{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -APRIL 1, 2008 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:48\np.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-129) - Proclamation declaring March 30 through April 5, 2008 as\nBoys and Girls Club Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Executive\nDirector George Phillips; Board President Burney Matthews Program\nDirector Mark Morales; and 2008 Youth of the Year Jamara Caldwell.\nMr. Matthews stated this year is the Boys and Girls Club 58th\nAnniversary in Alameda the new building will be at the former\nWoodstock School site the new facility will be approximately\n24,000 square feet; the $10 million capital funding campaign is\nhalf way complete; thanked Council and the community for all of the\nsupport.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is confident the project will move\nforward quickly.\n(08-130) Presentation by the School Board President on overview of\nAlameda Unified School District budget issues.\nBill Schaff, School Board President, gave a brief overview.\nLuz Cazares, Chief Financial Officer, gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nMr. Schaff requested that Council endorse the proposed parcel tax\nat the next Council meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated that a lot of the budget problems are due to\nthe State diverting local government money to other levels of\ngovernment ; every year students and teachers go back to school\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "wondering which programs will be cut; she hopes that the School\nDistrict has strong support for the proposed measure in June.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be voting on\nthe matter at the next Council meeting.\nThe City Manager responded Council would be voting on the matter at\nthe first Council meeting in May.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the resolution would be to support\nand endorse Measure H, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the May Council Meeting\ndate was okay with Mr. Schaff, to which Mr. Schaff responded in the\naffirmative.\n(08-131) Presentation by the Secretary of the California Department\nof Food and Agriculture and the Director of the Light Brown Apple\nMoth Program on the Apple Moth.\nA.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and\nAgriculture, gave a brief presentation.\nDr. Bob Dowell, Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program\n(submitted handout) gave a Power Point presentation.\nOpponents (Not in favor of aerial spraying to eradicate the Light\nBrown Apple Moth) : Carolina Rogers, Alameda; Stuart Dodgshon,\nAlameda; Chloe Ashley, Alameda; T'Hud Weber, Alameda, (submitted\npetition) ; Simi Sikka, Fremont (submitted handout) ; Stanley\nSchiffman, Alameda; Jane Kelley, Berkeley; Tom Kelley, Berkeley\nBernard Clark, Alameda Helen Kozoriz, stopthespray.org Michael\nJohn Torrey, Alameda; Mary Jane Pryor, Alameda Victoria Ashley,\nAlameda; Jim Hoffman, Alameda; Rebecca Hall-Crosby, Alameda Irma\nMarin-Nolan, Alameda; Cathy Kordetzky; Daria Schwarzschild,\nAlameda; Maria Morales, El Sobrante; Frank Egger; Constance Barker,\nEnvironmental Health Network of California; Lynn Elliott-Harding,\nOakland.\nCouncil requested that the matter be placed on a future Council\nagenda for action.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 3, "text": "voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*08-132) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting of March 5, 2008; the Special City Council Meeting held on\nMarch 10, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities\nBoard; Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement\nCommission; and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 18,\n2008. Approved.\n(\n*08-133) - Ratified bills in the amount of $1,631,590.32.\n( *08-134) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding Section 3-53 (Claims) to Division VIII (Refunds and\nCorrections) to Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) to Establish\nUniform Requirements and Procedures Applicable to the Presentation\nand Processing of Claims for Money or Damages with the City of\nAlameda That Are Not Currently Covered by State Law or Other\nProvisions of the Alameda Municipal Code. Introduced.\n( 08-135) - Ordinance No. 2978, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Repealing Section 5-30 (Filming Activities) in Its Entirety, and\nReplacing It with A Successor Section to Article II (Permits) of\nChapter V (Licenses and Permits) Making Changes to the Procedures,\nRegulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming Activities\nWithin the City of Alameda. Finally passed.\n(*08-136) Ordinance No. 2979, \"Amending Various Sections of the\nAlameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I, (Zoning Districts\nand Regulations) Chapter XXX, (Development Regulations)\n,\nPertaining to Retail and Commercial Uses. \" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-137) - Resolution No. 14191, \"Appointing Cecilia Cervantes as a\nMember of the Public Art Commission. \" Adopted; and\n(08-137A) Resolution No. 14192, \"Appointing Andrea M. Leal as a\nMember of the Public Art Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate\nto Ms. . Leal.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 4, "text": "(08-138) Recommendation to discuss and finalize the City Council's\npriorities for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.\nJan Perkins, Management Partners, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMs. Perkins sought Council consensus to add the eighth policy\nobjective [deliver high-quality services that improve and promote\nthe safety of the community].\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the new objective differs from\nthe previous objective [continuously improve internal operations,\nsystems, and management practices in order to provide high-quality\ncustomer service]\nThe City Manager stated continuously improving internal operations\nis an effort to look at processes in every department; the\nadditional objective focuses on the safety of the community,\nincluding Police, Fire and Code Enforcement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the objective seems redundant; the\nCity already has high-quality public safety; there is always a need\nfor continual improvement regardless of the operation.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the previous objective focuses on\ncustomer service and the new objective focuses on public safety.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated identifying a\nfocus on public safety is important.\nMayor Johnson stated the new objective should be clarified.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the intent to capture the broader\nidea of public safety should be clarified.\nMayor Johnson suggested that the objective be revised to read\n\"health and safety.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted that the new objective is a catch all\nfor the health, safety and well being of the community.\nMayor Johnson stated \"well being\" should be added.\nVice Mayor Tam suggested the language be: \"health, safety and\nwelfare.\nMs. Perkins stated the objective would be revised to indicate the\nintent is not just Police and Fire; inquired whether there is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 5, "text": "consensus on the new objective.\nThe Council responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson requested that the policy objective that reads : \"Take\nmeasures to improve and promote the community's economic health\" be\nrevised to include the City government's short-term and long-term\neconomic health.\nMs. Perkins inquired whether there is a consensus to add the\nlanguage proposed by the Mayor, to which the Council responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to clarify that all\nthe projects are on-going before assigning priorities the Council\nshould be notified if something has to stop; the priorities are\ndynamic and could change next week or next month; further stated\nthe budget could cause changes; inquired whether establishing the\npriorities is a starting point.\nThe City Manager responded the process is dynamic; many work\nprograms span a number of years; reviewing the list and receiving\nfeedback will finalize the initial list.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted some departments do not have many tasks\nor tasks that require a large amount of labor public safety only\nhas emergency preparedness; that he does not want functional\nrequirements displaced.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the limit should be ten priorities if\nthere are departments that are not overburdened with projects.\nMs. Perkins stated the effort is to distinguish between the work\nprogram and the Council's top priorities so that the Council's\npriorities are understood when internal adjustment of assignments\nare necessary.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the priorities are not being reviewed by\ndepartment.\nThe City Manager responded the mechanism is to establish the\nCitywide priorities.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Council would be informed if\nresources for a project were reallocated; and whether a project\nwould be delayed, but not dropped, in said instance.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 6, "text": "would be informed if a project has to be delayed.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the local action plan spans departments,\nwhile the telecom issue is just an Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T)\nissue; inquired whether one project might be delayed if staff is\nshifted to another project.\nThe City Manager responded said example could occur; AP&T is\nworking on more than one project.\nVice Mayor Tam stated AP&T staff is needed to work on reducing the\ncarbon footprint inquired whether the same staff person might work\non the telecom issue and the formation of the local action plan and\nwhether said staff working on the telecom issue might delay the\nformation of the plan.\nThe City Manager responded one could impact the other depending on\nworkload; stated moving forward with the local action plan does\nrequire some of the same people [as the telecom issue]. having some\nof the same people work on multiple projects has been incorporated\nin the time estimates.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there are a variety of issues from\naddressing the financial issue at AP&T to renovating Rittler Field,\nand Lincoln and Krusi Parks; said items do not belong on the same\nranking sheet; getting a measuring mechanism for each item would be\na far more productive use of time; the department work plans are\nexcellent; some projects are interdisciplinary and can be separated\nout; the next step should be to get Microsoft Project or some other\ntype of project tracking tool and assign due dates and resources;\nCouncil would need to make decisions about priorities if resources\nbecome impacted because more requests are added; finishing easily\ntaken care of projects, which might be of less importance, might\nbecome important in order to get the project off the list.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the list is composed of\nitems Council has directed staff to complete, to which Ms. Perkins\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the presented workload should be\nlooked at objectively and resources should be allocated; there are\na finite number of projects; some projects might be five years out\nbecause there are too many tasks for the current staff; said\ninformation needs to presented to Council and Council can make\nadjustments.\nMs. Perkins stated Councilmember Matarrese's description is exactly\nhow staff views their responsibilities to determine how to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 7, "text": "implement the direction provided by the City Council; the intent\ntonight is to have Council conclude the discussion about the most\nimportant priorities, provide perspective as policy makers and\nexpect staff to carry out the workload.\nMayor Johnson stated things need to be prioritized because there is\nnot enough staff for everything to be at the same level questioned\nwhether the top ten projects can be prioritized while at the same\ntime there is a work chart listing all of the items as suggested by\nCouncilmember Matarrese; stated there is a concern that projects\nwill drop off the list if not in the top ten.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the priorities have been established;\nthe desire is not to lose the priorities; the priorities do not\nequate to individual workloads ; some tasks might take two months\nand are low staff resources; important tasks require high staff\nresources and cross department lines.\nMayor Johnson stated the priorities should be looked at in an\norganization chart structure to see which tasks go with which\ndepartments.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Library has the long-range plan and\nthe facilities at Harbor Bay and West End, which should be worked\non; Development Services has Alameda Point, Coast Guard housing,\nand a West End project, which are tougher tasks : AP&T's tasks to\nreduce carbon footprint and address telecom and are heavy duty\nitems; Recreation and Parks has the Alameda Museum business plan\nthat should be cleared in two months.\nMs. Perkins suggested that Council go through the ranking and\ncontinued the Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the budget review and tracking task\n[Item 18] and strengthen revenue task [Item 17] should be combined\ninto one task and ranked in the top ten given the current and\nfuture budget situation.\nMayor Johnson stated another way to look at the list would be to\nhave the projects listed under the overall policy objectives; some\nof the objectives might not be getting enough attention.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated all of the projects would suffer and\nslow down regardless of the prioritization if the City does not\nhave the revenue.\nVice Mayor Tam stated four Councilmembers ranked \"explore options\nto generate revenue for City operations and/or infrastructure\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 8, "text": "improvements\" as a top priority; suggested the priority be\nconsolidated [with budget review and tracking].\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Item 28 regarding GASB-45 is part of\nthe budget and could also be included [with budget review and\ntracking], as well as review of the compensation system [Item 14].\nMayor Johnson stated that all the items fit into the third\noverriding policy objective [improve and promote economic health] ;\nrequested that the policy objectives be numbered.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the labor agreement with public service\nshould be included, too.\nMs. Perkins stated one suggestion is to combine some of closely\naligned projects, such as budget review [Item 18] and strengthening\nrevenues [Item 17].\nMayor Johnson stated said items are simply running the City and\nshould not be considered projects; there is not a start and finish.\nThe City Manager stated said activity is a priority.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there should be a way to accelerate\nplanning projects or recruitments that will generate revenue in\norder to meet the policy objective.\nMayor Johnson stated perhaps the third policy objective [ improve\nand promote economic health] should be the number-one overriding\npolicy and other policies be listed under it; everything needs to\nbe focused on and considered the long-term and short-term economic\nhealth of the City.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he took said policy as applying to\nall departments.\nMs. Perkins stated the policy objective could be placed first\nbecause it is so important; the items being prioritized are\nactions.\nMayor Johnson stated people will understand the sense of the\nCouncil's priorities better if put in diagram form; suggested the\neconomic issue be a curve line with all other policies issues\nunderneath; stated everything that is done needs to consider the\nCity's long- and short-term economic health.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a certain level of service is\ndesired; the connection between the level of service and what it\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 9, "text": "costs needs to be made; the steps needed to pay for the desired\nlevel of service needs to be drawn out for everyone to understand\nquestioned what it costs to reach the goal of a safe and clean city\nwith good schools, libraries, parks and an efficient government\n;\nand how reaching the goals would be paid for.\nMs. Perkins stated Council is looking to establish a template to\nlook at the various objectives and projects.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Microsoft Project is a great tool;\nhiring someone to create project diagrams would be worthwhile;\nMicrosoft Project includes the resources, timeline and key decision\npoints; there would be a nice graphic representation when decisions\nneed to be made due to constraints; Council can be presented with\nchoices; there is accountability because there would be a timeline;\nif the timeline is slipping, Council could be informed and decide\nwhether or not to allow the delay from a policy standpoint.\nThe City Manager stated Councilmember Matarrese is describing\nsomething very similar to the work plans.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the work plans are great documents\nbecause they show what is happening and the status; having the\ngraphic makes it easier to make a decision when there is a problem.\nThe City Manager inquired whether Council is expressing interest in\nranking the policy objectives.\nMayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the fiscal policy\nshould be the overriding, umbrella policy.\nThe City Manager stated everything else would be underneath said\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the goal is to deliver a set of\nservices and know the cost.\nMayor Johnson stated fiscal impacts need to be considered when\nanything is done.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council had a realization that the\ncomplete financial impacts were not always understood when\ndecisions were made in the past; Council wants to know the\nfinancial impacts when decisions are made.\nMs. Perkins inquired whether Council wants the overarching value or\nframework to be that the financial capacity of the City would be\nevaluated in terms of any new objectives or projects.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson responded in the negative stated anything new would\nbe evaluated in terms of how it would impact the long- and short-\nterm economic health of the City; Council wants to know how things\nwill be paid for currently and 20 years from now.\nVice Mayor Tam stated all staff reports include a section that\naddresses fiscal impacts; Council would like a broader context of\nunderstanding the short-term and long-term impacts; the budgeted\namount for a vehicle should not be the end of the story.\nMayor Johnson stated the long-term economic impact should be\nconsidered every time the decision Council is making has an impact\non the City for twenty or more years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is all about risks and benefits;\nthe framework needs to include that Council always reviews the cost\ntoday and the cost as long as something is projected to run; costs\nneed to be accounted for up front.\nMayor Johnson stated, for perspective, the Mayor of Vallejo told\nher that if Vallejo has done anything good for other cities, they\nhave shown that bad things can happen.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not want to micromanage;\nthe big picture is to stay healthy and viable.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she does not see the direction as an\nattempt to micromanage; Council needs to have information to make a\ngood decision about the health, safety and welfare of the\ncommunity, needs to truly understand the long-term and short-term\ntrade offs, and needs to decide whether or not to accept the risk.\nMs. Perkins stated all projects would move forward unless there is\na reason and Council would be informed; the top nine priorities\nhave been identified and a tenth has been proposed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the list is artificial; Item 9 is\nthe Housing Element, which has to be done anyway inquired whether\nthe Housing Element could be prioritized as Item 29 and would still\nhave to be completed.\nMs. Perkins responded in the affirmative; stated the intent of\npriorities is for the staff to know what is most important to the\nCity Council; everything on the list will be finished unless there\nis a resources problem.\nThe City Manager stated the Housing Element is something that the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 11, "text": "City is required to do and will require a lot of resourcesi the\nHousing Element might not be completed because of the resources if\nthere is something else that Council is interested in staff doing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the important thing is that Council\nneeds to be informed, and then Council can make a policy decision\nabout putting something before a mandated project.\nThe City Manager stated that is part of the processi the work plans\nidentify all the things that staff is working on.\nVice Mayor Tam and Mayor Johnson stated that they did not select\nitems required by law when setting the priorities because they knew\nthe items had to be completed.\nThe City Manager stated there are limited resources; staff is\nsharing where resources are being applied and having Council\nprovide feedback on what it sees as priorities.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has not seen tasks causing\nmajor displacements some things, like the environmental issue,\nhave been refocused and brought up to a higher priority.\nThe City Manager stated staff had to evaluate other programs and\nbring the matter to the top; other items might have been extended;\nstaff is informing Council of the projects underway, getting\nfeedback on priorities and developing a method for reporting back.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff is seeking a tenth\npriority.\nMs. Perkins stated there are nine priority tasks and a tenth has\nbeen proposed by Councilmember Matarrese.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated every project is to be evaluated\nagainst the budget standard; the same thing has to be said for the\nCity's environmental initiatives; every project and function of\nevery department should be evaluated against the recommendations on\nhow to protect the environment, whether it is the green building\nordinance or the vehicle use policy; this is not a whim, but is a\nclear direction of the Council.\nMayor Johnson stated there needs to be a process to involve\ncommunity stakeholders in developing an economic sustainability\nstrategy that includes outreach to residents and businesses said\nissue should be included with the GASB-45 and long-term and short-\nterm economic issues said item could be the tenth priority.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 12, "text": "Ms. Perkins stated said proposal combines separate things that are\ninterrelated the items all require separate work efforts; priority\nsetting is an attempt to establish enough separation between items\nto provide staff direction as to use of resources.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not combining the items; she is\nsuggesting that the item become the tenth priority; how it would be\ndone and the structure would need to come back to Council: the task\nwould be to implement the overriding goal of short-term and long-\nterm financial feasibility; GASB-45 is something that the City has\nto do.\nMs. Perkins inquired whether the suggestion is to move up Item 28\n[GASB-45]. to which Mayor Johnson responded that it could be put\nwith the budget task [ Item 18].\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the suggestion is that GASB-45 is a\nseparate effort.\nMayor Johnson responded GASB-45 is not something the City has to\nplan for or study; stated it is something that the City has to pay\nfor and costs money; not paying is like making interest only loans\non a mortgage; the State says a plan has to be adopted, but the\nCity actually has to pay.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated it does have to be paid for, but\nshould be part of the budget.\nMayor Johnson stated the budget is only one or two years; these are\nthings that have to be paid for forever; further stated when\nCouncil makes commitments they go well beyond the current budget\nand the cost grows.\nMs. Perkins inquired whether Item 28 should become one of the top\npriorities.\nMayor Johnson stated the item relates to community stakeholders\ndeveloping a long-term and short-term economic strategy; the two\ncould be combined.\nMs. Perkins inquired how broad Council would like to make the\npriority because the items are really different work efforts.\nMayor Johnson responded GASB-45 states the City has made\ncommitments and has to tell everyone how the commitments will be\npaid for the City might want to take it one step further and\nactually pay.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 13, "text": "Ms. Perkins suggested the City Manager address the work effort\ninvolved with GABS-45. -\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the work effort needs to be\nallocated against the priority; staff would have to inform Council\nof everything that needs to be done to meet the priority and make\nsure post retirement and long-term obligations are sustainable.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated long-term impacts are being discussed;\nthe current mentality is to look at two years; there are things\nother than GASB-45 with long range impacts; both the long-term and\nshort-tern have to be examined; the best guess for the out years\nneeds to be made; said issues will be discussed at the budget\nhearings.\nThe City Manager stated that the Mayor is suggesting the number ten\npriority be the economic sustainability strategy and GASB-45 is\njust a part of said priority because it is part of the budget.\nMayor Johnson stated that is correct inquired whether the first\nnine items are ranked in order.\nThe City Manager responded not necessarily.\nMs. Perkins stated the intent is to set the top ten priorities, not\nfocus on the order.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated extra tasks happen all the time, for\nexample the Brown Apple Moth; that he would not ask what needs to\nbe displaced to work on said item; priorities need to be addressed\nwhen drastic things change.\nMayor Johnson stated Council always has the ability to change the\npriorities that she is sure Council will do so.\nThe City Manager stated staff wants to ensure change is done in a\nsystematic way and that impacts are understood.\nMayor Johnson stated changing the priorities might mean setting\nsomething aside; further stated that she hates to see Item 24, the\nWest Alameda Neighborhood improvement project, way down on the\nlist; inquired whether the item would be not be done since it is\nItem 24.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated receiving updated work plans would\nbe helpful; some items might have been accomplished.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 14, "text": "The City Manager stated a number of ways would be used to inform\nCouncil about changes to the work plans.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated whatever method is used should\nindicate the starting point and current status to allow tracking.\nMs. Perkins summarized the discussion and completed her Power Point\npresentation. The Management Partners report is hereto attached\nand made part of the minutes by reference.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed finances.\n* *\n(08-139 - ) Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting\npast midnight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n* * *\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08-140) Wu Lu, Human Rights Torch Relay; Michelle Midliff, Human\nRights Torch Relay; and Connie Wang, Falun Gong, (submitted\nhandout ) discussed the Human Rights Torch Relay and human right\nviolations in China.\n(08-141) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed economics.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-142) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Recreation and Park Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Lola W. Brown and Gina M. Mariani.\n(08-143) Mayor Johnson stated that the City received the\nCalifornia development Association award for the Bridgeside\nredevelopment project.\n(08-144) Councilmember deHaan congratulated Mayor Johnson on\nappointment to the Water Emergency Transportation Authority; stated\nthe appointment is good for Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 15, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 12:05 a.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\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, Tuesday, April 1, 2008\n1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL: President Wasko called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m.\nPresent were President Wasko, Vice-President Chen, Members Nielsen, Franz, Villareal, and Soglin\nalong with staff members Jones and Wright. Member James arrived at 7:44 p.m.\n2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The special meeting minutes from December 6, 2007 were approved.\nM/S Franz, Villareal and unanimous.\n3-A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT\nBLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATIONS: President Wasko\nexplained that members Franz and Soglin will recuse themselves from this part of the meeting. Wasko\nintroduced Community Development Program Manager Terri Wright.\nWright presented the staff recommendation for FY 08-10 public service funding. She explained that this\nmeeting was the Board's public hearing regarding CDBG public service funding recommendations.\nDuring this meeting, the Board should review the recommendation and provide their feedback to City\nCouncil in the form of a letter. Two board members should be identified to represent the Board at the\nCity Council's April 15, 2008 public hearing regarding CDBG.\nWright referred the Board to the overview of funding recommendations that were included in the Board\npacket. She provided a brief overview of the applicant pool and funding decisions. She explained that\ntwo staff people were tasked with rating each proposal. Proposal scoring rubrics were included in the\npacket. She further commented that the City received funding requests totaling approximately 2.5 times\nmore than what is available.\nWright explained that, in total, the City received 16 public service proposals. Three applicants were not\neligible for funding because they did not comply with CDBG guidelines. She explained that staff had\nprovided instruction regarding eligibility through a pre-proposal conference, and that the three ineligible\napplicants did not attend the pre-proposal conference. Eight of the nine recommended applicants\ncurrently receive CDBG funding. Wright explained that this program year has been very competitive in\nthe youth services category and that City staff will attempt to collaborate with those agencies not be\nfunded.\nWright reminded the Board that program income received by June 20, 2008 will slightly increase the\npublic service cap for program services. She anticipates $5,000 to $7,000 in addition funding for public\nservices. In the previous years, additional mid year allocations have been made to BANANAS, Inc.\nchild care voucher program and she recommends that the Board support this practice again because they\ncan quickly use that money to enroll additional families in their childcare voucher program.\nWright commented that CDBG funding continues to decline, and that a decrease in the number of home\nsales and refinances has a significant adverse impact on program income. She mentioned that after the\n2010 Census additional reductions in CDBG may occur and that pre-planning will need to occur to help\nthe City prepare for dwindling public service dollars.", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 2\nWright concluded her statements by stating that citywide budget cuts are affecting CDBG because staff\nyet workloads are increasing and there is uncertainty about the future budget.\nPresident Wasko recommended the Board hear public comment, ask questions, formulate letter from\nBoard.\nSpeakers:\nHelen Tewolde, Alternatives In Action (AIA), FROSH student - Ms. Tewolde explained that she was a\nstudent at AIA and a youth coach. She stated that AIA offers three different programs available HOME\nproject after school leadership program, BASE charter school, and a childcare center Home Sweet\nHome. She stated that she would be the first student in her family person in her family to attend college\nand that AIA is helping her prepare. She is very happy about the Board's funding recommendations as\nthey can benefit the program, and she is passionate about, the \"First to go to College\" goal.\nGaryn W. Calvin, AIA, BASE Sr., Mr. Calvin stated he was a participant in the Stepping Stones\nprogram at AIA, which is a bridge program for high school and College of Alameda students behind in\nschool credit. This program is helping him learn what he needs to know to go to college. This program\nis \"What's Up.\"\nJim Franz, American Red Cross - Alameda Service Center, Director, Mr. Franz first expressed that Paul\nRussell from the Alameda Food Bank was unable to attend because he is on vacation. Through Jim, the\nFood Bank expressed their appreciation for their recommendation. Mr. Franz stated the Red Cross\nprovides a very broad range of services for low-income folks in Alameda, including rental and utility\nassistance for Alamedans, many on the brink of homelessness. They also provide disaster preparedness\nand safety planning. He explained that in order to provide a safety net, it is critical all components are\nfunded and he encourages the continued support of safety net programs. He added that the Red Cross\nsponsors the Alameda Services Collaborative lunches that happen quarterly.\nLisa Gross, Bay Area Community Services, Director, stated her program serves the mentally and\nphysically disabled, and that BACS welcomes anyone with psychological issues. Their clients are low-\nincome, many receive Medi-Cal and 21% have been homeless. BACS provides coaching,\ncollaboration, independence, help to avoid incarceration and offer employment opportunities. Ms. Gross\nthanked the staff for their support.\nLiz Nickels, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC), passed the floor to Liz Varela.\nLiz Varela, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC) Program Director, stated the Midway\nShelter has been operating on the island for 17 years and originally started as a community project with\na previous Mayor. BFCW took over the shelter six years ago. They also operate two shelters in San\nLeandro. She explained that there is a much higher level of community support and involvement in\nAlameda. She explained that all dinners are cooked and delivered by Alameda residents. She further\nexplained that Alamedans are generous with time and donation to the shelter, and Midway staff and\nclients feel and see the difference. She thanked the community and staff. She also thanked the staff for\nsupport in rehabilitation of Midway's facility. Ms. Varela further stated the (BFWC) has been\nexpanding its mission to include an emphasis on ending homelessness and domestic violence. There", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 3, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 3\nwill be a change in case planning to support housing plans and she looks forward to supporting further\ncollaboration with other services here in Alameda.\nPatricia Murillo, Alternatives in Action, Executive Director, stated she wanted to express thanks to the\nstaff. It has been eight years since the last time AIA was funded with CDBG. This year, AIA will\nrelocate to a new location at the Woodstock School campus and partner with AUSD. The new transition\ncenter will open and be able to provide regional occupation programs for youth. CDBG funding will\nsupport the job training programs that include ROP credits.\nGenevieve Cross, Women's Initiative for Self-Employment (WISE) stated she is thrilled to be included\nin the funding recommendations. WISE is in their 20th year of helping train women to be entrepreneurs',\nwith all training classes in English and Spanish. She further stated WISE has been established in other\ncities and apply and receive CDBG funding for their cause. They have wait lists in five counties they\nare located in. Thank you to staff.\nChen - How do people obtain these programs, do they walk-in or is there a referral system?\nWright - Each program or agency has their own process for in-take, some are referrals some are walk-\nins.\nFranz - Some are given multiple referrals, it varies by agency.\nChen - Is there more demand than available services?\nWright - Yes.\nVillareal - Are the services you are offering supplemental to school?\nMurillo - Yes. This year I learned that there are very few academic programs available to students\nduring the summer. Alameda Unified and Oakland Unified are providing only remediation. We are the\nonly program during the summer that will allow students to work towards through future by providing\nacademic enrichment and college credit. There aren't any other programs on the island offering young\npeople the opportunity to do that. They are the only afterschool program that allows school credit that\nshe is aware of for grades 9 to 12.\nWasko- Do you need to be a student at BASE to participate in the program?\nMurillo - During the summer program, we serve Encinal High students, Alameda High, BASE students\nand Oakland Unified students in the 5-6 week intensives.\nVillareal - Do you collaborate with the College of Alameda?\nMurillo - Yes. Two of our classes currently are articulated with the Peraltas. They handle that\narticulation process so that students can earn college credit.\nNielsen - So how many classes do you offer?", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 4, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 4\nMurillo - Currently, we have two classes where young people can get vocational education credits. One\nis through our sound studio and the second course is through HOME SWEET HOME early childhood\neducation course. We have other elective classes that aren't ROP classes where young people can get\ngeneral elective credit but its not really towards a certificate or ROP credit.\nNielsen - And you offer an internship component as well?\nMurillo - Yes. We currently have an internship component now at BASE. In addition, what we were\nhoping to do was expand that program so that young people who were part of HOME project who might\nbe at Encinal high school or other schools will be able to access an internship through the center. The\nconcept is a little like an internship library. Previously, the internship program has been primarily for\nour seniors.\nNielsen - And how are you leveraging resources with the Boys and Girls Club?\nMurillo - We're working with the Boys and Girls Club to find ways to link services. One of the things\nthe Boys and Girls club does really well is hooking youth ages 8-13. One of the things that is\nchallenging, I can speak on that because I was a Boys and Girls Club staff member for several years in\nSan Francisco, is continuing to connect high school aged youth to the Clubhouse unless there is a real\nstructured program with a clear link to career planning. We are currently working with the Boys and\nGirls Club so that it can become a target internship site for some of our young people. The co-location\npart is key.\nNielsen - So it sounds like the reduction is not going to impact quality of services?\nMurillo - We had planned to do some academic support planning that we won't be able to do. We'll\nincrease our fundraising efforts in order to work towards implementing that.\nWasko - The Red Cross funding went from $61k to $41k, does that mean less people will be served?\nFranz - No. We asked for less this year. The funding cuts were made at the staffing level because Craig\nour case manager is retiring. More will be done by collaborating and working with case managers at\nother agencies and training volunteers to do more. I'll also be focusing move time on Alameda by\nreducing some of my broader Bay Area responsibilities.\nJames - Looking at the scores, there is only a very small point difference between two of the funded\nprograms and the Filipinos for Affirmative Action proposal. Why wasn't Filipinos for Affirmative\nAction funded?\nWright - Lack of available funding is the primary reason. The most applicants were within the youth\ndevelopment category. You also have to remember from a needs perspective that the safety net services\nhave always been identified as the highest needs in the community priority. While there have also been\nstrong support for youth development services and economic development services, its about finding\nways to balance all of these needs. For example, the Four Bridges Program represents the only program\nfunded for people with disabilities.", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 5, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 5\nJames - This is a follow up question. Are all currently funded grantees fulfilling their contractual\nobligations?\nWright - Yes. We have high performers. We do monitoring every couple of years. Sometimes we find\nadministration issues. In the case of administration performance issues, CDBG regulations are very\nclear that City staff should work with the grantee to improve those systems. Its technical assistance. If\nanyone has a performance issue, we would work with the agency from a technical assistance standpoint\nto solve that problem. In this competitive environment, if something is not working; it behooves them to\nwork with us. No one is close to getting me in trouble at all. We have some incredibly high performing\nprograms.\nNielsen - I have a question for Four Bridges, with the Mental Health Services Act, do you foresee an\nincrease in funding?\nGross - Yes. We hope SO. A group that is researching what works is visiting us. We hope to continue\nthat relationship, and we hope to get part of that project funded. But, while there is a lot of money out\nthere, it may be two to three years before it trickles down to programs.\nNielsen - In regard to Sentinel Fair Housing, what happened to the business license requirements for\nowners of single unit rental properties? Currently, they do not need to obtain a business license because\nof a loophole in the licensing requirements.\nWasko - This is not the purview of this Board.\nWright - Wasko is correct, but as a citizen you can talk to the Planning Board or this being a business\nlicense function within the Finance Department. Wright offered to look into the issue further. There\nmight be many other reasons why it is not practical.\nWasko - This is an issue that's been on our written agendas for our joint meetings with City Council for\nthe last three years. It was identified as a way to get a list of single-unit landlords so that more of they\ncan be provided with fair housing training.\nWright - I'll work to see where the lines of communication lie.\nVillareal - Regarding WISE, the requested funds was for $25k and the recommended funds is $40k?\nWright - -There is more flexibility because they are eligible for non-public service funds. I increased the\nfunding so that the agency could include starter grants so that they can purchase computers and other\ntechnology that would be helpful in starting helping the women start their businesses.\nChen -Filipinos for Affirmative Action's scores were right on the line, but they got zero funding. Why\ncouldn't you use your discretion to provide them with funding?\nWright - -Unfortunately there is not enough money in the public service cap to fund everyone who\napplies for funding. If I can I try to think outside of the box, I do. But they are a public service\nprogram, and there is just not a place where I can be flexible on the public service cap.", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 6, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 6\nWasko - I have comments about the rider about giving any additional money resulting from program\nincome to BANANAS. I know Franz has said he'll be 'okay'. But, I know what's going on in the\nhousing market and with foreclosures, and I think we are going to see more people than we' ve ever seen\nbefore seeking rental assistance. I want to keep the option open incase we have more need for rental\nassistance.\nWright - I do think the market is changing. Staff can come back to the Board to see if the need is\ngreater in childcare or in rental assistance.\nVillareal - If that mid year money can remain unrestricted, can it be applied to any of the programs\nrecommended for funding?\nWright - Well, I want to be able to maintain that the funding be provided -like rental assistance\nor\nchildcare vouchers, rather than for operational support such as salary. When you establish an\noperational service level, you generally try to maintain that service level so that you are not reducing\npeople's salaries. I wouldn't want to give an agency extra money and then yank it from them.\nBANANAS and the rental assistance program have an opportunity to ramp up or ramp down based on\nthe amount of funding without impacting operational funding for staff.\nVillareal - Some of the service providers have been funded for several years, and the need is clearly\nthere. At the same time, is there an expectation that their funding will continue on a regular basis or is\nthere ever any opportunity for new public service programs to be provided funding beyond one or two\nnew programs a year?\nWright - On a practical matter, once the program is established and then the funding tightens, it is very\ndifficult to establish new programs. These programs have constituents who value these programs and\nthey are doing a good job. They work well together.\nNielsen - I'm a little concerned that some of the agencies that did apply were off the mark with what the\nrequirements are. I'm wondering if there is anything to be done to cultivate these applicants?\nWright - It is not only money that we value as a resource. Partnerships are a resource, and staff will\ncontact with these applicants who are not funded to connect them to other sources and help them\nunderstand how they can be more competitive.\nWasko - I want to echo and emphasize the Alameda part of this. I think as each of you spoke there was\na little Oakland in there. I also know how families start out here in Alameda and then because of\neconomics end up in Oakland, but money is intended exclusively for Alameda residents.\nWright - No. If service providers say they are serving Alameda residents and other communities, they\nneed to \"primarily' serve Alameda. However, they can serve some others. Homeless programs cannot\nrestrict their services to only Alamedans.\nWasko - Does the Women's Initiative for Self Employment (WISE) have wait lists that will migrate to\nAlameda, or will you do a new recruitment for Alameda?", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 7, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 7\nWright - WISE will use the funding to serve Alamedans. There are already a number of Alamedans on\nour waiting list. We will also advertise within Alameda.\nWasko - Do you (WISE) have a site location here in Alameda?\nCross - No, but when we have gone into other areas, we have partnered with other organizations to hold\nour trainings there. It allows us to do cross referrals and limit travel time for our participants.\nChen - The CDBG process is very complex and we are lucky to have it here in Alameda.\nJames - I have a couple of comments and a recommendation. I should first state publicly that I am a\nformer employee of the Alameda Boys & Girls Club. I worked there for about four years. I was really\nimpressed with the youth who are hear tonight, and I think it speaks volumes about the youth and the\nAIA program. As I suggested at the previous meaning, I think we really need to focus on youth\nempowerment. I would have put that word, empowerment, in three or four times if I could have. With\nthat said, I want to talk about my first hand observations being an employee there and my observations\nsince leaving the West Alameda Teen Center (WATC). When I look at the information listed regarding\nthe programs they provide, it looks like fiction to me. Not only did I initiate a number of those\nprograms listed; they have not been there since I left. Students are calling me and myspacing me asking\nif they can come to my house to record because the program no longer exists at the Boys and Girls Club.\nAlso there have always been concerns about the number of members and attendance. To see the\nnumbers listed it is very questionable to me. Anyways I' m going to save some of my comments for the\nCity Council. I recommend that of the $36,500 allocated to youth development, $19,000 goes to\nAlternatives in Action considering that they will be unable to do the academic tutoring program because\nthey have received less than they requested. Additionally, I would recommend $3,000 for FAA, with\nthe remaining money $14,000 to the Alameda Boys and Girls Club.\nWright - Staff asked James prior to this meeting if he was comfortable being a former employee and\nsitting on this side of the Board. You should know that staff have been evaluating this feedback that\nwe' ve received from James and are looking to see what it is we are seeing. You also need to understand\nthat the Boys and Girls Club is in a transition location, so they may not be performing at peak\nperformance.\nWasko - Being that the club is in a development state, transitioning, perhaps this is an opportunity for us\nto at this time we divert funds for now?\nWright - If the Board would like to suggest that to the City Council that is fine, but staff will still\ncontinue with its recommendation. Although performance issues have been brought up, we have not\nfully demonstrated their validity-everyone gets a chance to meet their goals. They have met their goals\nand to say they should not receive funding\nWasko - That is not what we are saying. If they are getting this much funding and their facility is not as\nbig as it was, and historically they have been receiving this much funding, than maybe we should look at\nit proportionately to their services.\nVillareal - James concern about emphasizing education and empowerment is a nationwide one, I\nstrongly believe that we need to promote tutoring and similar academic programs that help students of", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 8, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 8\ncolor get ahead, earn college credit, and help them focus on the future. I'm a very strong advocate for\neducation. We need to help the underprivileged youth not getting their fair share with the processes\nthat currently exist.\nChen - I'd be more comfortable with James' comments about the Alameda Boys and Girls Club if there\nwas a representative from the agency here.\nWright - This meeting was rescheduled. Alameda Boys and Girls Club staff typically try to be present,\nbut there is a Council meeting tonight and that is where they are.\nWasko - There is also a concern that agencies that traditionally have received funding are relying on\nfunding because they were funded in the past.\nChen - So, should we accept staff recommendations or reject staff recommendation?\nWright - The Board is not able to \"reject' staff's recommendations, you may agree or disagree. The\nBoard's scope is to provide input, assess if funding levels are reasonable, and if activities are consistent\nwith priority needs.\nWasko - Your currently spending $36,500 between the 2 youth development programs. Could we just\nsplit it down the middle? So, Boys and Girls Club is losing $2,000 and AIA is gaining $2,000.\nWright - -That's a possibility. It's too bad that George Phillips isn't here to let us know if he could make\nit work with the reduced funding. For the most part the Board and City Council has supported what the\nstaff recommends. I do have a little concern that\nChen - I' 'm very uncomfortable with this. The Alameda Boys and Girls Club description says the\norganization is an afterschool educational service. We aren't giving them the benefit of the doubt here.\nI'm uncomfortable with changing the staff recommendation without at least giving the Boys and Girls\nClub an opportunity to respond.\nWright - I'm willing to agree to have a conversation with the Alameda Boys and Girls Club regarding a\nreduction in their funding.\nWasko - We hope all who have requested funds know how competitive it was. Staff should share the\nscores. Maybe this as a wake-up call to those agencies that are continually funded that this is a highly\ncompetitive process. Thank you to Franz in requesting less funding than in the past. If not for him, we\nwouldn't be having this discussion.\nWasko - Are we as a Board prepared to move forward with making a statement?\nMotion to fund both youth programs equally at $18,250, accept other funding recommendations as\nwritten, and to apply any additional funding to either the Red Cross rental assistance program,\nBANANAS child care voucher program, or some combination of the two. Staff will draft letter\nregarding recommendations. Wasko will review and approve. Wasko and Villareal will represent the\nBoard at City Council meeting on April 15th. (M/S James, Chen) and unanimous.", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 9, "text": "Special Minutes of the SSHRB, April 1, 2008 Meeting\nPage 9\nMotion to approve action items only on the remaining agenda. (M/S Franz, Wasko) and unanimous.\n3-B. AMENDING BYLAWS TO INCLUDE EXPLICIT PROCESS FOR AGENDA ITEMS:\nMember Soglin asked for Board approval for the language to be included in the bylaws of the Board will\nbe, \"To place an item on the SSHRB agenda, Board members should contact the Board President or the\nBoard secretary. Items and pertinent information must be received prior to public noticing of the\nagenda in order to ensure compliance with Brown Act regulations.\" Motion to approve language (M/S\nWasko, Franz) and unanimous.\n4. ADJOURNMENT: President Wasko adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nMelissa Jones\nSecretary, Social Services Human Relations Board\nMJ:sb\nG:SSHRB\\Packets/2008\\April08\\MinSpecial040108\nF: SSHRB\\2008\\Agendas Packets", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-04-01.pdf"}