2005-12-20 PacketAGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 391
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL
2. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER :
2 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
INITIATION OF Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9
2 -B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property: Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 20, 2005 - - - 5:31 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, DECEMBER 20, 2005, 5:31 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese.
Employee: City Attorney.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beve
hn on, Mayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 20, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, Santa Clara Ave. and Oak St.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by Councilmembers /Commissioners may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the
Council /Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
meeting and the Joint City Council, Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda and Reuse Redevelopment Authority
meeting held on December 6, 2005. (City Clerk)
1 -B. Recommendation to accept the Community Improvement Commission
Annual Report and authorize transmittal to the State
Controller's Office and City Council. (Development Services)
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Johns,J May
Chair, Community
Commission
Improvement
AGENDA
TUESDAY
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach
the podium and state your name; speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing
and only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 20, 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 ALAMEDA REUSE AND 5:30 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5:31 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:25 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Recreation and
Park Commission Meeting held on November 30, 2005, and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on December 6,
2005. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the period ending September 30, 2005, for sales transactions
in the second calendar quarter of 2005. (Finance)
4 -D. Recommendation to appropriate in the General Fund the 2005-
2006 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229)
Grant Funding to supplement frontline police services.
(Police)
4 -E. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $386,969.05
to Libramation, Inc. for a Materials Security Inventory System
including five years of maintenance for the Alameda Free
Library. (Library)
4 -F. Recommendation to accept the Annual Review of the Citywide
Development Fee and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
Catellus Traffic Fee. (Public Works)
4 -G. Recommendation to appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Grant and
$21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for removal of existing dock and
placement of riprap adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No.
P.W. 10- 05 -01. (Public Works)
4 -H. Recommendation to appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds,
adopt plans and specifications, and award a Contract in the
amount of $87,000, including contingency, to Richard Heaps
Electric, Inc., for Pole - Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs
Project, No. P.W. 06- 05 -05. (Public Works)
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution Applying for a Bicycle Transportation
Account Grant to Enhance the North Approach to the Bay Farm
Island Bicycle Bridge, Appropriating Measure B Funds as Local
Match, and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute
all Necessary Grant Documents. (Public works)
4 -J. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees
Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary
Range for the Classification of Plan Check Engineer;
• Adoption of Resolution Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule
by Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications
of Development Services Division Manager, Golf Services
Manager, Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent, and
Building Official; and
• Adoption of Resolution Amending Exhibit A -1 of the
Executive Management Compensation Plan Established by
Council Resolution No. 13545 and Amended by Resolution Nos.
13626 and 13689, to Establish a Five -Day Workweek
Alternative with Corresponding Salary Ranges for the
Classifications of Assistant City Manager and Planning and
Building Director. (Human Resources)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Recommendation to authorize a letter of welcome to Asuchio, El
Salvador Civic Leaders. (Development Services)
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 of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a
participant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing
the feasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for
lead abatement education and services.
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 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating party: Community
Improvement Commission and ProLogis, Inc.; Under negotiation: Price
and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to
prepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off - agenda issues.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
December 6, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 6, 2006 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner /Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present: Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of
Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05-
] was moved to the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Matarrese moved
approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner /Authority Member Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *05- CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting of November 15, 2005. Approved.
( *05- CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with
Komorous -Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount
by $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction
administration services for the Civic Center parking garage.
Accepted.
* **
Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City
Council Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint
Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005
* **
1
AGENDA ITEM
(05- CC /05- CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005,
Auditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with
Vehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed
upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-
05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement
System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant
Programs Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005,
Community Improvement Commission basic component unit financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements
for the year ended June 30, 2005.
The City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria
Giannell, Maze & Associates.
The External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial
statements and management recommendations.
Mayor /Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits
and Miscellaneous Revenues.
The External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of
ten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and
changes in the fund balance.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase
from 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005.
The External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and
Forfeitures.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital
Outlay have declined since 1996.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan inquired why
general expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since
2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred
because of budget cuts.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures
increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005
2
2005.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures
included pension costs.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total
expenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005;
the growth was not substantial.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan inquired why
there was a major increase in the General Government and Payments
to Other Agencies expenditure.
The External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred
several years back within the general government which resulted in
expenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Daysog inquired whether
a statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared.
The External Auditor responded that a separate report could be
provided.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was
collected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund
was noted.
The External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an
Enterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full - accrual basis; the
Cash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total
amount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been
deferred when spending has been less than revenues collected.
The External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have
been deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash.
Mayor /Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005
3
1996.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner /Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External
Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner /Authority Member Gilmore stated there have
been discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that
has been accomplished has been done without increasing the total
debt service.
The External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten
years have not been easy; more is being done with less.
Mayor /Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual
salaries.
The External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented
for major funds.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were
included in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired why there was a large difference
between the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office
expenditures; stated the original budget for professional and
administrative services was reduced significantly; expenditures
were almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is
needed.
The External Auditor responded the increase in professional and
administrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated
budget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004 -05 year.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
there were other improvements or further decay from the previous
audit.
The External Auditor stated there has not been further decay;
capital assets are very difficult to control and have improved.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005
4
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also
contributed to the improvement.
The External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have
adjustments.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan stated that the
External Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in
administrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans;
stated the benefits and refunds remain about the same.
The External Auditor responded the 1999 -2000 increase was the cost
of the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004 -2005 increase was
the cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting
standards.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to
fund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds;
inquired whether one department charging another department was
considered an inter -fund transfer.
The External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one
department charging another department is not considered moving
budgeted resources.
Mayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and
allocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner /Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the ten -year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police
and Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the
obligation outpaces the funding.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner /Authority Member Gilmore stated the
challenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City
services too much.
The External Auditor stated that the City contributed $4.4 million
from the General Fund to the Plans.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005
5
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Daysog noted the
obligated amount is based upon the age and expected lifespan of
participants remaining in the Plans.
The External Auditor stated there were only two recommendations in
the Memorandum of Internal Control Structure; the Redevelopment
Agency compliance item is difficult to explain and even more
difficult to understand; Redevelopment Agency reporting was
required by December 31; the finding cannot be retroactively
corrected; the written determination of necessity for low and
moderate housing projects was not done by the deadline.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Daysog inquired who
receives the report, to which the External Auditor responded the
State Controller.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Matarrese stated there
was a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to
prevent the problem from reoccurring.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and
report back to the Council /Commissioners /Authority Members on the
matter.
The External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding
the employees reporting directing to the City Council which are
outside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's
elected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney
and City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances.
Mayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year;
significant changes were made under the direction of the Interim
City Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that
she has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance
Director worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing
previous issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work
with the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a
system in place was a good idea.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan stated the
Council /Commissioners /Authority Members have a responsibility to
ensure that internal finances are controlled.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Matarrese stated having
the City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether
there was a way to increase the City Auditor's role.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 6
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005
Mayor /Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be
involved.
The City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape
and improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten -year
study would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance
Director was in the unenviable position of being at the same level
as other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance
Director periodically to address issues.
The City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the
City Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was
comfortable with identifying issues with other departments;
discussions with the City Auditor could be more routine.
The City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern;
there have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined
the City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that
she looks forward to the ten -year projection.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member deHaan moved approval
of accepting the submitted reports.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Authority Member Daysog seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:09 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
December 6, 2005
7
City of Alameda
Memorandum
December 7, 2005
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager /Executive Director
Re: Authorize Transmittal of the Community Improvement Commission's Annual Report
to the State Controller's Office and the City Council and Accept Annual Report
Background
State Law requires the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) to submit an Annual Report to
the City Council, and file a copy of this report with the State Controller by December 31st of each
year.
Discussion and Analysis
The CIC's Annual Report is available for review in the City Clerk's office. The CIC's annual report
for FY 2004 -05 includes the following:
• Independent Auditor's Report on financial statements;
• Independent Auditor's Report on legal compliance;
• Annual Report of Financial Transactions of Community Redevelopment Agencies (Fiscal
Statement);
• HCD Annual Report of Housing Activity of Community Redevelopment Agencies;
• Housing Activities Report Summary;
• Blight Progress Report;
• Loan Report; and
• Property Report
The independent financial audit for the fiscal year 2004/05 has been prepared by Maze & Associates.
The audit examines the CIC's compliance with State law, including CIC policies and procedures
related to record keeping, public hearings, contracting for services, use of tax increment funds and
indebtedness. According to the audit, the CIC was found to be in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations and administrative requirements. The fiscal statement contains the information required
by the Health & Safety Code §33080.5. The Housing Activities Report, describing CIC activities
affecting housing and displacement, the Blight Progress Report, describing the CIC's progress in
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 1 -B
12 -20 -05
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
The Honorable Chair and Members Page 2
of the Community Improvement Commission December 7, 2005
alleviating blight, the Loan Report, describing CIC loans in default or not in compliance, and the
Property Report, describing CIC owned and acquired property, are attached. The Goals of the CIC's
Three Redevelopment Projects are included for your information.
Budget Considerations/Financial Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund or the CIC's Budget.
Recommendation
The City Manager /Executive Director recommends that the CIC authorize transmittal of the CIC
Annual Report to the State Controller' Office and the City Council. It is recommended that the City
Council accept the Annual Report of the CIC.
Res•ec y submited,
eslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Nanette Banks, Manager
Finance and Administration Division
NB:sf
Attachments on file in the City Clerk's Office:
Attachment 1: Independent Auditor's Report
Attachment 2: Fiscal Statement
Attachment 3: HCD Annual Report of Housing Activity
Attachment 4: Housing Activities Report Summary
Attachment 5: Blight Progress Report
Attachment 6: Loan Report
Attachment 7: Property Report
Attachment 8: Goals of the CIC's Three Redevelopment Projects
cc: Economic Development Commission w/o attachment
g: \comdev\ econdev \cic\annual.report\fy04 -05\ council.doc
F:CIC\Annual Report 04 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - NOVEMBER 30, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson; Commissioners Ingram,
Kahuanui, Ogden, Oliver and Reeves - 9.
Absent: Vice Mayor Gilmore and Commissioner
Christine Johnson - 2.
(05- ) A Study Session was held to discuss: Commission
Achievements for 2004, Commission Goals for 2005, Park Bond
Projects, Park Master Plan, Cost Recovery, and Alameda Point
Facilities.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Recreation and Park Commission
November 30, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - DECEMBER 6, 2005- -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 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 Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
(05- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Mohlen & Skrinde v. City of Alameda.
(05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:
Karen Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management
Employees.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the
Council discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel;
regarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a
briefing and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 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
December 6, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05- ]
was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- ) Library Project Update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in
the internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas
that are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in
other areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the
costs for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether
the costs are in the contract.
The Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for
construction administration; any changes are covered under
construction administration; the percentage of change orders
attributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney
at the end of the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were
construction administration changes and whether the changes have
already been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work
would result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project
Manager responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 6, 2005
1
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay
for oversights.
The Project Manager responded that the Architect does not
voluntarily offer to pay; a recourse would be a claim on the
insurance policy.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for
the firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall
and staircase could be potential claims.
Mayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the
public is very impressed with the process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with
the caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate
$142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05- ]; noted major
inroads have been made on the ferry service.
Councilmember Matarrese 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 November 15, 2005. Approved.
( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52.
(05- ) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff
Funds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the
Bridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for
expenditures incurred. Withdrawn.
( *05- ) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit
Plan. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center
Workstations. Accepted.
( *05 ) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
December 6, 2005
Review. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and
Fire services. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
the 2004 -2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire
Contract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for
exclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex. Accepted.
( *05- ) Resolution No. 13910, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Sungard Pentamation, Bio -Key International and Omega Group
Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount
of $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus
Software, Bio -Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview
Software." Adopted.
( *05- A) Resolution No. 13911, "Authorizing the Purchase of
Storage Area Network System Using the State of California
Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive
Bid Award." Adopted.
( *05- B) Resolution No. 13912, "Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of a Master Equipment Lease - Purchase Agreement, an Escrow
Agreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the
Acquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment
for the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of
Documents Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the
Taking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the
Transactions Contemplated by this Resolution." Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05- ) Resolution No. 13913, "Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as
a Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate /Land
Development Seat)." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Trevithick with a certificate of appointment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 6, 2005
3
* **
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City
Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
* **
(05- ) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of
options to increase funding for preventative maintenance of
infrastructure.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back
to the Council at mid -year.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer
tax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per
thousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal
approximately $180,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter;
the Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would
like to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home
prices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for
deferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the
shortfall in a good orderly manner; making up the shortfall through
the transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard;
inquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and
deteriorate over time.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
recommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long -term
strategy which would be folded into the ten -year model.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure -all, only
bandaids.
Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more
strategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten -year
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
December 6, 2005
budget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a
certain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year; tax
increases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the
public has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the
library, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding]
that have been made over the past five to seven years should not
happen again.
Councilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once
would not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of
increasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be
approached through a public process; sidewalks are the most
critical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and
safety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and
necessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve
is an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be
considered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under
budget because of department head vacancies; there should be an
analysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair
projects have been scheduled.
The Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently
scheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing
could be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year;
sidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between the
criticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks.
Mayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk
priorities are set based on finances is important; a lot of
sidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether
there should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [for
streets] because of potential injuries and costs.
The Public Works Director responded that the total payment of
settlement claims and judgments ranged from a high of $37,000 to a
low of $10,000 during the last four years.
Mayor Johnson stated that attorney fees exceed the payouts.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any claims were made
because the streets were in bad condition, to which the Public
Works Director responded that he was not aware of any.
Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
December 6, 2005
to be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been
received.
The Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive;
Redwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was
waiting for a report back from staff on the product.
Mayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product
saves money because less on -going maintenance and repair is needed;
consideration should be given to drawing down on some of the
reserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs.
The City Manager stated that staff could project and identify
whether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve,
using part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for
streets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for
streets from the reserve for sidewalks instead.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are
reviewed.
The Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was
developed to address trees planted years ago which were not the
most desirable for long term.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural
attrition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that
identifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which
identifies trees with non - invasive roots.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
standards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being
reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have
Liquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda
than in other cities because of the value of large trees.
Councilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for
drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance
has grown experientially over the last four years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
December 6, 2005
The Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep
growing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth
could be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund
reserves.
Councilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the
reserves was critical; the reserves have been built up by not
funding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done
for a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on
the reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is
already designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8%
to 12 %; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease
revenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted
over to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue
redevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital
dollars could pay for improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars
could be done.
Councilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored
with caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to
explore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a
report on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a
detailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths,
sidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader
community involvement in the process; moving forward was important.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the
beltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to
discuss the transfer tax with staff.
The City Manager stated that an election would need to be held
because taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet
with the Board of Realtors.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the
amount of transfer tax in other cities; the City of Dublin's
transfer tax is $1.10 per thousand and the City of Oakland's
transfer tax is $16.10 per thousand.
The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for
Charter cities is $9.47.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
December 6, 2005
Councilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could
be unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is
important; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects
that would provide benefit.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to
make adjustments.
The City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff
recommendation regarding current funds so that streets and
sidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be
initiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the
reserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated
funds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty
year scenarios in conjunction with the ten -year financial
projection.
Mayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that
budget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.
The City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating
additional revenues should also be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a six -month run may not be
reflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking
the money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if
necessary.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-
year review and decisions would be made then; there should be an
on -going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be
deferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be
established as a standing rate in the budget process; determining
how projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be
done if other funds become available is an important segment.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of
drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current
budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be
redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4)
provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
December 6, 2005
transfer tax.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets,
sidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred
maintenance in the parks; the parks and recreation facilities are
very valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed
in the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to
include reviewing the other assessment districts and the
establishment of landscaping and lighting districts.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to
include an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt
unless it was necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a
separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time
exploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was
something the Council would like to review as a solution to the
deferred maintenance when the item was brought back.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an
Off - Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog responded an Off - Agenda Report seems to be the
same as his request for analysis.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
that determining how much time would be spent on the matter should
be determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and
would not be able to vote on the matter tonight.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of
the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested a brief Off - Agenda Report describing the
Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include
an Off - Agenda Report on the Plan; piling debt on top of a deficit
of deferred maintenance was not a priority for him.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
December 6, 2005
time on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as
necessary to do a thorough job.
Mayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be
identifying the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the
motion.
The City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval
of the staff .recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an
analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of
reserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under
budgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new
sources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring
an adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda
Report on the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include
reviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of
landscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(05- ) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the
Planning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and
responsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf;
stated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a
comprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the
efforts to make informed decisions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the
feedback; the Planning Department and Development Services
Department staff is top notch.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available
on- line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web
for delayed viewing; requested investigating how the process is
done.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 6, 2005
10
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces
arose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services
indicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the
Park Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like
the study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is
the current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space;
potential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail
and being able to buy out, however the study should review costs,
including ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good
price anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not
be used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was
bought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be
reviewed in the parking study.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting
the in lieu fee be raised.
Councilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and
might need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an
established parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the
owners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail
at the site and put the burden back on the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which
Councilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger
context of parking structures for the downtown areas; having half
of every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown
planning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more
strategically; money going towards parking structures could be
emphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot.
(05- ) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the
tree lighting.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well
received.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the lower lights are lit; suggested
that the lights go on at dark.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Master Plan was one
of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park
Commission meeting; he was glad to see some of the major elements
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
December 6, 2005
tackled.
(05- ) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him
about the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of
revenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested
background data on the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:26 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
December 6, 2005
12
December 15, 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
143231 - 143681
EFT 159
EFT 160
E14291 - E14409
Void Checks:
Amount
2,103,625.70
3,646.66
25,610.00
71,935.51
130809 (11, 317.93)
121785 (1,064.28)
125348 (45.00)
130997 (14.00)
142095 (183.33)
143237 (143.64)
143245 (30,816.04)
143269 (2,515.00)
143285 (1,947.91)
143350 (1,379.05)
143354 (1,960.32)
143305 (1,031.15)
116034 (5.00)
130937 (14.00)
GRAND TOTAL 2,152,381.22
Respectfully submitted,
fl l4&t J • l t
amela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 12/20/05
BILLS #4 -B
12/20/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: December 13, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Quarterly Sales Tax Report For the Period Ending September 30, 2005
BACKGROUND
This report relates to the sales tax transactions during April to June 30, 2005. These tax
transactions are the basis for sales tax revenues received during the July to September
30, 2005 time period. These transactions and resulting revenues occurred within the
context of a state economy that continues to grow. During this period, the Bay Area
experienced 2.3% growth while statewide growth was 4.5 %.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Quarterly sales tax revenues decreased by less than one percent as compared to the
same quarter of the prior year after adjusting for one -time payments. This represents less
than $15,000 in sales tax revenues.
The sales transactions on which these revenues are based declined by 16.5% or $234,000
from the same quarter of the prior year. Key declines came from light industry ( -32.8% or
$33,000) and electronic equipment (-54.1% or $20,000). The key gains were in the
miscellaneous group (112.8% or $5,100) and office equipment (13.5% or $17,500). The
top 25 businesses represent 52.1 % ($616,747) of the quarter's sales transactions. The top
100 businesses represent 76.2% ($902,381) of the quarter's sales transactions.
Report 4 -C
12 -20 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
A comparison of the key economic categories follows:
December 13, 2005
Page 2of3
The transportation category, while declining overall, experienced declines in used auto
sales and gains in the auto parts and repair group. The food products category was
uplifted by the food processing equipment area, which increased 27.5% but hindered by
liquor stores, which declined 10.8 %. General retail experienced its biggest decline in the
drug stores category with a minor (5.2 %) increase in the recreation products group. The
business to business category, historically the better performer, experienced losses of
80.0% in the chemical products group that was offset by a gain of 20.1 % in the business
services group. The construction category had losses in the retail group and minimal gains
in the wholesale group. The miscellaneous category was supported by a doubling in the
"other" category.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the second quarter of 2005 as
compared to the same period in 2004 follows.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Total Sales Transactions
2nd Quarter 2005
2nd Quarter 2004
Percent
Change
Economic Category
Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
(9.8)%
Transportation
400,210
33.8%
443,845
31.3%
(21.6)%
Food Products
233,336
19.7%
297,770
21.0%
(11.0)%
General Retail
255,693
21.6%
287,360
20.3%
(28.1)%
Business to Business
229,392
19.4%
318,945
22.5%
(12.9)%
Construction
50,912
4.3%
58,748
4.1%
27.0%
Miscellaneous
14,186
1.2%
11,170
.8%
(16.5)%
Total - Quarter
1,183,729
1,417,567
The transportation category, while declining overall, experienced declines in used auto
sales and gains in the auto parts and repair group. The food products category was
uplifted by the food processing equipment area, which increased 27.5% but hindered by
liquor stores, which declined 10.8 %. General retail experienced its biggest decline in the
drug stores category with a minor (5.2 %) increase in the recreation products group. The
business to business category, historically the better performer, experienced losses of
80.0% in the chemical products group that was offset by a gain of 20.1 % in the business
services group. The construction category had losses in the retail group and minimal gains
in the wholesale group. The miscellaneous category was supported by a doubling in the
"other" category.
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the second quarter of 2005 as
compared to the same period in 2004 follows.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
December 13, 2005
Page 3 of 3
Percent
Change
Total Sales Transactions
Geographic Areas
2nd Qtr 2005
Total
Percent of
Total
2nd Qtr 2004
Total
Percent of
Total
(9.1)%
Park - North of Lincoln
287,743
24.3%
316,687
22.3
(8.5)%
Park - South of Lincoln
132,799
11.2%
145,126
10.2
(19.1)%
Alameda Town Centre
206,266
17.4%
255,032
18.0%
7.2%
Webster -North of Lincoln
79,820
6.7%
74,451
5.3%
(14.2)%
Webster — South of Lincoln
28,392
2.4
33,086
2.3%
(24.4)%
All Other Areas
448,609
37.9%
593,185
41.8%
(16.5)%
Total - Quarter
$1,183,729
$1,417,567
It is important to note that both Park and Webster Streets were under construction during
this time period.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
The sales tax projections for 2005 -06 Budget have taken into consideration these trends.
We continue to monitor this revenue source closely.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending September 30, 2005.
JB /dl
Respectfully submitted,
elle -Ann B7 er
hief Financial Officer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 14, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Appropriate in the General Fund the 2005-
2006 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229)
Grant Funding to Supplement Frontline Police Services
BACKGROUND
In 1996, several Federal and State laws were enacted allowing municipalities to
apply for grant funding exclusively allocated for frontline police services. Since
the inception of the program the Police Department has applied for and received
Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS) grant funding. The use of
COPS funds is restricted to supplementing frontline police services and
supporting activities. Supplanting standard operating budget expenditures or
existing services is prohibited.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
We have received the 2005 -2006 grant allotment of $107,612.00. The Police
Department intends to utilize the funding to enhance communication
interoperability between the Police and Fire Department's emergency response
vehicles, portable radio systems and Communication Centers, at a cost of
approximately $20,000.00. Roughly $80,000.00 will be utilized for a software
version upgrade to the Computer Aided Dispatch / Records Management System
software. The remainder of the funding will be used for the procurement of
unfunded equipment, technology and training designed to supplement frontline
police services. Government Code Section 30061 requires the City Council to
appropriate these funds for the exclusive use of supporting frontline municipal
police services, in accordance with a written request by the Chief of Police, prior
to utilization of the funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE / POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Report 4 -D
12 -20 -05
"Dedicated to E.ccetTence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and December 14, 2005
Councilmembers Page 2 of 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION / FINANCIAL IMPACT
The COPS grant allotment, which is based on population, provides supplemental
funding for frontline police services. The grant allotment for 2005 -2006 is
$107,612.
RECOMMENDATION
Appropriate in the General Fund the 2005 -2006 Citizen's Option for Public Safety
Program (COPS AB 3229) grant funding to supplement frontline police services.
DK/CLO /jsb
Respectfully submitted,
en.
Craig L. Ojala
Interim Chief of Police
'Dedicated to Excellence, Committedf to Service"
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: Debra Kurita
City Manager
DATE: December 7, 2005
RE: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $386,969.05 to
Libramation, Inc. for a Materials Security and Inventory System
including Five Years Maintenance for the Alameda Free Library
Background
The Library uses a magnetic strip security system for over 227,000 items currently in the library
collection. The magnetic strip security system is an effective but aging technology. On October
4, 2005 the City Council approved specifications for a modern materials security and inventory
system to meet the needs of the Alameda Free Library and authorized the calling for bids. On
November 4, 2005 the bids were opened for analysis resulting in the selection of the most
qualified vendor.
Discussion /Analysis
There are two types of materials security systems, Electro - Mechanical strips (EM) and Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID). EM technology uses a magnetic strip attached to an item.
Although the magnetic strip system is suitable for print materials, it is less suitable and less
reliable for media, such as DVDs and audio books. EM technology is used strictly as a security
system. RFID is the latest technology to be used in library theft detection systems. RFID is a
method of remotely storing and retrieving data using devices called RFID tags /transponders that
can be attached to or incorporated in a product. RFID -based systems combine security with more
efficient tracking of materials throughout the library, including easier and faster check -out and
check -in, inventorying and materials handling.
In seeking a modern materials security and inventory system, the Library employed a
competitive procurement process, inviting proposals from all library software vendors. The
Library received five bids by the November 4, 2005 proposal deadline. A Staff evaluation team
was formed to analyze the proposals; establish a shortlist of finalists; check vendor references;
interview staff with established systems; and make site visits and view demonstrations, one day
was allotted for each vendor. Two of the respondents, Techlogic and Sirsi Dynix in partnership
with Tagsys /ITG, were unable to satisfy the necessary criteria as outlined in the specifications
and were eliminated from competition.
Report 4 -E
12 -20 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2
December 7, 2005
Checkpoint Systems Inc., 3 -M, and Libramation Inc. fulfilled the essential requirements for
further consideration. The evaluation team equalized the bids for the three remaining vendors.
A point score system was applied against six criteria: price; solution as proposed (how close the
vendor solution met the Library's needs and requirements); vendor support; standards and
practices; vendor references; and vendor credentials. Following the interviews, site visits and
demonstrations the evaluation team reviewed their findings and scored the vendors. The
evaluation team unanimously recommended Libramation Inc. as the vendor with the most
suitable system for Alameda, as scored on the six different evaluation categories.
Negotiations were concluded in early December, and on December 14, 2005, the Library Board
passed a resolution in support of acquiring this system, and recommending that the City Council
approve the contract. A copy of the Resolution is included as Attachment A. Staff expects
implementation to begin in January 2006, and that the system will be fully operational in the
main and branch libraries by November 2, 2006, the date of our Grand Opening of the New Main
Library.
Municipal Code /Policy Document Cross Reference
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
Budget Consideration/Financial Impact
The cost of the contract is $320,165.05, five years maintenance for the system will cost an
additional $66,804.00, for a grand total of $386,969.05 including shipping, and a five year
maintenance agreement. The money will be taken from fund 317, a reserved fund balance for
Library technology. A copy of the proposed contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Recommendation
Award Contract in the Amount of $386,969.05 to Libramation, Inc. for a Materials Security and
Inventory System, including five years maintenance, for the Alameda Free Library.
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
ne Chisaki
cting Library Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Attachment A
Resolution
Passed by Alameda Free Library Board
December 14, 2005
WHEREAS, in order to improve library service to the residents of Alameda, by providing
them with modern materials security and inventory system; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide accurate, reliable, and state of the art, library materials
security and inventory capability, it is necessary that the library replace its 3 -M magnetic
strip security system; and
WHEREAS, an extensive and impartial evaluation process has determined that
Libramation Inc. has the best security and inventory system for our library and our
community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Alameda Free Library that
the Board supports the acquisition of the Libramation Inc. Materials Security and
Inventory System and believes it will improve library services to the community with
cutting -edge technology, and therefore respectfully urges the City Council to approve
acquisition of this system.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 14, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee and the
FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee
BACKGROUND
State law requires local agencies that charge development impact fees to conduct an annual review of
the fees within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. The annual review shall include the
following information:
• A brief description of the fee;
• The amount of the fee;
• The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
r The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
• An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount
of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the
public improvement that was funded with fees;
• An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been
collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement;
• A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the
public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the
case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest
that the account or fund will receive on the loan; and
• The amount of unexpended revenues refunded.
DISCUSSION
The Public Works Department oversees the administration of two development impact fees: the
Citywide Development Fee (CDF) and the FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee (TF).
Citywide Development Fee (CDF):
Description - The CDF, which became effective in February 2001, is charged to all new construction
or intensification of use. The CDF is increased annually by the San Francisco Bay Area Construction
Cost Index.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 4 -F
12 -20 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
December 14, 2005
Amount of the Fee — The CDF is charged based on the types of development and its location as
follows:
Financial Information — For Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the beginning balance of the CDF account,
including prior year adjustment was $913,372. During the fiscal year, $112,591 was collected and
$21,906 was earned in interest. The ending balance in the CDF account is $1,047,869.
An administrative fee is also collected to pay for on -going City administrative costs and to provide a
reserve account for future fee updates and nexus studies. The beginning balance for the
administration fee, including prior year adjustment was $17,327. During the fiscal year, $3,438 was
collected. Administrative expenditures for Fiscal Year 2004/2005 included: $573 for fee collection,
receivable tracking and informational services at the Planning and Building Department's Central
Permits Office; $573 for annual interest allocation and end of year account balances from the
Finance Department; and $4,680 for Public Works Department expenses to initiate an update of the
CDF report, review project costs and scope modifications. An ending balance of $14,939 remains in
the reserve account to allow the City to complete the CDF update and nexus study.
Expenditure of Fees — The CDF Program includes 54 separate capital improvement projects
distributed among five categories for a total cost of $99 million, in year 2000 dollars. The categories
of capital improvements covered by the CDF are public safety, transportation and traffic safety, parks
and recreation, public facilities, and administration. The projects are identified in the Alameda
Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study dated January 2001, on file with the City Clerk. Based
upon the approved cost allocations, new development is responsible for 28% of the total costs.
Existing development is responsible for the remaining 72 %. When a project is initiated, the City is
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
City District
Land Use Category
West End
Northern
Central/
Bay Farm
Waterfront
East End
Infill
CDF Fees per Residential Unit
Single Family - Low Density
$3,609
$3,364
$3,360
$2,287
Single Family— Med Density
$3,156
$2,959
$2,955
$2,098
Duplex
$3,047
$2,826
$2,821
$1,856
Work/Live
$2,674
$2,489
$2,486
$1,681
Multi - Family
$2,806
$2,585
$2,581
$1,616
CDF Fees Per Square Foot (psf) of Non - Residential Building Space
General Industrial
$3.10
$2.63
$2.63
$0.65
Retail
$4.68
$3.99
$3.98
$0.98
Commercial /Office
$4.49
$3.84
$3.83
$1.04
Warehouse
$1.79
$1.52
$1.52
$0.38
Other Uses Not Listed Above Pay the Following Combined Fee
1. Non - transportation Fee
$0.72 psf
$0.72 psf
$0.72 psf
$0.72 psf
2. Transportation Fee
(Cost /vehicle trip generated)
$1,283
$1,050
$1,045
$32
Financial Information — For Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the beginning balance of the CDF account,
including prior year adjustment was $913,372. During the fiscal year, $112,591 was collected and
$21,906 was earned in interest. The ending balance in the CDF account is $1,047,869.
An administrative fee is also collected to pay for on -going City administrative costs and to provide a
reserve account for future fee updates and nexus studies. The beginning balance for the
administration fee, including prior year adjustment was $17,327. During the fiscal year, $3,438 was
collected. Administrative expenditures for Fiscal Year 2004/2005 included: $573 for fee collection,
receivable tracking and informational services at the Planning and Building Department's Central
Permits Office; $573 for annual interest allocation and end of year account balances from the
Finance Department; and $4,680 for Public Works Department expenses to initiate an update of the
CDF report, review project costs and scope modifications. An ending balance of $14,939 remains in
the reserve account to allow the City to complete the CDF update and nexus study.
Expenditure of Fees — The CDF Program includes 54 separate capital improvement projects
distributed among five categories for a total cost of $99 million, in year 2000 dollars. The categories
of capital improvements covered by the CDF are public safety, transportation and traffic safety, parks
and recreation, public facilities, and administration. The projects are identified in the Alameda
Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study dated January 2001, on file with the City Clerk. Based
upon the approved cost allocations, new development is responsible for 28% of the total costs.
Existing development is responsible for the remaining 72 %. When a project is initiated, the City is
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers December 14, 2005
required to fund existing development's share of the cost of the improvements. Until sufficient
funds are available to cover the cost of these large capital projects, fund balances will continue to
increase. These projects are included in the deferred CIP budget until such time as sufficient funds
become available to cover the costs. Currently there are insufficient funds available to initiate a
proj ect.
Construction Commencement Date — In accordance with state law, the local agency must first
determine that sufficient funds have been received to complete the public improvement before a
construction commencement date is provided. Currently there are insufficient funds available to
begin work on a project. The capital improvement projects included in the program remain the same
as articulated in the Alameda Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study dated January 2001.
Interfund Transfer or Loan — There were no interfund transfers or loans made during Fiscal Year
2004/2005.
Refunded Unexpended Revenues — No unexpended revenues were refunded during Fiscal Year
2004/2005.
FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee (TF):
Description — The FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee (TF) mitigates the transportation impacts identified in
the Catellus Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Catellus project.
Amount of the Fee — A fee of $2,674 is charged per residential unit. The amount is based upon the
percentage share of Phase 1 residential 2020 trips as determined in the EIR.
Financial Information — For Fiscal Year 2004/2005, the beginning balance of the TF account,
including prior year adjustment was $192,528. During the fiscal year, $197,876 was collected. The
ending balance in the TF account is $390,404.
Expenditure of Fees — The EIR identified 18 separate capital improvement projects for a total of $18
million of which $1,296,804 are due to impacts from Phase 1 residential development. Until
sufficient funds are available from future development, including non - residential as well as Phase 2
residential, and from existing development to cover the cost of these large capital projects, fund
balances will continue to increase. These projects are included in the deferred CIP budget until such
time as sufficient funds become available to cover the costs. Currently, there are insufficient funds
available to initiate a project.
Construction Commencement Date — In accordance with state law, the local agency must first
determine that sufficient funds have been received to complete the public improvement before a
construction commencement date is provided. Currently there are insufficient funds available to
begin work on a project. The capital improvement projects included in the program remain the same
as articulated in the EIR, on file with the City Clerk.
Interfund Transfer or Loan — There were no interfund transfers or loans made during Fiscal Year
2004/2005.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers December 14, 2005
Refunded Unexpended Revenues — No unexpended revenues were refunded during Fiscal Year
2004/2005.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
The CDF and TF provide funds to the City for the construction of specific capital improvements
within the City, based on new development's proportionate share of its impacts to the required
improvement. The City is required to provide funding to cover existing development's share of the
improvements. These funds may be obtained from the Redevelopment Funds, grants or other City
funding sources. The CDF and TF monies received from developers are deposited into special
accounts that can only be used for eligible purposes as specified when the fee was created.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This annual review is consistent with the requirements of Section 27 -3 (Citywide Development Fee)
of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66006.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council accept the Annual Review of the Citywide Development Fee
and the FISC /Catellus Traffic Fee.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
cc: Chief Financial Officer
G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \I22005'cdf report - matt.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 14, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmeinbers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) Grant and $21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for Removal
of Existing Dock and Placement of Riprap Adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No. P.W.
10 -05 -01
BACKGROUND
As part of the Bridgeside Center Project, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) identified the need to demolish the abandoned concrete dock located closest
to the Fruitvale Bridge and adjacent to the Center. The dock is in a dilapidated condition and has the
potential to collapse. BCDC agreed to fund a portion of the work, including design, and provided
the City with a grant for $49,000.
DISCUSSION
Due to the condition of the dock, staff took immediate action and designed a capital improvement
project to remove the dock and place riprap to protect the bank from further erosion. Project
specifications were provided to three contractors who perform this type of specialized work. Bids
were opened on November 3, 2005. One contractor submitted a bid and the total project cost is as
follows:
Bidder
Location
Bid Amount
Zaccor Company, Inc.
Alameda
$51,300
While the City received only one bid, the bid is reasonable. Due to the condition of the dock,
staff recommends that work be initiated immediately and that Council appropriate the necessary
funds to accomplish this work. Staff has determined that Urban Runoff Funds are an eligible
funding source for this work because it will prevent the further erosion of the bank and reduce the
creation of sedimentation that affects water quality. Staff recommends that the BCDC grant of
$49,000 be appropriated to the Urban Runoff Fund and Council appropriate an additional $21,930 in
Urban Runoff Funds to cover the construction work and contingency, as well as the staff costs for
design, inspection and contract administration.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 4 -G
12 -20 -05
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 14, 2005
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The total project cost, including design, construction, inspection and contract administration is
estimated to be $70,930. The City has received a grant from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission for $49,000. The additional $21,930 is available from the Urban Runoff
Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) grant and $21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for Removal of
Existing Dock and Placement of Riprap Adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No. P.W. 10- 05 -01.
Respectfi U bmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
c—thalaitariA0A,016:1A-A
Barbara Hawkins or'
City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
G:\ pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2005 \12200Sdock removal final.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 14, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds, Adopt Plans and
Specifications and Award a Contract in the Amount of $87,000, Including Contingency, to
Richard Heaps Electric, Inc. for Pole- Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No.
P.W.06- 05 -05.
BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution to apply for an Office of Traffic Safety
grant to install pole- mounted radar speed display signs. When combined with police enforcement of
the posted speed limit, the signs will help achieve a decrease in vehicle speed and the number of
speed - related collisions.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided
to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bid was
published in the Alameda Journal. Bids were opened on November 3, 2005. Five contractors
submitted bids. The list of bidders from lowest to highest for total project cost is as follows:
Bidder
Location
Bid Amount
Richard Heaps Electric, Inc.
Sacramento
$76,931
Republic Electric
Novato
$91,750
Tennyson Electric, Inc.
Livermore
$96,500
W. Bradley Electric
Novato
$99,950
St. Francis Electric
San Leandro
$123,065
Report 4 -H
12 -20 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers December 14, 2005
Staff has reviewed the bid from Richard Heaps Electric, Inc. and determined that the prices are
reasonable and the bid is competitive. It is recommended that Council adopt the Plans and
Specifications and appropriate funding to execute the contract and fund in -house design, inspection
and contract administration costs. The contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The project is budgeted as a part of CIP# 04 -104 with funds available from the Office of Traffic
Safety grant for $51,000 for equipment and approximately $14,000 allocated from Measure B funds.
The City will need to provide an additional $40,000 to execute the contract and fund in -house
design, inspection and contract administration costs. These funds are available from the City's
Measure B allocation.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds, adopt plans and
specifications and award a contract in the amount of $87,000, including contingency, to Richard
Heaps Electric, Inc. for Pole- Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No. P.W.06- 05 -05.
Respectfully submitted,
'Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Barbara Hawkins 111,61 ,
City Engineer
MTN:BH:gc
cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G: \pubworks \pwad mi n \COUNCIL \2005 \122005\poleradarfinal. d oc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 14, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Apply for a Bicycle Transportation Account
Grant to Enhance the North Approach to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge, Appropriate
Measure B Funds as Local Match, and Authorize the Public Works Director to Execute all
Necessary Grant Documents
BACKGROUND
Each year Caltrans distributes approximately $5 million in competitive grants through its Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA). This program provides funding for projects that improve safety and
convenience of bicycle commuters. The City proposes to submit a BTA grant application to enhance
the north approach to the Bay Farm Island Bridge.
DISCUSSION
The Bay Fanrr Island Bicycle Bridge is a key facility in the City's bicycle network, linking Bay Farm
with the main island. While the bridge is heavily used by students who live on Bay Farm Island and
attend Lincoln Middle School, access is also provided from the main island to the Harbor Bay
Business Park and the ferry terminal, and from Bay Farm to Park Street, the Towne Centre shopping
area, and the Fruitvale BART station.
Currently the sidewalk on the north approach of the bridge is five feet wide. The Caltrans
recommended minimum width for a multi -use path or a Class I bikeway is 10 feet. Based on the
number of bicyclists and pedestrians using the sidewalk, staff recommends that a wider bicycle
facility be provided to enhance operations. The proposed project will construct a 10 -foot wide
asphalt path adj acent to the existing sidewalk by narrowing the northbound travel lane on Fernside
Boulevard from the Aeolian Yacht Club driveway to San Jose Avenue. There will still be sufficient
width to safely accommodate automobiles along this section of Fernside Boulevard. In addition, the
project will construct new curb, gutter and sidewalk; install new street trees, landscaping and
irrigation; and relocate existing drainage structures and streetlights.
Re: Reso 4 -1
12 -20 -05
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Concilmembers December 14, 2005
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The Bicycle Transportation Account funds 90 percent of project costs and requires a 10 percent local
match. The estimate for improving the north approach of the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge is
$632,200. The required 10 percent local match of $63,220 will be provided from the City's Measure
B Bicycle/Pedestrian allocation.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action will not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to apply for a Bicycle Transportation Account grant to enhance the north
approach to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge, appropriate Measure B funds as local match, and
authorize the Public Works Director to execute all necessary grant documents.
Respectfully ubmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Barry Bergman Fib q
Program Specialist II
MTN:BB:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
Carrie Dole, Finance
G: \pubworks \pwadmin \COUNCIL \2005 \122005\BTA.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPLYING FOR A BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT GRANT TO
ENHANCE THE NORTH APPROACH TO THE BAY FARM ISLAND
BICYCLE BRIDGE, APPROPRIATE MEASURE B FUNDS AS LOCAL
MATCH, AND AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY GRANT DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has allocated
Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funds for bicycle projects for the fiscal year 2006/07; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda wishes to apply to Caltrans for $568,980 in
BTA funds to construct a multi -use path and associated improvements to enhance access to the
Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge; and
WHEREAS, Bicycle Transportation Account funding guidelines require that local
agencies fund at least 10% of the total project cost, or $63,220; and
WHEREAS, the City has $63,220 in funds available in Measure B sales tax
E revenues to provide the required local matching funds for the proposed project;
o ›...
.3- u; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
o
2 cc: Alameda authorizes the application with Caltrans for BTA funds for the project described above,
w 0 appropriate Measure B funds as the 10% local match, and authorizes the Public Works Director
- to execute all necessary grant documents.
v
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 20th day
of December, 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 20th day of December 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution # 4 -I CC
12 -20 -05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: December 13, 2005
Re: Resolutions amending the Alameda City Employees Association Salary
Schedule, the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary
Schedule, and Exhibit A -1 of the Executive Management Compensation Plan
established by Council Resolution 13545 and amended by Resolutions 13626
and 13689.
BACKGROUND
The Memorandum of Understanding for the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA)
was adopted in 2004 and covers the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006. The
proposed resolution establishes the hourly salary range on the ACEA salary schedule for the
new classification of Plan Check Engineer.
The Memorandum of Understanding for the Management and Confidential Employees
Association (MCEA) was adopted in 2002 and covers the period September 9, 2002 through
December 31, 2004. The proposed resolution establishes the biweekly salary range on the
MCEA salary schedule for the new classifications of Development Services Division Manager
and Golf Services Manager and for the existing classifications of Golf Course Maintenance
Superintendent and Building Official.
Resolution 13545 approving salary and benefit adjustments for executive management
employees was approved in 2002 and was amended by Resolution 13626 in 2003 and by
Resolution 13689 in 2004, and covers the period November 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004.
The proposed resolution amends Resolution 13545, Exhibit A -1 of the Executive
Management Compensation Plan for the classifications of Assistant City Manager and
Planning and Building Director.
DISCUSSION
ACEA:
" In order to enhance the City's ability to recruit and retain qualified Registered Professional
Engineers to perform structural plan check review in the Building Services Division of the
Planning and Building Department, staff has reviewed both the classification and
compensation assigned to this work and is recommending development of a Plan Check
Re: Resos 4 -J
12 -20 -05
Honorable Mayor and December 7, 2005
Councilmembers Page 2 of 3
Engineer classification to replace both Associate Civil Engineer positions currently designated
to this work. The Plan Check Engineer specialization is representative of both industry
standards and practices of other cities. Compensation is being recommended at a rate five .
percent above that of Associate Civil Engineer and six percent below the current salary survey
median for Plan Check Engineer in order to maintain equity with existing City salaries and to
avoid salary compaction.
MCEA:
In order to address long -term continuous acting assignments in the Development Services
Department and at the Golf Complex, action is being taken to create new and update existing
classifications with corresponding salary ranges.
In November 2001, the Community Improvement Commission contracted fora study of four
Development Services positions designated to function as division managers, each over one
of the department's four divisions: Community Programs and Housing, Base Reuse and
Redevelopment, Business Development, and Finance and Administration. As a result,
incumbents assigned to various classifications have served in this capacity since 2001 and
have been assigned acting pay. The new Development Services Division Manager
classification establishes a salary range equivalent to the acting pay level. It is anticipated
that incumbent employees who are currently functioning in this division manager capacity will
be reclassified according to Civil Service provisions to the new class; upon such action all
acting pay for these incumbents will be eliminated.
In the mid 1990s, substantive Golf Complex functions and activities were moved from contract
or vendor purview to in -house operations. Classifications were developed based on an
anticipated operational structure, which largely accommodated actual needs. However, two
positions were insufficiently structured and incumbents have been assigned acting pay since
1999. After review, staff is recommending development of the Golf Services Manager
classification and upgrade of the Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent classification. It is
anticipated that the incumbent employee who is currently functioning in the Golf Services
Manager capacity will be reclassified according to Civil Service provisions to the new class.
No additional action aside from this resolution is necessary for implementation to apply to the
incumbent Golf Course Maintenance Superintendent. Upon implementation, all acting pay for
these incumbents will be eliminated.
In order to address compensation incongruity between the Building Official and other division
manager positions of similar purview, particularly those where there is a corresponding level
of responsibility, the salary schedule for the Building Official classification is recommended to
a level equivalent to that of City Engineer. No additional action aside from this resolution is
necessary for implementation.
Honorable Mayor and December 7, 2005
Councilmembers Page 3 of 3
Executive Management:
In 1992, in lieu of a four percent salary increase, all management and confidential employees,
including department heads and other executive managers, were adjusted from a five -day
workweek to a four -day workweek. The proposed resolution reestablishes the five -day
alternate workweek with resultant salaries for the classifications of Assistant City Manager
and Planning and Building Director.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The maximum impact of these changes to the General Fund for the remainder of Fiscal Year
2005/2006 is approximately $28,000. These additional expenditures will be met with salary
savings from the first half of the fiscal year.
For the positions in the Development Services Department and at the Golf Complex, there is
no financial impact to the General Fund budget as their respective current budgets include
such costs.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council adopt resolutions:
Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Plan Check Engineer.
Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary
Schedule by Establishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Development
Services Division Manager, Golf Services Manager, Golf Course Maintenance
Superintendent and Building Official.
Amending Exhibit A -1 of the Executive Management Compensation Plan Established
by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by Resolutions 13626 and 13689 to
Establish a Five -Day Workweek Alternative with Corresponding Salary Ranges for the
Classifications of Assistant City Manager and Planning and Building Director.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ACEA) SALARY
SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF
PLAN CHECK ENGINEER
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of
Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) is hereby amended by establishing the salary
rates, salary range, salary steps and benefits for the classification of Plan Check Engineer
designating those as applicable to these classifications in the service of the City of Alameda.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Effective December 25, 2005
Forty (40) hour work week.
Resolutions # 44 CC
12 -20 -05
HOURLY
Code
Classification
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
NON - EXEMPT
AA
A
B
1
2
3
4
5
3230
Plan Check
Engineer
$32.08
$33.68
$35.36
$37.13
$38.99
$40.94
$42.99
$45.14
Forty (40) hour work week.
Resolutions # 44 CC
12 -20 -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 NO.
AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
(MCEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING SALARY RANGES FOR THE
CLASSIFICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER, GOLF
SERVICES MANAGER, GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT AND
BUILDING OFFICIAL
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) is hereby amended by
establishing the salary rates, salary ranges, salary steps and benefits for the classifications of
Development Services Division Manager, Golf Services Manager, Golf Course Maintenance
Superintendent, and Building Official designating those as applicable to these classifications in
>. the service of the City of Alameda.
w
cr:
0
1-
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Effective December 25, 2005
Code
Classification
EXEMPT
BI- WEEKLY
Step
1
Step
2
Step
3
Step
4
Step
5
1701 *
Development Services
Division Manager
$4086
$4290
$4504
$4729
$4965
5206*
Golf Services Manager
$2903
$3048
$3200
$3360
$3528
5210
Golf Course Maintenance
Superintendent
$3050
$3202
$3362
$3530
$3706
3205 *
Building Official
* Thirty-seven and one -half (37 1 /2) hour original work week; other classifications have forty (40)
hour original work week.
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 NO.
AMENDING EXHIBIT A-1 OF THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
COMPENSATION PLAN ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 13545
AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTIONS 13626 AND 13689 TO ESTABLISH A FIVE -
DAY WORKWEEK ALTERNATIVE WITH CORRESPONDING SALARY RANGES
FOR THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND
PLANNING AND BUILDING DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda previously adopted City of
Alameda Resolution No. 13545 and amended by Resolutions 13626 and 13689 establishing the
salary and benefits for the City Clerk, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Human
Resources Director and Executive Management Team Members (who include Development
Services Director, Public Works Director, Chief Financial Officer, Planning and Building
Director, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, Recreation & Park Director, General
Manager of the Golf Complex, Information Technology Director, Library Director and General
Manager, Alameda Power and Telecom) for the period commencing November 1, 2002 and
ending June 30, 2004; and
WHEREAS, staffing vacancies and changes to operational standards call for provisions
to grant appropriate compensation and benefits for the five -day workweek as an alternative to the
existing salary and benefits for the Assistant City Manager and Planning and Building Director
2 positions.
F-- NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, DOES
d RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
o t-- 1. Effective December 25, 2005, the Council hereby amends Exhibit A -1 of the
ca Executive Management Compensation Plan to City of Alameda Resolution 13545
as amended by Resolution 13626 and 13689 to grant appropriate compensation
for the five -day workweek as an alternative to the existing salary and benefits for
the Assistant City Manager and Planning and Building Director positions.
2. That the position classifications, salary rates, salary ranges, and salary steps are
hereby designated as those applicable to the respective classifications in the
service of the City of Alameda, originally effective November 1, 2002, as
amended on March 3, 2004 and ending June 30, 2004.
Code
Classification
EXEMPT
BI- WEEKLY
Step
1
Step
2
Step
3
Step
4
Step
5
1052*
Assistant City Manager
$5417
$5668
$5972
$6270
$6583
1061*
Planning and Building Director
$4583
$4812
$5250.
$5305
$5.570
*Thirty -seven and one -half (37 1/2) hour workweek.
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: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: November 29, 2005
Re: Authorizing a Letter of Welcome to Asuchio, El Salvador Civic Leaders
Background
In 2004, members of the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and local
volunteers formed the Alameda Sister City Workgroup. The Workgroup was established to
examine and evaluate the status of Alameda's existing Sister City relationships and to
determine the interest in and commitment to developing a new Sister City relationship with
Wuxi, China. The long -term goal of the Workgroup is to spin off the Sister City project to a
community -based non - profit organization.
Discussion /Analysis
The Sister City Workgroup was organized to evaluate and promote new sister city and
friendship relations with other international cities. Work is ongoing to develop and
implement a Sister City structure and locate residents who are interested in working on the
various aspects of the project. The Sister City workgroup has expressed an interest in
developing a relationship with Asuchio, El Salvador. Likewise, Asuchio officials, who have
hosted Alameda residents on several occasions, are interested in forming a relationship
with Alameda.
Officials of Asuchio, have received a letter of introduction from SSHRB members, and
have also returned a letter expressing Asuchio's interest in furthering the relationship.
There is energy to establish an Asuchio committee under the Sister City Workgroup
umbrella. The Asuchio committee would function similarly to the Wuxi committee which
sponsored the successful visit last May and which is planning a delegation to Wuxi in
Spring 2006.
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund. The Workgroup and its committees will engage in
fundraising as necessary to support a "spin -off' non - profit and specific Sister City activities.
The City itself would not be obligated to pay for travel or accommodations of visiting
delegations.
Report 5 -A
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 12 -20 -05
The Honorable Mayor November 29, 2005
and Members of the City Council Page 2
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City Council
and residents of Alameda, to execute a letter welcoming Asuchio officials and residents
who might travel to Alameda in the future.
es ectfully submitted,
q -
Robert Bonta, President
Social S Relations Board
Stewart Chen, Chair
SSHRB Sister City Workgroup
SC /JF /CB:sb
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Jim Franz, Co -Chair
SSHRB Sister City Workgroup
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \SSHRB \WG \Sister City\Asuchio\Agenda Report Dec2005
F: SSHRB \WG \Sister City\Asuchio (new)
DEC -13 -2005 16:11 FROM:ACLPPP 510- 567 -8272
Beg 08 05 11:04a
TO:97474704
Supervisor Lai- Bitker 510 -268 -8004
COUNTY COUNSEL
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
December 5. 200S
Ruben Bnones, Super/is
Brian E. Washington, A ssist tna County Counsel, (SIC 20104
Questions Regarding Lead Abatement Program
P:2'2
p•2
s Assistant, QIC 20101
The following addresses the questions that you and Mark Allen raised to me in ernalis in November.
Any legal problem in agreeing with the cities to ask only
relate to determining the viability of an increase in the fee those to fund tine Lead that Program?
There are no legal impediments to doing this?
Can we establish safeguards to ensure that none of the data collected could be used by
the consultants at a later date for other political Campaigns?
This would be a matter of contract between the lead program (acting through the County as I
understand it) and the political consultant. I am not familiar with what industry norms are for
political consulting /surveying contracts, but for most professional service contracts that the
County enters that involve producing a written product, the County indicates that the written
product at the end belongs exclusively to the County. in addition to this normal language, the
contract could indicate that the underlying data collected will be the exclusive properly of the
County (or the JPA) and could not be used by the consultant for any other purpose. As a
practical matter. it would be difficult to enforcahnonitor a consultants compliance with such a
Provision, but if it is a reputable company, the contractual requirement should be enough.
Alternatively, we could require that the consultant turn over all material and not even maintain a
Copy for their records. Since consultants usually insist on keeping copies of their work and data
developed. I do not think we would have success in getting consultants to agree to that
approach.
In addition, one councllmember also asked for clarification as to whether if public funds
Were used to finance trio collection of the data is that data public?
Information collected would be subject to the Public Records Act. Certainly, the final report
would be a public record. Anything that constitutes "preliminary drafts, notes, or intro- "agency or
interagency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of
business" might qualify as an exception to the Public Records Act
Pfease contact me with any questions regarding the foregoing.
ca: Richard E. Winnie. County Counsel
James Sorenson, Director, CDA
Mark Allen, CDA
DEC -S -2005 TUE 09:49 TEL :510- 567 -8872
Re: 7 -A
12 -20 -05
NAME :ACLPPP P. 2