded, was there
an accident or did nothing happen.
Councilmember deHaan stated the soil brought onto the site does not
look clean; the City should review the source of the soil and
determine if there is a problem.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the owner should be liable for
making the determination; the City should request that the owner
conduct a soil test.
The City Attorney stated a design review appeal could be
forthcoming in four weeks and the two issues could be combined.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should not assume there would be an
appeal of the design review.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the tree issue should be resolved.
Mayor Johnson requested the matter return at the next Council
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the conditions of approval should have
teeth, which could be anything from having a bond posted or
recording documentation; encouraged the City Attorney to be
creative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
16
amend the motion to include requiring a review of the soil
condition.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion accordingly.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- ) Recommendation to develop two separate voluntary seismic
retrofit programs.
Ken Gutleben, Alameda, thanked City staff for making long overdue
recommendations; stated the program will lay down the foundation
for developing a safer community; Victorians are extremely
vulnerable to seismic activity; obtaining permits to retrofit
Victorians is difficult due to strict design review laws.
Councilmember deHaan stated Victorian homes often have brick
foundations, are not bolted and do not have any kind of earthquake
bracing.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- ) Recommendation to accept Report on results of Actuarial
Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement 1079 and 1082 Plans
and the Retiree Health Care Plan.
The Finance Director gave a brief review of the reports.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the new Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules are different and how the
City proceeded in the past.
The Finance Director stated the current rule requires a valuation
of the 1079 and 1082 plans once each three years; a roll forward
letter is completed and there is a footnote in the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in between years;
there is not a lot to report since the City funds on a pay as you
go basis; there will be a new rule pertaining to other post
employment benefits in 2007; the actuarial was completed to look
ahead and determine the value of the Retiree Health Care Plan
benefits in the future; the new GASB rules require a lot of the
data to be reported; the reporting for the Retiree Health Care Plan
will become almost as extensive as the reporting for the 1079 and
1082 plans; additionally, the City will have to decide whether to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
May 17, 2005
fund pay as you go or find a way to fund the entire plan, which
needs further review.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reports attempt to make
the information more transparent and look at future liabilities, to
which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would develop a
plan, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 10 -year plan being formulated
would include the liabilities.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated how the
City funds the liability needs to be determined.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the two plans are limited
and new employees are not being added.
The Finance Director responded the 1079 and 1082 plans are closed;
the other post employment benefits are for employees who have or
will retire under the current agreements in place.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City is making plans and examining
liabilities; other cities, such as San Diego, raided funds that
should have gone toward liabilities and are almost bankrupt;
inquired whether the reports are related to said case.
The Finance Director responded the rule was in place and had not
been implemented; the San Diego crisis just occurred at the same
time.
Mayor Johnson stated the actuarials, along with the 10 -year plan,
are very important; the City needs to consider current obligations
in evaluating economic decisions in the future.
The Acting City Manager stated the point in evaluating the
liability and establishing a plan is to ensure the City does not
end up like San Diego in the future; the City should start
mitigation and establish a plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the costs appear under the
retirees' names on the monthly expenditures check register [bills
for ratification], to which the. Finance Director responded
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one plan is $68,000 and the
other is $37,000 per month, the Finance Director responded that she
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
May 17, 2005
could review and confirm the figures.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the actuarial accrued liability
is in excess of $70 million for both the closed plans and the on-
going retiree benefits.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $70 million
is for the retiree benefit plan; the actuarial accrued liability
for the 1079 and 1082 plans is $31,683,000 as of January 1, 2005.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities
are reported to bond underwriters.
The Finance Director responded bond underwriters receive the CAFR
for three prior years; the liabilities are included in the
footnotes.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities
would affect the City's bond rating.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City
is judged on whether or not a plan has been established; pay as you
go is one plan.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry whether a plan would be
brought to Council, the Finance Director stated a report would be
brought back shortly after the first draft of the 10 -year plan.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda's liabilities are
typical for a city of its size.
The Finance Director stated the City's consultant who completed the
study could respond.
John Bartel, Bartel Associates, stated the City of Alameda's 1079
and 1082 plans are a little unique; most agencies do not have
frozen plans; the retiree health care plan is a $70 million
unfunded liability with two separate promises: safety and non -
safety; the promise to the non - safety group is at the lower
quartile of what other agencies promise; the promise to the safety
group is in line with an upper quartile of what agencies promise.
Councilmember Daysog requested a background report on the matter to
understand the quartiles and median being used.
(05- ) Presentation on the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2005 -06.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
19
The Acting City Manager provided a brief report on the budget and
provided examples of surrounding cities budget problems.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the clarity of
the staff report.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good approach to balancing
the budget, which Council needs to continue working on; savings are
the result of keeping positions vacant; a more permanent solution
is needed to address on -going decreases and shortfalls in revenues;
the proposed budget is a good place to start; despite numerous
budget sessions last year, a balanced budget was not reached;
thanked the Acting City Manager for his work; stated that she would
like to see a combination of legal expenses in one place; legal
expenses are under the City Attorney's office, Risk Management, and
Alameda Power and Telecom; the legal budget should be more
apparent; tracking is difficult when the entire legal budget is not
in one place.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would provide the information.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the summary
highlighting the $1.9 million gap and how the gap was filled;
inquired whether the budget includes the $1.8 million decrease in
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) funds.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
$1.8 million reduced ARRA revenue caused part of the problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Recreation and Park Director
position is being left vacant, which is leading to a policy issue
of how the Council wants to organize department heads; under the
Charter, the Council is responsible for organizing departments; a
background on the issue should be provided when the budget adoption
is considered.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog is raising the type of
long -term issues she was raising; Council will probably look at
reducing the number of department heads.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the recommendation is simply for the
next fiscal year; the position is not being eliminated; Council
needs to make a decision about structure at some point.
The Acting City Manager stated staff is not requesting the position
be eliminated, but is requesting that Council de -fund the position;
staff is requesting the position remain in place, without funding;
Council would have the policy decision about whether or not to fill
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 20
May 17, 2005
the position if funding becomes available.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could begin working on the larger
issue; the Acting City Manager should not be expected to deal with
the budget problem and the major project of restructuring the
City's government, which is a longer term issue that needs to be
addressed separate from the budget.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposed budget gets the City
through the next year; hopefully the State will live up to the
requirements of Constitutional Amendment lA and no longer take city
revenues, which would put the City in a better position the
following year.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would not exclude reviewing
reorganization for the next year budget; staff has the knowledge to
determine service impacts; the budget is a major step in the right
direction; all budgets should be reviewed, not just the General
Fund.
The Acting City Manager stated the Council should be aware of other
funds in the City; the budget document addresses other funds, but
other funds were not highlighted in the staff report; the major
deficit is in the General Fund, which funds most departments.
Councilmember deHaan stated deficits would occur in some of the
funded programs and adjustments would be necessary.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for the clarity of the report;
stated the Council is concerned about not filling vacant positions
and about reductions in force; Department Head presentations [at
the next meeting] should address how reductions affect service
delivery to citizens; the Council should adopt the budget with eyes
wide open and the citizens should know what is coming down the
pike; if it will take staff longer to respond to questions after
budget adoption, people should know before it occurs; the community
should be involved; hopefully, there will be more citizen
participation at the next meeting; suggested the matter be placed
earlier on the agenda.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should know the profile of a
full service city; if the police force is down to 104 officers, the
Council should know whether similar size cities have more officers;
the public should have the context of where the City is versus
where the City should be even if there might- not be funding to
increase the number of officers; the budget should include said
information; requested a distribution of budget reductions by
department; suggested a comparison of budget reductions versus
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
May 17, 2005
operating cost to come up with an index which would indicated
whether anyone is being disproportionately impacted.
The Acting City Manager stated an across the board cut was not
implemented; some departments have been hit more heavily than
others; the cuts were based upon a judgment he conveyed to
departments based on his understanding of the Council's service
delivery priorities; cuts were made in departments with the ability
to provide the level of service that the Council has indicated
should continue.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has expressed that across the
board cuts are not the correct approach; the proposed budget is a
good attempt to reflect the Council's priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was not opposed to implementing
a one -day furlough instead of eliminating actual positions; the
proposed budget does not trigger the need for one -day furloughs;
the trigger would have been met if more positions were being cut.
The Acting City Manager noted four positions are being eliminated.
Councilmember Daysog stated if a number of police officers and fire
fighters were being eliminated, considering options would have been
necessary.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed budget is a solution for next
year, not a long -term solution; the Council will have to decide
whether positions remaining vacant should be eliminated or funded
at some point.
Councilmember deHaan stated staff and service levels for the last
five or ten years should be reviewed to determine where the belt
needs to be tightened or where positions should be added.
Mayor Johnson suggested staffing levels for the last seven years be
reviewed.
The Acting. City Manager responded said information would be
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should know the impact of
eliminating four positions; Council needs to understand impacts to
evaluate whether the Council's priorities are being met prior to
voting.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether Council would like a short
impact statement from each department head.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
May 17, 2005
Councilmember Matarrese responded only for the four departments
with cuts.
Mayor Johnson concurred.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each
department, especially departments not losing actual employees.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a
profile for Alameda's budget; the International City Management
Association (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police
officers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available
for the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated
ratios might indicate additional funding is needed for a
department; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would
like to know where the City should be.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
requesting information on ideal staffing levels.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda
County uses said standards to produce its budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards,
to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching
base, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very
valuable because it is reality; the City has certain realities,
such as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that
must be taken into account.
Councilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too;
stated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is
requesting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information
from departments losing a staff person, departments with a large
number of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as.
public safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting
so the public would be aware of changes in service.
The Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in
Development Services, which is funded through sources other than
the General Fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 23
May 17, 2005
positions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been alluding to the
inability to live off of billets being attrited down; cuts might
not be appropriate; the City needs to be realistic; the easy way,
such as 5% cuts, cannot be used; service needs to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she inquired about purchasing goods and
contracting locally; creation of central purchasing was a suggested
way to do so; requested other ways to ensure as much money as
possible is spent in Alameda and not generating tax revenues for
other cities if the budget does not allow for the creation of
central purchasing.
The Acting City Manager responded staff is addressing the matter;
the budget was prepared prior to the request; the matter would
return separate from the budget; perhaps a position could be
converted.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed budget is fabulous,
particularly the page reflecting salaries and benefits by
department and the statement that: "if adopted, there would be no
impact on the General Fund reserve."
John Oldham, Acting President of the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA), thanked the Acting City Manager,
Finance Director and Human Resources Department for outlining what
is happening with the City budget; stated the MCEA membership is
concerned about the proposed cuts and the impact on workload as
jobs of association members are eliminated; employees are the
foundation of what the City does, which is serve the citizens; the
proposed budget requests that employees do more with less, which
will erode the customer experience; that he started his career with
the City in the Recreation and Park Department as a Park Director;
the proposed budget eliminates the position that supervises park
directors, which is a loss of a mentor who understands the
operation; MCEA understands every position has a similar story and
choices will be difficult; MCEA has had just over a week to review
the budget and proposed reduction in force; MCEA would like to
partner with the City to resolve the budget shortfall, while
preserving services, program delivery and the quality of life for
Alamedans; requested Council to continue to review unfilled
positions to reduce costs and take a closer look at revenues and
expenditures before eliminating the positions of employees who have
dutifully served the City for years; further stated prior to acting
on the budget on June 7, MCEA is asking to work together to look at
the whole picture before making a reduction in force; MCEA is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 24
May 17, 2005
asking for time to review the budget together so that everyone
understands the impact of the reduction in force.
(05- ) Presentation on the City's infrastructure investment
challenges.
Mayor Johnson stated that she considers infrastructure the part of
the City's budget deficit; the maintenance of infrastructure has
declined in the last several years; although money was saved, it
creates a bigger deficit that must be dealt with in the future; the
Council needs to decide whether to continue to allow the
infrastructure to continue declining or to deal with the deficit
and prevent it from growing.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation on the
City' s infrastructure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Public Works Director had
information on the percent of streets and sidewalks not in good
condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that he
included said information for streets.
Mayor Johnson stated the information was needed for sidewalks;
sidewalks are in bad condition; sidewalks should be made a priority
in addition to streets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the annual funding shortfall
is $2 million.
The Public Work Director responded in the affirmative; stated
currently $4 million is funded and $6.6 million should be funded;
the $2.7 million shortfall does not take into consideration the $33
million deficit; under - funding each year continues to add to the
deficit.
Mayor Johnson stated the economic result of under - funding would be
more than $2.7 million; not completing maintenance causes greater
damage.
The Public Works Director concurred; stated there is an optimum
point when resurfacing should be completed to be cost effective;
many streets are beyond the cost effective point, which results in
more costly repair, such as a repair which would have cost $1 three
years prior would now cost $4.
Mayor Johnson requested pie charts showing the condition of
infrastructure other than streets, such as sidewalks and sewers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
25
Mayor Johnson inquired whether only spending $750,000 on street
resurfacing during the next fiscal year would add to the deficit,
to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated priorities should be determined.
The Public Works Director stated the department has had a reduction
in staff; both the pothole and sidewalk crews had reductions and,
as a result, were combined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether annual contracts included pothole
and sidewalk repair.
The Public Works Director responded an annual contractor is
responsible for sidewalk repairs; Public Works employees are
responsible for inspections, fillets, grinding and minor concrete
replacement
In.response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the contractor's
duties, the Public Works Director stated the contractor completes
the backlog of permanent concrete repair in 300 to 400 locations.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents would understand budget
shortfalls for capital projects, but would not understand the City
failing to have a plan, timeline and priorities.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would prefer areas be paved
over, rather than installing manufactured turf.
* * *
(05- ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
* * *
Councilmember Daysog stated there is probably $8 million
undesignated in General Fund reserve; the City should change course
if the reserve was built up at the expense of sidewalks and
streets; the Council should consider allocating above $300,000;
there needs to be a plan; the Council should receive a report on
how to proceed.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is reaching the point where something
has to be done; people are upset about the condition of sidewalks
and streets.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
26
Councilmember Matarrese stated a structural change should be made;
spending money upfront will save money later.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether residents are required to pay
for sidewalk repair, to which the Public Works Director responded
the City only repairs sidewalks damaged by street trees.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about sewers, the Public
Works Director responded the City's sewers are doing fairly well
because there is a dedicated funding source; dedicated funding
sources or fees would allow the City to keep up with on -going
maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Measure B funds were used for
the pothole crew, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding Measure B
funds being a fixed amount, the Public Works Director stated the
amount varies because it is based on sales tax.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pothole crew defers the
need for maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
resurfacing is still often needed.
Councilmember Daysog stated little changes can change people's
perception; people think negatively of their surroundings if
streets and sidewalks are not maintained; people might have
confidence the City is on the right track if improvements cannot be
fully funded but common areas are improved.
Mayor Johnson stated not dealing with the problem creates a bigger
deficit; the Council needs to review the issue; a long -term plan is
needed to get infrastructure back in shape.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the sewer system is in good shape
because it has a dedicated funding source; a similar option for
streets, sidewalks, and median strips should be presented to the
public; other funding sources will not solve the problem.
The Acting City Manager stated the presentation was the first step
to identify the problem; the next step is to find ways to fund
improvements; having something similar to the sewer fund would be
good.
Mayor Johnson stated the City must be able to assure the public
that a thorough review was completed and there is not any money
available in the budget before raising fees; the deficit is huge.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 27
May 17, 2005
Councilmember deHaan stated the most important thing is to set up a
steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time
would not work; a plan should be established.
Councilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should
be considered.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember
Daysog.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should
be spending the money [on infrastructure] if money is sitting in
the General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there
needs to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same
situation in 10 years.
Councilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the
current level because money was borrowed from infrastructure
maintenance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(05- ) Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the
budget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify
resources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would
enlist other business associations to partner with the City to
ensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked
Council for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the
Theatre project.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going
forward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05-
]; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff to
consider Chevrolet.
The Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be
a Ford or equivalent.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was
going to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on
the matter.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the
budget discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 17, 2005
28
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 12:19 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
May 17, 2005
29
June 2, 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
136520 - 137196 2,915,292.50
EFT 117 114,454.07
Void Checks:
136335 (1,003.75)
136597 (90.62)
127477 (705.00)
81097 (1,102.50)
83371 (56.00)
83513 (30.00)
87241 (48.46)
84603 (25.00)
87497 (982.13)
136435 (8,125.02)
GRAND TOTAL 3,017,578.09
Respectfully submitted,
attege-bStiee-43
Pamela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 06/07/2005
BILLS #4 -B
06/07/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Recommendation to Authorize the Acting City Manager to execute a
temporary agreement with Alameda County for the Exclusive Provision of
Ambulance Services by the City of Alameda Fire Department to the City of
Alameda.
BACKGROUND
In 1982, an Alameda County advisory measure asked voters whether the Board of
Supervisors should form a paramedic service area (presently called an Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) district) to improve trauma care and levy a benefits assessment
on parcels. The measure was approved by voters and the County and various cities
proceeded to implement the benefits assessment. The City of Alameda did not
implement the assessment.
In 1984, the City of Alameda began providing basic life support emergency ambulance
service to its residents.
In 1996, Prop. 218 went into effect requiring the EMS benefit assessments to be
restructured as a special tax and submitted to voters for approval. The Alameda City
Council determined that Alameda would not join the County EMS District. In addition,
the City Council decided not to submit to the voters an EMS benefit assessment to
support the provision ofthe City's emergency ambulance service. Currently, the City of
Alameda is the only city in the county that does not have a EMS benefit assessment in
place.
In 1997, an agreement between Alameda County and the City of Alameda obligated the
City to pay into the County EMS District annually an amount equal to the assessment
otherwise due from members of the District calculated as follows: number of benefit
units within the City of Alameda multiplied by the annual County assessment fee.
The California Health and Safety Code sections 1797.224 and 1797.85 allows the local
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agency to create exclusive operating areas to
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -C CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 2, 2005
Page 2 of 3
restrict operations to one provider of emergency ambulance services and advanced life
support services.
Pursuant to Division 2.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 1797.200,
the State has also designated the County of Alameda to be the local EMS Agency for
the City of Alameda and to develop a written agreement for ambulance services and
participation in the advanced life support program in Alameda County, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Sections 1797.178 and 1797.201.
Furthermore, Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Section 100168, Division 9,
Chapter 4, Article 6, requires Paramedic Service Providers (City of Alameda) to have a
written agreement with the local County EMS Agency to provide advanced life support.
On October 1, 1999, the City entered into a five -year agreement with the Alameda
County EMS agency for exclusive rights to provide emergency ambulance services and
advanced life support services. This agreement remained in effect until September 30,
2004.
Because the City continues to provide advanced life support and emergency ambulance
services to its citizens, a new agreement with the County EMS agency is necessary.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Currently there are four cities in Alameda County authorized by County EMS to provide
exclusive ambulance services through their fire departments. They are: Alameda,
Berkeley, Piedmont, and Albany. Contracts with Berkeley, Piedmont and Albany were
negotiated during the years 2000— 2001, and these contracts will expire October 31,
2005.
Alameda County EMS has agreed to negotiate with the four cities for a new contract
beginning October 1, 2005. During the interim period, however, the County EMS
agency is requiring an interim agreement with the City of Alameda in order to comply
with State Title 22. This interim agreement would be in place through October 31, 2005.
Because the City of Alameda is not a member of the EMS District the City is assessed
the amount of $630,000. During the last agreement, Alameda was assessed $630,000
per year; however, $530,000 a year was reimbursed to Alameda to assist with our costs
for transition from basic life support to advanced life support services. Our net cost
under the agreement was $100,000 per year. The transition to advanced life support
was completed under the former agreement; hence, future reimbursements should not
be expected.
For the interim agreement being requested, the County EMS agency has assessed a
fee of $315,000. This is based on a quarterly fee of $157,500 x two quarters.
($157,500 x 4 = $630,000, which was our past annual assessment before the $530,000
reimbursement). This assessment will cover the period January 2005 through June
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
June 2, 2005
Page 2 of 3
2005. No fees are assessed for the period October 1, 2004 — December 31, 2004.
(Note: For FY 05/06, the new City of Alameda assessment will vary and will be based
on the number of benefit units multiplied by the County approved assessment rate per
benefit unit. There is funding for a $450,000 assessment obligation in the proposed FY
05/06 budget).
The Interim Agreement has been approved by the City Attorney and is on file in the City
Clerk's Office.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
In the FY04 /05 budget period, there will be a $315,000 assessment to the City from the
County EMS agency. There are funds currently available in the Fire Department budget
to pay the assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council authorize the Acting City Manager to execute a
temporary agreement with Alameda County for the exclusive provision of ambulance
services by the City of Alameda Fire Department to the City of Alameda while a new
long -term agreement is being negotiated.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
William Norton
Acting City M - nager
By.`— James Christiansen
Fire Chief
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
This Advance Life Support Ambulance and Paramedic Provider Agreement,
(AGREEMENT), entered into this by and between the City of
Alameda, ( "CITY ") and the County of Alameda, ( "COUNTY "), herein after referred to as
"PARTIES ". The term of this AGREEMENT shall be for the period of April 20, 2005 through
October 31, 2005.
RECITALS OF AUTHORITY
Whereas, Division 2.5 of the Health and Safety Code sections 1797.224 and 1797.85 allows
the local EMS Agency to create Exclusive Operating Areas to restrict operations to one or more
providers of emergency ambulance services and Advanced Life Support Services in the development
of a local plan through a competitive bid process or without a competitive bid process if the area has
been served in the same scope and manner without interruption since January 1. 1981; and
Whereas, CITY having provided or contracted for emergency medical services within its
boundaries in the same scope and manner and without interruption since January 1, 1981, in
accordance with section 1797.201 of the California health and Safety Code; and
Whereas, pursuant to Division 2.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 1797.200 the State
had designated the County of Alameda to be the local EMS AGENCY and to develop a written
agreement with a qualified Paramedic Service Provider that provides emergency ground ambulance
and participates in the Advanced Life Support program in Alameda County pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Sections 1797.178 and 1797.201; and
Whereas, Title 22 California Code of Regulations Section 100168, Division 9, Chapter 4,
Article 6, requires Paramedic Service Providers to have a written agreement with the local COUNTY
EMS Agency to provide advanced life support; NOW; THERFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
3/16/05 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency (ACEMSA) — The Local EMS
Agency (LEMSA) as defined in California Health and Safety Code Division 2.5 Section
1797.94
1.2 Acute Care Facility — A facility licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a
general acute care hospital.
1.3 Advanced Life Support Ambulance (ALS Ambulance) — A ground ambulance that
provides transport of the sick and injured and is staffed and equipped to provide advance
life support consistent with the California Health and Safety Code.
1.4 Advanced Life Support Inter - facility Transfer — The transport of a patient from a Facility
requiring ALS Ground Ambulance Services.
1.5 COUNTY Policies, Procedures and Protocols — All policy, procedure and protocol
documents developed through the process describe in COUNTY policies
1.6 ALS Ground Ambulance Services — The provision of advanced life support services by
an authorized ALS Provider pursuant to an Ambulance Provider Agreement consistent
with the California Health and Safety Code, Division 2.5 Section 1797.52 and COUNTY
policies and procedures.
1.7 Ambulance Response Zone — A geographic area, the boundaries of which have been
determined by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to assure strategic placement of
ambulances and effective ambulance response to Medical Emergencies, which may
include one or more exclusive operating areas. These zones are set forth in Exhibit A.
1.8 Arrive Destination, On Scene Hospital (OSH) — The time that an Emergency Ground
Ambulance arrives at an approved receiving facility (or location) or at the point where it
is to rendezvous with another ambulance.
3/16/05 2
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
1.9 At Scene, On Scene (OS) - For the purposes of measuring the CITY'S Response Time
compliance in this AGREEMENT, At Scene, On Scene shall be the time the Emergency
Ground Ambulance or a First Responder ALS Unit or a Paramedic Supervisor comes to a
stop at the address /site to which it has been dispatched by an Authorized Dispatch Center.
In the case of significantly encumbered /restricted access to the patient, At Scene, On
Scene shall be the time the ALS Ambulance or a First Responder ALS Unit or Paramedic
Supervisor arrives at the restricted access point, e.g. staging area, closed gated
community, or rendezvous point to be escorted to the patient by another individual.
1.10 Authorized ALS Ambulance Provider — An ambulance provider that is authorized to
provide ALS ambulance services within ALAMEDA County pursuant to an ambulance
provider agreement with the COUNTY.
1.11 Authorized EMS Call Center (Call Center) — A call receipt center approved by the
local EMS Agency to request the services the Emergency Ground Ambulances of the
ambulance service provider under contract to provide Emergency Ground Ambulance
Services.
1.12 Authorized EMS Dispatch Center — A dispatch center approved by ACEMSA to
dispatch emergency medical units.
1.13 Available on Radio (AOR) — The time that an Emergency Ground ambulance is
available on radio /pager to respond as directed by the Authorized EMS Dispatch Center.
1.14 Back - Up — An ambulance and crew requested to assist other agencies on an active
EMS incident.
1.15 Basic Life Support Ambulance (BLS Ambulance) — An ambulance staffed and
equipped to provide basic life support in full compliance with the California Health and
3/16/05 3
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
Safety Code, Division 2.5, Section 1797.60, all regulations of the State of California, and the
Alameda County Policies, Procedures and Protocols.
1.16 Call Received, Time of Call (TOC) — The time that the call for services has been
received at the CITY'S primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) if CITY is
dispatching EMS Resources or the time of dispatch from any other Authorized EMS
Dispatch Center.
1.17 Emergency Ground Ambulance — An ambulance staffed and equipped in compliance
and as set forth in the Agreement.
1.18 Emergency Ground Ambulance Services — All ambulance services performed at the
request of a 9 -1 -1- Authorized Dispatch Center or determined to be either a Code Two or
Code Three level response by an Authorized EMS Call Center.
1.19 Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) — A term to describe an organized system of
call triage utilizing Medical Priority Services protocols.
1.20 Emergency Medical Personnel — All public safety first responders, Emergency
Medical Dispatchers, EMT -ls and PARAMEDICS functioning within the emergency
medical services system.
1.21 EMS Resource — The term used to refer to either an ALS ambulance, a First
Responder ALS Unit, or a Paramedic Supervisor.
1.22 PARAMEDIC or Emergency Medical Technician — Paramedic — means an individual
whose scope of practice to provide advanced life support according to standards
prescribed by Division 2.5 of the Health and Safety Code and who has a valid license
issued pursuant to said division and accreditation as required by COUNTY.
1.23 En -route (ER) — The time that a fully staffed EMS Resource has departed in order to
respond to a request for Emergency Ground Ambulance Services.
3/16/05 4
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
1.24 Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) - The estimated time that emergency medical
services resources will arrive at a specific location.
1.25 Exclusive Operating Area (EOA) - An EMS area as defined in California Health and
Safety Code Division 2.5 Section 1797.85.
1.26 First Responder ALS Unit — A unit staffed and equipped with a minimum of one
California State licensed and Alameda County accredited paramedic capable of providing
ALS at scenes of medical emergencies.
1.27 From Scene, En -route Hospital (ERH) The time that the ambulance departs from the
scene en -route to an appropriate receiving location or rendezvous point.
1.28 Map Grid, Quadrant — The designation of an area on a map which is mutually
agreeable between the COUNTY and CITY and which has been given an alphanumeric
designation.
1.29 Medical Emergency — The term used to denote a condition or situation in which an
individual has a need for immediate medical attention, or where the potential for such
need is perceived by public safety personnel or Emergency Medical Personnel at the
scene of an emergency or trained personnel at an Authorized EMS Dispatch or Call
Center.
1.30 Metro /Urban — The term used to denote a geographic service area with a population
density of greater than 100 persons per square mile.
1.31 MICN or Mobile Intensive Care Nurse — means a registered nurse who is functioning
pursuant to Section 2725 of the Business and Professions Code and who has been
authorized by the medical director of the COUNTY to issue instructions to pre - hospital
emergency medical care personnel within an EMS system according to standardized
procedures developed by the COUNTY consistent with statewide guidelines established
by the Emergency Medical Services Authority of the State of California.
3/16/05 5
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
1.32 Move -Up — The term used to denote an ALS Ambulance that has been moved to an
area to provide mutual aid coverage.
1.33 Multi - Casualty Incident (MCI) Plan — The procedure followed per COUNTY policy
in the event that an MCI is declared.
1.34 Non - Medical Emergency — The term used to denote a condition or situation in which
an individual does not have a need for immediate medical attention, or where the
potential for such need is not perceived by Emergency Medical Personnel at the scene of
an emergency or dispatch personnel at an Authorized EMS Dispatch Center.
1.35 Paramedic Supervisor — A paramedic qualified by COUNTY to practice as a single
medic with responsibility for field supervision of EMS.
1.36 Posting /Post Moves — The term used to denote an ALS Ambulance that has been
strategically placed /located, or requested to move to such a location so to meet response
time requirements.
1.37 Record of Calls — As required in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations,
Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 1100.7: Every ambulance service shall maintain a current
record of each emergency call and shall retain such record for minimum of three years
and contain the following information: (a) Date and time of emergency call, location
where service is needed, and identity of person receiving the call at the Authorized EMS
Dispatch Center for ambulance service; (b) Identity of person or, when applicable, the
mane of the COUNTY requesting an ambulance; (c) Identification of each ambulance
and personnel dispatched, and record of siren and red light use; (d) Explanation of any
failure to dispatch an ambulance as requested; (e) TOC, DISP, ER, OS, ERH, OSH, and
AOR. (f) Destination of patient and time of arrival at destination; (g) Name or other
identification of patient (if name or other identification is available) or description of item
requiring emergency transportation.
3/16/05 6
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
1.38 Response Codes — The dispatch term which denotes the level of priority for units
responding to the scene as defined herein:
1.38.1 Code One — Routine or scheduled transportation of Non - Medical Emergency
patients.
1.38.2 Code Two — A non -life threatening Medical Emergency requiring immediate
response. It is understood that this definition does not apply to life threatening
Inter - facility Transfers from Acute Care facilities that are Code Two.
1.38.3 Code Three — A Medical Emergency requiring immediate response with red light
and siren.
1.39 Response Time — The time measured from the Time of Call until On Scene.
1.40 Standby — The term used to denote that an EMS vehicle is staged near an activity in
which it is presumed there is a high likelihood that a Medical Emergency will occur.
1.41 Suburban /Rural — The term used to denote a geographic service area with a
population density between 7 and 100 persons per square mile.
1.42 Unit Hour Utilization — The term used to denote the mathematical relationship
between the number of ambulance transports and the number of hours those units are
available during a defined time period.
1.43 Wilderness The term used to denote a geographic service area with a population
density of less than 7 persons per square mile.
2. DESCRIPTION OF EXCLUSIVE AREA TO BE SERVED — DEFINITION OF
EXCLUSIVITY — ALS GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES AUTHORIZATION
2.1 By execution of this AGREEMENT, COUNTY hereby establishes, pursuant to Health
and Safety Code 1797.224, an Exclusive Operating Area (EOA) for the provision of all
Emergency Ground Ambulance Service within the area shown on Exhibit A to this
AGREEMENT and generally described as the incorporated limits of the City of
3/16/05 7
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
Alameda. Exceptions to the Exclusivity granted under this AGREEMENT are as follows:
Declared Local, State, or Federal disasters that affect the Exclusive Operating Area,
Special Events Standbys, and inter - facility transports.
2.2 The creation of this EOA means that the COUNTY shall not enter into an ambulance
provider agreement with any other firm, COUNTY, city, company or governmental body,
other than the federal government, to provide Emergency Ground Ambulance Service or
ALS Ground Ambulance Service within the area described herein during the period of
this AGREEMENT except as described herein. This AGREEMENT shall not preclude
the use of air ambulance resources within the Exclusive Operating Area of CITY as
allowed pursuant to COUNTY Aircraft Policies.
2.3 CITY has the sole responsibility to provide ambulance services as described in 2.1
including the occasional and necessary use of other ALS Ambulance providers
authorized to provide ALS ambulance services within Alameda County, to ensure the
most expedient response to Medical Emergencies. CITY shall be responsible to specify
the parameters by which other Authorized ALS Ambulance Providers shall be utilized to
respond to Medical Emergencies within the Service Area.
2.4 At the CITY's request, the COUNTY shall establish an EOA for the CITY to exclusively
perform non - emergency ambulance transport within the incorporated limits of the City of
Alameda after the CITY has provided an ALS service pursuant to this Agreement and can
demonstrate that the City's allowable expenses exceed its revenue. Should the CITY
decide to contract this service out, COUNTY must approve the sub - contractor.
3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/EXCEPTIONS/DISPUTES
In consideration for being granted this exclusive authorization to provide Emergency Ground
Ambulance Services, the CITY agrees so the following:
3/16/05 8
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
3.1.1 The CITY shall adhere to all requirements of the Alameda County EMS Policies,
Procedures and Protocols, including any and all amendments thereto, if any,
whether enacted before or during the term of this AGREEMENT and any
extensions. All COUNTY policies, procedures and protocols shall be reasonable
and consistent with prevailing standards of practice in the regulation and
performance of pre- hospital emergency medical services, and will not in and of
themselves create a negative impact for the CITY without prior discussion and
resolution.
3.1.2 The CITY shall comply with all State, Local and Federal laws.
3.1.3 The CITY shall comply with the assessment fee payment provisions as described
in Section 12.1.
3.1.4 If any law, policy, procedure or protocol adds, or has the capability to add,
additional cost to the CITY, COUNTY and CITY will mutually reconcile the
effects of the additional costs.
3.2 The CITY shall utilize ALS Ambulance to provide services under this AGREEMENT on
a twenty four (24) hour per day basis in response to all Code Two and Code Three calls
requested by an Authorized EMS Call Center, except as allowed within this
AGREEMENT
3.3 The CITY shall utilize the County "Non- Emergency 5150 Transport" to provide services
under this agreement to Code 2 Mental Health Transports, NON - MEDICAL
EMERGENCY request screened through the use of COUNTY approved EMS protocols,
and specific requests for BLS Ambulance by on -scene ALS personnel.
3.4 The CITY shall record or cause to be recorded the Map Grid; and the times at each of the
stages of a response as defined herein, (TOC, DISP, ER, OS, ERH, OSH, AOR) for each
3/16/05 9
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
and every request for ALS Ground Ambulance Services and Emergency Ground
Ambulance Services.
3.5 The CITY shall assure that EMS Resources are on the scene of all Code Three and Code
Two calls 90 percent of the time as measured each month including those calls that are
referred to mutual aid providers according to the following performance standards:
3.5.1 Code Three responses: EMS Resource within ten (10) minutes zero (0) seconds
of receipt of call by CITY's dispatch center, ALS Ambulance within twelve (12)
minutes zero (0) seconds of receipt of call by CITY's dispatch center. If dispatch
services are not provided by CITY, then the above times shall be eight (8)
minutes zero (0) seconds and ten (10) minutes zero (0) seconds respectively from
the time CITY receives the request from an Authorized EMS Dispatch Center.
3.5.2 Code Two response: EMS Resource within fifteen (15) minutes zero (0) seconds
of receipt of call by CITY's dispatch center, ALS Ambulance within twenty (20)
minutes zero (0) seconds of receipt of call by CITY's dispatch center. If dispatch
services are not provided by CITY, then the above times shall be thirteen (13)
minutes zero (0) seconds and eighteen (18) minutes zero (0) seconds respectively
from the time CITY receives the request from an Authorized EMS Dispatch
Center.
3.5.3 Response time shall be measured from time Call Received, (TOC) until time At
Scene (OS).
3.6 If a response zone changes due to a material change in population, the COUNTY and
CITY will meet and resolve effects to the system.
3.7 In the event any single Code 3 emergency response exceeds the specified response time
by ten (10) minutes zero (0) seconds or more, and the extended response times cannot be
3/16/05 10
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
justified by acceptable mitigating circumstances, ACEMSD shall access the following
penalties:
3.7.1 Greater than 2 and less than 6 in any calendar month:
$500 /incident for each additional late response
3.7.2 Greater than 5 and less than 6 in any calendar month:
$1,000 /incident for each additional late response.
3.7.3 Greater than 7 in any calendar month
$1,500 /incident for each additional late response
3.7.4 Should CITY exceed 8 incidents per month in two consecutive months,
COUNTY has the option to a) assess a fine of $25,000 or b) find the CITY in
major breach of contract.
3.8 The CITY shall Backup other areas within the County of Alameda as requested by an
Authorized EMS Call Center or Dispatch Center as long as at least one (1) ALS
Ambulance remains available within CITY.
3.9 During any period of time that there is a Code Two or Code Three ambulance request and
CITY has no ALS Ambulance available to respond or if an unauthorized BLS ambulance
is utilized for a Code Two or Code Three call, CITY shall submit to the COUNTY an
Unusual Occurrence Report, which shall at minimum include; how long the services were
not available, the status of all CITY's ALS Ambulances during this time period, the
number of calls that could not be responded to within the allotted time, and the elapsed
delay of response time for each missed call. If an unauthorized BLS ambulance is
utilized, the report shall also contain the nature of the Medical Emergency as determined
by the Authorized Dispatch Center and submission of a copy of the field patient care
record.
3/16/05 11
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
3.10 In each instance of an ALS Ambulance vehicle failure on a Medical Emergency call
resulting in the inability to continue the response to or transport of the patient, CITY shall
submit a report which at a minimum shall include: how long it took for another ALS
Ambulance to respond to the same call; which ALS Ambulance service provider
responded; the reason or suspected reason(s) for vehicle failure and /or malfunction, and
actions CITY has taken to prevent similar failures.
3.11 An ALS Ambulance may be used for Code -One ambulance requests. It is the
responsibility of the CITY to ensure that adequate numbers of ALS units are available for
code two and code three responses prior to dispatching an ALS unit on a code one
response.
3.12 A minimum cut -off level shall be included in CITY's deployment plan to be
approved by COUNTY to ensure available resources to respond to system 9 -1 -1 requests
for services. During any calendar month CITY shall deploy no less than ninety (90 %) of
the regular scheduled unit hours specified in the approved deployment plan. Non-
scheduled unit hours shall not be calculated as part of the aggregated hours.
3.13 The CITY shall require that CITY's Dispatch Center ensure that personnel and
equipment are dispatched immediately for Medical Emergency requests outside and near
response zone boundaries and shall immediately contact the Authorized EMS Dispatch
Center for the provider which normally services that area and continue the response if
requested to do so. An Unusual Occurrence Report should be forwarded to the COUNTY
when there has been a dispatch error. The intent of this Section is to ensure there is no
delayed response due to boundary line disputes, and is not a replacement for a Mutual
Aid request.
3/16/05 12
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
3.14 The CITY shall designate a PARAMEDIC (CITY's selection criteria to be approved
by the COUNTY) to act a Training Officer who shall oversee the required training and
orientation of all new EMT -1 /P's employed by the CITY. The Training Officer shall
submit a written evaluation of each new EMT -1 and PARAMEDIC verifying that
orientation requirements have been completed. These requirements shall include, the
MCI Plan all local policies and procedures, and any additional training required by the
COUNTY. Also, the Training Office shall regularly attend scheduled training meetings
as required by the COUNTY.
3.15 The CITY shall designate a PARAMEDIC or RN (CITY'S selection criteria to be
approved by the COUNTY), to function as a Liaison between the CITY and the
COUNTY to perform internal quality assurance per COUNTY policies, assist in the
investigation of unusual QA /QI occurrences as identified by the COUNTY, and regularly
attend scheduled Liaison meetings as required by the COUNTY.
3.16 CITY shall submit to COUNTY no later than ninety days following commencement
of this Agreement a Quality Assurance plan subject to COUNTY approval that
establishes benchmarks for evaluation of clinical performance and measuring customer
and patient satisfaction.
3.17 The CITY shall have a written Deployment Plan and enter into mutual aid
agreements with providers in adjacent service areas. Any such plan or agreement shall be
sent to the COUNTY for approval no less than forty -five days prior to its adoption.
Failure to secure or abide by these agreements shall constitute a major breach of contract.
3.18 The CITY shall utilize a Deployment Committee consisting of management and field
personnel to review and develop deployment and system status plans. COUNTY shall
review CITY's Deployment Plan no less than every six (6) months or as deemed
necessary by COUNTY.
3/16/05 13
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
3.19 The CITY shall post at each station all EMS notices from the COUNTY directed to
field personnel. In addition, the CITY agrees to have an updated COUNTY EMS Policies
and Procedures Manual at each station accessible to all personnel.
4. COMMUNICATION/DISPATCH STANDARDS
4.1 The CITY shall maintain or contract with an Authorized EMS Dispatch Center authorized
to provide dispatch services for Medical Emergency requests within the geographical area for
the dispatch of ambulances 24 hours a day during the term of this AGREEMENT.
4.2 CITY shall obtain, install, and maintain in CITY'S ambulance all such radio and
telecommunications equipment as determined through COUNTY policy to be necessary for
the effective and efficient dispatch of EMS Resources. Subject to applicable laws and the
permission of the relevant agencies, said equipment shall allow effective and efficient
communication with Public Safety Agencies.
4.3 The CITY shall obtain, install, and maintain in CITY'S EMS Resources al such radio
equipment as is deemed by COUNTY policy to be appropriate for transmission of voice
communications for medical direction by base hospitals designated by the COUNTY.
4.4 The CITY shall equip each EMS Resource with Alameda County 800 MHz portable and
MHz radios.
4.5 The CITY shall establish polices, which ensure that, upon receipt of a private emergency
request for ambulance services, pertinent information including callback number, location,
and nature of the incident is ascertained and immediately transferred to the Authorized EMS
Dispatch Center.
4.6 The CITY shall provide quarterly, monthly EMS Dispatch data (as outlined in section 8.1
of the AGREEMENT.) Data shall be provided via computer disk or download by the 15th of
each following quarter to the COUNTY. Failure to provide this data in this time frame will
result in a fine of $50.00 payable by CITY to COUNTY each day until the data is received by
3/16/05 14
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
COUNTY beginning on the 18t" day of that month. This fine will be payable to the
COUNTY on a quarterly basis.
4.7 If COUNTY requires new or additional equipment, the COUNTY and CITY will meet to
discuss the financial impact of said new system.
5. EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY STANDARDS
5.1 The CITY shall ensure that each ALS Ambulance carries equipment and supplies
pursuant to COUNTY policy. Vehicles, equipment, and supplies shall be maintained in a safe
mechanical condition at all times.
5.2 All ambulance vehicles shall, as minimum, meet all standards of Title 13, California
Code of Regulations. CITY shall have and maintain the required inventory on each
ambulance used for patient transport as specified by COUNTY policy.
5.3 ALS Emergency Ground Ambulances will be removed by CITY from primary service
under this AGREEMENT at 175,00 miles, and will be removed completely from services
under this AGREEMENT at 200,000 miles.
5.4 The COUNTY shall approve the paint scheme and lettering of each ALS ambulance
covered by this AGREEMENT. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. A vehicle
identification number shall be prominently displayed.
5.5 The COUNTY may at any time, without prior notice, inspect CITY'S ambulance in order
to verify compliance with this AGREEMENT. An inspection may be postponed if it is shown
that the inspection would unduly delay an ambulance from responding to an ambulance
request. A memorandum of the inspection specifying any deficiencies, date of inspection,
ambulance number, and names of participating crew shall be provided to the CITY. CITY
must show proof of correction for any deficiencies noted in said memorandum of inspection
as specified by the COUNTY. A deficient ambulance may be immediately removed from
service if, in the opinion of the COUNTY, the deficiencies are a danger to the health and
3/16/05 15
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
safety of the public or if the deficiencies in a previously issued memorandum of inspection
have not been corrected in the time specified. COUTNY agrees to place any unit that has
been removed from service back in service immediately following the documented correction
of the defined deficiency.
5.6 The CITY shall develop and maintain a fleet management plan, maintain a record of the
preventative maintenance, repairs and strategic replacement of equipment and vehicles and
shall make such plan and records available to the COUNTY upon request.
5.7 Each on -duty EMT -1 or PARAMEDIC shall be provided with a helmet, gloves,
protective clothing coat, eye protection and other safety devices as deemed necessary. All
such items shall meet exceed CAL -OSHA standards.
6. PERSONNEL STANDARDS
6.1 When responding to a Medical Emergency call, and Emergency Ground Ambulance shall
be staffed in accordance with COUNTY policy.
6.2 CITY shall ensure that all employees providing patient care comply with training
requirements as established by the State of California and the COUNTY for their level of
certification.
6.3 The CITY shall not permit paramedics with limited experience from serving as the single
paramedic on a response unit, The CITY and COUNTY shall establish a plan that uses
experience and /or competency based criteria to address this issue, which will coincide with
COUNTY'S countywide plan to insure minimum experience levels.
6.4 The CITY shall have or contact for CISD (Critical Incident Stress Debriefing) Program
based on the "Mitchell Model" available to EMS providers at all times.
6.5 CITY shall have a policy, which prohibits CITY'S employees from performing any
services as contemplated herein while under the influence of any alcoholic beverage, illegal
drug, or narcotic. In addition, said policy shall prohibit CITY'S employees, from performing
3/16/05 16
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
such services under the influence of any other substance, including prescription or non-
prescription medication, which impairs their physical or mental
performance.
6.6 CITY shall provide the COUNTY with CITY'S current policies upon request which
address staffing and shift scheduling, avoidance of crew fatigue, crew quarters, conduct at a
scene, conduct in relation to first responder personnel, conduct during patient care
management, contact with base hospital (s), use of safety apparel, identification, driver
training and Department orientation.
6.7 CITY shall ensure that all personnel wear clean and appropriate uniforms.
6.8 CITY shall provide to all on -duty personnel an identification card including recent picture
that bares the employee's first name -last initial, certification or title and identification
number specific to that employee. Each employee shall carry an identification card.
6.9 CITY shall have in place policies which require that personnel follow all COUNTY EMS
Policies, Procedures and Protocols.
6.10 CITY shall ensure that patient care records are completed by CITY's personnel and left
at the receiving facility within one (1) hour after arrival for each patient transported within
90% compliance measured monthly. A completed Patient Care Record (PCR) shall be
identified as PCR having all essential fields completed, as established by COUNTY. The
COUNTY agrees that a formalized and CITY - approved tracking process be imposed and
implemented to all receiving facilities. The COUNTY will penalize CITY $200 for each
incident in which a patient care record is not left at the receiving facility within one (1) hour
after arriving below the ninety (90) percent level.
6.11 CITY shall have operational policies in place which require reporting On Scene as
specified in this AGREEMENT.
7. AMBULANCE STATIONS /CREW QUARTERS
3/16/05 17
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
7.1 CITY agrees to maintain a crew quarters at any location where EMS Resources are
normally scheduled to work shifts exceeding twelve (12) hours.
7.2 Crew quarters, at locations where EMS Resources are normally scheduled to work shifts
exceeding twelve (12) hours, shall include, shower, toilet, kitchen, day room, sleeping
facilities, and shall be maintained in a safe and clean condition consistent with the CITY's
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
7.3 Stations shall include an EMS bulletin board.
7.4 CITY shall provide COUNTY a list of crew quarters as part of the deployment plan.
8. RECORDS AND REPORTS
8.1 On a quarterly basis CITY shall complete, maintain, and provide to COUNTY the
following monthly records and /or reports:
8.1.1 Every patient care record in a format approved by the County
8.1.2 Response time compliance reports
8.1.3 Public education and community service reports
8.1.4 Number of 9 -1 -1 Code —1, Code -2 and Code -3 responses and transports
8.1.5 Critical EMS equipment failure reports
8.1.6 Trended EMS work related injury reports. There will be no employee
identifying information
8.1.7 Dispatch reports
8.1.8 EMS Equipment and vehicle maintenance reports
8.1.9 Patient billing and revenue reports
8.1.10 CITY shall notify COUNTY in writing upon receipt of a public or patient
complaint regarding EMS services. Such notification shall be in writing within seven
(7) days of receipt. CITY shall forward copies of all subsequent correspondence of
said complaint to COUNTY within ten (10) days of discovery or production.
3/16/05 18
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
8.1.11 The CITY shall provide to COUNTY additions and deletions to their
personnel roster as changes occur.
8.2 CITY shall complete financial records in an auditable form and content according to
generally accepted accounting practices. Financial records shall include all supporting
schedules pertinent to performance of this AGREEMENT and shall be made available to the
COUNTY for inspection at CITY's site upon request.
8.3 All records maintained pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be available for inspections,
audit, or examination by the COUNTY or by their designated representatives, and shall be
preserved by CITY for at least three (3) years from the termination of this AGREEMENT.
CITY's records shall not be made available to parties or persons outside the COUNTY
without CITY's prior written consent, unless disclosure is required by a subpoena or other
legal order compelling disclosure of otherwise permissible by law.
8.4 Upon written request of the COUNTY, CITY shall prepare and submit written reports on
any incident arising out of services provided under this AGREEMENT. COUNTY
recognizes that any report generated pursuant to this paragraph is confidential in nature and
shall not be released, duplicated, or made public without the written permission of CITY or
upon subpoena or other legal order compelling disclosure.
8.5 CITY shall provide additional information and reports as the COUNTY may reasonably
require from time to time to monitor the performance of the CITY under this AGREEMENT.
CITY shall notify COUNTY in writing of all CITY EMS vehicle accidents with injuries and
injuries to patients and /or the public associated with the performance of this Agreement
within ten (10) working days. Verbal notification to ALCO -CMED shall be within twenty -
four (24) hours of the event.
9. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
3/16/05 19
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
9.1 Without limiting the COUNTY's right to obtain indemnification from the CITY or any
third parties, subject to the CITY's right to seek subrogation for indemnification paid to the
COUNTY under this AGREEMENT and to the extent such indemnification is paid pursuant
to this paragraph, the CITY, at its sole expense, shall maintain or cause to be maintained in
full force and effects the following insurance policies throughout the term of this
AGREEMENT.
9.1.1 For the CITY's local operation in Alameda County — combined public liability,
general liability, automobile liability, bodily injury and property damage liability
insurance in amount of not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) in coverage for
each occurrence;
9.1.2 Medical liability insurance in an amount of not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) in coverage for any injury or death arising out of any one (1)
occurrence; and
9.1.3 Worker's compensation insurance providing full statutory coverage, in
accordance with the California Labor Code, for any and all of the CITY's personnel
who will be assigned to the performance of this AGREEMENT by the CITY in
accordance with the California Labor Code.
9.2 Such insurance policies shall name the County, its officers, Medical Director, agents and
employees, and the COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, as additional insured
(except for worker's compensation insurance), but only in so far as the operations under the
Agreement are concerned. Such coverage for additional insured shall apply as primary
insurance and any other insurance, or self - insurance, maintained by the County, its officer,
agents, and employees, the COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, shall be excess
only and not contributing with insurance provided under the CITY'S policies herein. This
insurance shall not be canceled or changed to restrict coverage without a minimum of thirty-
3/16/05 20
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
(30) calendar day's written notice given to the County. Said insurance coverage shall
coverage shall have an annual aggregate limitation of not less than $3,000,000 and shall
provide for full coverage, and if such insurance policies have a deductible, such deductible
shall be in an amount no to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per occurrence. CITY shall
provide certificates of insurance on the foregoing policies as required herein, to the
COUNTY annually, stating that such insurance coverages have been obtained and are in full
force;
9.3 CITY shall defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless the COUNTY and it's officers,
Medical Director, employees and agents, from any and all claims, damages, losses,
judgments, liabilities expenses, and other costs including litigation costs and attorney's fee
arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT
by CITY or CITY agents, officers, or employees save and except the sole negligence or
willful misconduct of COUNTY. CITY's obligation to defend, indemnify, and hold the
COUNTY, its agents, Medical Director, officers, and employees harmless under the
provisions of the paragraphs in this section is not limited to or restricted by any requirement
in this Agreement for CITY to procure and maintain a policy of insurance.
9.4 CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers, employees
and agents, and each of them, from any claim, action, or proceeding arising as a result of the
exclusive rights granted pursuant to this AGREEMENT. COUNTY shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the CITY, its officers, employees and agents, and each of them, from any
claim, action, or proceeding arising as a result of the exclusive rights granted pursuant to this
AGREEMENT. The COUNTY shall promptly notify CITY of any such claim, action, or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense of any and all such claims, actions or
proceedings.
3/16/05 21
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
9.5 COUNTY agrees to defend, indemnify, save and hold harmless the CITY and its officers,
employees and agents, from ay and all claims, damages, losses, judgments, liabilities,
expenses, and other costs including litigation costs and attorney's fees arising out of,
resulting from, or in connection with the performance of the AGREEMENT by COUNTY or
COUNTY's agents, officers, or employees save and except the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of CITY. COUNTY's obligation to defend, indemnify, and hold the CITY, its
agents, Medical Director, officers, and employees harmless under the provisions of the
paragraphs in this section is not limited to or restricted by any requirement in this Agreement
for COUNTY, to procure and maintain a policy of insurance.
9.6 Without limiting CITY's right to obtain indemnification from the COUNTY or any third
parties, subject to the COUNTY's right to seek subrogation for indemnification paid to CITY
under this AGREEMENT and to the extent such indemnification is paid pursuant to this
paragraph, the COUNTY, at its sole expense, shall maintain or cause to be maintained in full
force and effect the following insurance policies throughout the term of the AGREEMENT:
9.6.1 General liability insurance in an amount of not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) in coverage for each occurrence and an annual aggregate limitation of
not less than $2,000,000.
9.6.2 Medical liability insurance in an amount of not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) in coverage for any injury or death arising out of any one (1)
occurrence.
9.6.3 Such insurance policies shall name the CITY, its officers, agents, and
employees as additional insured, but only insofar as the operations under the
Agreement are concerned.
9.6.4 Such coverage for additional insured, shall apply as primary insurance and any
other insurance, or self - insurance, maintained by the CITY, its officers, agents, and
3/16/05 22
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
employees, shall be in excess only and not contributing with insurance provided
under the COUNTY's policies herein. This insurance shall not be canceled or
changed to restrict coverage without a minimum of thirty- calendar day's written
notice given to the CITY. Said insurance coverage shall have an annual aggregate
limitation of not less than three million dollars ($3,000,000) and shall provide full
coverage, and if such insurance policies have a deductible, such deductible shall be in
an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per occurrence.
9.7 COUNTY shall provide certificates of insurance on the foregoing policies as required
herein, to the CITY annually, stating that such insurance coverages have been obtained and
are in full force.
10. NON — DISCRIMINATION
10.1 COUNTY and CITY shall abide by all Federal and State non - discrimination laws
regarding governmental COUNTY contracts and subcontracts.
11. RESPONSE COMPLIANCE PENALTIES
11.1 For each month in which any one of the requirements in Section 3 is not met, CITY
shall meet with the COUNTY, at the COUNTY's request, to develop a strategy to solve this
response compliance problem.
11.2 For each calendar month in which CITY has met less than 90% of the response time
standards, COUNTY shall assess the CITY the following penalties:
11.2.1 First Occurrence Letter of deficiency sent
11.2.2 Second Occurrence $7,500 fine
11.2.3 Third Occurrence $17,500 fine or notice of major breach of
contract
11.3 Any monetary fine paid by CITY pursuant to Sections 3.10 excepting section
3.10.4shall be credited to the above penalties, since it is not the intent of the
3/16/05 23
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
PARTIES to impose duplicative fines for occurrences which violate both this section
and Section 3.10
11.4 If in any calendar month, regardless of prior deficiencies, CITY meets less than 88%
of the response time standard, COUNTY has the option to: a) assess a fine of $17,500 or,
b) find the CITY in a major breach of contract.
11.5 An occurrence shall be expunged after six (6) consecutive months of compliance
However, financial penalties already assessed are not subject to reversal.
11.6 If it is reported to the COUNTY that any of CITY's employees have willfully
and knowingly falsely reported any dispatch time that comprises Response Times,
COUNTY shall investigate such allegations and take such action as is deemed
appropriate by COUNTY within the limits allowed by the relevant statues and
regulations.
11.7 Exceptions may be granted by the COUNTY on a per call basis by request of the CITY
and upon review and investigation by COUNTY. Good cause for exceptions shall be
determined by the COUNTY, or as stipulated in this AGREEMENT. The burden of
proof that there is good cause for an exception shall rest with CITY. These exceptions
include but are not limited to the following:
11.7.1 Changes to Response Codes en -route to the scene, except in those cases in
which the response time has been reduced after exceeding the initial response time
standard. Should this occur, the call shall be included in the response compliance
calculations.
11.7.2 Delays in EMS Resource response or arrival On Scene due to materially
incorrect or unavailable information.
11.7.3 The response of a second unit to an incident if the request for additional
resources was made within ten (10) minutes of the arrival of the first unit. It is
3/16/05 24
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
assumed that after ten (10) minutes the CITY has had adequate time to re- deploy
resources.
11.7.4 There shall be no response time penalties for third and subsequent units
dispatched to a single incident or during declared disasters or a State of Emergency
affecting the EOA.
11.8 If CITY is unable to respond an ALS Ambulance to a Code Three call when the
Authorized Call Receipt Center has requested ALS services, a BLS ambulance may
be dispatched as long as an ALS unit has also been dispatched. If a BLS ambulance is
dispatched without an ALS unit, there will be a $500.00 fine for each such occurrence
unless waived by the COUNTY.
11.9 All measurements of compliance in this AGREEMENT shall be on a monthly basis
reported quarterly. All fines shall be forwarded to the COUNTY within thirty (30)
days following the mutual reconciliation and agreement of compliance summary for
any charges incurred during the preceding quarter.
12. COMENSATION/FEES /SECURITY BONDS
12.1 CITY is not a member of the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services District. In
lieu of membership, CITY agrees to contribute annually an amount equal to the assessment
otherwise due from members of the District calculated as follows: Number of Benefits Units
within EOA multiplied by the Annual County Assessment
12.2 As compensation for services, labor, equipment, supplies and materials furnished under
this Agreement, CITY shall be entitled to charge patients for the services rendered according
to the Usual and Customary Rate (UCR) schedule included as Exhibit D. The UCR fee
schedule shall be adjusted annually beginning October 1, 2000. The fee schedule will
increase by the Consumer Price Index — all consumers (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose) as
published by the Department of Labor for the month of September each year.
3/16/05 25
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
12.3 All bills submitted by CITY to any private party or third party payer for ALS Ground
Ambulance Services or Emergency Ground Ambulance Services rendered under this
AGREEMENT shall not exceed the rates which have been approved by the COUNTY
(Exhibit D).
12.4 This AGREEMENT shall not be deemed to have been made for the express or implied
benefit of any person who is not a party hereto.
12.5 In the event an actual or reasonably expected or impending Extraordinary Change (as
hereinafter defined), CITY shall have the right to issue a notice of renegotiation of this
Agreement. Upon COUNTY's receipt of notice to renegotiate, COUNTY shall also have the
right to request renegotiation of any and all fees listed in Exhibit D and shall notify CITY of
said request. In such event, CITY and COUNTY shall negotiate in good faith in an attempt to
reach Agreement on amended financial and /or operational terms of the Agreement necessary
for CITY to satisfy its reasonable financial and operational needs in light of such
Extraordinary Changes. In the event the COUNTY and the CITY are unable to reach
agreement, CITY may terminate this AGREEMENT upon 180 days written notice without
penalty to CITY. For purposes of this section an Extraordinary Change is defined as one or
more of the following events:
a. Changes in payor (s) payment methodologies that will potentially and
permanently reduce CITY's total collected revenues for services provided
pursuant to this AGREEMENT by at least 10% as compared to the Base Period.
b. A material change in the law, whether by statute or judicial decision, which
results in CITY's rights or abilities to provide paramedic ambulance service that
would in turn cause a decrease in the exclusive operating area under the
AGREEMENT which decrease would result in at least a 10% decrease in total
collected revenues as compared to the Base Period.
3/16/05 26
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
c. A material change in the COUNTY's proposed Emergency Triage/Non-
Emergency Triage system that would result in a least a 10% decrease in total
collected revenues as compared to the Base Period.
For purposes of this section, the Base Period shall be the twelve -month period prior to the
earlier of CITY's notice to renegotiate or the occurrence of the Extraordinary Change.
13. CONTRACT PERFORMANCE/BREACH/DEFAULT
13.1 This AGREEMENT is an agreement by and between COUNTY and CITY and is not
intended to and shall not be construed to create the relationship of COUNTY, servant,
employee, partnership, joint venture or association.
13.2 Amendments or modifications to the provisions of this AGREEMENT may be initiated
by any party hereto and may only be incorporated into this AGREEMENT upon the mutual
consent of all PARTIES and must be in writing. PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to
make such changes as are mutually deemed to be necessary. In the event COUNTY and
CITY are unable to reach such agreement on any amendments or modifications to the
provisions of this AGREEMENT within ninety (90) days, the CITY and COUNTY shall
jointly refer the matter to mutually agreed -upon third party neutral mediator. The cost of the
third -party neutral mediator shall be split evenly between the CITY and COUTN. The
mediation proceedings shall be non - binding and shall conclude no later than thirty (30) days
after the referral to the mediator.
13.3 The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms,
covenants or conditions of this AGREEMENT in any one or more instances shall not be
construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of any such terms, covenants or
conditions, but all of the same shall be and remain in full force and effect.
13.4 Neither COUNTY nor CITY shall assign this AGREEMENT to another party without
obtaining the prior written consent of all other parties to this AGREEMENT.
3/16/05 27
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
13.5 All notices pertaining to this AGREEMENT shall be sent via certified mail to the
following:
TO COUNTY: EMS Administrator
County of Alameda
1000 San Leandro Blvd., Suite 200
San Leandro, CA 94577
TO CITY: City of Alameda
City Manager
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
City of Alameda
Fire Chief
1300 Park Street
Alameda, CA 94501
13.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the COUNTY may, at any time during the term of he
AGREEMENT, suspend pursuant to Section 13.8 or terminate this AGREEMENT for
CITY's material breach of the AGREEMENT. Such action to suspend or terminate the
AGREEMENT shall not be undertaken unless CITY has first received written notice from
the COUNTY describing the sections in the AGREEMENT with which it allegedly has failed
to comply or sections in the AGREEMENT with which it has failed to comply that resulted
in material breach of the AGREEMENT and CITY fails within sixty (60) days after receiving
said notice to cure such failure to comply, or if the failure cannot reasonably be cured within
sixty (60) days, CITY fails to commence cure of the failure within the sixty (60) day period
and in good faith continue to cure the failure. Upon request of CITY, the COUNTY shall
provide acknowledgment to CITY that CITY's alleged failure to comply has been corrected
or otherwise resolved.
13.7 Material breach is defined as:
13.7.1 Willful failure of the CITY to operate the ALS service in a manner that
enables COUNTY or CITY to remain in substantial compliance with the
requirements of applicable Federal, State, and County laws, rules, and regulations.
Minor infractions of such requirements shall not constitute a major breach, but such
willful and repeated breaches shall constitute a material breach.
3/16/05 28
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
13.7.2 Willful falsification of data supplied to the COUNTY during the course of
operations, including by way of example but not by way of exclusion, dispatch data,
patient report data, response time data, financial data, or falsification of any other
data required under this Agreement.
13.7.3 Willful failure to maintain equipment in accordance with good maintenance
practices.
13.7.4 Chronic and persistent failure of CITY's employees to conduct themselves in a
professional and courteous manner and to present a professional appearance.
13.7.5 Willful failure to comply with approved billing and collection procedures.
13.7.6 Failure to maintain the required insurance.
13.7.7 Willful failure to properly report and comply with the penalty provisions.
13.8 In the event the COUNTY determines that a material breach, actual or threatened, has or
will occur, or that a labor dispute has prevented performance, and if the nature of the breach
is, in the COUNTY's opinion, such that public health and safety are endangered, and after
CITY has been given notice and reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency, the matter
will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in open session. If the Board of Supervisors
concurs based on substantial evidence that material breach has occurred and that health and
safety would be endangered by allowing the CITY to continue its operations, the CITY will
cooperate fully with the COUNTY, to effect an immediate takeover of ALS Transport
Services and /or Paramedic First Responder Services by the COUNTY. The COUNTY will
affect such takeover not more than 72 hours after action.
13.9 Major breach of the AGREEMENT shall be defined as non - compliance with the
following section: 3.10.4, 3.20, 11.2.3, 11.4 Major breach of the AGREEMENT may result in
suspension or termination of this AGREEMENT following written notice by COUNTY to
3/16/05 29
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
CITY without a sixty (60) day period to allow the commencement of a cure of the breach as
discussed in 13.6.
13.10 The COUNTY my unilaterally terminate the takeover period at any time. The takeover
period shall last, in the COUNTY's judgment, no longer than is necessary to stabilize the
EMS System and to protect the public health and safety.
14. MISCELLANEOUS
14.1 The CITY shall (whenever possible) assist the COUNTY with public education
programs within the service area.
14.2 The CITY shall participate in disaster drills per COUNTY's request within the service
area.
14.3 The CITY shall offer to the community a variety of programs consistent with criteria
developed for public information and education by the COUNTY within the service area.
Such programs may include:
14.3.1 Cardio - pulmonary resuscitation
14.3.2 9 -1 -1 access
14.3.3 Establishment of assessment programs to focus on measurable needs.
• Asthma
• Pedestrian Safety
• Gunshot wounds
• Car seat compliance and efficacy
• Heart Disease
• Immunization, roles and compliance
• Prevention activities targeting seniors and children
3/16/05 30
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
14.3.4 Enhancing access to service through expansion, interagency coordination, and
access to health information.
14.4 Should there be a change in the COUNTY's EMS Plan that results in the need to make
amendments to this AGREEMENT, PARTIES agree to negotiate in good faith to make such
changes as are mutually deemed to be necessary.
14.6 No officer, member, or employee of COUNTY and no member of their governing
bodies shall have any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this AGREEMENT or the
proceeds thereof.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CITY OF ALAMEDA,
A Municipal Corporation
BY: BY:
TITLE: TITLE:
DATE: DATE:
3/16/05 31
Approved as to Form
CI AT �� Y
By: _ %4.,G /L 11
Assistant Attorney
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENTS
The Attachments to be attached and incorporated in the AGREEMENT are as follows:
Exhibit -A Map of Exclusive Operating Area
Exhibit B COUNTY's Required Radio Equipment
Exhibit C COUNTY'S Required Insurance Document
Exhibit D COUNTY's User Fees Schedule
3/16/05 32
CITY OF ALAMEDA AMBULANCE AND PARAMEDIC PROVIDER
AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT to day and year
above written.
President, Board of Supervisors City Manager
Alameda County City of Alameda County
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
County Counsel City Attorney
Date: Date:
Alameda Ambulance & Paramedic Provider Agreement 2005
3/16/05 33
i
H
bd
H
H
a
EXHIBIT B
Required Radio Equipment
Each response vehicle shall have the following equipment
installed:
1 - 48 channel 800Mhz mobile radio compatible with Alameda
County's trunked 800 MHz system,permanently mounted and
connected to a permanently mounted outside antenna.
2 -48 channel 800MHz portable radios compatible with
Alameda County's trunked 800 MHz system
1 -10 channel UHF Medcom Radio with front and rear
compartment communications capabilities
05/09/2005 22:22 FAX 510 618 1928 E M S ADMIN
EXHIBIT C
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting any other obligation or liability under this Agreement, the Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, shall secure and keep in force
during the entire term of the Agreement or longer, as may be specified below, the following insurance coverage, limits and endorsements:
a 002
A
Commercial General Liability
Premises Liability; Products and Completed Operations; Contractual
Liability; Personal injury and Advertising Liability
$1,000,000 per occurrence (CSL)
Bodily Injury and Property Damage
B
Commercial or`Business Automobile Liability
All owned vehicles, hired or leased vehicles, non- owned, borrowed and
permissive uses. Personal Automobile Liability is acceptable for
individual contractors with no transportation or hauling related activities
$1,000,000 per occurrence (CSL)
Any Auto
Bodily Injury and Property Damage
C
Workers' Compensation (WC) and Employers Liability (EL)
Required for all contractors with employees
WC: Statutory Limits
EL: $100,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease
D
Professional LiabilltylErrors & Omissions
Includes endorsements of contractual liability
$1,000,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 project aggregate
E
Endorsements and Conditions:
of Professional Liability, Personal
to name as additional insured: County
officers, agents, employees and representatives.
during the entire term of the Agreement
-made basis shall be maintained during
of all work provided under the Agreement,
with the commencement of activities
be primary insurance to any insurance
of this Agreement, insurance effect
to indemnify and defend the tndem
an insurer with a minimum A.M. Bes
of Contractor's insurance by County s
retention amount or other simile
or self - insured retention amount
insured (covered party) under its poll
All coverages for subcontractors shall
joint business venture, required insu
entity included as a "Named lnsu
joint business venture included as a "N
to provide thirty (30) days advaII
this Agreement, Contractor shall provide
to County, evidencing that all required
to provide complete, certified copies
must be sent to:
233, Oakland, CA 94607)
Automobile
of Alameda,
with the
the entire
with
pursuant to this
available to the
' or procured by
ified Parties.
Rating of A- or
all not relieve or
obligation under
r other similar
ies or shall
be subject to all of
nce shall be
(covered party),
med Insured.
hee written notice
Certificate(s)
insurance
of all
1. ADDITIONAL INSURED: All insurance required above with the exception
Liability, Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability, shall be endorsed
its Board of Supervisors, the individual members thereof, and all County
2. DURATION OF COVERAGE: All required insurance shall be maintained
following exception: Insurance policies and coverage(s) written on a claims
term of the Agreement and until 3 years following termination and acceptance
the retroactive date of said insurance (as may be applicable) concurrent
Agreement.
3. REDUCTION OR LIMIT OF OBLIGATION: All insurance policies shall
Indemnified Parties and Additional Insured(s). Pursuant to the provisions
the Contractor shall not reduce or limit Contractor's contractual obligation
4. INSURER FINANCIAL RATING: Insurance shall be maintained through
better, with deductible amounts acceptable to the County. Acceptance
decrease the liability of Contractor hereunder. Any deductible or self - insured
the policies shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Any deductible
obligation under the policies shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor.
5. SUBCONTRACTORS: Contractor shall include all subcontractors as an
fumish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor.
the requirements stated herein.
6. JOINT VENTURES: If Contractor is an association, partnership or other
provided by any one of the following methods:
— Separate insurance policies issued for each individual entity, with each
or at minimum named as an "Additional Insured" on the other's policies.
— Joint insurance program with the association, partnership or other
7. CANCELLATION OF INSURANCE: All required insurance shall be endorsed
to the County of cancellation.
8. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE: Before commencing operations under
of Insurance and applicable insurance endorsements, in form and satisfactory
coverage is in effect. The County reserves the rights to require the Contractor
required insurance policies. The require certificate(s) and endorsements
- Department/Agency issuing the contract
- With a copy to Risk Management Unit (1106 Madison Street, Room
Certificate C -2
Page 1 of 1
Form 2001 -1
ALAMEDA COUNTY 911 SYSTEM
CONTRACTOR'S User Fees and Line Item Charges
Effective Date: April 20,2005
12 Lead EKG
Activated Charcoal
Adenosine
Airway - Nasal
Airway - Oral
ALS Base Emergency
Albuterol (with Nebulizer)
Amiodarone
Aspirin
Atropine
Atrovent
Bag Valve Mask
Bandages - Triangular
Bed Pan
Benadryl
Blanket Disposable
Blood Draw Tube / Needle
Blood Set
BLS Base Emergency
Burn Sheet
Calcium Chloride
Cervical Collar
Cold / Hot Pack
Combitube (Adult & Small)
CPAP Mask and Tube
(includes generator)
D5W IV solution
Dextrose 25%
Dextrose 50%
Dopamine
Dressing - Major
EKG Electrodes
EKG Monitor
End Tidal CO2 Detector
EPI 1:1000 1 mg /1 cc
EPI 1:10,000 1 mg
Extra Attendant
Alameda City Ambulance Fee Schedule 2005
$0.00
$35.00
$78.82
$6.98
$6.98
$930.40
$35.00
$35.00
$5.00
$15.23
$16.00
$45.76
$5.84
$2.88
$11.74
$14.09
$23.70
$18.80
$599.00
$21.12
$16.08
$24.00
$11.74
$82.00
$95.00
$17.61
$21.14
$21.14
$17.61
$6.79
$28.75
$78.82
$32.85
$17.61
$17.61
$49.91
Glucagon
Glucose
Glucometer Test Supplies
Head Bed
Intraosseous Needle
Intubation Supplies
IV Catheter
IV Start Kit
Lasix
Lidocaine 200 2%
Mask Packet
Midazolam
Mileage
Morphine
Multi -drip IV Tubing
Narcan
Nebulizer
Nitroglycerin spray
Normal Saline IV solution 1L
Normal Saline 1L Bottle
OB Pack
Oxygen
P.T.V. Kit
Pleural Decompression Kit
Pulse Oximetry Sensor
Sodium Bicarb
Spinal Immobilization
Splint - Arm (disposable)
Splint - Leg (disposable)
Sterile Water normal saline
Suction Tube / Tip Supply
Valium
Universal Precautions
Urinal
EXHIBIT D
$95.00
$12.91
$1.60
$18.00
$12.91
$8.81
$9.55
$11.58
$17.61
$18.11
$17.61
$16.00
$20.00
$14.60
$18.80
$17.61
$22.50
$21.63
$17.61
$12.00
$59.41
$59.51
$32.85
$32.85
$35.00
$17.61
$47.50
$12.00
$12.00
$12.00
$19.10
$15.87
$13.49
$2.88
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 31, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Recommendation to Approve Long -Term Park Use Policy
BACKGROUND
On September 7, 2004, the City Council requested that the Recreation and Park
Commission develop a park policy that governs the private use of City parks for Council's
consideration and approval. This request was initiated in response to the Alameda Boys
and Girls Club's request to establish a satellite facility in McKinley Park. That request was
not approved.
The Recreation and Park Commission held six public meetings over the past six months in
order to develop the Long -Term Park Use Policy attached here as Exhibit A.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City routinely receives requests for use of park land and facilities from a variety of
entities including public, private, commercial, and non - profit groups. In order to
effectively and efficiently deal with these requests and to provide the greatest degree of
protection of the City's park facilities and the associated park users, a comprehensive
Park Use Policy needs to be implemented.
The proposed Long -Term Park Use Policy:
• Establishes and defines standards and policies for non -City (e.g., long -term non-
profit groups, etc.) sponsored park use of City facilities.
• Establishes and defines standards for construction and renovation.
• Informs potential users and the public in general of the established guidelines
regarding non -City park uses.
• Establishes a procedure to insure the fair and uniform administration of non -City
park uses.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report #4 -D CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and Page -2-
Councilmembers
• Discourages inappropriate use of park property.
• Minimizes damage to park land and facilities.
• Minimizes inconvenience to park patrons and the surrounding neighborhoods.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
The Recreation & Park Commission recommends that City Council approve the Long -Term
Park Use Policy.
Exhibit A
WCN:DL:CJ:bf
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By:
Dale Iillard, A t ng Director
Recreation and Park Department
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Alameda Recreation & Parks
(510) 747 -7529
PURPOSE
The Recreation and Park Commission was created by Council Ordinance with
the express mission of advising, coordinating, and providing guidance for the
acquisition, development, maintenance, and operation of city parks, playgrounds,
and other recreational facilities.
The Commission routinely receives requests for use of park land and facilities
from a variety of entities including public, private, commercial, and non - profit
groups. In order to effectively and efficiently deal with these requests and to
provide the greatest degree of protection of the City's park facilities and the
associated park user's a comprehensive Park Use Policy needs to be
implemented.
This Park Use Policy will address the following:
• Establish and define standards and policies for non -City (e.g., long -term
non - profit groups, etc.) sponsored park use of City facilities.
• Establish and define standards for construction and renovation.
• Inform potential users and the public in general of the established
guidelines regarding non -City park uses.
• Establish a procedure to insure the fair and uniform administration of non -
City park uses.
• Discourage inappropriate use of park property.
• Minimize damage to park land and facilities.
• Minimize inconvenience to park patrons and the
surrounding neighborhoods.
APPLICATION FOR PARK USE
Parties desiring to use park property for non -City park use shall apply to
the Director of the Alameda Recreation and Park Department. Applications for
non -City park use of any City park will be considered only after the applicant has
submitted satisfactory information that will assist the Recreation and Park
Department in determining the extent and impact of the use requested.
Approved: 3 -10 -2005 - 1 -
Alameda Recreation & Parks
(510) 747 -7529
The Recreation and Park Department will cooperate with the requesting party by
supplying information and /or staff time on a cost - reimbursable basis. All costs
associated with request, transfer, and replacement of public park lands or park
facilities will be the responsibility of the requesting party. Final approval by the
City Council will be required of all requests.
The Alameda Recreation and Park Department will have the authority to deny
non -City park uses which, in its sole determination, would materially adversely
impact park users.
City Park Application
The following requests for use will not be considered:
• Requests for use of City Parks of three (3) acres or less.
• Requests that would displace existing Alameda Recreation and Park
Department Programs.
• Requests for use by non -City sponsored, private profit making enterprises.
• Uses that would occupy more that 25% of the total acreage available in
the affected park.
Review Process
Once an application has been filed with the Alameda Recreation and Park
Department, the applicant will be required to:
1. Conduct a community meeting with the neighborhood currently served by
the area requested.
2. Notify residents (both property owners and renters) within 300 feet of the
facility requested at the applicant's expense.
3. Address issues such as potential traffic problems, litter, parking, and noise
during the informational meeting.
4. Provide detailed plans or drawings illustrating any significant structural
additions or deletions.
Approved: 3 -10 -2005 - 2 -
Alameda Recreation & Parks
(510) 747 -7529
5. Comply with the established policies and procedures of the City of
Alameda's Planning Department regarding the placement of structures
and hours of operation.
6. Demonstrate the ability to maintain the facilities requested as determined
by the Recreation and Park Department Director.
7. Attend a hearing before the Recreation and Park Commission for its
consideration and approval of the application.
Approved: 3 -10 -2005 - 3 -
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 24, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: First Amendment to Agreement with Consolidated Construction Management (CCM),
Extending the Term, Scope of Work, and Price, for the New Main Library Project, No.
P.W. 01 -03 -01
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2002, the City was awarded a State Library Grant for $15,487,952 for
construction of a new library. Alameda voters previously approved Measure 0 in the amount of
$10,600,000, which will provide matching funds for the project and improvements to the branch
libraries. On May 20, 2003, Council approved an agreement to retain Consolidated Construction
Management (CCM) as the construction management firm to oversee the design and construction
phases of this project.
DISCUSSION
CCM has supported the new main library project beginning with design development process
(including meeting extensively with the Library Building Team (LBT)), assisting with the
drafting of specifications, constructibility reviews of final construction documents, value
engineering input, LEED analysis and contract negotiation. The scope of work for the original
contract portended a twelve -month course of construction based upon the architect's 2003
estimate. The architect revised the estimated course of construction in April 2004 to an eighteen -
month course of construction, effectively adding six months to CCM's contract. The attached
amendment provides CCM with additional time to meet this new schedule.
Staff considered hiring an outside consultant to provide assistance with furniture, fixtures, and
equipment (FF &E) procurement and professional services required to oversee the move and set
up of equipnnt, books, and preservation of existing reference and periodicals collections from
the library's current location to the new Library. Proposals received to date for the important
coordination work have been in the neighborhood of $65 - $85K. CCM has presented a proposal
to perform this work for an additional $26K because they are already on the job and are `very
familiar with our program and needs.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -E CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
May 24 2005
To date, the work and cooperation of CCM has been of high quality and staff recommends using
this consultant for the additional work. Current contract limit (including contingency) is
$545,332.30 of which $279,879 is remaining. The proposed additional cost for extending the
construction time period, providing FF &E procurement and library move coordination services is
$279,879. This will result in a new contract limit (including contingency) of $825,211.30. Staff
requests authorization for the Acting City Manager to amend the agreement with CCM.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This project is identified as CIP 02 -37 with a total budget of $15.6M (State Grant and Measure 0
Funds) allocated for construction. Funds to pay for this expected contract extension and
additional work are already included in the construction management line item and were
formerly allocated to pay for construction management by the Public Works Department. There
will be no impact to the project's contingency funding by this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council by motion authorize the Acting City Manager to amend
the agreement with Consolidated Construction Management for the New Main Library Project,
No. P.W. 01- 03 -01.
PB/RH:ms
enclosure
cc: Library Director
- . ectfully s : itted,
�.• 4IW4
v
aul Benoit
Assistant City Manager
By: Robert G. Haun
Project Manager
O:\Library_Project\LIBRARY \Council \060705 \CCM,amendl staffrpt- final.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMEN
This Amendment of the Agreement, entered into this oLl day of
and between CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter eferred to as
"City "), and CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., a California
corporation, whose address is 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1520, Oakland, California, 94612,
(hereinafter referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
2005, by
RECITALS:
A. On May 21, 2003, an agreement was entered into by and between City and
Consultant (hereinafter "Agreement ").
B. In April 2004 the Architect revised the estimated course of construction from 12
months to 18 months.
C. City and Consultant desires to extend the contract term to match the revised
estimated course of construction.
D. City and Consultant desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions
set forth herein. Consultant will be on -site during the construction phase of this project to
provide construction management services; furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF &E) support
and be involved in the moving contract work. Cost for this additional work shall not exceed
$279,879.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as
follows:
1. Article 1, Term, page 1, of the Agreement is modified to read as follows:
"The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 21st day of May 2003 and
shall terminate on the 31st day of July 2006, unless terminated earlier as set forth
herein."
2. Article 2, Services to be Performed, page 1, of the Agreement is modified to read
as follows:
"Consultant shall perform professional construction management services,
provide FF &E procurement and move coordination and perform professional
services required to oversee the move from the library's current location to the
new building as set forth in Exhibit "A" of the original contract and Exhibit "Al"
of this Agreement, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, except as otherwise requested by the City. It is mutually understood
that this Agreement is based upon services provided on an hourly basis."
New Main Library 1 No. P.W. 01 -03 -01
Consolidated Construction Management (CCM) C:\Documents and Settings \eng_user\Local Settings \Temp \CCM,amendl_3.doc
3. Article 3, Compensation to Consultant, page 2, paragraph 4 of the Agreement is
modified to read as follows:
"Compensation, including contingencies, under the original agreement is not to
exceed $545,332.30. Compensation under First Amendment to Agreement is not
to exceed $279,879. These two totals result in a total not to exceed revised
contract limit of $825,211.30. Use of contingency shall require prior written
authorization by the City."
4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the
Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement
to be executed on the day and year first above written.
CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT, INC.
A California Corporation
Matt,coble, P.E.
President
New Main Library
Consolidated Construction Management (CCM) C:\Documents and Settings \eng_user\Local Settings \Temp \CCM,amendl3.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Robert G. Haun
Project Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
lie Harryman
eputy City Attorney
Dated: sb tines
2 No. P.W. 01 -03 -01
EXHIBIT `Al'
SCOPE OF WORK
CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
New Main Library - No. P.W. 01 -03 -01
Details of tasks are incorporated by this reference and are to be developed and executed
under direction of the City's project manager.
Consolidated Construction Management will be on -site during the construction phase of
this project and will provide:
• Extended construction management services to conform to the revised
construction time line.
• Furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF &E) procurement.
• Perform professional services required to oversee the move and set up of
equipment, books, and preservation of existing reference and periodicals
collections from the library's current location to the new Library. This task will
include:
1. Set Scope of Move
2. Qualify vendors.
3. Solicit bids.
4. Review bids.
5. Coordinate with Library staff.
6. Confirm preparedness of new Library.
7. Set schedules.
8. Review mover plans.
9. Observe move.
10. Closeout.
Cost for this additional work shall not exceed $279,879 and is based upon services
provided on an hourly basis.
New Main Library 3 No. P.W. 01 -03 -01
Consolidated Construction Management (CCM) C:\Documents and Settings \eng_user\Local Settings \Temp \CCM,amendl_3.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 25, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Approval to Set a Public Hearing for Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Chapter XXI, Solid Waste and Recycling, of the Alameda Municipal Code
(AMC) and the Franchise Agreement between the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries
(ACI), ACI is obligated to make at least four (4) attempts to collect from delinquent integrated waste
management (IWM) accounts, after which time, ACI may assign its rights to the City. Following the
assignment, City may then send a letter to each assigned account requesting payment, and if not
promptly received, the City may consider the collection of delinquent accounts by means of the
property tax bills. The City Council is required to hold a Public Hearing prior to collecting through
the property tax bills.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
On March 22, 2004, ACI, in accordance with the AMC and their Franchise Agreement, assigned a
list of delinquent IWM accounts to the City for collection. In accordance with the AMC, the City
may then send a letter to each assigned account requesting payment, and if not promptly received, the
City will collect delinquent accounts by means of the property tax bills at a Public Hearing. The
Public Hearing to consider the collection of delinquent accounts by means of the property tax bills is
recommended to be set for June 21, 2005. The City is obligated to pay ACI for all delinquent
accounts. Accounts that remain delinquent and are not approved for collection through the property
tax bills are considered "bad debt" and will be included in the next rate review (commencing July 1,
2007), potentially resulting in an increase in the rates.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The City receives a 10% franchise fee from ACI which is revenue for the General Fund. Unpaid
IWM fees, therefore, result in a loss in General Fund revenues.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ft/Alameda
PUbliCWorks
Department
Public Worn IRAs-for You!
Report #4 -F CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
May 25, 2005
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
The City's Integrated Waste Management Program is consistent with the General Plan Health &
Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, set a public hearing for
delinquent Integrated Waste Management charges for June 21, 2005.
MTN:MFD:gc
cc: ACI
Respect ly submitted
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works 1 irector
By: aria F. DiMeglio
Program Specialist II
G:\ PUBWORKS\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \060705lien hearing - final.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvofManed&
tublicWorks
UVeparlment
Public Wks W bf End
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Resolution to Apply for Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge
Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda
Ferry Services, and Authorize Acting City Manager to Enter into All Agreements
Necessary to Secure These Funds
BACKGROUND
In November 1989, voters approved Regional Measure 1 (RM1), authorizing a toll increase of
$1.00 for vehicles on all state -owned bridges in the Bay Area. Up to three percent (3 %) of the
revenues derived from the toll increase were made available for transportation projects that
reduce congestion on these bridges. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
approves projects and distributes RM1 Bridge Toll Funds. The RM1 Funds are divided into
north and south bridge groups and into operating funds and capital funds. Alameda Ferry
Services are eligible for the southern bridge group operating and capital funds.
In April 2005, MTC issued a Call for Projects for FY 2005 /06 funding with an application
deadline of May 6, 2005. Staff submitted a draft application to meet the deadline with the
understanding that the application would be modified based on City Council's review and
approval of the Funding Agreements for the Alameda Ferry Services in June.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
I. Applications for Operating Funds: Southern bridge group operating funds for FY 2005/06
are $1,471,102.
a. AOFS — The application to MTC requests $1,021,102 from RM1. The total operating
budget is estimated at $3,416,866. Projected revenue consisted of:
■ RM1 - $1,021,102;
■ Measure B - $493,564;
■ Port of Oakland - $83,325; and
■ Farebox revenue - $1,818,875.
The actual AOFS FY 2005/06 pro forma budget is discussed in a separate action item.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CmofAlameda
VbG(WOrks
Department
Public Works WoriYfrx You!
Re: Report and Reso
#4 -G CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers June 1, 2005
b. AHBFS - The application to MTC requests $450,000 from RM1. Total operating
budget is estimated at $1,277,251. Projected revenue consisted of:
• RM1- $450,000;
• Measure B - $144,400;
• Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF) - $217,400; and
• Farebox revenue, $465,451.
The actual AHBFS FY 2005/06 pro forma budget will be considered at the June 21, 2005
Council meeting.
II. Applications for Capital Funds: Southern bridge group funds available for capital projects
for FY 2005 /06 are $672,269. The City is submitting five capital projects for RM1 -2%
funding. These are:
a. Peralta D -Check - This project provides for the 12,000 engine -hour preventative
maintenance of the Cummins engines. Work includes inspection, repair and
replacement of turbos, injectors and pumps. Total project cost is $50,500. Proposed
funding is:
Regional Measure 1 -2%
City Regional Measure B
Total
$33,500
$17,000
$50,500
b. Bay Breeze Water Jet Preventive Maintenance and Haulout — This project provides
for the inspection, repair and replacement of critical water jet components such a
steering rams, hoses, cylinders, the replacement of a section of the inlet tunnels and
resetting of the parameters. This work requires boat haulout thereby, permitting
preventative maintenance work on items such as the sewage tank, hulls (sandblasting,
painting), cooling system, zincs, etc. Total project cost is $326,818. Proposed
funding is:
Regional Measure 1 -2% $326,818
c. Encinal Haulout and Rudder /Interceptor Installation — This project provides for the
biennial vessel haulout for bottom painting, sewage plumbing upgrade, and the
United States Coast Guard (USGC) inspection. While the boat is in drydock, rudders
and interceptors will be installed and preventive maintenance on the propellers and
shafts will be performed. A previous RM1 -2% grant will pay for the rudder,
interceptor and shaft/propeller work. Total project cost is $218,150. Proposed
funding is:
RM1 -2% (FY `05/06)
Existing RM1 -2% Grant
Total
Dedicated to Excellence,
$120,691
$ 97,459
$218,150
Committed to Service
GtvofAlameda
IUbliCWorks
?partment
Public Wu& rx„kcf Mu!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
June 1, 2005
d. Main Street Barge Refurbishment - Project provides for refurbishment of the AOFS
Main Street barge and provides for rental and installation of a temporary replacement
barge while the old barge is in drydock. Total project cost is $234,220. Proposed
funding is:
RM1 -2% (FY `05/06) $155,260
Existing RM1 -2% Grant $78,960
Total $234,220
e. Peralta Pressure Wash and Paint - This project provides for the biennial painting of
the hulls and USCG inspection. It will be done in the state of Washington, as the
Peralta will be in the shipyard for replacement of its superstructure. Doing it at that
time eliminates drydock fees. Total project cost is $39,458. Proposed funding is:
RM1 -2% $36,000
Existing RM1 -2% Grant $3,458
Total $39,458
Capital projects summary:
Total RM1 -2% request $672,269
City Measure B $17,000
Previous RM1-2% grants $179,877
TOTAL $869,146
These projects are categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Section 15301 because they maintain existing ferry services or existing marine facilities.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service:
The AOFS is budgeted under CIP# 621.20. The RM1 grant request is for $1,021,102. The
AOFS is funded through RM1, Measure B, farebox revenue and a contribution from the Port of
Oakland. A recommendation by the Acting City Manager to extend the Blue & Gold Fleet
(B &GF) operating contract and allocate Measure B revenue is a separate action item.
Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry:
The AHBFS is budgeted under CIP# 621.10. The RM1 grant request is for $450,000. The
AHBFS is funded through RM1, Measure B, TIF, Lighting & Landscape Assessment District 82-
4 and farebox revenue. Staff is in negotiations with Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM) and B &GF on
terms for a five -year operating contract beginning August 1, 2005. A recommendation by the
Acting City Manager to extend the HBM operating contract and allocate Measure B and TIF
revenue will be considered at the June 21, 2005 Council meeting.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Alanth
tub!icWorks
2pariment
Public Worts *bdvfnr You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 4
June 1, 2005
Capital Projects:
The City is submitting five capital projects at a total cost of $869,146. Of this total, $672,269 is
requested from RM1-2% grants. The balance of $196,877 is from Measure B and prior RM1-2%
grants.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding
Policy 4.3.f.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution to
apply for five percent unrestricted state funds and two percent bridge toll revenue funds for
operating subsidy and capital projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and authorize the
Acting City Manager to enter into all agreements necessary to secure these funds.
Respectfully submitted,
,!7 /
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Ernest Sanchez
Ferry Manager
MTN:ES :gc
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G :\PUBWORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \060705 \RM1 application.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
et/ofAlmeda
V�rtment
Public W o Workyir r
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
E
0 APPLYING FOR FIVE PERCENT UNRESTRICTED STATE FUNDS AND TWO
PERCENT BRIDGE TOLL REVENUE FUNDS FOR OPERATING SUBSIDY AND
® z CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FERRY SERVICES, AND
}
co
as
0 AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO ALL AGREEMENTS
f-- NECESSARY TO SECURE THESE FUNDS
WHEREAS, Regional Measure 1 (November 1988) created revenues for
allocation by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC); and
WHEREAS, the monies can be used to fund planning, operating and capital
projects for water transit purposes which are designed to reduce vehicular traffic on the bridges;
and
WHEREAS, the public entities are eligible applicants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda operates the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service
(AOFS) and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS); and
services; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified the need for an operational subsidy for these ferry
WHEREAS, the City has identified the need for six capital projects necessary for
the efficient operation of these ferry services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of
Alameda does hereby approve the applications for both the AHBFS and the AOFS for FY
2005/06 and authorizes the City Manager to apply for Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and
Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects to enter into
all agreements necessary to secure these funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a
certified copy of this resolution to the MTC.
Resolution # 4 -G CC
6 -7 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
7th day of June 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 7th day of June 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Authorize Acting City Manager to Execute Extension of the
City/Port of Oakland Ferry Service Agreement
BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2004, the City and Port of Oakland (Port) entered into the Ferry Service Agreement
between City of Alameda and Port of Oakland (2004 Agreement) that replaced and superseded
the "Joint Powers Agreement" under which the City and Port (Parties) had since 1990 jointly
administered the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS). The 2004 Agreement was a fee for
services contract whereby the City agreed to provide, through its ferry operator, ferry service
to /from Jack London Square for a set fee to be paid by the Port. The Parties now wish to restate
the 2004 Agreement by entering into the Amended and Restated Ferry Service Agreement
between the City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland (Agreement). The Agreement provides for
AOFS to /from Jack London Square for an agreed upon fee and sets forth the Parties respective
rights regarding ownership interest of the Parties in the Encinal, Peralta and Bay Breeze.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The principal terms of the Agreement are:
• Term: The Agreement term is one year beginning July 1, 2005.
• Agreement Extension: The Port's budgeting process makes it unlikely that the Port can
determine if it will extend the Agreement for FY 2006/07 before May or June 2006,
whereas, the City needs to know if the Port will continue with the AOFS four (4) months
prior to the termination date of the Agreement. The Agreement clarifies the situation by
providing the Port with four (4) options that will enable the City to proceed with its grant
applications, ferry operator contract extension, and California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) obligations.
• Fee: As consideration for the City to provide ferry service through the ferry operator
to /from Jack London Square, the Port will pay to the City $83,325 for Fiscal Year
2005/2006. This is the same level of support provided by the Port in FY 2004/05.
cnvo(wmeda
ubIICWOrks
Department
Public Wcnio Wo ,ay,.r„!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Report
#4 -G CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 1, 2005
• Audit: The Port has the right to perform at its sole expense an annual audit of the City to
verify the charges and expenses accrued for AOFS operations. The Port will also have
the right to perform an annual audit of the AOFS operator.
• Disposition of Ferry Boats: The Agreement acknowledges the equity interest of the
Parties in the Encinal and the Peralta. In the event that the Agreement is terminated and
a) neither Party wishes to administer a ferry service, or b) both Parties intend to
administer a ferry service, then the Agreement provides for the division of the ferry
vessels based on the equal equity interest of the Parties and division of any financial
responsibilities associated with the public funding agreements for acquisition of the ferry
vessels. In the event that the Agreement is terminated and only one party wishes to
administer a ferry service, that Party has the right to use the Encinal and Peralta in public
ferry service.
• Service Reduction: The Agreement establishes a mechanism that in the event AOFS
expenses materially exceed revenue, the Parties will meet to resolve the funding shortfall.
The Parties agree that if service reductions are required, such reductions may not impact
the City and the Port equally. The Parties agree that in determining the relative service
reductions in the ferry schedule affecting each of the cities of Alameda and Oakland, the
Parties shall take into consideration the relative financial contributions made by each of
the respective Parties. "Financial Contribution" shall include the amounts paid by each
Party from fiscal year 1990/1991 to fiscal year 2004/2005 and the value of the
unreimbursed services provided by each Party in connection with the operation and
maintenance of the AOFS, the ferry terminals (including the Alameda Main Street
Terminal and the Jack London Terminal) and parking facilities.
• Transfer of the AOFS to the San Francisco Water Transit Authority (WTA): The Parties
acknowledge and agree that the City shall use its best efforts and the Port shall cooperate
to negotiate with the WTA for the WTA to take over, succeed to, or otherwise provide
the AOFS or services substantially similar to the AOFS by or prior to fiscal year 2006-
2007.
A copy of the City /Port of Oakland Agreement is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
This project is funded under CIP# 621.20. There is no impact to the General Fund associated
with AOFS operations. Total AOFS FY 2005/06 budget is $3,432,595. Revenue sources are
detailed in Table 1 (see attached table).
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glyof Alameda
Ppubli(Wolis
Department
Public VVotl. Wru* fr YAR
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Page 3
June 1, 2005
The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding
Policy 4.3.f.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize Acting City
Manager to execute extension of the City/Port of Oakland Ferry Service Agreement.
MTN:ES:gc
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
C��llnso�
B
c:17/2't
y: Ernest Sanchez
Ferry Manager
G: \PUB WORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \060705 \City-Port FS Agreement.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
mvof Alameda
tublicWorks
Uepartme It
rvblic Worl, Iffoksfor r,!
Table 1
AOFS
Use of Funds
Us
Source
REVENUE
AOFS (1)
City Expenses (2)
Farebox
$1,741,568
$1,741,568
$0
MTC RM1 -5%
$1,021,102
$1,021,102
$0
Measure B '05/06
$586,600
$491,884
$94,716 (See Table 2)
Port of Oakland
$83,325
$83,325
$0
Total
$3,432,595
$3,337,879
$94,716
1) Joint City/Port costs.
(2) City only expenses.
Table 2 Use of Funds City Expenses
City Expenses Only
Amount
Facility Security Officer (Main Street
$0
Utilities (Main Street)
$200
Barge (Main Street) Reserve to Refurbish in Winter of 2006
with Regional Measure 1 Funds
$0
Main Street Maintenance
$9,836
Main Street Patrol Guard
$78,000
Contingency
$5,000
SRTP
$880
Surveys
$800
TOTAL
$94,716
G:\PUBWORKS\pwadmin\COUNCIL\2005\060705\cityporttable.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Authorize Acting City Manager to Execute Extension of Blue &
Gold Fleet Operating Agreements with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) and
Adopt Associated Budget
BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2004, the City and Blue & Gold Fleet (B &GF) entered into the Agreement for
AOFS (Agreement). The Agreement is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract wherein the operator
receives a fixed management fee while operational costs are passed through to the City to be paid
in advance on a monthly basis. Costs include fuel, labor, vessel maintenance, insurance and a
fixed administration fee. While the City only pays actual operating costs, some costs are capped
and cannot exceed a predetermined yearly amount. B &GF collects farebox revenue though
farebox revenue is used to offset operating costs. The City and B &GF have negotiated a Second
Amendment to AOFS Agreement (Amendment) that extends the Agreement for one year, adjusts
operator fees, modifies the schedule and makes the existing $0.25 one -way Fuel Surcharge
permanent. The Amendment is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The principal terms of the Amendment are:
■ Term: One year beginning July 1, 2005 with up to three additional one -year extensions.
■ Budget: The AOFS FY 2005/06 budget totals $3,432,595 compared to $3,259,148 last
year. The change is mainly due to the increased cost of diesel fuel. AOFS expenses are
detailed in Table 1 (see attached tables).
• Expenses: Major expense items are operator fees, fuel and City costs.
❑ Operator Fees: B &GF will receive fixed management and administration
overhead fees of $203,236 compared to $196,363 in FY 2004 /05. In addition,
there is a performance incentive based on customer satisfaction survey results and
on time performance. The available 12 -month performance based incentive will
be $79,036 compared to $76,364 in 2004/05. Total fixed fee and performance-
based incentives will be $282,272 compared to $272,727 for the same period the
prior year.
alyofillameda
.ubIICWorks
epartinent
Public Works W rl f You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Servile
Re: Report
#4 -G CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 1, 2005
❑ Fuel: Fuel is budgeted at $682,000 for 341,000 gallons at $2.00 per gallon. This
compares with the $362,725 for 341,000 gallons in 2004/05 ($1.06 per gallon).
❑ City Costs: City costs are expected to be $534,339 compared to $790,731 in
2004/05 (see attached Table 2). The reduction in City costs is mainly due to the
elimination of one staff position and elimination of a paid Facility Security
Officer position. A Facility Security Officer for each ferry terminal is required
under the Homeland Security Act of 2000. The Ferry Manager will assume these
duties. City costs include $82,940 for marketing and $205,000 for operating
contingency. Reserve Accounts are funded from FY 2005/06 Alameda Ferries
Measure B revenue.
• Revenue: Public funding for the AOFS totals $1,691,027 and is provided from Regional
Measure 1, Measure B and the Port of Oakland (see attached Table 3). In addition,
farebox revenue is estimated at $1,741,568 and assumes approximately 406,000 tickets
sold at an average fare of $4.29. The 406,000 tickets assume a 2% increase in ticket sales
against 2004 actuals.
The budget is based upon Council approval of the following:
• Service Reduction - To reduce operating costs, the 7:40 a.m. /7:50 a.m. weekday east bay
departures will be eliminated. These departures were only offered seasonally mid -May
through October. Elimination of these runs will result in a net cost reduction of
approximately $46,000. On March 11, 2005, the City surveyed AOFS riders to
determine their preferences concerning a) keeping the 7:40 a.m. /7:50 a.m. runs and
increasing fares by $0.25 each way or b) eliminating the 7:40 a.m. /7:50 a.m. runs and
keeping the current fares. Of the respondents, 13% said they would reduce or discontinue
their use of the AOFS if fares were increased whereas only 6% said they would reduce or
discontinue their use of the AOFS if the 7:40 a.m. /7:50 a.m. were eliminated.
• Make the Existing Fuel Surcharge Permanent — In July 2004, Council approved
implementation of a $0.25 one -way fuel surcharge previously authorized by the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The Acting City Manager recommends
making the $0.25 that is now collected as a "Fuel Surcharge" a permanent fare increase.
This will require applying to the CPUC for a formal tariff change. AOFS riders will
continue to pay the same ticket prices they do now.
• Farebox Recovery Ratio - Based on adoption of the above recommendations, AOFS
Farebox Recovery Ratio for FY 2005/06 is projected to be 53.9% (see Table 4).
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The AOFS is budgeted under CIP# 621.20. There is no impact to the General Fund associated
with AOFS operations.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtyofNmed,
blicWorks
!vartment
Public Ways Nixfsf Gn!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Page 3
June 1, 2005
The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Guiding
Policy 4.3.f.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that City Council, by motion, authorize the Acting City
Manager to execute extension of Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreements with the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) and adopt associated budget.
Respect lysubmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
EN1A.12.0
By: Ernest Sanchez
Ferry Manager
MTN:ES :gc
Attachment
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G :\PUBWORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \060705 \B &GF contract extension - matt.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvotuameda
Public WOKS
Department
Public Works W,4f You!
Table 1- AOFS Pro Forma Budget FY 2005/06
Cap
EXPENSES
Budget
FY 20005/06
Budget
FY '04/05
Vessel Expenses:
No
Wages (1)
$1,290,000
$1,112,416
No
Maintenance:
Pier 9
$170,000
$200,000
Outside contractors (2)
$170,000
$200,000
No
Fuel (3)(4)
$682,000
$362,725
No
Insurance (5)
$186,123
$165,449
No
Rental of Carrier boats (6)
$9,595
$20,000
Yes
Other
$5,693
$5,500
Total Vessel
$2,513,411
$2,066,090
Non Vessel Expenses:
Yes
Contract services
$3,105
$3,000
Yes
Professional fees /legal
$12,420
$12,000
Yes
Customer Service (7)
$36,067
$21,000
Yes
Taxes /licenses
$14,904
$14,400
No
Insurance (facilities)
$0
$0
Yes
Port SF/Pier 39 fees (8)
$81,972
$79,200
Subtotal Non Vessel
$148,468
$129,600
Operator Fees:
Yes
Admin/Overhead fees
$46,956
$45,368
Yes
Management
$156,280
$150,995
Yes
Performance Bases Fee:
On Time Performance
$39,518
$38,182
Customer Satisfaction
$39,518
$38,182
Subtotal fees
$282,272
$272,727
Sub Total /Operator
expenses
$2,944,151
$2,468,417
City cost
$534,339
$790,731
Gross cost
$3,478,489
$3,259,148
Less 7:40/7:50 run
$45,894
N/A
Net budget
$3,432,596
$3,259,148
REVENUE
$3,432,596
N/A
(1) Assumes wage and benefits freeze.
(2) Includes $17,000 of Measure B as local match for RM -1 2% Peralta D -check grant.
(3) Includes Lube Oil
(4) Assumes 341,000 gallons @$2 /gallon.
(5) Assumes 10% increase.
(6) Back -Up boats.
(7) Printing, SBC ticket sales, CARS.
(8) Landing fees paid to Port of SF for Pier 39/41 based on 7% of farebox and B &GF Mgmt fees.
Table 2 - City AOFS Costs
City Expenses
ITEM
FY '05/06
FY '04/05
Operations:
Docking fees:
Ferry Bldg.
$36,000
$36,000
SBC Park (Giants)
900
800
MUNI
$11,075
18,000
Marketing
$82,940
90,000
Administration:
City Admin (1)
$89,700
$150,000
MTC SRTP(2)
$2,591
$0
Audit
$4,000
$4,000
Office supplies
$2,658
$2,660
Surveys
$6,439
$6,000
Subtotal
$236,303
$307,460
Reserves:
Long Term Vessel
Maintenance Reserve:
Encinal
$0.00
$50,000
Peralta
$0.00
$50,000
Operations Contingency
$205,000
$275,255
subtotal reserves
$205,000
$375,255
Main Street terminal:
Facility Security Officer
(Main St.)
$0
$15,180
Utilities (Main St.)
$200
$5,000
Barge (Main St.) Reserve
$0
$0
Main St Maintenance
$9,836
$9,836
Main Street Patrol Guard
$78,000
$78,000
Contingency
$5,000
$0
subtotal Main Street
$93,036
$108,016
Total
$534,339
$790,731
(1) 3/4 of a $92,000 /yr staff position.
(2) Short Range Transit Plan required for RM1 Funding
Table 3 Combined Ferry Services Revenue/
Public funding and Farebox Revenue
Revenue
Source
Total
AHBF
AOFS
Farebox (1) (2)
$2,302,875
$484,000
$1,741,568
MTC RM1 -5%
$1,471,102
$450,000
$1,021,102
Measure B '04/05 revenue
$731,000
$144,400
$586,600
Measure B reserve ('03/04)
$0
$0
$0
Port of Oakland
$83,325
$0
$83,325
TIF:
$0
Ferry operations
$186,900
$186,900
$0
HB terminal
$30,500
$30,500
$0
Subtotal TIF
$217,400
$217,400
$0
Total
$4,805,702
$1,295,800
$3,432,959
(1) HBM: assumes 106,373 riders @$4.55 each.
(2) AOFS: Assumes a 2% increase over '04/05 at an average fare of $4.29 per ticket. Assumes
that Fuel Surcharge is made permanent.
Table 4
AOFS
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Total expenses
$3,432,959
Less reserve accounts &
contingency
$245,000
subtotal operations
$3,264,902
Farebox
$1,741,568
FRR
53.9%
G:\PUB WORKS \pwadmin\ COUNCIL \2005 \060705\B &GFtables.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Paratransit Service Plan and
Apply for Measure B Paratransit Funding
BACKGROUND
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires transit agencies to offer equivalent
paratransit service for persons certified under ADA as unable to drive or take public transit
(eligible users). There is a 21 -day certification period for a person to be deemed an ADA
eligible user. Under ADA, paratransit services must be made available to eligible users within
three- fourths (3/4) mile of the existing transit fixed route during the normal operating hours of the
fixed route services (mandated services). While most of Alameda is within the three- fourths (3/4)
mile buffer of AC Transit routes, there are some service gaps, including locations that are
without bus service on weekends or at certain times of day. Alameda provides paratransit
services to address these service gaps, even though they are not required by ADA (non- mandated
services). Non - mandated paratransit services are administered at the City level.
In Alameda County, Measure B Sales Tax Funds provide a dedicated funding source for both
mandated and non - mandated paratransit services. To receive these funds, the Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), which administers Measure B funds, requires
each jurisdiction to develop a Paratransit Service Plan. The Paratransit Service Plan must also be
approved by the ACTIA Board.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Plan includes the following:
• Utilize East Bay Paratransit (EBP), the County paratransit provider, for ADA mandated
services.
• Continue a limited subsidized taxi service for eligible users who need to travel to and from
destinations outside the EBP service area on weekends, holidays or evenings and ADA
applicants who need to travel for non - emergency medical trips during the 21 -day certification
review period.
• Increase the number of EBP coupons distributed to eligible users residing in Alameda.
• Provide EBP service for Alameda residents during the 21 -day ADA certification period.
thvofAlamedi
QublicWorks
Department
Public Work, Works-for You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 4 -H CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
June 1, 2005
• Continue the customer service and outreach at Mastick Senior Center, which provides 15
hours of staff time per week to assist with applications for paratransit services, answer
questions, and resolve complaints.
• Continue funding support for group trips such as the Mastick Group Trip, subscription group
trips from convalescent homes, Alameda Recreation & Park Department (ARPD) cultural
event class trips, and the Annual Nursing Home Picnic Group Trip.
• Continue funding for a scholarship program for individuals at very low income levels (as
defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development), the program
will subsidize tickets by providing matching funds.
Staff will also be soliciting input from paratransit riders and other local jurisdictions to identify
ways to enhance the existing services. A copy of the Paratransit Service Plan is on file in the
City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Without an approved Paratransit Service Plan, the City would forfeit its Measure B Paratransit
funding level for Fiscal Year 05/06 of $138,102. Applying for these funds does not affect the
General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The City's Paratransit Program is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element
Guiding Policy 4.3.h.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution to
approve the Paratransit Service Plan and apply for Measure B Paratransit funding.
Respe� submijtted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Javier De La Garza
MTN:JDLG:gc Program Specialist I
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
Jackie Krause, Mastick Senior Center
G: \PUB WORKS \pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \060705 \paratranist.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�U GtyofAhnwda
U?partment
Public Wa1.& W r*ij Yon!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING THE PARATRANSIT SERVICE PLAN
AND APPLYING FOR MEASURE B PARATRANSIT FUNDING
to } WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that equivalent
® ' paratransit service be provided within three /fourth (3/4) mile and during the regular operating
cc hours of fixed route transit services for those who are determined eligible for such services; and
1-
WHEREAS, there are parts of the City of Alameda that are not served by the
ADA- mandated paratransit services for at least part of the week; and
g 0 WHEREAS, the City of Alameda receives an allocation from Measure B sales tax
revenue, administered by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ( ACTIA),
to provide paratransit services to supplement ADA- mandated services; and
WHEREAS, to receive its annual allocation, the City must have a Paratransit
Service Plan approved by ACTIA; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to implement the 2004/2005 adopted Measure
B Paratransit Service Plan developed via a community involved needs assessment process;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda adopts the Measure B Paratransit Service Plan and apply for Fiscal Year 2004/2005
Measure B Paratransit Funds.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the
7th day of June 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 7th day of June 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution # 4 -11 CC
6 -7 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 25, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Resolution Authorizing Open Market Purchase from COGENT
Systems Inc., Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City
Charter, of an Automated Latent Finger /Palm Print System
Upgrade in the amount of $37, 815. (Requires Four Affirmative
Votes)
BACKGROUND
In April of 2001, the Alameda Police Department became the first Law
Enforcement Agency in Northern California to adopt the COGENT combination
latent finger and palm print system. Since that time, the City of Alameda has
compiled the largest palm print database in Northern California. The original
purchase and integration of the COGENT system into the police department's
criminal identification bureau cost approximately $40,000.00.
Since the advent of COGENT, the Alameda Police Department has made over
one thousand latent finger /palm print matches identifying suspects in criminal
cases. This is more criminal identifications than all other law enforcement
agencies in Alameda County combined.
The Alameda Police Department's COGENT automated finger /palm print system
currently needs to be upgraded to continue its viability. The cost of this upgrade
is $37,815.00.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The COGENT system will reach its storage capacity for finger and palm prints
within six months. Also, the existing COGENT system does not currently have
the server capability to interact with other law enforcement agencies' latent
finger /palm print databases. A manufacturer's upgrade to the police
department's COGENT system would not only provide unlimited storage
capacity, but would also add the capability to access the latent finger /palm print
databases of other law enforcement agencies.
efuatedT to E.-wawa, Committed to Service"
Re: Reso 4 -1 CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 25, 2005
Page 2 of 2
At the current time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the California
Department of Justice, are exploring the adoption of the COGENT system. Law
enforcement agencies which have already adopted the COGENT system include
the Department of Homeland Security, the Secret Service, and the Department of
Immigration and Naturalization. Los Angeles, Contra Costa, Marin, Sonoma,
Fresno, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz, and Stanislaus counties are all in the process
of adopting COGENT, as well as a number of Alameda County agencies.
The City's purchasing policy requires that materials estimated to cost more than
$25,000 must first be approved by City Council. The purchasing policy also
requires that the purchase be sent out for formal competitive bid. However, the
COGENT system is proprietary to the manufacturer and cannot be purchased
elsewhere. City Charter section 3-15 permits Council to authorize the purchase
without the competitive bid process when the object of the expenditure is unique
and no advantage would be realized by attempting to bid out the purchase
contract and, therefore, the lowest price available would be through open market
purchase directly from the manufacturer, COGENT Systems, Inc.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the General Fund. Funds for the purchase of the
COGENT system upgrade, in the amount of $37, 815, are available in the FY 03-
04 State COPS Grant.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends adoption of a resolution authorizing the open
market purchase from COGENT Systems Inc., pursuant to section 3 -15 of the
Alameda City Charter, of an automated latent finger /palm print system upgrade in
the amount of $37, 815. (Requires four affirmative votes)
WCN /BEM /sml
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting Cit Manager
By: Burnham . Matthews
Chief of Police
Veittated to EJccaince, Committed to Service"
E
O }
v" WHEREAS, there are funds available in the FY 2003 -2004 State COPS Grant,
o Project# 9300204; and
0
WHEREAS, the "COGENT CAPFIS UPGRADE" is a unique piece of latent
fingerprint identification equipment, can only be purchased from COGENT Systems, Inc.
>- and the purchase price of $37,815.00 is the lowest price available; and
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING OPEN MARKET PURCHASE FROM
COGENT SYSTEMS, INC.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 -15 OF THE ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER
OF COGENT AUTOMATED PALM/FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM UPGRADE (CAPFIS) IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,815.
WHEREAS, section 3 -15 of the City Charter provides that City Council, by four
affirmative votes, can authorize an open market purchase if it determines that the
materials or supplies can be purchased at a reasonable and lower price in the open
market.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Alameda, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, the Alameda Police Department,
in cooperation with the Finance Director, is hereby authorized to purchase the "COGENT
CAPFIS UPGRADE" and associated peripherals from COGENT Systems, Inc., the
exclusive distributor of the "COGENT CAPFIS UPGRADE ".
* * * * **
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled
on the day of 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
Resolution # 4 -I CC
6 -7 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor
And Council Members
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Adoption of Agreement for Participation in the Alameda County
Operational Area Emergency Management Organization.
BACKGROUND
As a result of the 1991 East Bay Hills firestorm, State Senator Nicholas Petris
sponsored legislation that establishes a standardized emergency management system,
or SEMS, in California. An important component of SEMS is the Operational Area,
defined as:
An intermediate level of the state emergency services organization
consisting of a county and all political subdivisions within the county area
[California Government Code, § 8559 (b)].
State regulations also assigned responsibility for developing the Operational Area
Emergency Management Organization to the local board of supervisors.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
In January 1995, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors accepted the
recommendation to form a task force to implement an Operational Area in Alameda
County. Herewith is the agreement developed by the task force and now adopted by
the Board of Supervisors. It establishes a cooperative effort with the following features:
• A partnership for exchanging disaster intelligence, mutual aid requests, and
resource requests in emergencies;
• Allows for cooperative training and exercise;
• No monetary compensation is required of participants to be members of the new
organization;
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 4-J CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
May 31, 2005
Page 2 of 2
• The State's SEMS regulations and guidelines will guide the policies and
procedures of the new organization;
• The Sheriff /Director of Emergency Services is the Operational Area Coordinator
responsible for assuring the representation of all affected jurisdictions in
decision - making before, during, and after a disaster occurs; and
• A representational OpArea Council is established to review and approve policies
and procedures for the new organization and serve as Alameda County's Civil
Defense and Disaster Council.
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the quake in Kobe,
Japan, and most recently the tsunami in Asia, are all reminders of our shared hazard
potential. The 1991 firestorm demonstrated that inter - jurisdictional cooperation is
crucial to the successful response to disasters. The El Nino storms of 1995 and 1998
have shown us that inter - agency coordination is as important to disaster recovery as it
is to the initial response. The cities, special districts, and county agencies must plan
and prepare for when disaster next hits Alameda County. Continued participation in the
Operational Area Emergency Management Organization is a key step toward that goal.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to adopting this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council adopt by resolution the Agreement For Participation in
the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
William Norton
Acting City M - n . ger
Bv./ /James Christiansen
Fire Chief
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
OPERATIONAL AREA
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
This Agreement is made this let day of ��, .TAT by and between the County of Alameda
and the cities, special districts, and other public bene t non -profit corporations that are parties to this
Agreement.
WHEREAS, the potential for a major catastrophe due to natural or manmade disaster requires all
government entities within Alameda County to be prepared to share resources and information among
themselves as well as with the State of California in order to protect public welfare; and
WHEREAS, greater efficiency and disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation can be
achieved by joining the efforts of the County of Alameda, the Cities, Special Districts, and other public
benefit non -profit corporations together in pre- disaster agreements; and
WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act makes reference to the "operational area" and
defines it as "an intermediate level of the state emergency services organization" created to perform
extraordinary functions for local governments within a county area such as strengthening mutual
coordination, providing a focal point and conduit for disaster information, and assisting in the efficient
management of resources;
THE COUNTY, CITIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AND OTHER PUBLIC BENEFIT NON-
PROFIT CORPORATIONS AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. RECOGNITION OF AND PARTICIPATION IN AN OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
The parties to this Agreement recognize an Operational Area, as the term is defined in the California
Emergency Services Act (California Government Code §8550 et seq.) which designates an intermediate
level of organization, cooperation, and planning between public entities within Alameda County
boundaries.
The County of Alameda, cities, special districts, and other public benefit non -profit corporations that are
parties to this Agreement shall participate in this organizational structure which is a partnership for a
systematic approach for exchanging disaster intelligence, mutual aid requests, and resource requests in
emergencies and also to provide emergency preparedness on a day -to -day basis through cooperative
training and exercise activities.
The Operational Area Emergency Management Organization will be the primary contact point during an
emergency in Alameda County for sharing disaster intelligence among local agencies and between the
Operational Area Emergency Management Organization and state and federal agencies requesting
information.
The Operational Area Emergency Management Organization will assist parties to this agreement share
resources before, during, and after an emergency to prepare, respond, and recover from disasters that
strike Alameda County. The Operational Area Emergency Management Organization will prioritize
competing needs according to the policies and procedures approved by the Operational Area Council.
Alameda County Operational Area Agreement Page 1
Each of the parties to this Agreement will designate individuals to be trained to represent their agency in
the Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. The training will be an orientation on the
policies and procedures of the Operational Area Emergency Management Organization. Each party to
this Agreement will also designate, in writing, a line of succession of officials who are empowered to
represent the party to the Operational Area Emergency Management Organization.
2. CONSIDERATION
The consideration under this Agreement is the mutual advantage of protection afforded to each of the
parties to this Agreement. There shall not be any monetary compensation required from any to another
party as a condition of assistance provided under the agreement, except for reimbursement of direct costs
as designated in mutual aid agreements. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as altering any pre-
existing disaster response agreements between the parties.
3. STANDARDIZED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Operational Area Emergency Management Organization and its policies and procedures will be
regulated by the Standardized Emergency Management System as stated in California Government Code
§8607, and its implementing regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Office of
Emergency Services, Standardized Emergency. Management System, and guidelines. The incident
command system and a multi- agency coordination system, as described in those regulations and
guidelines, will be used for coordination and direction of the parties to this agreement participating in
emergency efforts. The Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan shall he the primary method and
criteria used to conduct Operational Area Emergency Operations Center activities.
4. OPERATIONAL AREA COORDINATOR
The Sheriff/Director of Emergency Services is the Operational Area Coordinator. It is the responsibility
of the Operational Area Coordinator to oversee the operation of the Operational Area Emergency
Management Organization and to reasonably interpret the terms of this agreement.
It is the responsibility of the Operational Area Coordinator to encourage equal representation by parties to
the agreement on a day -to -day basis and to include representatives of affected parties to this agreement
and mutual aid coordinators in the operational decision making before, during, and after a disaster strikes
Alameda County.
5. COUNCIL
An Operational Area Council is hereby established consisting of a representational membership of the
party jurisdictions to this Agreement. The Council shall include one voting representative from each of
the following:
a. The President of the Board of Supervisors, or his/her designee;
b. The Sheriff/Director of Emergency Services, or his/her designated alternate;
c The Alameda County Administrator, or his/her designated alternate;
d. The County Agency Heads having primary functional responsibilities in a disaster, or
their designated alternates;
Alameda County Operational Area Agreement Page 2
e. The President of the Emergency Managers' Association of Alameda County, or
his/her designated alternate;
f. The President of the Alameda County Fire Chiefs' Association; or his/her designated
alternate;
g. The President of the Alameda County Sheriff and Police Chiefs' Association, or
his/her designated alternate;
. h. A City Manager of a North County City, or his/her designated alternate, chosen
annually by the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont
to represent them in the Council;
i. A City Manager of a South County City, or his/her designated alternate, chosen
annually by the cities of Fremont, Hayward, Newark, San Leandro, and Union City to
represent them in the Council;
j. A City Manager of an East County City, or his/her designated alternate, chosen annually
by the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton to represent them in the Council;
k. A General Manager of a Regional District based in Alameda County, or his/her
designated alternate, chosen annually by participating regional districts, defined as a
special district having service areas in more than one county, to represent them in the
Council;
A General Manager of a Special District, or his/her designated alternate, chosen annually
by participating special districts having their entire service area within the boundaries of
Alameda County to represent them in the Council;
The Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, or his/her designated alternate, to
represent the school districts of Alameda County;
n. A Director of a Public Benefit Non-profit Corporation, or his/her designated alternate,
chosen annually by the Collaborating Agencies Responding to Disasters to represent
them in the Council;
o. A Chief Executive Officer or Present, or his/her designated alternate, or his/her designee,
of a private sector company doing business in this county that is an active member of
the Emergency Managers' Association of Alameda County and is selected annually by
the Sheriff/Director of Emergency Services; and
Such representatives of other organizations, either civic, business, labor, veterans,
professional or other organizations having an official group or organization having
disaster responsibility and may be appointed by the Operational Area Coordinator.
P.
Alameda County Operational Area Agreement Page 3
It is the responsibility of the Operational Area Council to set the policies and procedures for the
governing of the Operational Area Emergency Management Organization and to review and approve
recommendations for changes to these policies and procedures on an annual basis. The Operational Area
Council will also serve as the Alameda County Civil Defense and Disaster Council, as described in the
Alameda County Administrative Code, Chapter VI. The County of Alameda will supply staff support for
the Operational Area Council.
6. PROVISION OF FACILITIES AND SUPPORT
The County of Alameda shall provide its emergency operations center as the site for the Operational Area
Emergency Management Organization. The County of Alameda will provide support staff for the
emergency operations center and all reasonable supplies for the Operational Area Emergency
Management Organization during actual activations, drills, and exercises. All parties to this Agreement
may provide representatives for decision malting and liaison to operational elements of the Operational
Area Emergency Management Organization when activated.
The Operational Area Emergency Management Organization will facilitate the mutual aid systems used
by local agencies to assist each other in a disaster wit the resources necessary to save lives, mitigate
property loss, and meet the basic needs of the people.
7. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective from the date executed by all parties until December 31, 2015. This
Agreement may be terminated prior to the conclusion of the term by mutual agreement of a majority of
the member parties.
8. WITHDRAWAL OF PARTY
Any party to this Agreement may withdraw as a party to this Agreement prior to the termination of the
term of this Agreement upon giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to all other parties.
9. ADDITIONAL PARTIES
Additional parties, who are public entities within the geographical boundaries of Alameda County, may
join in this Agreement and become a member party upon execution of an Exhibit to this Agreement in
which the entity agrees to be subject to the conditions and terms of this Agreement. The executed Exhibit
shall become a part of this Agreement automatically after the expiration of thirty (30) days following
notification by the new party to all other parties to the execution of the exhibit. Thereafter, the entity
shall be considered to be a party of this Agreement unless the entity withdraws as provided herein.
Provided however, in the event any existing party to the Agreement gives all other parties notice of its
objection to the addition of the particular entity becoming a member to this Agreement within the thirty
(30) day notice period, the addition of such party to this Agreement shall require the consent of a two -
thirds majority to the then member parties.
10. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
Each of the parties agree to indemnify and hold the other parties harmless and waives all claims for
compensation for any loss, damage, personal injury, or death incurred in consequences of the acts or
omissions of the indemnifying parties' own employees and agents in the performance of this Agreement.
Alameda County Operational Area Agreement Page 4
11. SALARIES, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS COMPENSATION BENEFITS
The salaries, employment and workers compensation benefits of each employee participating in the
Operational Area Emergency Management Organization shall be the responsibility of the party employing
the individual. It is understood that each party's employees have no rights, benefits, or special
employment status conferred by reason of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT
AS FOLLOWS:
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a
political . subdivision of the
State of California
By ,�' v �."•�/�►�
KE CARSON, President
Board of Supervisors
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the President of the Board of Supervisors was duly
authorized to execute this document on behalf of the County of Alameda by a majority vote of the Board
on 1,55 ; and that a copy has been delivered to the President as provide by Government
Code section 15103.
ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. HISHIDA
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Alameda County, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
RICHARD E. WINNIE
County ounsel
By
County
BETH KILIAN
Coun Risk Manager
By
County sk Manager
Alameda County Operational Area Agreement Page 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING AN AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN ALAMEDA
COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the potential for a major catastrophe due to natural or human- caused
disaster causes all government entities within Alameda County to be prepared to share
resources and information among themselves as well as with the State of California in
order to protect public welfare; and
WHEREAS, greater efficiency and disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and
mitigation can be achieved by joining the efforts of the County of Alameda, other cities,
special districts, and other public benefit non -profit corporations together in pre- disaster
agreements; and
WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act makes reference to the
"operational area" and defines it as "an intermediate level of the state emergency services
organization" created to perform extraordinary functions for local governments within a
county area such as strengthening mutual coordination, providing a focal point and
conduit for disaster information, and assisting in the efficient management of resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda
that the City adopt the Agreement for Participation in Alameda County Operational Area
Emergency Management Organization, as it was approved by the Alameda County Board
of Supervisors on February 15, 2005; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the
City Manager designate, in writing, the following:
1) Three persons who will be providing training and orientation to the policies
and procedures so that they may represent the City to the Operational Area
Emergency Management Organization; and
2) A line of succession of officials (minimum of three persons) who are
empowered to represent the City to the Operational Area Emergency
Management Organization; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager provide these two lists to
the Alameda County Operational Area Emergency Management Organization within
thirty (30) days of adoption of this resolution.
Resolution # 4 -J CC
6 -7 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 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: May 9, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor
and Council members
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Adoption of Resolution To Designate All Alameda Fire Stations As
Receiving Points For Surrendered Babies Under The California
State Health And Safety Code Section 1255.7, Known As The
Safely Surrender Baby Law.
BACKGROUND
The Safely Surrendered Baby Law, also known as the Safe Haven or Newborn
Abandonment Law, went into effect January 1, 2001 and authorizes the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors to designate locations where newborns (less than
72 hours old) may be confidentially surrendered, by a parent or guardian having
lawful custody of the infant, without fear of criminal prosecution. The use of fire
stations as drop off locations for newborns is part of a statewide effort to end
tragic consequences of infant abandonment.
Until now, County protocol only allowed for Safe Haven surrender at Hospital
Emergency Departments. However, in light of recent tragedies involving
abandoned infants the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a
resolution on January 22, 2005, which approves all Alameda County Fire
Stations as California Safe Havens. It is now up to each City within the County to
pass a local resolution authorizing the Fire Stations within the individual City to
become a designated location for surrendering newborns.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Alameda County Social Services Agency in conjunction with the Alameda
County Fire Chiefs Association and Senator Perata's staff have been working
collaboratively to identify and coordinate the implementation of the program
county -wide. This included development of standardized procedures, public
education materials and outreach. The Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association
has developed a guideline that outlines the steps to be taken by fire personnel at
"Dedicated to Excel-fence, Committed to Service"
Re: Reso 4 -K CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
May 9, 2005
Page 2 of 2
the stations when a newborn is surrendered to them (see attached). The County
Social Services Agency will provide the city the appropriate standardized signage
for the fire stations, the newborn safe surrender kits, and coordinate with city
public information staff in developing a public awareness and media campaign.
Once the Safe Haven program is adopted and fully operational, infants will be
able to be left with fire personnel at any fire station in the City. These infants will
be assessed and transported to the appropriate receiving facility where custody
will be transferred to appropriate hospital personnel. A medical questionnaire and
information about the program will be provided to the surrendering guardian. The
City's responsibility will be to accept the child, provide any necessary medical
intervention and arrange for immediate transfer to the appropriate hospital,
providing the responsible surrendering person with the newborn medical
questionnaire, fact sheet and coded wrist bracelet.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the proposal is negligible, as the Safe Surrender kits and
signage are given to the City by the County. There will be a small
training /familiarization component that can be completed through the normal fire
department training schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution
establishing the Fire Stations within the City of Alameda as approved locations
where newborns can be dropped off.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
ti City . nager
By.(�James Christiansen
Fire Chief
Attachment: Alameda County Fire Chiefs Recommended Procedures.
ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION
PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTING A NEWBORN UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA SAFE HAVEN LAW
The Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association, in an effort to provide a standardized approach to
receiving a newborn, has developed this guideline for Fire Departments within the County.
PROCEDURES:
1. Welcome the parent or person surrendering the infant. Do not be judgmental as this is an
emotional and difficult time for the person.
2. Contact dispatch to place the Company on a medical aid incident at the station, communicate
the nature of the call, and request a Code 2 Transport ambulance response where appropriate.
3. Attempt to ascertain if the infant's birth is within 72 hours. Accept the infant (even if it
appears older than 72 hours) and begin to assess for any medical needs, filling out a County
Patient Care Report. If there is evidence of abuse, request the appropriate law enforcement
agency response.
4. Locate and open the Newborn Safe Surrender Kit. Hand the surrendering person the inner
business reply mail envelope containing the voluntary Safe Haven medical questionnaire, an
information sheet and a copy of the coded, confidential bracelet.
5. Place the smaller, coded, confidential ankle bracelet on the infant and record the code on the
County Patient Care Report.
6. Once on scene, the Transport paramedics shall assume custody of the infant, initiate base
hospital contact, and continue to assess and provide for any medical needs of the infant.
7. The infant will then be transported to the nearest receiving hospital where custody and
pertinent paperwork will be given to the hospital.
8. After the newborn has been transported, the station can go back in service and complete and
submit the County Patient Care Report through the Department's normal channels to the
County.
H: \Council Reports\Fire BabySafeHaven Proved
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
DESIGNATING ALL ALAMEDA FIRE STATIONS AS RECEIVING
POINTS FOR SURRENDERED BABIES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 1255.7, KNOWN AS
THE SAFELY SURRENDERED BABY LAW
1,.
O
L
0' WHEREAS, the State Legislature has enacted Health and Safety Code § 1255.7
rr which allows any person having lawful custody of a minor child 72 hours old or younger
F to surrender physical custody of the child to an employee at a location designated by the
Board of Supervisors; and
F�_, WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Fire Department is desirous of having its Fire
Station Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 so designated; and
WHEREAS, such designation is for the benefit of children and the community
because it will provide a safe haven to newborns who are 72 hours old or younger;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda
as follows:
Section 1. That Fire Station Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Alameda Fire
Department may be designated by Alameda County as locations which may accept
newborns who are 72 hours old or younger from a person who has lawful custody of the
child.
Section 2. The City Manager is authorized to request that the Board of
Supervisors for Alameda County designate the Alameda Fire Station Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
in the City of Alameda as locations which may accept newborns who are 72 hours old or
younger from a person who has lawful custody of the child.
Section 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute any documents which are
necessary to effectuate this designation and which are consistent with this Resolution.
Section 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original resolutions of the City
of Alameda; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records
of the proceedings of the City Council of the City of Alameda in the minutes of the
meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.
Resolution # 4 -K CC
6 -7 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 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: May 25, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to
Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a
Voter Approved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a
General Election held November 7, 2000
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2000, the voters of Alameda overwhelmingly passed Measure "0".
Measure "0" authorized the issuance of bonds in the amount not to exceed $10,600,000 (the
"Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction and completion of a new Main Library facility
and improvements to two branch library facilities in the City of Alameda (the "Project ").
The City received the final grant award in December 2002 in the amount of $15,487,952. In
March, 2003 the City sold $10,600,000 in general obligation bonds.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15/$100,000 of assessed valuation over 30 years.
The required tax rate for 2005 -2006 is $8.78/$100,000 of assessed valuation down from the
$9.80/$100,000 levied for the 2004 -2005 fiscal year.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the general fund. Debt service for the $10,600,000 general
obligation bonds will be paid from this tax levy on all real and personal property in
Alameda of $8.78/$100,000 of assessed value.
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE
This action is in conformance with the Alameda Municipal Code and all policy
documents.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 4 -L CC
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
May 25, 2005
Page 2
The Acting City Manager recommends the Council adopt a resolution requesting and
authorizing the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the
City of Alameda as a voter approved levy for the General Obligation Bonds issued
pursuant to a general election held November 7, 2000.
Respectfully submitted
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
JB:dI
elle- Boyer
Chief Financial Officer
Attachment: Tax Rate Per Assessed Valuation
G:\ FINANCE \COUNCIL\2005 \051705 \LibraryBondReso05.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Annual Tax Rate Work
Tax Per
co
O
O
O
EA
CDOco
NI c0
,_
69 69
N.
69
$ 8.47
$ 8.32
$ 8.14
$ 7.95
N ^6}co0
q)
69 69
eh NN,
69 69
$ 6.79
$ 6.86
$ 6.68
$ 6.49
$ 6.35
co t---
O
69 69
$ 5.87
$ 5.65
$ 5.53
$ 5.37
$ 5.19
$ 5.06
$ 4.97
$ 4.80
$ 4.65
$ 4.52
M
69
Annual
Tax
Rate
0.00000000
0.00014257
0.00009800
0.00008782
0.00008671
0.00008474
0.00008320
0.00008742
0.00007957
0.00007816
0.00007606
0.00007438
0.00007264
0.00006791
0.00006857
0.00006675
0.00006492
0.00006350
0.00006159
0.00006008
0.00005872
0.00005654
h H
00
0 0
00
00
00
0.00005794
0.00005057
0.00004974
0.00004807
0.00004646
0.00004520
0.00004388
Net
Debt
Service
$ -
$ 803,127
$ 583,866
6 610,414
6 617,285
6 622,168
6 625,851
6 633,619
6 635,155
CO
.--
0)
CO
CO
6 619,644
6 644,421
6 646,209
6 647,264
6 652,153
6 651,474
6 654,627
_ I
CO CO
N 0
i/1 to
CO CO
6 658,652
6 658,854
`s 656,039
6 657,890
i 658,515
662,586
> 660,499
661,857
661,741
686,750
err
err err
err err
err 69
49 err
err err err
err crr
err err
49 69
err err
err err
crt ter
v-r o-r
o-r yr
Less
Unsecured
o
0
0
a
69694949
m N
(O Q1
$ 56,072
$ 54,436
$ 53,040
$ 57,482
$ 49,799
$ 48,531
$ 46,845
$ 45,409
$ 43,946
$ 42,487
^ N
M
6969
$ 37,861
$ 36,722
$ 35,276
$ 34,723
$ 32,694
$ 31,540
$ 30,598
$ 29,396
$ 28,211
$ 27,235
$ 26,235
$ 25,414
$ 24,376
$ 23,518
$ 22,634
N
0
ET_
Delinquency
c
C
CO c
O <
69
Debt
Service
6
6 803,127
653,000
651,450
658,250
664,850
670,325
673,650
675,650
682,150
682,000
685,125
687,500
662,125
Lo
N 0
u) u)
CO CO
685,125
688,875
686,750
688,750
684,875
685,125
689,250
688,250
684,250
685,125
684,750
688,000
684,875
685,375
684,375
686,750
err err
errlor
err err
errierr
erne -r
err err
erne -.
to 69
err err
err err
err err
err err
err err
0, err
w v-r
w 0.)
Total
Assessed Valuation
5,416,544,864
6,340,913,693
6,397,923,840
6,789,608,739
6993,297, 001
7,203,095,911
7,419,188,789
7, 647, 764, 452
7, 871, 017, 386
8,107, 747,907
8,350,362,345
8,600,873,215
8, 858, 899, 471
9,124, 666, 394
9, 398, 406, 385
9,680,358,577
9,970,769,334
70,269,892,414
10, 577,989,787
10, 895, 328, 862
11,222,188,728
11,558,854,390
71, 905, 620, 022
12,262,788, 623
72, 630, 672,287
73, 009, 592, 450
13,399,880,223
13, 801, 876, 630
14,275,932,929
74, 642, 410,917
15,087,683,244
15,534,133, 747
16, 000,157, 754 1
Alameda General Obligation Bond Issue
Tax Rate Per Assessed Valuation
3%
Growth
$ -
$ 327,880,259
$ 234,622,502
$ 391,684,899
$ 203,688,262
$ 209,798,910
$ 216, 092, 877
$ 222, 575, 664
$ 229,252,934
$ 236,130, 522
$ 243,214,437
$ 250,570,870
$ 258,026,196
$ 265,766,982
$ 273,739,992
$ 281,952, 792
$ 290,410,757
$ 299,123, 080
$ 308,096,772
$ 317, 339, 676
b
03
Lc)
00
cri c
NM
eh M
bq 69
$ 346, 765, 632
$ 357,168, 607
$ 367,883, 659
$ 378,920,168
$ 390,287,773
$ 401, 996, 407
$ 414,056,299
$ 426,477,988
$ 439,272,327
$ 452, 450, 497
$ 466,.024,0121
Assessed
c
0
m
To
>
v34:069.4:0
$ -
$ -
$ 5,537,682,303
$ 5,865,562,562
$ 6,397,923,840
$ 6, 789, 608,739
$ 6,993,297,001
$ 7,203,095,917
$ 7,419,188,789
$ 7, 647, 764, 452
$ 7,871,017,386
$ 8,107,147, 907
$ 8,350,362,345
$ 8,600,873,215
$ 8,858,899,411
$ 9,124, 666, 394
$ 9,398,406,385
$ 9, 680, 358, 577
$ 9,970,769,334
$ 10,269,892,474
$ 10,577,989,78 7
$ 10, 895, 328, 862
$ 11,222,188,728
$ 17, 558,854, 390
$ 17,905, 620, 022
$ 12,262,788, 623
$ 12, 630, 672,287
$ 73, 009, 592, 450
$ 73,399,880,223
$ 13,807,8 76, 630
$ 14,275,932,929
$ 14, 642, 410,917
$ 15, 081, 683,244
$ 15, 534,133, 741 1
`m
N
}
O ,-
0 0
O O
N N
Cr) O
01 0000
N C) Tr
0 0 0
O O O
N N N
r-- NM
to CD
0 0
O O
N N
Vs 00
0 0
O O
N N
0) O
0 .—
O O
N N
— N
'—'—
O O
N N
M eh
I—
O O
N N
Q/1 CO
— —
O O
N N
h o0
— —
O O
N N
0) 0v-
— N
O O
N N
N
N N
O O
N N
M 1-
N N
O O
N N
in CO
N N
O O
N N
Is c0
N N
O O
N N
0) O
N M
O O
N N
r- N
C) M
O O
N N
M a'
M C)
O O
N N
1/)
M
O
N
Annual Tax Rate Work
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
TO LEVY A TAX ON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AS A VOTER APPROVED LEVY FOR
L"
W THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A
z GENERAL ELECTION HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2000
oC
0
F
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2000, voters of Alameda overwhelmingly passed Measure
> "0 ", authorizing the issuance of bonds in the amount not to exceed $10,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to
finance the acquisition, construction and completion of a new Main Library facility and
improvements to two branch facilities in the City of Alameda (the "project "; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda received a final grant award in December, 2002 in the
amount of $15,487,952; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 13563, adopted by the City Council on March 4, 2003,
authorized and directed the sale of not to exceed $10,600,000 aggregate principal amount of City of
Alameda, California General Obligation Bonds; and levying an ad valorem tax; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds, the City of
Alameda must authorize the County of Alameda to levy and collect annually each year an ad
valorem tax in an amount sufficient to pay principal and interest on the bonds; and
WHEREAS,' Measure "0" set the maximum tax rate at $15 /$100,000 of assessed valuation
over 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the required tax rate for 05 -06 is $8.78/$100,000 of assessed valuation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby authorizes the County of Alameda to levy a tax on all real and personal property in the
County of Alameda as a voter - approved levy for the General Obligation Bonds issued pursuant to
the General Election held November 7, 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the debt
service for the $10,600,000 general obligation bonds will be paid from a tax levy on all real and
personal property in Alameda of $8.78 per $100,000 of assessed value for 2005 -06.
Resolution # 4 -L CC
6 -7 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 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 RESOLUTION
COMMENDING ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER
FRANK DAMIAN
FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA records its appreciation for the years
of service faithfully rendered by OFFICER FRANK DAMIAN for the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, FRANK DAMIAN had a 27 -year law enforcement career which began
in 1978 when he joined the Department of Corrections; and
WHEREAS, FRANK DAMIAN obtained an Associates degree in Engineering from
the University of Texas in 1976; and
WHEREAS, FRANK DAMIAN's career with the Alameda Police Department
spanned from August 6, 1982 until present and included the following assignments: Patrol
Division, DUI Enforcement, Special Duty Unit, Property Crimes, and Personnel and
Training; and
WHEREAS, FRANK DAMIAN has made the following significant contributions to
the City of Alameda: Officer Damian has received forty -five personnel commendations
during his twenty -three years with the Alameda Police Department including four specific to
the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989; and one for attempting to save a person in a burning
residence; he received the "Alameda Hero Award" this year for prevention of a suicide and
saving a life; and
WHEREAS, FRANK DAMIAN, upon retirement, plans to move to Gardnerville,
Nevada where he intends to enjoy the life of rest and relaxation; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2005, FRANK DAMIAN will officially retire from his
position as Officer for the City of Alameda's Police Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda
does hereby congratulate Officer FRANK DAMIAN for his outstanding achievement in his
service to the City of Al., eda . • to the profession of law enforcement.
Councilmember Doug deHaan
Councilmember Frank Matarrese
Re: Reso 5 -A
6 -7 -05
E
0
L
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNCIPAL CODE TO
INCREASE THE COMPOSITION OF THE RECREATION AND
PARK COMMISSION FROM FIVE TO SEVEN MEMBERS BY
AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2 -7.2 (MEMBERSHIP;
APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL), 2 -7.3 (QUALIFICATION;
VOTING) OF SECTION 2 -7 (CITY RECREATION AND PARK
COMMISSION)
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
- Section 1. Subsection 2 -7.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2 -7.2 Membership; Appointment; Removal.
a. The Commission shall consist of seven (7) regular members, and (1) ex
officio member who shall be the City Manager or his/her designee and who
shall not be entitled to vote at any meetings or other proceedings.
b. The seven (7) regular members shall, upon nomination of the Mayor, be
appointed by the City Council. The term 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 in October. A vacancy in the office of any
such member shall be filled for the unexpired term by appointment in the
manner hereinabove set forth.
c. A regular member may be removed by the affirmative vote of four (4)
members of the City Council (Ord. No. 1552 N.S.; Ord. No. 1934 N.S.)
Section 2. Subsection 2 -7.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2 -7.3 Qualification; Voting.
All members of the Commission shall, at the time of their appointment and
continuously during their incumbency, be residents of the City. The vote of four (4)
regular members shall be necessary for an act of or by the Commission. (Ord. No. 1552;
Ord. No. 1934 N.S.)
Section 3. 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.
Final Passage of Ordinance #5 +i
6 -7 -05
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
It is requested that this public hearing
be continued to the 6/21/05 City
Council agenda. A report will be
provided to Council at that time.
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -C
6 -7 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Date: May 25, 2005
Re: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Business Improvement
Area Report for FY 2005 -06 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda
Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005 -06
BACKGROUND
The Business Improvement Area (BIA) was established in 1989. Fees, based on sales volume, are
collected within two Benefits Areas, "A" and `B," with "A" businesses paying slightly higher rates
because of their proximity to the retail core. While the basic rate structure for retail and service
business in both Benefit Areas has remained the same since inception, some fees do increase
annually based on rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Area. CPI increased
fees include: 1) the flat fee assessed non - retail, 2) the fee paid by financial institutions, and 3) the
maximum charge in all categories. The City's Finance Department projects no significant BIA
revenue increase this coming fiscal year after applying the CPI increase of 1.6 percent.
On May 17, 2005, City Council accepted reports (Attachments A, B and C) regarding proposed FY
2005 -06 Business Improvement Area (BIA) assessments and activities, and Council adopted a
Resolution of Intention (Attachment D) to Levy an Annual Assessment for FY 2005 -06. The
Resolution set a public hearing for June 7, 2005 to consider adoption of a Resolution confirming the
reports and levying an annual assessment.
DISCUSSION
The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA)
included affected parties in the process of adopting the proposed activities and budget by holding
meetings, which were announced through business association invitations, newsletters and/or
personal contact. These efforts led to the approval of the PSBA and WABA BIA budgets by the
members in attendance at these meetings.
Notice of the Public Hearing was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation seven days prior to
the hearing. The public hearing will give affected parties a final opportunity to comment on the
proposed assessment. During or following the public hearing, Council may order changes in the
report, including changes in the proposed activities, boundaries or benefit areas. After the hearing,
the Council may adopt the Resolution confirming the report as originally filed or as changed.
Adoption of the Resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for FY 2005 -06.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Servic
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -D
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
May 25, 2005
Page 2
A.M.C. Sec. 6 -7 et seq. Also, the renewal of the BIA for another year supports both the goals of the
Economic Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Vision through continued operation of the
two business associations.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
There is an impact on the General Fund in the form of staff costs for the Finance Department to
process BIA billing and expenditure. Finance Department costs are included in the department's
annual budget. BIA billing is done concurrently with business license billing. Revenues from the
BIA directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the
promotion of business and similar eligible activities.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and consider the adoption
of Resolution confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2005 -06 and levying an
annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005-
06.
WCN /LAL /DES /SGR:ry
Attachments
lly submit - d,
Leslie A. Little
-- Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
mess D
ssell
opme Coordinator
opment Division
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2005-06\2nd staff report - CONFIRM.doc
F: Parking & BIA/Assessment/2004 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
cc: Economic Development Commission
Park Street Business Association
West Alameda Business Association
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2005 -062nd staff report - CONFIRM.doc
F: Parking & BIA/Assessment/2004 -05
May 25, 2005
Page 3
8PARK
1080" • i ira■ i
usiness Association
April 13, 2005
Sue Russell
,vlanagement Analyst
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Russell:
ATTACHMENT A
As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA Report
and accompanying 2005/2006 budget for our Association.
We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2005/2006. We have provided a description of the
activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget.
This proposed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted this
week and will be confirmed at the May 25, 2005 board meeting. Based on revenue received to date, we
anticipate 05/06 B1A revenue of $81,000, and a carryover of $5,300 resulting from more than
anticipated 04/05 revenues and cost containment by PSBA. This brings our 05/06 B1A budget to
$86,300.
We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material.
Sincerely,
Lars Hansson
President
Park Street Business Association
2447 Santa Clara Avenue, Suite 302 (510) 523 -1392
Alameda, CA 94501 A California Main Street Program FAX (510) 523 -2372
PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006
INTRODUCTION:
The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is recommending a BIA budget of $86,300 for the Park
Street Business District for fiscal year 2005 /2006. This recommendation is based on the estimate of the
icome derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 04/05 as well as a carryover from the 04/05 budget,
which resulted from more than expected revenue and cost containment by PSBA. The formulas,
budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly Board of Director and committee meetings
between December, 2004, and May, 2005.
BUDGET:
The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other three
sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the Landscape
and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development Services
Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones, that are in line
with the National Trust's Main Street Four -Point plan for revitalizing Main Street Cities.
BOUNDARIES:
We are not proposing any changes this year.
ACTIVITIES:
Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2005 /2006. These activities are
designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the vitality of the
District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members' businesses, attract new
businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in the Park Street District.
Several projects are continuations from the 2004/2005 fiscal year.
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Membership Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Conduct Meetings
a. Mixers
b. Special Meeting (October)
c. Programs at half the meetings
d. Holiday Party
Awards
a. Continue current awards program
3. Welcome /New Members
a. Update New Members Packet
b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members
c. Greet new members with packet as they move into the district
4. Newsletter
a. Continue mailing newsletter every month
b. Update mailing list
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Promotions Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Continue Special Events
a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend)
c. Art & Wine Faire (the last weekend in July)
d. Classic Car Show (2nd weekend in October)
2. Promotions
a. Traditional shopping guide to continue for general distribution
b. Web site (newly improved)
c. Work with ACLO on cross marketing idea
3. Print Advertising
a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages (defines the district and our members)
b. Continue SF Chronicle campaign
c. Continue Holiday campaign
d. Continue Alameda /Oakland Magazine campaign
4. Cable Advertising
a. Continue Spring Festival ads
b. Continue Art & Wine Faire ads
c. Continue Classic Car Show ads
d. Continue Holiday campaign ads
e. Begin Summer time campaign ads
5. Holiday Promotions
a. cable ads two weeks prior to Christmas
b. Free parking on all weekends after Thanksgiving
c. Continue print ads in Chronicle, Sun, and Journal
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Design Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Streetscape
a. Ensure MTC timeline is met
_b. Monitor construction progress
c. Begin Phase II planning and funding
Design Guidelines
a. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria
b. write guidelines
c. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval
d. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council
3. Sign Ordinance
a. Begin Enforcement
4. News Rack Ordinance
a. Review New Draft
b. Make additional suggestions for final draft ordinance
c. Review Final Draft
d. Take Final Draft to PSBA Board for Approval
e. Submit final changes to Planning Dept. /City Attorney
f. Review completed ordinance
g. Submit completed ordinance to Council
h. Council Approval
i. Begin Enforcement
j. Review Santa Clara Ave. Newsstand
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Econ -Revi Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Identify Locations For New Businesses
a. Work With City of Alameda
b. Work With Commercial Brokers
c. Physical Survey of the District
d. Provide district vacancy list on a monthly basis
Ordinances
a. News racks - assist with council passage
b. Vacant Buildings - begin discussions with city staff to beef up ordinance
c. Work with city and ACI for better working garbage contract
3. Maintenance
a. Continue current level of service - 7 days a week
4. Recruitment /Retention
a. Develop and maintain vacancy list for District
b. Contact targeted companies to determine their interest in coming to Park Street
and Alameda
c. Maintain contact with existing businesses to determine additional needs and
attempt to meet them.
METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT
Budget: See Exhibit A
CONCLUSION
PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development, Public
Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased
participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown the BIA is a
valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic Business District.
Exhibit A
Park Street Business Association
2005/2006 BIA Budget Submission
INCOME:
BIA Projection $81,000
Accumulated Carryover $5,300
Total Income: $86,300
EXPENSES:
Program Services - Maintenance
Benefits $7,000
Worker's Comp Insurance $15,600
Payroll Taxes $4,400
Sub -Total $27,000
Personnel Services
Executive Director
Administrative Assistant
Payroll Taxes
Workers Comp Insurance
Sub Total
$2,000
$7,700
$8,200
$1,800
$19,700
General & Administration
Liability /D &O Insurance $4,000
Printing $400
Newsletter $5,000
Postage $2,200
Equipment $2,000
Meetings /Trainings $2,000
Supplies $1,700
Rent $12,100
Utilities $1,600
Audit /Accounting $8,600
Sub -Total $39,600
Total Expenses $86,300
ATTACHMENT B
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 523 -5955 west alameda(a�vahoo.com
www.WestAlamedaBusiness.com
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2005 - JUNE 30, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for
the Webster Street Business District for fiscal year (FY) 2005 -2006. The formulas, budgets and
proposed activities are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The draft Business
Improvement Area (BIA) Budget will be presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting
May 18, 2005.
PROPOSED CHANGES
WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area.
ACTIVITIES
The following is a summary of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2005 -2006. These activities
have been discussed at various Board and committee meetings. WABA's mission is to use these
activities to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve Webster Street's
historic character. We seek to generate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote
members' businesses and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda.
The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and
implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.
It is estimated that there will be no carry forward from the 2004 -2005 budget.
The estimated BIA revenue for 2005 -2006 is $32,000
The following are activities proposed for 2005 -2006. Several projects are continuations from
previous fiscal years.
1
ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING
• Facilitate development of high- potential properties
• Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses
• Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects
• Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity
• Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda
• Work with the City and others to finalize and implement the Strategic Economic Development
Plan, including parking plan, catalyst project and business attraction strategies
• Continue business retention activities
DESIGN
• Finish the Webster Renaissance Project
• Implement Design Guidelines
• Develop beautification program
• Continue helping members with the Storefront Assistance Program
• Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects
• Work with City to implement recent changes to sign ordinance
• Implement newsrack district
• Fulfill public art requirements
SPECIAL EVENTS
• Participate in July 4th events
• Produce advertising for the Association and businesses
• Produce year -round Farmers' Market
• Produce Thursday night Farmers' Market during summer months
• Produce Concerts at the Cove
• Produce Third Thursday Arts and Crafts Campus
• Produce Webster Street Wine and Dine Nights
• Produce annual Halloween event
• Produce 4th annual Peanut Butter Jam
• Produce holiday bazaar and visit from Santa
• Produce streetscape unveiling
PUBLIC RELATIONS
• Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda
• Maintain contacts with key media representatives
• Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses
2
• Continue implementing strategic marketing plan, including branding strategy, website, weekly
columns and calendar of events, cooperative advertising program and business attraction
strategy
ORGANIZATION
• Manage the administrative activities of the organization
• Expand community and business participation with WABA
• Develop and implement a fundraising plan, including Community Benefit District
• Organize and host business and community events for members
• Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff
• Produce and distribute WABA newsletter
• Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents
• Distribute information door -to -door
• Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in
WABA's activities
• Implement enhanced volunteer program, including recruitment, volunteer appreciation activities
and training
• Continue implementing enhanced maintenance program, including clean -up events, keeping up
appearances awards and collaboration with City maintenance staff to resolve issues such as
illegal dumping , littering and public health hazards
METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT
Budget, see Exhibit A
Assessment, see Attachment C
CONCLUSION
WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services,
Public Works, Planning and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The
BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West Alameda's historic business
district.
3
West Alameda Business Association
BIA BUDGET 05 -06
INCOME
BIA Projection $ 32,000
Accumulated Carryover $ -
Totallncome $ 32,000
EXPENSES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
PR Tax /Benefits $ 6,000
SUBTOTAL $ 6,000
MEMBERSHIP SERVICES
Supplies $ 1,000
Printing $ 3,000
Postage $ 1,000
Newsletter /website $ 2,000
Committees $ 1,000
Equipment $ 500
SUBTOTAL $ 8,500
INDIRECT /OVERHEAD
Accounting /Audit $ 6,000
Utilities $ 5,000
Insurance $ 6,000
Contingency $ 500
SUBTOTAL $ 17,500
GRAND TOTAL $ 32,000
ATTACHMENT C
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON - RETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients
and/or do not operate retail stores.
Accountant
Advertising
Ambulance AREA A = $ 116.00
Answering service
Architect AREA B = $ 76.00
Attorney
Building maintenance
Business services
Construction
Consultants
Contractors
Counselor
Credit Unions with restricted membership
Decorator PRO -RATED FEES
Electrician
Employment A B
Engineer
Gardener $116.00 $ 76.00
Graphic arts
Handyman JULY 116.00 76.00
Health /Medical professions
Importers AUG 106.00 70.00
Insurance
Landscape SEPT 97.00 63.00
Mail order
Manufacturer OCT 87.00 57.00
Manufacturer's /sales reps
Mortuary NOV 77.00 51.00
Newspaper publishing
Nursing facility DEC 68.00 44.00
Painters
Pest control JAN 58.00 38.00
Plumber
Property management FEB 48.00 32.00
Real estate
School /Instruction MAR 39.00 25.00
Security
Stockbrokers APR 29.00 19.00
Tax consultants
Travel MAY 19.00 13.00
Veterinary
Wholesalers JUNE 10.00 6.00
Misc. professional /office
1
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service.
Alarm and fire extinguisher service
Appliance service
Athletic/Health Club
Auto glass
Auto upholstery
Auto wash/parking
Auto repair
Barber
Beauty
Cleaners
Electronics service
Furniture repair
Hotel /motel
Keys /Locksmith
Laundromat/laundry
Marine service
Pet services
Photography studio
Printing
Shoe service
Storage
Tailor
Tattoo
Upholstery
2
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
AREA A = .40/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 116.00
MAXIMUM = $1,536.00
AREA B = .20/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 76.00
MAXIIIvII Iv1 = $754.00
PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES
A B
$116.00 $76.00
116.00
106.00
97.00
87.00
77.00
68.00
58.00
48.00
39.00
29.00
19.00
10.00
76.00
70.00
63.00
57.00
51.00
44.00
38.00
32.00
25.00
19.00
13.00
6.00
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product.
Alcoholic
Amusement
Antiques
Appliances sales
Art
Auto dealer
Auto stereo
Auto supply
Bakery
Bar
Bicycles
Books
Clothing
Coin
Computer sales
Drug /variety
Electronics sales
Fishing
Floor coverings
Florist
Food
Furnishings
Furniture
Gasoline stations
Gift
Hardware
Hobby
Jewelry
Magazines /newspaper sales
Marine sales
Market
Medical supplies
Music
Nursery
Office supplies /equipment
Optical supplies
Pet supply
Product rentals
Restaurant
Shoe sales
Sporting goods
Thrift/used merchandise
Theater /club
Video
Other retail goods
3
AREA A = .40/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 231.00
MAXIMUM = $1,536.00
AREA B = .20/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 116.00
MAXIMUM = $ 771.00
PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES
A B
$231.00 $116.00
JULY 231.00 116.00
AUG 212.00 106.00
SEPT 193.00 97.00
OCT 173.00 87.00
NOV 154.00 77.00
DEC 135.00 68.00
JAN 116.00 58.00
FEB 96.00 48.00
MAR 77.00 39.00
APR 58.00 29.00
MAY 39.00 19.00
JUNE 19.00 10.00
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/UTILITIES
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Banks
Savings and Loans
Credit Unions operating to the general public
Utilities
AREA A & B = $ 771.00
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 1384 3
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY
2005 -06 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 7, 2005.
WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code
establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter "Area ");
and
WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, included by
reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit A and C,
respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference on the map and list of
inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include the
general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events which are to
take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any public place in the Area, the
furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the acquisition, construction or maintenance
of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and
WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City") and the
Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA ") and the West Alameda Business Association
(hereinafter "WABA ") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business Improvement Area
(hereinafter `BIA ") funds for their respective geographic zones of the BIA; and
WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the
surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2004 -05 and describing the improvements and
activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2005 -06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that
PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2005 -06; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to
consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit areas or
change in boundary for June 7, 2005, at which time written or oral protests may be made; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said public
hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing.
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 the regular meeting of the City
Council on the 17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson — 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this 18th day of May, 2005.
L-P,(Aa 14)2) 3-
Lara Weisiger, City C1 r
City of Alameda
•
' . •
•. `••
•
R-1
EXHIBIT A:
Park Street
geographic zone
iui
• :1
I :
I
• : • . I ; I I !
• I 10!ile
=::a7
7.21'J
:
.•
(11.•
-1114.41112-141.i.
R-4
- 0!
1-5-PD
*
.--02t4/4
1
...-.01,2
. ir tIN it!
oM
mm tm
LIMMIUMe-1 WWI
thEINIMMIIMIIKII I I RIMINIMUMINITIM
PARK STREET COMMERCIAL AREA
A: Benefit Area A
B: Benefit Area B
M -2
.N
EXHIBIT B:
Webster Street
geographic zone
).c r o.
tt4yftip
M-2 - G
c_,
II16
•./ +4u
Alin
-t�ua
li e'We :IIIII 'ki IIIIlrpr�^
y, 'e 1111llyll
1 DWI Illfl 1111
";AnQi7.7 -Amon
WWII 1
`�_ uE
•
•
0
•44
BSTER S CIAL AREA
A Benefit Area . A
B: Benefit Area B
EXHIBIT C
LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES
Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and `B" Zones: Geographic Area:
Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St.
Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St.
Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 odd/even Webster St.
Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St.
2300 -2499 odd/even Park St.
2501, 2521 • Park St.
Eagle Ave. 633 -707 odd/even Webster St.
Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St.
Haight St. 629 -728 odd/even Webster St.
Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 odd/even Webster St.
2267 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St.
Pacific Ave. 626 -730 odd/even Webster St.
Park Ave. 1300 -1399 odd only Park St.
1400 -1499 odd/even Park St.
Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St.
odd/even
San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 odd/even Park St.
Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St.
2300 -2599 odd/even Park St.
Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St.
Times Wy. 2300 -2399 odd/even . Park St.
Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Webster St.
1345 -1999 odd/even Webster St.
Memo: Benefit Area "B" Zone Only
Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St.
Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St.
Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St.
odd/even, 1600 -1999
Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd/even Park St.
Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St.
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
CONFIRMING THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA REPORT FOR
FY 2005 -06 AND LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE
O CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2005 -06
I.1 >-
W
O Z
cn 0 WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal
E~.. Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda
e (hereinafter Area); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda desires to continue said
V Area in FY 2005 -06 for the purpose set forth in Section 6 -7.3 of the Alameda Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, a report has been filed with the City Clerk describing the surplus or
deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2004 -05 and describing the improvements
and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY
2005 -06; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at its regular meeting of May 17, 2005 adopted a
Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005 -06 and to set a public hearing for
such action; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing regarding each action was held by the
City Council on June 7, 2005;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that the BIA report for FY 2005 -06 with any modifications as directed by the
Council following closure of the Public Hearing, is hereby confirmed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that
an assessment for the Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005-
06 is hereby levied.
Resolution # 5 -D
6 -7 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 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
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
DATE: May 25, 2005
RE: Donor Recognition and Named Gifts Policy for the Library
BACKGROUND
Individuals, corporations and groups have made generous donations to the Alameda Free Library
through the years. With the coming of the new Main Library and improvements to the branches,
we are confident that community interest in making donations to the Library will increase. As
part of the effort to encourage private giving, a capital campaign will begin this fall, led by the
Library Foundation.
With the possibility of many future gifts, the Library Board and the Library Foundation have
developed a policy to manage the use of private gifts and the methods of donor recognition. The
policy, "Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" is included with this memo as Exhibit A. The
policy's purpose is to encourage donations and to ensure that donors are appropriately
recognized. On April 13, 2005, after consultation with the Library Foundation, the Library
Board unanimously passed the policy, recommending it for adoption by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
Alameda's library system has been the recipient of many donations, grants and bequests, to the
ultimate benefit of our community. Starting with Andrew Carnegie more than one hundred years
ago, the Library has received substantial donations from many individuals and groups. Most
gifts have been unrestricted, and will be used as part of the funding for the construction of the
Main Library and/or Branch improvements, and for opening day collections at the Library.
In addition, the Friends of the Library have donated tens of thousands of dollars over nearly
thirty years in support of ongoing library programs. Their most recent gift was in support of
public art for the new Main Library, specifically the eight exterior limestone medallions along
Lincoln Ave. and Times Way. The Library Foundation, since its founding in 1998, has made
generous donations in support of library programming, equipment and public art. In addition to
these and other private gifts, in 2002 the City received an award of $15.5 million to provide 65%
match for construction of the new Main Library.
The Library Foundation's fund- raising to date has been for "the ABC's " - -Art, Collections and
Branches. These needs are particularly important because the ABC's are not covered by the state
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 5 -E
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2
May 25, 2005
grant. The relationship between these donations and library amenities or services is
straightforward: the more money received for collections, for example, the larger our collections
will be; the more money received for art, the more art we will have. A successful fund- raising
drive for the branches could allow us to implement much more ambitious improvements.
Donors frequently specify that their donation should be used for a particular purpose. To date all
restricted donations have been directed toward tangible items such as art, but there are
opportunities also for support for programming such as after school tutoring, homework centers,
technology classes and the like. An endowment might allow for use of the interest to improve
collections. No doubt additional unrestricted donations will also be received.
The Recognition Levels were subject to extensive review by the Art and Recognition Team, the
Foundation's fund raising consultant, and were reviewed twice by both the Foundation Board and
the Art Team prior to their approval by the Library Board. Donor recognition levels are based on
what is offered by comparable organizations and libraries.
The recognition levels are designed to honor donations of different amounts in different ways. A
donor who gives a specific amount, for example $50,000, would be able to have a specific area
in the Main Library named in his /her honor. At this particular level, the donor would have a
choice of the Quiet Reading Room, the Conference Room, New Books Section, Teen Homework
Center, Family Study Room or a Granite Bench in the Garden. The same idea is carried forward
for donors at higher or lower amounts. There will be a donor wall where all those whose lifetime
giving exceeds $5000 will be recognized. It is intended to be cumulative, so that a donor of
smaller gifts can, with successive donations, earn a place on the wall.
The named spaces and furnishings (e.g., Children's Library, Reading Nook with Bay Window)
and furnishings such as tables and chairs will be purchased whether or not private donations are
received. Other named amenities will not be purchased unless there are donors. These include
named pieces of art, stained glass lunettes and augmentations to the library collections. Specific
large donations for the branches could result in larger spaces or in particular amenities, art or
improved collections in those locations.
Funds received for art, collections and branches will be used for those purposes. The Library
Board and Foundation will work together to identify library needs for which other gifts will be
used.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
It is important for the City to encourage private donations to the Foundation's capital campaign,
by adopting a policy of donor recognition. These potential donations will have a very positive
impact upon the Library's ability to deliver services to our community.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Not applicable.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3
May 25, 2005
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the Mayor and Council approve the attached policy,
"Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" for the Library.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Susan Hardie
Library Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
EXHIBIT A
Alameda Free Library
Donor Recognition and Named Gifts
The City of Alameda is very appreciative of private contributions, which are essential to
the development and operation of the facilities and services of the Main Library and its
branches. The purpose of this policy is to encourage and recognize donors and to ensure
that donors and taxpayers are recognized appropriately.
Contributions for the Main Library and its branches be given directly to the Alameda
Free Library Foundation, which is the preferred recipient for private gifts because it has
established the infrastructure to track, acknowledge and recognize these gifts.
Consistent with this policy the specific recognition accorded to donors may include
named spaces, furnishings or fixtures within the library, letters of acceptance and
appreciation, press releases, public events, mementos, certificates, placement on a donor
wall, and other items that commemorate the gift.
The recommendations below for named gift opportunities in the new Main Alameda Free
Library and branches have been developed as of April, 2005. Because of the evolving
nature of the design process for the new Main Library, these opportunities may be refined
and changed with the Library's design.
Upon approval of this policy by the City Council, the Library Board, in partnership with
the Foundation, will develop a process for directing gifts to the Library with the
following goals and outcomes in mind:
• The taxpayers of Alameda will be recognized in a prominent location and manner
within the new Main Library for their support of this project.
• All gifts must meet the goals of the Library.
• Gifts will be accepted and managed in accordance with the type of fund (current,
endowment) and with the uses or objectives specified by the donor.
• Multi year pledges up to three years are encouraged. Five -year pledges are negotiable
on a case by case basis.
• Programmatic, endowed and planned gifts will be welcomed and recognized.
• Named gifts will encompass all levels of giving and are available to individuals,
foundations, corporations and profit or non - profit organizations. The donor and the
Foundation will work together to finalize wording to ensure appropriateness of the
gift and that it is possible to meet any specified terms and conditions of the gift.
• Final approval on naming rests with the City Council or its designee. The Library
Board and the Foundation will act in partnership and in accordance with this policy to
ensure appropriate management of this process.
"Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" Policy P. 2
• Individual plaques may be placed on specialized furniture and equipment. These
items are dedicated only for the life of the item and not for the life of the building.
• The Recognition wall in the new library will be designed to recognize donors to the
capital campaign, and it will continue to grow and to recognize donors post -
campaign. Donors will be recognized on the wall when lifetime giving exceeds
$5,000.
• Donors to the branches will be recognized in an appropriate manner in each facility.
Recognition Levels
$500,000
• Children's Library
• Community Meeting Room (2 each)
• Grand Central Staircase
$250,000
• Children's Story Hour and Craft Room
• Computer Lab
• Cafe
$175,000
• Stained Glass Lunette (3 each)
$100,000
• Outdoor Courtyard/Garden
• Circulation Desk
• Preschool Reading and Play Area
• Young Children's (grades 1 -6) Homework Center - first floor
$50,000
• Quiet Reading Room
• Library Conference Room
• New Books Section
• Teen Homework Center - second floor
• Family Study Room - 12 person
• Granite Bench in Garden, engraved with donor's name (3 each)
$35,000
• Standing Bronze Sculpture by Michael Carey (at foot of stair)
$30,000
• The Oracle of the Tree, granite mural by Masayuki Nagase (above Circulation Desk)
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
"Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" Policy P. 3
$25,000
• Carved Wooden Trellis sculpture by Michael Carey (in children's area)
• Group Study Rooms (2 each)
• Reference Study Rooms (2 each)
• Reading Nook w /Bay Window — second floor (large — 3 each)
• Children's Services Work Room
• Reference Desk
• Children's Services Desk
• Reception Desk
• Computer Area /room
• Precast Bench near entrance
$10,000
• Library Director's Office
• Children's Librarian's Office
• Book Return
• Friends of the Library Workroom
• Self Check Out Center
• Reading Nook w /Bay Window — second floor (small — 3 each)
• Reading Nook (w /o bay - 4 each)
• Maps Section
• Microform & Clipping Files
• Library Admin and Reception
$5,000
• Donor wall recognition (for all donors at this level and above)
• Carved Rabbit sculpture by Michael Carey (for Children's area)
• Catering Kitchen (associated with the meeting rooms)
• Staff Room
• Copier Alcove (2 each)
• Elevator
• Children's Play Area Table with Chairs (5 each)
• Children's Story /Craft Room Table with Chairs (6 each)
• Local History Section (10 each)
$2,500
• Table and 4 chairs (27 each)
$1,500
• Bike racks
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
"Donor Recognition and Named Gifts" Policy P. 4
$1,000 ($100 a month for 10 months)
• Table
• Stack
$500
• Chair
$100 ($10 a month for 10 months)
• Named Shelf - Up to 24 characters of the donors choice (particular location of named
shelf is not guaranteed)
Planned Gifts
• Contributions to endowed collections start at $10,000.
Approved Alameda Free Library Board April 13, 2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Date: May 25, 2005
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Webster District Strategic Plan Report
BACKGROUND
In March of 2004, the City began a series of community engagement workshops as part
of a process to prepare a Strategic Plan for the Webster Business District, thereby
implementing Citywide Retail Policy Action 4: "Work with property owners and the West
Alameda Business Association to develop a strategic approach to capitalize on
opportunities for Webster Street." With changing demographics and an expanding
residential base in the West End, a significant motivation was to test the viability of
pursuing a catalyst redevelopment project that might involve a major retail anchor, such
as a grocery store, an idea that grew out of the recent City -wide Retail discussion.
DISCUSSION
The Economic Development Commission created a Webster District Strategic Plan
Task Force to guide the process involving a series of three community forums. The
Task Force led the Forums, which sought input from Alameda residents, property
owners, employees and business people. At the outset, over 900 flyers were mailed to
those on the City's retail interest list. Quarter -page ads were published in the local
media announcing each forum. Products of each forum were posted on the City's
Website. The final Forum was held on March 22, 2005. On April 21, 2005, the Economic
Development Commission endorsed the Report with comments (Attachment). On May
9, the Planning Board endorsed the report.
The Report (on file with the City Clerk) concludes that there will be no single
redevelopment project, no "magic bullet" that will easily transform the District. Like Park
Street, it will be a process that involves the actions of multiple actors. The Report
confirms the importance of public investment in public spaces (Webster Renaissance
Streetscape Project) and it urges that priority be given to supporting efforts that would
improve the condition of the built environment, both public and private.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Servic
Report 5 -F
6 -7 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 25, 2005
Page 2
General Plan and Zoning. The Webster District Strategic Plan Report, if accepted by
Council, would recommend evaluation of Zoning requirements, particularly in the area of
parking. On -site parking requirements constrain development of smaller parcels by
significantly reducing the proportion of revenue — generating square footage, or by
substantially increasing development cost by involving either on -site structured parking
or payment of in -lieu fees. The Report also recommends preparation of a long -term
parking strategy to address the parking needs of the District as it becomes more active.
Next Steps. Following acceptance by Council the Report will be referred to the
Planning and Building Department for consideration of potential Zoning revisions and to
the Development Services Department regarding implementation of economic
development initiatives.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund for acceptance of the Final Webster District
Strategic Plan Report. The Report will guide setting of work plan priorities during the
City's budget process.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Policy document reference contained in Background section.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the Webster District Strategic Plan
Report.
Respe ully submitt-d,
Leslie L . Little
Development Services Director
By:
Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development
Division
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Webster St. Strategic Plan \Council Reports \CC6- 7- 2005.doc
F:ED /Strategy/Webster District Strategic Plan /Staff Reports
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
WCN /LAL /DES /BJMK:ry
Attachment
May 25, 2005
Page 3
ruce J.M
RedevelopmenfManager
cc: Dena Belzer, Strategic Economics
Economic Development Commission
EDC Webster District Strategic Plan Task Force
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Webster St. Strategic Plan \Council Reports \CC6- 7- 2005.doc
F:ED /Strategy/Webster District Strategic Plan /Staff Reports
ATTACHMENT
MINUTES (Excerpt)
REGULAR MEETING OF
CITY OF ALAMEDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Chairman Kelly; Commission Members: Abrate, Lindsey, Parker,
Schmitz, Stieg, and Wetzork.
Absent: Commission Members: Dahlberg and Holzman
Development Services Staff: Jennifer Ott, Bruce Knopf
Excerpt
5. Endorsement of the Webster District Strategic Plan Report
Mr. Knopf introduced Joanna Davis of Strategic Economics. Ms. Davis gave the
PowerPoint presentation that was made at the March 22 Community Forum.
Public speaker: Jean Sweeney — stated that the 1800 (west side) block of Webster
St. might be more appropriately used as a parking area if the land could be
assembled. Also stated that the Webster area could use a good women's clothing
store. Commission Member comments:
• Parker — Webster retail needs to be planned in coordination with the Alameda
Citywide Retail Policy and Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation
Recommendations.
• Parker — City needs a full -time retail recruiter. We need an attractive retail
area to recruit to. You have to generate the demand to generate the supply.
Mr. Knopf noted that the demand would really come when Bayport is built
out.
• Parker — We need to continue the streetscape project all the way into the City
entry area to help generate demand.
• Parker - City needs to focus on Webster economic development and provide
the funds.
• Schmitz — commended the scope and analysis of the report. Takes issue with
the concept of "organic evolution." Public bodies have the responsibility to
directly intervene, to take on tough decisions, to look at land use policies in
order to insure that economic development is promoted. Organic evolution by
itself will not make things happen.
Economic Development Commission
Minutes
Page 2
April 21, 2005
• Stieg — thanked the City for funding this strategic plan process. We can help
organic development along. We can look at changing parking requirements
that adversely affect economic development. We can work to get different
funding to implement Goal 5. If constraints like parking requirements or
Measure A keep projects from being feasible, then perhaps the City can
provide funds to help make them feasible. We need to be aggressive and think
outside of the box.
• Abrate — reminded all present that all of these studies, the Downtown Vision
and the Economic Development Strategic Plan, the Webster District Strategic
Plan, came about as a result of the proposed Trammell Crow project for Park
Street several years ago. It's up to the EDC to make it work. Suggested an
archway as a possible entry statement.
Motion (Wetzork), seconded by Abrate, that the EDC accept the Webster District
Strategic Plan. Parker asked if that would be with all the EDC comments and Wetzork
stated yes. The Chair commended the members for their constructive comments;
however, the EDC was asked to endorse it and forward it to the Planning Board. Wetzork
agreed to accept the Chair's recommendation to move for endorsement instead of
acceptance. Abrate agreed, also. Motion passed 5 -2.
End Excerpt
G: \econdev\STRATEGY \Webster St. Strategic Plan \Council Reports\Attachment 1 - 6 -07 -05 Excerpt EDC minutes.doc
F: EDC/Minutes #3
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
FM: Jim Flint, City Manager
DT: July 9, 1997
RE: Ratification of Administrative Instruction No. 36, Staff-Council Communication
Background
Attached is a revision of the original administrative policy that I had proposed governing
interaction between members of the City Council and staff. The City Council had identified some
concerns with the original administrative policy and ask that I reconsider this policy in light of
your concerns.
Discussion/Analysis
The revised policy now provides the Council with a choice of contacting the department
head directly or working through the City Manager's office in pursuing an inquiry. And, it still
provides the Council with the ability to contact individual members of the staff for purposes of
acquiring additional information, after the initial response to an inquiry from a Councilmember.
Further, it defines what an inquiry is and delineates it from an action to provide further
clarification.
Recommendation
The City Manager recommends that the City Council ratify Administrative Instruction
No. 36 as presented in the attached revised version.
Respect y Submitt
Attachment
J. es M. Flint
City Manager
Reports #5 -G
7.15 -97
Re: #7 -A
Council Communications
6 -7 -05
City of Alameda
Inter - department Memorandum
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION NO. 36
DATE:
SUBJECT:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
July 2, 1997
Staff - Council Communication Policy
Purpose
The intent of this policy is to provide an administrative policy to govern the interaction
between members of the City Council and City of Alameda staff which respects the provisions
of the City Charter, while providing the City Council the opportunity to interact directly with
staff on matters of interest to its members or their constituents.
Policy
Section 7 -3 of the Alameda City Charter states that "Except for purposes of inquiry,
the Council and its members shall deal with that portion of the administrative service for
which the City Manager is responsible solely through him " Accordingly, the Charter
establishes the expectation that the City Council will work through the City Manager to have
staff respond to both the directives of the City Council acting as the governing body or the
requests of its individual members.
What is an Inquiry?
The Charter clearly identifies the Council's prerogative to make inquires. According
to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, an inquiry is simply defined as "a request for
information." The Council should have access to staff resources to make requests for
information or to ask questions on issues of interest. However, this should be contrasted to
the defmition of an action which is to get "a thing accomplished." The distinction between
these two ideas is important only in that the Charter assigns the responsibility for getting
things accomplished by the City Council through the City Manager and not directly through
staff.
Administrative Page 2
Instruction #36 July 2, 1997
Request for Inquiry
Members of the City Council may direct their written or verbal inquires to the City
Manager's office or they may make a direct inquiry to a Department Head. Inquries should be
reasonably brief in nature such as asking for copies of existing documents or interpretations or
elaborations of those documents. The City Manager's office or Department Heads will
respond to constituent concerns as a part of the City's normal operating procedures which
apply to such matters.
Clarification of Information
If a Councilmember desires clarification of the information being communicated, then
that Councilmember may contact the staff member directly responsible for providing the
information being requested. This direct contact is intended to allow Councilmembers access
to staff should it be necessary for more information or clarification which opens up the
organization to increased City Council interaction.
Request for Action
The current procedure for City Council to take action will apply, which is for members
of the City Council to ask for issues to be placed on the agenda for consideration and
approval. Once Council has taken action, then the City Manager and staff will implement
those decisions.
cc: Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Community Development Department
Finance Department
Fire Department
Personnel Department
Planning Department
Police Department
James M. Flint
City Manager
Public Works Department
Recreation and Parks Department
Alameda Free Library
Alameda Housing Authority
Bureau of Electricity
Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( V4 ) Report from City Manager recommending ratification of
Administrative Instruction No. 36, Staff /Council Communication
Policy.
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he disagrees with the City
Manager's proposal; in his [Robert's] opinion, the City Charter
allows any member of the City Council to contact, for purposes of
inquiry, any member of staff without going through the City
Manager or Department Heads; and if restrictions are desired, the
proposal should placed on the ballot in order to revise the City
Charter.
Susan McCormack, Alameda, stated that Councilmembers should not,
other than for purposes of inquiry, have the right to go directly
to staff.
Councilmember Kerr stated that Councilmembers submit requests for
action which do not necessarily require City Council action, e.g.
a request for a City Council Meeting Packet early; and the Request
for Action statement in Administrative Instruction No. 36 should
be amended to allow individual Councilmembers to directly request
administrative action to the City Manager.
The City Manager stated Councilmember Kerr raised a very
appropriate point, that there are inconsequential procedural
requests, and it makes sense to have flexibility.
Vice Mayor DeWitt moved acceptance of the City Manager's
recommendation and the proposed change by Councilmember Kerr.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(97 -423) Susan McCormack, Alameda, inquired whether anything had
been done on the Mills Act Agreement, insofar as allowing private
individuals to enter into an Agreement with the City; stated that
the matter was addressed by the City Council and sent to the
Historical Advisory Board; and matter was to be brought back to
the City Council and she was to be notified.
Susan McCormack further explained that the Mills Act Agreement is
an Agreement whereby owners of historical properties can enter
into an agreement with the City; that the purchase price and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 1997
9
City of Alameda California
Management Practices NO. 37
DATE: July 2, 1997
SUBJECT: . Staff - Council Communication Policy
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 1997
Purpose
The intent of this policy is to provide an administrative policy to govern the interaction
between members of the City Council and City of Alameda staff which respects the provisions
of the City Charter, while providing the City Council the opportunity to interact directly with
staff on matters of interest to its members or their constituents.
Policy
Section 7 -3 of the Alameda City Charter states that "Except for purposes of inquiry,
the Council and its members shall deal with that portion of the administrative service for
which the City Manager is responsible solely through him." Accordingly, the Charter
establishes the expectation that the City Council will work through the City Manager to have
staff respond to both the directives of the City Council acting as the governing body or the
requests of its individual members.
What is an Inquiry?
The Charter clearly identifies the Council's prerogative to make inquires. According
to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, an inquiry is simply defined as "a request for
information." The Council should have access to staff resources to make requests for
information or to ask questions on issues of interest. However, this should be contrasted to
the definition of an action which is to get "a thing accomplished." The distinction between
these two ideas is important only in that the Charter assigns the responsibility for getting
things accomplished by the City Council through the City Manager and not directly through
staff.
Office of the City Manager
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, California 94501
510 748 -4505 Office - 510 748 -4504 Fax - TDD 510 522 -7538
Administrative Page 2
Instruction #37 July 2, 1997
Request for Inquiry
Members of the City Council may direct their written or verbal inquires to the City
Manager's office or they may make a direct inquiry to a Department Head. Inquries should be
reasonably brief in nature such as asking for copies of existing documents or interpretations or
elaborations of those documents. The City Manager's office or Department Heads will
respond to constituent concerns as a part of the City's normal operating procedures which
apply to such matters.
Clarification of Information
If a Councilmember desires clarification of the information being communicated, then
that Councilmember may contact the staff member directly responsible for providing the
information being requested. This direct contact is intended to allowCDuncilmembers access
to staff should it be necessary for more information or clarification which opens up the
organization to increased City Council interaction.
Request for Action
The current procedure for City Council to take action will apply, which is for members
of the City Council to ask for issues to be placed on the agenda for consideration and
approval. Once Council has taken action, then the City Manager and staff will implement
those decisions. This does not prevent members of the City Council from asking the City
Manager to take actions of a limited nature such as follow -up to constituient requests.
cc: Assistant City Manager
City Attorney -
City Clerk
Community Development Department
Finance Department
Fire Department
Personnel Department
Planning Department
James M. Flint
City Manager
Alameda Reuse and Recevelopment
Public Works Department
Recreation and Parks Department
Alameda Free Library
Alameda Housing Authority
Bureau of Electricity
C. Richard Bartalini
Jeffrey C. Gould
Leonard G. Grzanka
Richard J. Heaps
Peter W. Holmes
John R. McCahan
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
ONE (1) VACANCY
Council Communication #7 -B
6 -7 -05