2003-12-16 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 16, 2003 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:56 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that recommendation to accept the City of
Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 03-
585]; the Resolution Amending Master Fee No. 12191 [paragraph no.
03 -5871; the Resolution Approving Criteria for the Placement of Bus
Shelters [paragraph no. 03 -5881; and the Resolution Authorizing
Application for Bicycle Transportation Account [paragraph no. 03-
589] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *03 -579) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting held on November 19, 2003; the Special Joint City
Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting held on November 24,
2003; and the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City
Council and CIC Meeting, and the Regular City Council Meeting held
on December 2, 2003. Approved.
( *03 -580) Recommendation to accept the work of Ghilotti Brothers,
Inc. for Westline Drive (Eighth Street) Corridor Improvements, No.
P.W. 05- 02 -06. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
December 16, 2003
( *03 -581) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$189,420, including contingency, to Thomas D. Eychner Co., Inc. for
demolition of City -owned property at 2310 Lincoln Avenue (Linoaks
Motel), No. P.W. 08- 03 -16. Accepted.
( *03 -582) Recommendation to award Agreement in the amount of
$60,000 to Community Playgrounds, Inc. for the McKinley Park
Playground Renovation Project. Accepted.
( *03 -583) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review. Accepted.
( *03 -584) Recommendation to accept the Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Audit and Annual Report. Accepted.
(03 -585) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended
June 30, 2003; 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 2001 -02 Appropriations Limit Increment; Police and
Fire Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report;
and Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant Programs Financial
Statements for year ended June 30, 2003.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a report explaining: 1) why revenues
from charging for services were below the budget estimate; 2) the
status of Police and Fire staffing cuts and whether delaying
staffing cuts explains expenditure increases; inquired if the
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) cut has been implemented.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired the date of the Budget Workshop, to
which the City Manager responded January.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a status report on the impact of the
VLF cut.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be addressed at the
upcoming Budget Meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the result of the VLF cut has
been determined.
The City Manager responded a loss of $3.3 million is expected for
Fiscal Year 03 -04.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
December 16, 2003
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the loss was to date, to
which the Finance Director responded about $800,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether VLF money was received quarterly.
The Finance Director responded it is received monthly.
The City Auditor congratulated City staff and outside auditors on
the audit; noted difficulty of implementing new rules; complimented
staff on timely submittal of the audit.
Councilmember Kerr requested clarification of the property tax
breakdown for other entities; the City receives $.0175 and inquired
whether the School District receives $.10 plus $.03 for each
dollar.
The Finance Director responded that the $.0175 represents the
Library override for operations; stated the City receives $.25 of
every $1.00 to fund municipal services.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *03 -586) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the replacement of 150 Electric Golf
Carts. Accepted.
(03 -587) Resolution No. 13671, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 by Increasing Various Chuck Corica Golf Complex Rates."
Adopted.
Mayor Johnson inquired if non - resident monthly passes should limit
the number of plays; inquired if non - resident playtime is permitted
at certain time on weekends and Fridays.
The Golf Course General Manager responded that non - residents play
is permitted after 4:00pm on Fridays; and not permitted on
Saturday, Sundays and Holidays.
Mayor Johnson inquired the cost per round of golf.
The Golf Course General Manager responded the cost is between $17
and $21; stated the Golf Commission reviewed all three fee
structures: resident, senior and non - resident; the non - resident fee
was increased to $130; there will be an additional $3.00 surcharge;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
December 16, 2003
stated non - residents purchase range balls and golf carts which are
a major revenue stream; the Commission felt that the monthly pass
should be kept this year.
Mayor Johnson stated that she wants to ensure non - residents monthly
passes are not subsidized.
The Golf Course General Manager stated the breakeven rate is closer
with the additional surcharge; stated the Commission has discussed
a ten -play pass for the future.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Golf Commission review monthly
passes for non - residents and report back to Council in six months.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if the reopening of the Metropolitan
Course had any noticeable impact.
The Golf Course General Manager responded there has been a 50
decline, which is lower than the 8% projection.
The City Manager inquired how much the golf complex will transfer
to the General Fund this year, to which the Golf Course General
Manager responded close to $900,000.
The City Manager stated the Golf Course generates a profit and
continues it be an asset to the community.
Mayor Johnson stated that she routinely gets compliments on the
Golf Course's level of maintenance; stated Alameda wisely ensures
money is set aside for maintenance.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of resolution.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(03 -588) Adoption of Resolution Approving Criteria for the
Placement of Bus Shelters. Not adopted.
Jim Sweeney, Alameda, acknowledged the need for shelters; urged
Council to provide neighborhood residents with provisions for
flexibility.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, submitted letter to Council outlining
suggested clarifications and refinements to the proposed criteria;
suggested development of criteria for appropriate and inappropriate
advertising.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
December 16, 2003
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated the
Association supports shelters; that she is concerned about setting
a development date; transit and amenity plazas do not fit with
CalTrans idea of a State - designated highway, which is an obstacle
that must be removed through efforts of Council and CalTrans.
Jack Buckley, First Presbyterian Church, stated historic landmark
exemption criteria should be considered carefully; urged Council to
ensure that the criteria is fair to all residents, neighborhoods
and all historical landmarks in City.
Mark Cunningham, First Presbyterian Church, urged Council to keep
the First Presbyterian Church as an exempt architectural landmark.
John Knox White, Transportation Commission, stated avoidance of
visual clutter, in the form of advertising, must be balanced with
the needs of 12 -180 of the residents that are bus commuters;
currently language exempts historic monuments unless Council votes
otherwise; the flexibility of criteria stated the Council has
ultimate say; the guidelines allow City staff and the
Transportation Technical Team (TTT) to develop a solid, useable
list.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired if there are timelines or funding
requests which require immediate action, to which the
Transportation Commission Chair responded that he was not aware of
any.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated it would be better to collect information
from different constituencies and then move forward.
Mayor Johnson inquired if there was an answer to the question [time
constraints] on entering into the Joint Powers Agreement.
The Public Works Director responded that there is no immediate
deadline to have the shelters installed or to enter into an
Agreement with Lamar; approving criteria is an interim mid -step
process.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated well- structured bus shelters are
important.
Golda Mason, Alameda Transit Advocates, read and submitted Jon
Spangle's letter urging approval.
Joe Cloren, Alameda, stated that he disapproves bus shelter
advertising.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
December 16, 2003
Patricia M. Gannon, Alameda, stated that she disapproves
advertisement in bus shelters.
Don Patterson, Alameda, stated that he is opposed to bus shelter
advertising.
Bob Sikora, Alameda, submitted pictures of bus shelters throughout
the Country; encouraged Council to look into other means of funding
bus shelters.
Reyla Graber, stated the proposed Lamar -style billboard shelters
would be aesthetically and architecturally detrimental to the
community; presented a petition opposing billboard -style
advertising; stated residential criteria was loosened to include
four -lane roads; requested criteria be tightened.
Mayor Johnson requested speakers develop an activist group to
explore other means for bus shelter funding.
Michel Krueger, Alameda, urged adoption of the criteria; noted past
studies indicate bus shelters enhance the transit system and
encourage public transit.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired if the Transportation Commission had an
opportunity to review ideas presented by Christopher Buckley.
Mr. Krueger stated that he just saw the proposals this evening;
stated that he is concerned about narrowing criteria too much.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, submitted signatures of
140 bus riders in support of Lamar transit shelters; encouraged
installation of flat panels.
William Smith, Alameda, stated that he supports bus shelters;
increased traffic congestion requires good bus service and bus
shelters.
Eric Schatmeier, Alameda, stated bus shelter maintenance is costly;
in approving the criteria, it is imperative to have control over
tasteful advertising and design.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated good progress is being made; encouraged
additional input.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was in favor of bus shelters;
it fits a community need; her biggest concern is the design of the
bus shelter and whether or not to have advertising; stated the
matter being considered is locations of the bus shelters; the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
December 16, 2003
would go through community process identifying sites of the
shelters and then address design and funding; that she is in favor
of what is being proposed.
Councilmember Kerr stated everybody is in favor of bus shelters;
that she admires the courage of past Councilmembers who eliminated
billboards in the City; that she will not vote for anything that
will bring back the billboards.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurred with suggestions
presented by Christopher Buckley, particularly restrictions imposed
on advertising in neighborhoods; inquired when Council approval
should take place to have bus shelters installed by next winter.
The Public Works Director responded if Council approved the
suggested criteria, staff would use criteria to identify locations
which would be subject to a Public Hearing; funding options would
take a long time.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired
in place and sites identified to
rainy season.
the date needed to have shelters
ensure installation by the next
The Public Works Directors responded an implementation Agreement
could be brought to Council by the first meeting in June.
Councilmember Matarrese stated establishing a target date is
important.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated that she would like to see community input on locations for
shelters before negotiations with Lamar.
Mayor Johnson stated a clearer understanding on controls and
designs of the ads is needed; locations should be prioritized by
level of use, not by where Lamar wants to advertise; bus shelters
without lighting are less expensive; if lighting is beneficial for
advertisements, private sponsor funding should be investigated.
Vice Mayor Daysog encouraged more conversation on the criteria
prior to addressing site selection.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the criteria be sent back to the
Transportation Commission for further public review, incorporating
comments made tonight; and establishing goal to have new shelters
[number to be determined] by next rainy season.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
December 16, 2003
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated there might be difficulty
with Lamar on bus shelter priority locations.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if the motion includes discussing
shelters with no advertising as well as shelters with advertising.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated there was a suggested target date but did
not hear a number; inquired if this would be handled by the
Transportation Commission.
The City Manager responded criteria would be sent back to the
Transportation Commission, advising the Commission while
concurrently looking at funding to determine Lamar's involvement or
another source; stated by June 1 a decision would be made to move
forward with project.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(03 -589) Resolution No. 13672, "Authorizing Application for Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA) Funds for Bicycle Projects." Adopted.
Jim Sweeney, Alameda, stated having west -end bicycle access is
important; urged approval of funding.
Mayor Johnson stated the project was one of the top five priorities
in the bicycle plan; thanked Public Works for bringing the matter
to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Public Works for implementing the
plan; stated riding on sidewalks is dangerous; as traffic
congestion increases, bicycle transportation will become more
important.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Kerr stated people in Oakland can
take a "short hop" on the ferry for $1.00 into Alameda in the
morning; after 10:45 a.m. a "short hop" can be taken back to
Oakland; suggested looking into creating a solution.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
December 16, 2003
( *03 -590) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,172,447.94.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(03 -591) Resolution No. 13673, "Acknowledging Assistant City
Manager Robert L. Wonder for His Contributions to the City of
Alameda." Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read the resolution; stated it has been an honor and
pleasure serving with Mr. Wonder.
Mr. Wonder stated it was an honor and pleasure in working with
present and past Councils.
Mayor Johnson presented Mr. Wonder with a Certificate of Special
Congressional Recognition from the United States House of
Representatives.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous vice vote - 5.
(03 -592) Resolution No. 13674, "Appointing NakMin Oddie as a
Member of the Civil Service Board." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Oddie with a
Certificate of Appointment.
(03 -593) Recommendation to approve a General Fund Loan for Alameda
Power and Telecom Financing.
The AP &T General Manager stated on October 21, 2003 staff appeared
before City Council requesting a loan from the General Fund for $7
million to complete the construction of the telecom system; staff
developed six scenarios addressing different ways of financing the
$7 million; the $7 million represents the portion remaining to be
completed mainly on Harbor Bay Island; the labor for construction
contract included non -labor items; the entire $7 million would not
be subject to prevailing wage; $16 million was the original line of
credit at the time when AP &T had a partner in the project; the $16
million loan needs to be refinanced by May 31, 2004 or the system
would be turned over to Vectren to repay the line of credit to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
December 16, 2003
Citibank; if Vectren chooses not to repay the loan, then the system
would go to Citibank.
Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification of Option #3;
inquired why the Public Unities Board (PUB) decided in favor of
Option #4 instead of Option #3 which is almost a $1 million less.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded Option 4 would provide greater flexibility with internal
funds.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how Option #3 works.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded Option #3 allows money to come from the electric revenues
as a loan to the telecom.
Councilmember Gilmore requested clarification of the limited
recourse.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded that in the event of the perfect storm for the electric
utility industry, the guarantee from the General Fund would replace
that money in the electric utility.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired if the PUB was willing to pay the
extra $1 million because of the flexibility that is guaranteed.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated that he did not want to commit a
substantial amount of the General Fund reserve to the project as
there may be a need to draw down on the General Fund; Option 4
seemed to be a reasonable balance of risks and who should support
those risks.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired if the $2.2 million borrowed from
the General Fund has to be spent on capital construction, to which
the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired if there are restrictions on the
type of capital projects.
The City Manager responded in the negative.
The AP &T General Manager stated that the loan is short -term with a
higher interest rate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
December 16, 2003
Councilmember Kerr stated there appears to be three different
definitions as to what the Contract with Fischel pays for: 1) all
labor, 2) only $2.27 million for labor, or 3) does not include the
actual cable to complete the work.
The AP &T General Manager stated the labor contract does not mean
that 1000 of the dollars are for wages; the materials listed in the
$7 million include overhead, profit, trucks, and materials used to
patch, pave and repair trenching, etc.; the contract does not
include any electronics, most of which have been purchased, and
does not include the design or engineering work.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the $6 plus million deal with
Vectren became an obligation; however, a memo stated there was no
cost in eliminating Vectren because no money was paid.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded no money was paid, but the financing included a caveat
that interest or principal would not be paid if there is not a
profit.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if the $6 million plus becomes an
obligation if there is a profit.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if the $16 million now comes to $235
million with interest.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the negative; stated the $16 million included
capitalized interest; as AP &T drew money, interest, which had a
floating rate, was paid; an availability fee was paid on whatever
portion of the $16 million that was not drawn; about $15.6 million
was drawn for construction and operating costs, including charged
capitalized interest and availability fees; right now AP &T owes
Citibank $15.6 million.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if refinancing of the $16 million
including interest could be as high as $49 million.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded it is about $24 or $25 million including the capitalized
interest.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he interprets capitalized interest as
interest that needs to be paid on the $16 million debt regardless
if the interest is used, which results in $16 million plus $7
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
December 16, 2003
million.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded that the interest is already included in the amount that
was borrowed from Citibank.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that in the interim between 2005 and 2009,
the $7 million is added on to the $16 million; inquired if the
financing is not just for the $16 million and $7 million, but would
be around $23 million with refinancing in 2009.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated that at the November 24, 2003 Joint
Meeting, it was noted that the $7 million loan was not enough to
complete the system and it did not contain money for materials, 150
contingency, and underground laterals; later, it was noted that the
cost to complete the system rose to $13.2 million.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded that the difference is the $7 million is a fixed contract
amount, plus contingency; the remainder of the items, such as
laterals, wiring to the multiple dwelling unit and ariel service
drops, will change with the number of acquired customers; it is
difficult to finance that number externally, more money than needed
or not enough might be borrowed depending on customers.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how the $6.2 million was treated when
the construction was done on the Main Island; inquired if it was
covered by Series B project money.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded that it was treated as an operating cost; however,
outside wiring should be treated as plant operating costs and
accounting has been redone to reflect that.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired if the original Series B Bonds paid for
it [laterals, wiring and aerial service drops].
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if the net operating loss for this
Fiscal Year was $4.4 million.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded that the loss was about $3.8 million.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
December 16, 2003
Councilmember Kerr stated that there is a debt of $55.7 million; if
not refinanced, the existing system will go to Vectren; inquired if
the City would be relieved of the $16 million debt and the $6.2
million owed to Vectren; stated the loss would be $10 million if
not refinanced; if the system is built out, there would be
approximately $56 million in debt; AP &T might be able to sell the
system for about $40 million; the minimum investment amount would
be $55.7 million to build out the system, not including prevailing
wage considerations or net operating loss; stated if the system
build out system does not make money and AP &T wants to sell, it
will be a buyer's market and the City could lose more than $10
million.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager stated
when the system is built out in 2009 and customers have been
acquired, there would be sufficient revenues to fund operating
cost, debt service and to get to the point of having repaid the
interfund loan.
Councilmember Kerr stated the original build out cost was $7
million, then the Council was told $16 million would cover costs;
now the investment is over $55 million.
Len Grzanka, Alameda, urged Council to not give AP &T the $7 million
until they can prove that they can make the current install on the
Main Island profitable with 10,000 customers.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated under Option #4 there is a possibility of
a $2.2 million financing from the General Fund with $4.8 million
being obtained via the market at a potential interest rate of 80;
inquired if the interest rate is going to be capitalized so that
total cost is not $7 million but higher when refinanced.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated Option #3 envisions $2.2 million from the
General Fund and $4.8 million from an AP &T interfund loan; inquired
if the cost of the interfund loan would come from electric revenue
sources.
The AP &T General Manager responded that there is no real definitive
amount for the reserves; AP &T sets its own policy; stated the
amount would be below policy if AP &T draws down on the internal
reserves.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated while Option #3 of $8.9 million is less
than Option #4, there is a trade off in that it would be dipping
below prudent practices.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
December 16, 2003
Councilmember Matarrese inquired if the 15% contingency noted at
the Joint Meeting [November 24, 2003] was for the whole project
amount of $7 million, and if so, where would the money come from.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded the 15% would be applied to the $7 million and would be
from current revenues; the 15% contingency is part of the entire
$33 million package.
Karin Lucas, President of the PUB, stated that the PUB felt
strongly that Option #4 was the most desirable and would allow for
retaining the flexibility of having funds in case of electrical
disaster; the PUB felt the project has enough of a future; AP &T
expects to start repaying the capital in 2008 and expects to have
net revenues in 2007.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired if Vectren had any obligations under
the Contract to fund part of the build out.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the negative; stated Vectren has a corporate
guarantee; if the City is unable to refinance by May 31, 2004,
Vectren would have to refinance or give the system to Citibank.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Vectren would receive a portion of
revenues if it were still a partner.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded in the affirmative; stated the $6.3 million is actually
incremental; in the original contract, 100 of gross revenues would
go to Vectren.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired once system is built out, how
competitive the rate of penetration would be.
The AP &T Marketing Director responded that the initial goal was to
achieve 30% penetration on the cable television side and 120
penetration on the internet side; currently AP &T has 34.70 of the
cable television market and 13.50 of the internet market; Bay Farm
Island section should have significantly higher take rates; future
customer acquisition looks good.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired the basis for a 61% projected revenue
increase from fiscal year 2004 to 2005.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager
responded two things happen to revenue: 1) how many people are
being offered service, and 2) the selling price; data includes 50
rate increases each year; in addition there are customer increases
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
December 16, 2003
of about 3,000 customers each year evenly divided between
television and internet; in first year, there is a substantial
increase; there is a leveling out in Fiscal Year 2006; between
Fiscal Year 2006 and 2008 AP &T anticipates increase of about 4,000
customers.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he concurred with methodology; the
next 18 months are critical in forecasting whether revenues
anticipated over 20 years will cover expenses.
The AP &T Competitive Strategies and Administration Manager stated
the projections are part of the validation studies done by Uptown
Services.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated revenue projections ended in Fiscal Year
2008; he added Fiscal Year 2009 when it will be necessary to pay
back the debt service, which will have effects on expenses; stated
his conservative projections indicate AP &T would break even in
Fiscal Year 2014, while AP &T's projections indicate 2008 -09;
inquired if the revenue stream will service debt on an annual
basis.
Councilmember Kerr inquired if there was an RFQ or an RFP on
Fishel.
The AP &T General Manager responded there was an RFP.
Mayor Johnson thanked the General Manager for the presentation;
stated it is a complicated matter.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated residents of Alameda want cable television
and fiber optics; the infrastructure is in place; when on the
ballot in 1998, the Council had discussions regarding the electric
side revenues not going over the telecom to ensure that if the
telecom side did not work, the electric side would not be injured;
Councilmembers were clear about the need for a firewall; a Series B
Bond for $16 million was issued; between 2000 and present, AP &T had
problems with construction of the system; the $16 million was to
pay for the complete construction of the project; it only paid for
the Main Island; now the cost of completion of the project is $7
million; additional cost of laterals, etc., bring the cost to $13
million; $6 million of the $13 million would come from electric
working capital; where the $7 million comes from is what needs to
be decided tonight; encouraged Councilmembers to vote for the
option that has the least economic impacts and ramifications;
stated $7 million noted in Option #4 is really more because it
would be capitalized and could come out to be $13 million; AP &T
should break even and begin to earn money in 2013 or 2014; stated
at this point hard to look the other way with regards to AP &T
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
December 16, 2003
[electric to telecom] transfers [loans]; that he would not support
any of the options, but encourages the option with the least
economic impacts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the majority of voters in Alameda
voted for the telecom business; Bay Farm residents are not being
served; telecommunications, fiber optics, and cable television will
continue; having discussions in public and frequent reports to
Council on progress is vital.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
[Option #4].
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated focus has been on
what residents want; telecom is not only good for residents, but
having fast fiber optic connections is also attractive to
businesses that would like to relocate in Alameda; it is a good
selling point.
On call of the question, the motion carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmember Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson -
3. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog and Councilmember Kerr - 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(03 -594) Spreck Rosekrans, Environmental Defense, requested that
the Council consider withdrawing from the Trinity River lawsuit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Public Utilities Commission
(PUB) addressed the matter.
The AP &T General Manager responded that it was addressed in a
closed session and there will be an open session on the matter.
Sebastian Baldassarre, PUB Member, stated that the PUB has
requested a history of the Trinity River for clarification; NCPA
would be invited to the open session.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a recommendation would come to the
Council.
Mr. Baldassarre responded the PUB would consider a resolution
withdrawing Alameda's financial support.
Mayor Johnson inquired if Alameda is named as a party in the suit.
The City Attorney responded that the NCPA has filed in its own name
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
December 16, 2003
and does not have any member cities listed.
Mayor Johnson requested a briefing to the Council.
The City Manager responded a closed session outlining the elements
of the litigation could be scheduled.
The City Attorney advised that a joint meeting with the PUB could
be scheduled.
Karin Lucas, PUB President, stated an open session in the middle of
January is proposed followed by a closed session which would
include a briefing by the attorney for the NCPA on the legal
consequences of withdrawal; stated that Mr. Baldassarre is the
delegate to the NCPA; the PUB, with guidance from the City Council,
can instruct Mr. Baldassarre to vote a certain way.
The City Manager stated that a special joint meeting of the Council
and the Board could be held.
(03 -595) Susan McCormack, Alameda, outlined the Webster House
previously approved uses.
(03 -596) Andrew McCormack, Alameda, stated that he would prove the
Webster House is not illegal.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(03 -597) Vice Mayor Daysog requested that a thank you note be sent
to the City of Oakland regarding the road improvement across the
Park Street Bridge.
(03 -598) Councilmember Matarrese requested as part of the
Bridgeside development, shopping carts be addressed.
(03 -599) Councilmember Kerr wished everyone happy holidays.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
December 16, 2003