{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JUNE 6, 2006- - -7:30 P. M.\nVice Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:52 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nand Matarrese - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nVice Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to approve\nEmployment Agreement [paragraph no. 06-283] would be heard prior to\nProclamations Special Orders of the Day and Announcements.\nCONSENT CALENDAR ITEM\n(06-283) Recommendation to approve Employment Agreement for City\nAttorney.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council spent\na lot of time reviewing the position and making the Contract\nunderstandable; Ms. Highsmith will be a great City Attorney; he\nappreciates arriving at a straight forward Contract which will be\neasier for Council and the public to understand.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City is very fortunate to have\nMs. Highsmith take the position; the City will have continuity.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the transition would be easy; Council\nfeels confident that Ms. Highsmith can fulfill the commitments.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated residents should feel confident; stated\nMs. Highsmith will be a great City Attorney.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that Mayor Johnson wished to convey her\ngratitude and excitement on Ms. Highsmith becoming the new City\nAttorney.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Highsmith stated she has been very happy working in Alameda for\nthe past ten years; she enjoys working with the Council ; introduced\nher family.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(\n(06-284) Library project update.\nThe Project Manager provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Journal had a great article\non the Library project; the article highlights the value\nengineering efforts which have paid big dividends.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to set Hearing\ndate [paragraph no. 06-291], and the Resolutions Authorizing the\nFiling of Applications for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air\nQuality Improvement Program Funding [paragraph nos. 06-292 and 06-\n292A] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ] Note :\nCouncilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the recommendatior\nto authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance Management\nContract [paragraph no. 06-289].\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *06-285) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on May 16, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-286) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,399,404.21.\n(*06-287) Recommendation to award Contracts in the amount of\n$979,847.26 for Furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted.\n(*06-288) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$2,968,704, including contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk for repair\nand resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 26, No. P.W. 03-06-08.\nAccepted.\n(*06-289) Recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 3, "text": "Maintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City\nLandscaping and Lighting District 84-2 - Marina Village. Accepted.\n[Note: Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the\nrecommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance\nManagement Contract. ]\n(*06-290) Recommendation to appropriate $155,300 in Urban Runoff\nFunds and award a Contract in the amount of $643,779, including\ncontingencies, to Ghilotti Brothers for the Fernside Boulevard\nPedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe\nRoutes to School), No. P.W. 11-02-15. Accepted.\n(06-291) Recommendation to set Hearing date for delinquent\nintegrated Waste Management charges.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he is concerned about how collection\nwould impact individuals; requested clarificatior prior to the\nHearing date on how last year's collection issues were resolved;\nstated rates were changed and individuals did not think the process\nwas fair.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n(06-292) Resolution No. 13967, \"Authorizing the Filing of an\nApplication for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality\nImprovement Program Funding for Electric Fleet Vehicles and\nCharging Stations, Committing the Necessary Non-Federal Match for\nthe Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of Alameda to\nComplete the Project. Adopted; and\n(06-292A) Resolution No. 13968, \"Authorizing the Filing of an\nApplication for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality\nImprovement Program Funding for Otis rive/Doolittle Drive/Island\nDrive Signal Coordination, Committing the Necessary Non-Federal\nMatch for the Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of\nAlameda to Complete the Project. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he requested that the item be pulled\nfrom the Consent Calendar to focus the public on the issue;\napplauded the Public Works Director for pursuing electric vehicles;\nstated the vehicles would replace polluting cars driven by City\nemployees and would be fueled by Alameda Power and Telecom; traffic\nsignal timing is critical and is a good use of funds.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 4, "text": "available through the State procurement process; Requests for\nProposals would be sent out after the grant funds are received;\nthere are vendors for electric vehicles.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she has received several letters\nregarding cities joining a Plug-In Initiative; requested more\ninformation on the matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated complaints have been received\nregarding the traffic signal timing along Otis Drive near Regent\nStreet; suggested painting \"Keep Clear\" on the street at the\nintersection.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-293 - ) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution 13969,\n\"Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year\n2006-07 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business\nImprovement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2006-07.\nAdopted.\nThe Business Development Division Manager provided a brief report.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1.\n]\n(06-294) Recommendation to approve Alameda Ferry Service actions :\n(06-294A) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nFirst Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 5, "text": "Agreement with the Port of Oakland;\n(06-294B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nextension of Operating Agreement with Blue and Gold Fleet for the\nAlameda/Oakland Ferry Service and adopt associated budgets;\n(06-294C) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nextension of Operating Agreement with Harbor Bay Maritime for the\nAlameda Harbor Bay Ferry and adopt associated budgets\n(06-294D) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter\ninto negotiations with the Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA)\nfor transfer of the City's Ferry Service to the WTA; and\n(06-294E) Resolution No. 13970, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nApply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, including Five\nPercent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll\nReserve Funds, for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for City\nof Alameda Ferry Services and to Enter into All Agreements\nNecessary to Secure These Funds for FY 2006-07. Adopted.\nThe Ferry Services Manager provided a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore commended staff for being proactive in\nsoliciting public input on the WTA negotiations; stated that she\nassumes that public concerns would be addressed through the course\nof negotiations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese congratulated staff and the Harbor Bay\nMaritime operational group for maintaining service levels; stated\nhe hopes the marketing can be taken to the next level outside of\nAlameda; he is in favor of negotiations with WTA with the condition\nthat a baseline is set for the current service and there is a\nguarantee that the service would not drop.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;\ninquired what the fare box was for the Alameda Oakland Ferry\nService.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded 52%; stated he projects next\nyear would be approximately 49% due to fuel increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated safeguards should be used throughout\nnegotiations; services are hard to get back once they are\nrelinquished; requested more information on WTA's future goals and\nservices stated jeopardizing the present service level would be\nunsatisfactory.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Port of Oakland's contribution has\ndeclined significantly; he is not ready to relinquish local\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 6, "text": "control; more information is needed prior to entering into\nnegotiations; he attended one of two public meetings in which ten\npeople attended; questioned whether the attendance was\nrepresentative of the true passions for the Harbor Bay Maritime\nService; stated he is not ready to enter into negotiations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated past meetings had high attendance\nregarding fare box issues; the same individuals need to provide\nstrong input.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he draws a line between\nrelinquishing the service and the negotiating process i the\nnegotiating process is timely and provides an opportunity to\nexplore conditions and guarantees.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated proceeding with negotiations is the first\nstep in the process and would involve a lot of public input.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would like to see plans regarding\nthe ferry service from Harbor Bay to Alameda Point and on to San\nFrancisco; he is concerned that a regional agency, such as WTA,\nrelies on regional, State or federal money that is not guaranteed;\npressures to rationalize operations could develop basic, general\ndiscussions are needed before negotiations.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation\nexcluding the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter\ninto negotiations with (WTA).\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nCouncilmember deHaan requested the motion include the caveat that\nthere is a certain threshold of anticipation for guarantees that\nthe City wants, and that concerns raised would be discussed and\nfulfilled.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how said information would come\nback to Council; stated negotiations are timely because funding\nstreams are available; inquired whether the reporting back could be\nstructured around timeframes and milestones.\nThe City Manager responded the Council would be informed throughout\nthe processi timeframes and milestones would be provided to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether negotiation starting\npoints have been established; stated the points should be discussed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 7, "text": "prior to starting negotiations.\nThe Public Works Director responded some talking points have been\nestablished; stated a date has not been set for negotiations with\nWTA.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he does not recall receiving any input\nafter Closed Session discussions; concerns were raised regarding\nguarantees for both services; requested feedback regarding concerns\nbefore direction is given to negotiate.\nThe Public Works Director stated a baseline should be established\nwithin a certain period of time; WTA needs a chance to respond.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated negotiations could be set up by\nproviding WTA with some broad conceptual points.\nThe City Manager stated the Council would be updated in terms of\nthe talking points.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to authorize the\nCity Manager to set up negotiating dates, but not enter into\nnegotiations until after Council discussions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would like to have WTA provide a\nfull business plan as part of the Council discussions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to bring the matter to the Council prior to the\ninitiation of negotiations in order to allow discussion of the\nCity's position and to obtain background information and plans from\nWTA.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he was more\ncomfortable with Council direction but would abstain from voting on\nthe matter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmember deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor\nGilmore - 3. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog -1. [Absent : Mayor\nJohnson - 1. ]\n(06-295) Review of Policies regarding the Naming of City\nFacilities.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 8, "text": "presentation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation on how the Historical\nAdvisory Board (HAB) continually adds to the pool of suggested\nnames available for City property; inquired whether the HAB was the\nonly means for names to get on the list; stated residents and\ncitizen groups have proposed names in the past; inquired whether\nthere was a specific period of time for recommendations.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded names are taken\non an on-going basis; stated requests are dealt with individually.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated the HAB has not suggested\nany new names since she has been with the City; the original list\nwent to the HAB to review the historical validity of the names.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how a citizen's request for recognizing\na relative in the street naming process is handled; to which the\nActing Recreation and Park Director responded the names are\npresented to a specific board or commission, depending on the area\nof interest.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who updated the Official Naming List\nin 2003, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded\nthe Planning Department.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the list was not used for Bayport\nstreet naming; the gaps need to be closed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated existing streets should not continue\nwith a different name is another issue, such as Santa Clara Avenue\ncontinuing to the Naval Air Station.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated the policy clarifies that\nthe street name is to continue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Bayport streets would\nbe renamed, to which the Planning and Building Director responded\nthere are no plans to change the names.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested that Willie Stargell's name be\nforwarded to the HAB.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he supports Councilmember Daysog's\nrequest ; an open season is needed to update the list he would\nprefer to address louncilmember Daysog's request separately.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to have the process\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 9, "text": "straightened out before the open season street naming is becoming\nmore clear; she is unclear on how facilities are named; inquired\nhow the process was established for naming facilities within parks\nwith different names than the park.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the process was\nrecommended by the community at the time.\nThe City Manager stated staff would provide recommendations to\nCouncil in the next couple of meetings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that flow charts be provided.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council should discuss how far the\nnaming policy should extend.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be consistency between\ncommissions.\nThe City Manager stated a policy would be provided to Council while\nmoving forward with adding Willie Stargell to the current street\nnaming list.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted an Alameda resident mentioned naming the\nDog Park after a resident who was instrumental in getting the Dog\nPark up and running.\n(06-296)\nResolution No. 13971, \"Opposing State Legislation to\nPermit the Towing of Triple Tractor Trailers on State Highways in\nCalifornia. \" Adopted.\nThe Assistant to the City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated previously the City Attorney pointed out\nthat some roads in Alameda are designated as State Highways\n;\npotentially triple tractor trailers could move within the City\nlimits; the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to\nregulate or ban the triple tractor trailers if the legislation\npasses.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated his position on the matter is\nneutral suggested Council ensure that adoption of the resolution\ndoes not curtail progress in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to see the industry\nremove tractor trailers from the streets and onto rails; he\nsupports the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have adopted\nresolutions opposing the State legislation.\nThe Assistant to the City Manager listed cities that have adopted\nsimilar resolutions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated truck drivers are not in favor of the\nlegislation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the operative clause \" oppose any\nproposal or legislation at any level of government which would\nallow increases in the size and weight of trucks and number of\ntractor trailers permitted on State Highways\" seems to be more\ngeneral than the issue of the triple tractor trailers; the language\nshould be tightened to the issue at hand.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the resolution as\nwritten; the resolution speaks to the infrastructure issue; safety\nfactors would not be better with bigger and longer trailers.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the resolution does not state\nopposition to truck-only lanes as noted in the staff report; some\nareas of the State have reasons for truck-only lanes.\nThe City Attorney stated currently the State occupies the field\nregarding the weight and size of trucks permitted to travel on\nState Highways; the resolution does not oppose a truck-only lane\nbut opposes any legislation to increase the current State\nrestrictions; the staff report describes a way around the issue by\nseeking legislation that would permit private or public\npartnerships with CalTrans to receive funding for truck-only lanes\nfrom somewhere else.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated further deterioration would occur with\nincreased weight roads deteriorate quickly enough.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated goods needs to be moved by rail, ships\nand trucks; large trucks are not wanted in Alameda; moving goods by\ntruck is an economic reality; the resolution should speak to triple\ntractor trailers.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated weight per axel is a concerning factor.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted Sports Utility Vehicles exceed the\nweight restrictions outlined in the City's ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated many things have been done for the\nsake of economy in the past; the language sets a stake in the\nground, addresses concerns regarding size and potential damage, and\nforces innovative change.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, louncilmember deHaan stated that triple tractor\ntrailers probably would not be seen in Alameda: hopefully other\nmeans of transportation would be used to move goods.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated triple tractor trailers are a potential\nhazard that needs to be nipped in the bud; the resolution should be\nmore specific to the problem, not broad and opened-ended; he would\nabstain from voting on the matter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote Ayes Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor\nGilmore - 3. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent: Mayor\nJohnson - 1. ]\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-297) Jennifer Soloman, Alameda, stated that on January 28,\n2006, her daughter and husband were struck by a motorist in the\ncrosswalk at the intersection of Park Street and Otis Drive; it\ntook twenty minutes for the Police to arrive; the officer asked if\nshe wanted a police report; the paramedic got lost on the way to\nChildren's Hospital today's Alameda Journal stated that a three\nyear old was struck on Webster Street; drivers were not cited in\neither case.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there are reasons for the 25 mile per\nhour speed limit; the Public Works Department recently installed\nsolar speed limit signs; the Chief of Police and the City Manager\nwill review the matter speeders will be more diligently pursued.\nMs. Solomon stated that the driver was not speeding but was making\na right-hand turn from Otis Drive onto Park Street.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the loop needs to be closed on the\nmatter every ambulance driver should know hospital locations off\nthe island; he is concerned with a twenty minute response time\nrequested a review of the twenty minute response time and protocol\nwhen a pedestrian is struck.\nMs. Solomon stated she understood that the reason for the delay was\ndue to the call being made on a cell phone and the caller did not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 12, "text": "indicate the accident involved a pedestrian.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested information on the status of\ncalling 911 from cell phones.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Police Department has been\nvigilant on traffic injuries and fatalities in the past several\nyears; traffic related deaths have occurred on Constitution Way.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Ms. Solomon addressed the\nmatter with City staff.\nMs. Soloman responded she spoke to the Fire Department Duty Chief\nregarding the matter.\n(06-298) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Federal\nCommunications Commission and the American Radio Relay League have\ndeclared the week of June 18 through the 25 as Amateur Radio Week.\n(06-299) Duane Rutledge, Dublin, stated he received a\ndisqualification letter from Alameda Development Corporation (ADC)\n;\nall statements in the letter are incorrect; no written policy was\npresented regarding the appeal process.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Rutledge received the letter,\nto which Mr. Rutledge responded approximately a week ago.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated ADC disqualified Mr. Rutledge's\napplication; the letter should outline the appeal process.\nMr. Rutledge stated he received no response to his inquires\nregarding details of the appeal process.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired who would adjudicate the appeal.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded first the appeal would go to\nthe ADC Board and then the Community Improvement Commission.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. Rutledge asked the ADC\nspecific questions, to which Mr. Rutledge responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who is the ADC point of contact, to\nwhich the Assistant City Manager responded the Executive Director.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who would respond to Mr. Rutledge, to\nwhich the Assistant City Manager responded the ADC Board.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter will end up with the\nCommunity Improvement Commission; requested that the appeal process\nbe placed on an agenda and that staff ensures that the appeal is\npresented to the CIC; the matter needs to be addressed sooner\nrather than later.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the issue should be addressed\nquickly.\nThe City Manager stated that the Executive Director would be\ncontacted.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-300) Councilmember deHaan stated that the lights are not\nrepaired in the Tube; urged moving forward on the matter.\n(06-301) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has received\nletters stating that the speed limit is not being enforced in the\nTube.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:41 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2006- - -6:30 P.M.\nVice Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nNote: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from the Paris\nHotel, 3655 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109.\nAbsent :\nNone\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(06-279) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Jose Ricabal V. Yu, City of Alameda, et al.\n(06-280) Conference with Labor Negotiators : Agency negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations and\nemployees Alameda City Employees Association, Chief of Police,\nExecutive Management Group, Fire Chief, International Brotherhood\nof Electrical Works, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation.\n(06-281) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee City Attorney\n(06-282) Public Employment; Title: City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Vice Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Conference with\nLegal Counsel, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding\nsettlement parameters; regarding Employee organizations and\nemployees Alameda City Employees Association, Chief of Police,\nExecutive Management Group, Fire Chief, International] Brotherhood\nof Electrical Works, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation, Council received briefing from labor negotiators and\ngave direction; regarding City Attorney, Council received a\nbriefing from Labor Negotiators regarding the City Attorney\nposition.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-06", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2006- -7:31 P. .M.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore convened the Special\nJoint Meeting at 9:41 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers,\nBoard\nMembers,\nCommissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nand Matarrese 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 1.\nMINUTES\n(06-302CC/06-023CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement\nCommission (CIC) Meeting, and the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners Meeting held on May 16, 2006. Approved.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor/Chair Johnson -\n1. ]\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-303CC/06-024CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel\nLegal Services and staffing options. Continued.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\ncontinuing the item.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 1. ]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere\nbeing\nno\nfurther\nbusiness,\nVice\nMayor/Board\nMember/Commissioner Gilmore adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at\n9:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf"}