{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday. October 4, 2006\nThe meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda\nDoug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nFrank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nTony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda\nAbsent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.\nApproval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested\ninformation about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.\nNanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants\nto relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease\nis to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy\n(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie\nLittle, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in\nthe buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements\nnecessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.\nApproval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with\nWRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities\nfor Alameda Point.\nMember deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position\ntoday to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse\nand Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant\nreceived from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed\nplanning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study\nwill impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed\nregardless of who the developer is.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2\nThere was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops\noutlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated\n(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended\nexpanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently\nindicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.\nApproval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September\nARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike\nAnderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre\nEnterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).\nA portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of\nthis year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It\nalso requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,\nPhase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that\nencumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the\nHobby Shop (until 2010).\nMember Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV\nparking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an\noption.\nDoug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He\nintroduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed\narea and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the\nDistrict would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include\nfamily picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline\ntrail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future\nplans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating\ninstruction at the marina.\nChair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also\nquestioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they\nare. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of\nthis area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose\nthem - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean\nup the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback\nabout what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.\nMember Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay\ntrail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3\nforward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that\nEBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be\nmaintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would\nhave to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like\na long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and\nEBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to\nthe Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.\nMember Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the\nexisting boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional\nfunds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was\ndirected to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the\nmotion, and the motion passed unanimously.\n3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.\nDebbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update\npresentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations\nwith the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from \"no cost\" to paying\n$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,\nelection not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next\nstep.\nMs Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar\npurchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million\nsquare feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter\nrequesting that we submit a formal amendment to our \"no-cost\" EDC application to formerly\nmake the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a \"no-cost\" EDC. The\nNavy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early\ntransfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to\nnegotiate a \"for-cost\" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to\ndeciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly\ncommunicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the\nworks to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more\neffective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost\"conveyance. We started\nour \"New Beginnings\" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost\neconomic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are\ngoing to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are\ngoing to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the\nNavy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded\nnegotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase\nprice. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the\nresidential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the\nland plan.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4\nWith that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master\nDeveloper, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request\nfor qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to\nidentify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate\ndisposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.\nChair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the\ncurrent term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our\nleasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair\nJohnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if\na replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did\nconsider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the\nARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when\nwe've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still\nneed to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are\nincluded in the ARRA's budget.\nTo answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to\nneed, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because\nwe comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we\nshould ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to\nprotect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as\nif there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts\nweighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds\nof things.\nMember Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the\nUnited States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated\nApril 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is\nvery concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work\nit\nthrough, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the\n$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.\nThe Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the\navailable options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair\nJohnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes\nin the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less\nresidential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,\nbecause a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,\nthat if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them\nthat were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an\nagreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit\nan amendment to that no cost EDC.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 5, "text": "Page 5\nDavid Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to\namend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal\nauthority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.\nChair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether\nwe are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.\nMember Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't\nspent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public\namenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern\nby noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided\nfiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%\naffordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into\naccount and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged\nto the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is\nall of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in\nthe proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.\nMember deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare\nIsland and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but\nthat federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation\nto ask if that's feasible.\nThe first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was\ngoing back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a\nnew Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote\npossibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second\nspeaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,\nurging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,\nlight industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection\nprocess involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding\nthat although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries\nmay not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer\nthat would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.\nMember Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and\nthat it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our\ncity restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are\nvaluable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog\ncommented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be\na leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through\na\npublic action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and\nrequesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.\nDebbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching\nthe legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 6, "text": "Page 6\nparallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to\nstep into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.\nA motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by\nChair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:\nAyes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.\nMember Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional\nradiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard\nnorth housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and\ndigging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nPer Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member\ndeHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2006\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Members Avonnet Peeler, Michael Rich, Michael Robles-Wong, and Executive Secretary\nKaren Willis.\nABSENT:\nMember Roberto Rocha.\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, and Stacey Meier, Administrative Assistant,\nHuman Resources.\nOTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the regular meeting of July 12, 2006 were presented for Board\napproval. Member Peeler moved to accept, Member Rich seconded, and carried by\na\n3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR: Member Rich moved to accept the consent calendar with the exception of 4-D,\nwhich he asked to pull for discussion. Member Peeler seconded, and carried by a 3-0 vote.\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE\nMONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2006:\n4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Management Analyst\n9/12/2006\n206-44PR\nAdministrative Tech Il\n8/23/2006\n206-41PR\nAssistant Engineer\n8/15/2006\n206-36\nCustomer Service Representative\n7/20/2006\n206-09\nElectrical Helper\n9/13/2006\n206-47\nFire Apparatus Operator\n9/19/2006\n206-08PR\nIntermediate Clerk\n7/20/2006\n206-34\nJourney Lineworker\n8/7/2006\n206-26\nPermit Technician I\n7/3/2006\n206-25PR\nPermit Technician III\n7/3/2006\n206-24PR\nPermit Technician III\n8/28/2006\n206-43\nPlanner I\n7/18/2006\n206-38\nPrincipal Executive Assistant\n9/20/2006\n206-59PR\nSupervising Planner\n7/27/2006\n206-29", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 4, 2006\n4-B\nELIGIBLE LISTS EXTENDED:\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEMS Education Coordinator\n4/13/2005\n205-10\nFire Captain\n10/12/2005\n205-46PR\nJailer\n10/20/2005\n205-48\nMaintenance Worker I\n3/1/2006\n205-58\nMaintenance Worker Il\n3/23/2006\n205-65\nPlanner III\n4/5/2006\n206-15\nPublic Safety Dispatcher\n3/10/2006\n205-25/26\n4-C\nELIGIBLE LISTS EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nACE (Land Dev & Trans)\n3/3/2006\n205-24\nAdministrative Technician\nI\n8/12/2005\n205-45PR\nAssistant City Attorney I-II\n2/2/2006\n206-12PR\nCATV Technical Operations Superintendent 4/11/2006\n206-061\nEngineering Supervisor\n3/28/2006\n206-17PR\nExecutive Assistant\n10/22/2004\n204-54\nFacilities Maintenance Worker\n2/15/2006\n206-06\nPlan Check Engineer\n3/28/2006\n206-05\nPlanning Services Manager\n4/21/2006\n206-21\nPolice Sergeant\n9/15/2004\n204-38PR\nProgram Specialist I/II\n2/23/2006\n205-64\n(Community Programs)\nPublic Works Maintenance Team Leader\n3/16/2006\n205-59\n(Concrete)\nPublic Works Supervisor\n8/17/2004\n204-37\nSales and Service Supervisor\n2/23/2006\n205-52\nSupervising Civil Engineer\n3/23/2006\n205-55\nSystem Dispatcher\n3/17/2006\n206-07\nTransportation Planner\n3/3/2006\n205-63\nUtility Construction Compliance Specialist\n3/15/2006\n205-66\n4-D\nLIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:\nAssistant Line Superintendent (Revised)\nComputer Services Coordinator (Revised)\nJailer (New)\nPrincipal Executive Assistant (New)\nPublic Safety Dispatcher (New)\nRedevelopment Manager (Revised)\nSenior Public Safety Dispatcher (New)\nTransportation Coordinator (New)\nDiscussion: Executive Secretary Willis explained that the reason there are a high number of new\nspecifications listed on the agenda is due to the fact that many positions were re-assigned from a\nbroad classification to more specific classifications with new titles as part of the PANS contract", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 4, 2006\nagreement. Board President Robles-Wong asked whether the new classifications created a\ncompetitive situation for the individuals who were re-assigned into a new job title, and questioned\nwhether or not those individuals were required to re- test. Executive Secretary Willis stated that\nnone of the individuals involved were required to re-test for their positions. Board President Robles-\nWong expressed concern that if the Civil Service Rules were not followed, the employees who were\nre-assigned were not being protected by the system that was designed to do just that.\nHe\nsuggested that there should be a special meeting called in cases when individuals are involved.\nMember Rich also requested a special meeting to discuss personnel actions and procedures, and\nMember Peeler agreed. The Board agreed that a special meeting would be scheduled for mid-\nNovember. Member Rich moved to approve item 4-D with the understanding that staff will agendize\na separate item on the next agenda to provide procedural background on the reclassification\nprocess. Member Peeler seconded the motion and was carried by a 3-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A\nActivity Report - June 1, 2006 through August 31, 2006.\nExecutive Secretary Willis presented the Board with Turnover Statistics as requested by Board\nMember Rich at the July 12, 2006 meeting. She stated that the report showed percentages of\nresignations, retirements and other separations for Miscellaneous and Safety employee groups\nback to the year 2001. She explained that resignations had risen significantly in the last two years.\nMember Rich asked if there was any idea why. Executive Secretary Willis stated that some\nemployees obtained jobs in other cities for better retirement or due to the fact that they had not\ngotten a pay increase with the City, and others had resigned for personal reasons.\n5-B\nProposed Change to Civil Service Ordinance, Section 2, Merit Principal 3.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that she had spoken with the City Manager regarding the\nproposed change to the Civil Service Ordinance. She explained to the Board that the City Manager\nwould like the Board to review the entire Ordinance and make any and all changes all at once due\nto the fact that it must go before Council before any changes are adopted. Board President\nRobles-Wong stated that he had spoken briefly with the City Manager as well, and he does not\nhave any issues with changing the entire Ordinance at once.\n5-C\nReview of Civil Service Ordinance No. 2130\nDiscussion: Regarding staff suggested changes, Executive Secretary Willis explained that\ndepartment head titles have changed over time and thus, Section 4 (c) needs to be changed, as\nsome of the listed position titles no longer exist. She stated that Human Resources staff will put\ntogether recommended changes and suggested language before the next Civil Service Board\nmeeting. Board President Robles-Wong asked if there is another term that can be used besides\n\"permanent\" as stated in Section 8, since there is no such thing as a \"permanent\" employee.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the usual term is \"regular\". Board Member Rich stated that\nsome wording was either too broad or too narrow. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she will\nagendize the Ordinance and Rules review for the special meeting in November.\n5-D\nRule Change- Article VIII. Appointment, Section 1. Certification of Eligibles and Section 2. Method\nof Appointment.\nExecutive Secretary Willis explained that Human Resources had failed to send the Rule Change\nnotification to the Bargaining Units as required. These have been sent and it is anticipated that the\nBoard will be able to approve as its next meeting.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2006-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2006-10-04", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting of October 4, 2006\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nReferring to the Turnover Statistics presented with the Activity Report under 5-A, Board Member Rich\nshared his concerns regarding the rising number of resignations from Miscellaneous Employees as\ncompared to the low number of Safety employee resignations. He encouraged the City to resolve this\nmatter as quickly as possible. Executive Secretary Willis stated that they are working on it and are getting\nmuch closer.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nExecutive Secretary Willis explained that Mr. Michael Soderberg, who was supposed to have been the new\nBoard Member, moved to Southern California between submitting his application and being notified of his\nappointment and that consequently, he would not be appointed. She stated that the City is soliciting\napplications for Civil Service Board Members.\n9.\nThere being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2006-10-04.pdf"}