{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2011--7:00 - - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(11-003) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution Supporting Measure\nA\n[paragraph no. 11-015 would be addressed first under Regular Agenda Items.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-004) Proclamation Declaring January 4, 2011 as Encinal Jets Day\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Coach Joe Tenorio and\nmembers of the football team.\n(11-005) Proclamation Declaring January as National Blood Donor Month\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Lisa Eversol, Donor Recruitment\nAccount Manager.\nMs. Eversol thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated approximately 1,100 units\nof blood were collected last year; the next blood drive will be at St. Barnabus Church\nand School on Saturday, January 22, 2011.\nSpeaker: Michael John Torrey, Alameda.\n(11-006) Presentation by Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA) on Ferry Service\nFares\nJohn Sindzinski, WETA Manager - Planning and Development, gave a Power Point\npresentation.\n(11-007) Presentation of the Sunshine Task Force Proposed Sunshine and Campaign\nFinance Reform Ordinances\nThe Acting City Manager gave a brief presentation,\nSpeakers: Karen Butter, League of Women Voters (submitted letter); John Knox White,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "Sunshine Task Force; Gretchen Lipow, Sunshine Task Force; and Adam Gillitt,\nAlameda.\nFollowing Ms. Lipow's comment's, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the\nSunshine Task Force has reviewed local control of determining what is considered to be\ncampaign material; stated SunCal spent millions of dollars on materials which they\nconsider not to be campaign material.\nMr. Knox White responded the courts have stated that the City has no control on how\nmoney is spent.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a local process should be established; disclosure\nshould be required.\nMr. Knox White stated the federal tax code drives the issue.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested an opinion from the Acting City Attorney.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated understanding the impacts of money coming from public\ncorporations would be helpful.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated filings are required for election materials; a local\nprocess should be established for determining what qualifies as election material.\nMayor Gilmore stated nothing would be adopted tonight; the matter would come back\nfor more input and public discussion at a later date; thanked the Sunshine Task Force\nfor doing an amazing amount of work in a short period of time; stated topics are not\nsimple; that she would like to see an analysis of how the ordinance is more restrictive\nthan the Brown Act and differs from the current practice; she is interested in a practical\nview of the issue, particularly from the City Clerk's office.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated sometimes a lead person from a group is given more\ntime to speak; inquired whether the Sunshine Task Force addressed the issue.\nMs. Lipow responded the intent is not to have a person speak for more than fifteen\nminutes; stated the proposed ordinance may not be clear on the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether concerns were raised regarding Closed\nSession electronic recording.\nMayor Gilmore and Councilmember Tam responded the issue is included in the\nproposed ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam thanked the Sunshine Task Force; stated the scope expanded;\nthat she likes the recommendations regarding finding ways to maximize access,\nparticularly in allowing people to speak ahead of time on items not on the agenda; she\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "likes the idea of document access, which includes an index to ensure accessibility for\nthe community; Closed Sessions are not audio or video recorded; Closed Sessions\nbecome open sessions after a period of time except for litigation matters; she would like\nto understand how State law addresses audio and video recordings; understanding\nwhether Council would have some discretion to improve independent expenditure\ncampaign disclosure that may not be completely defined by federal law would be\nhelpful, particularly regarding outside funding and last minute expenditures by Political\nActon Committees and groups.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether a process could be set up for residents to file\nallegations or complaints for local Brown Act violations.\nMayor Gilmore and Councilmember Tam responded the matter is addressed in the\nproposed ordinance.\nMayor Gilmore stated Section 2.13 addresses barriers to attendance; that she agrees\nwith the concept of not having meetings go past 11:00 p.m.; however, in the past,\npeople have wanted to address items of interest; some thought should be given to the\nissue; the proposed ordinance addresses requiring a majority to call special meetings;\ninquired whether having a majority getting together and acting on a matter would be a\nBrown Act issue.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked the Sunshine Task Force for the comprehensive documents;\nstated having a cheat sheet showing current regulations compared to what is proposed\nwould be helpful; that he has concerns regarding limited release of audio and video of\nClosed Sessions; the attorney-client privilege should not be waived for litigation matters;\nthat he agrees with the concept of disclosure and transparency; however, the City\nshould be protected; the election period is not described clearly; inquired whether a few\nmore months [to address campaign debt] could be added after an election.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with the legality of Closed Sessions;\nhowever, having a record is a benefit for Council to understand what has transpired.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated notes are taken and become public; an audio and video\nprocess would be treated the same way.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether a person has a time limit to file a complaint\non Brown Act violations.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded different remedies are available; stated a Demand\nto Cure has a 30-90 day time limit.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested the Acting City Attorney to review Section 4.2 to\ndetermine whether 30 days makes sense given other time requirements.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Gilmore announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 11-008 were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(11-008) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting, and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on December 21,\n2010; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on December 28, 2010. Approved.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\nand Vice Mayor Bonta abstained from voting on the December 21, 2010 Joint meeting.\n(*11-009) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,228,477.08\n(*11-010) Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to an Agreement with Holland +\nKnight, LLP to Add $24,000 to the Budget for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services for\nAlameda Point. Accepted.\n(*11-011) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manger to Amend a\nMemorandum of Understanding with the Alameda County Congestion Management\nAgency to Allocate Additional Funds in the Amount of $528,000 for the Implementation\nof the Webster Street Smart Corridor Management Project for a Total Amount of\n$1,638,000, and to Execute all Necessary Documents to Implement the Project.\nAccepted.\n(*11-012) Resolution No. 14536, \"Ordering Vacation of Two Existing Power Easements\nand One Existing Public Utility Easement, Within Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 2542, and\nRecordation of Quitclaim (Alameda Towne Centre).\" Adopted.\n(*11-013) Resolution No. 14537, \"Superceding and Rescinding Resolution 14032\nDesignating the Person to Perform the Duties of the City Manager in the Event of His or\nHer Absence or Disability.\" Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-014) Notice for Proposed Modifications to the City of Alameda's Private Sewer\nLateral Ordinance\nThe Public Works Director and the Assistant Engineer gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether another test would be required if testing was\nperformed for a significant remodel and shortly thereafter, the property is sold.\nThe Assistant Engineer responded in the negative; stated certification would be good for\ntwenty-five years.\nCouncilmember Tam requested clarification on the Private Sewer Lateral (PSL),\noverflows, and wet weather projects.\nThe Public Works Director stated the City provides a sewage collection system to the\nEast Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); EBMUD treats the sewage; the previous\nClean Water Act interpretation allowed EBMUD to discharge partially treated sewage\ninto the Bay during wet weather; the new interpretation does not; many of the City's\nsewers are close to 100 years old; joints are disconnecting and cracking; water goes\ninto pipes through the cracks; rain water gets into sewers; EBMUD's treatment is not\nsized for treating the incoming sewage infill and infiltration (I & I); the Environmental\nProtection Agency (EPA) asked EBMUD to stop discharging into the Bay; the EPA\nthought the most cost-effective way would be to have each of the seven satellite\nagencies review ways to reduce I & I; the City has completed all I & I programs; the\nEPA has requested EBMUD to perform flow monitoring and to have $2 million available\nannually for lateral repairs.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the City's proposal would not be less restrictive; the City has\ncertification for twenty-five years versus EBMUD's certification for twenty years; the City\nwould require condominiums to be tested every twenty-five years versus EBMUD's ten-\nyear requirement; inquired whether the City's proposal would be on safe ground.\nThe Assistant Engineer responded the EPA has not commented on the City's\napplication.\nThe Public Works Director stated the EPA's initial impression is that the City's proposal\nshould be acceptable; the EPA's concern is lower lateral repairs.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-015) Resolution No. .14538, \"Supporting Measure A, the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict Replacement Education Parcel Tax.\" Adopted.\nThe Acting City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council has always been steadfast in supporting schools and\nrealizing that the School District's financial difficulties are a community issue; the\ncommunity needs to come together to support the schools.\nSpeakers: Mike McMahon, School Board; Margie Sherratt, School Board; and David\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "Howard, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the parcel tax is important to everyone; a parcel tax is not the\nperfect tool to generate revenue but is the chief form of self help available; that he\nappreciates the process in putting a new structure together; the way in which the State\nfunds schools has major fundamental structure problems; Alameda resident, Michael\nRobles-Wong, is the main plaintiff in the Robles-Wong litigation which seeks to get fair\nfunding from the State for the community; that his [Vice Mayor Bonta's] two daughters\nare name plaintiffs in the Robles-Wong lawsuit.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda has a long history of being self sufficient;\nstructural problems exist at the State level and have direct impacts on school funding;\nschool closures, increasing class size, and transporting students across town and\nincreased traffic have significant community impacts; the School District is at the mercy\nof the State for its funding; the parcel tax would provide some control at the local level\nthat the State would not be able to take away; efforts made by the Alameda Business\nAlliance and endorsements by the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and\nChamber of Commerce have helped in the likelihood of the parcel tax succeeding;\nencouraged the Council to support the resolution.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she appreciates WABA and the Chamber of Commerce\nendorsing the parcel tax; additional taxes are in nobody's best interest except for the\nchildren; times are difficult; the parcel tax is important for the kids and the community.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-016) Resolution No. 14539, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Apply for\nAnnexation into the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Special District and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Initiate a Special Tax Election to Provide\nFinancial Support for Annexation into the District.\" Adopted.\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:02 p.m. and returned at 9:04 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore stated money would need to come out of the General Fund without a\nfunding mechanism; previous discussions have included the County taking over the\nCity's transports, but the City would still need to pay the County $857,831 [annually]; the\nquestion is whether the financing mechanism would be the General Fund or a special\ntax.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what would be the tax per parcel.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 7, "text": "The Senior Management Analyst responded approximately $27.00 per parcel; stated\nbenefit unit calculations would be associated with the parcel.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the tax would help sustain trauma centers in Alameda\nCounty.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Acting Fire Chief stated first\nresponder money [$43,500 per unit] coming to the City from the Emergency Medical\nServices (EMS) District would be new money; the new money would be applied to\narrears owed to the County; paying back arrears would take approximately fifteen years.\nThe Senior Management Analyst continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the previous Council direction was related to Option 5\n[annex into EMS District and assume the EMS District has the authority to levy the tax]..\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff believes Option 5 is a risky strategy because\nresidents would not have the opportunity to vote on the tax.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated a memo could be provided to Council on the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember Johnson; Council\ndirected staff to run the trap line on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)\nprocess; residents voted to include Advanced Life Support (ALS) service in 1983;\nAlameda is the only city in Alameda County that is not part of the EMS District; the tax\nwould be imposed as a condition of the annexation process.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the election process would be complete before the\nLAFCO process, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether LAFCO could deny the application if there were no\nfunding mechanism, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded a certification\nof completion, would not be provided.\nThe Acting City Manager stated everything would need to be done by August 2011 in\norder to meet the November 2011 tax rolls; the next opportunity would be August 2012.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the City would be using the EMS District's\ntaxing authority under Option 5; the City would need to go through the State Board of\nEqualization (BOE) approval process which has one deadline of December 1st; the City\ncould use the LAFCO annexation process and use the protest process to test\ncommunity support; the City would not have any money until 2013 if Option 5 is chosen;\nstaff recommends Option 3 [annex into EMS District and pass a ballot measure levying\na special tax] in order to get financing in the most expeditious manner.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 8, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst stated by\nusing the City's own taxing authority versus the EMS District's taxing authority, the\nannexation would be a simultaneous process to main consistency and parody with other\ncities within the EMS District.\nCouncilmember Tam stated going through the LAFCO process would accomplish two\nobjectives with one process.\nMayor Gilmore inquired why the City would need to go through annexation if the same\nthing could be accomplished with Option 2 [pass ballot measure levying a special tax].\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded all of the other cities are in the EMS\nDistrict; stated under Option 2, the City would continue to have contractual negotiations\nwith the County.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the BOE deadline is certain, to which the Senior\nManagement Analyst responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council did not know about the BOE process.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff has dug deeper into the matter; staff believes that\nOption 3 is the quickest option.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there would be two more City Council meetings at\nwhich special tax resolutions could be adopted.\nThe Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the February 4th deadline\nwould apply for a May election.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated the LAFCO process has a two-month lead time;\nthe driver of the schedule would be using the City's own taxing authority; having a mail\nballot would get the tax on the tax rolls immediately.\nThe Acting City Manager stated Council could adopt the resolution to kick off the\nLAFCO process; staff could come back to Council regarding the tax.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she wants to go forward with Option 5 in order to\nget the whole process started.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of Option 5 [including adoption of the Resolution];\nstated the annexation process through LAFCO could condition and levy the tax\naccording to what has been passed by the voters with respect to Measure C; election\ncosts would be saved; opportunities need to be maximized to run the trap line since the\nCity is planning on being part of the EMS District anyway; the City should take\nadvantage of the EMS District's [taxing] authority\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 9, "text": "The Senior Management Analyst stated Option 5 would mean that the City would have\nto use money from next year's General Fund because the tax would not be on the tax\nrolls until the following year.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that staff should see whether the City could take\nadvantage of another BOE process.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, including direction to have a briefing,\ninvestigation and report on an expedited schedule with the BOE.\nMayor Gilmore summarized the motion to approve moving forward with the annexation,\ninstructing staff to have discussions with the State Board of Equalization regarding\nexpediting the process, and providing a legal opinion regarding the entire process.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the matter could come back at the February 1st City\nCouncil meeting or February 2nd Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMeeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-017) Recommendation to Provide Input on the City Manager Recruitment Brochure\nand Approve Designating a Council Subcommittee to Finalize the Brochure, Review\nApplications and Select Candidates for Interviews.\nThe Human Resource Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated a sub-committee was appointed on December 28th; tonight's\nobjective is to review the Request for Qualification (RFQ).\nThe Human Resources Director stated the [RFQ] brochure was developed by an\nexecutive search firm six years ago; a similar brochure has been developed in house.\nMayor Gilmore stated a national search was conducted last time; some candidates were\nfrom out of State; Council asked one candidate how objectives would be accomplished\nwithout adequate funding; the out of State candidate responded that the matter has\nnever been an issue; inquired whether Council wants to encourage out of State\napplicants this time.\nCouncilmember Johnson responded out of State applicants would take a long time to\nget up to speed with California law; stated that she would prefer to focus on candidates\nwith California experience.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated California experience is important.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated having a very high knowledge of California law should\nbe made very clear; reference to the Library needs to be deleted; the brochure should\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 10, "text": "include maintenance and a long-term strategy for maintaining existing infrastructure and\nassets; experience with bargaining and labor groups is important.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated information regarding the former Naval Base needs to\nbe updated.\nMayor Gilmore stated a lot has been accomplished in the last six years; the former\nNaval Base needs to be described in different terms.\nCouncilmember Tam stated reference to cable TV and Internet needs to be eliminated.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated reference should be made to the redevelopment of the\nNorthern Waterfront.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City's snapshot needs to be updated; the City no longer has\n675 full-time employees.\nThe Acting City Manager staff would work on community information; Council should\naddress the ideal candidate section.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated financial sustainability should be included.\nMayor Gilmore stated six years ago, Council was dead on with regard to the portrait of\nthe ideal candidate; she would like to add the ability to work cooperatively with Council\nand staff and other like appointed official,; the ability to engage and seek input from the\npublic, and a demonstrated track record in terms of transparency and transparent\nprocesses; inquired whether housing should be part of the package.\nCouncilmember Johnson responded not every city requires the City Manager to live in\nthe community; stated quality is more important than willingness to relocate to Alameda.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated living in Alameda should be encouraged but not required.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Vice Mayor Bonta; stated Council cannot legally\nrequire residency.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated requiring someone to live in Alameda is very costly;\nresidency could be required through a contract.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Council would be willing to consider a candidate from\nthe private sector, to which Councilmember Johnson responded that she would.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded that he would; however, cities are unique; stated\nprivate sector candidates should not be excluded.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a private sector candidate would need to have a high\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 11, "text": "The Acting City Manager stated staff needs to work on page one of the brochure; the\nsub-committee needs to finalize what is needed for an ideal candidate; the timeframe is\nshort.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what the application timeframe would be.\nThe Human Resources Director responded normally, the timeframe is six weeks; stated\nthe timeframe would be cut.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the timeframe would be cut; stated strong\napplicants are needed.\nThe Human Resources Director stated that she is open to whatever Council wants to\ndo.\nThe Acting City Manager stated a specific review date could be given, but applications\ncould continue to be accepted.\nMayor Gilmore stated setting a deadline is important.\nThe Acting City Manager stated applicants would mostly likely get applications in [by the\ndate] in order not to lose out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated recently, other cities have received a significant amount of\nresumes; however, the amount does not speak to the quality.\nThe Human Resources Director stated San Carlos, San Rafael, San Ramon, and\nRedwood City are recruiting for City Managers.\nSpeakers: Kate Quick, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Councilmembers should be able to review all\napplications.\nThe Acting City Manager stated applications could be on file in the City Manager's\noffice.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether compensation would be specific or based on\nexperience and offer a generous benefit package.\nThe Acting City Manager responded compensation is usually based upon qualifications;\nstated benefits are the same as other staff.\nThe Human Resources Director stated some benefits are non-negotiable; the PERS\nretirement formula is 2% at 55; the deferred compensation plan could offer more.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see standardization across the\nboard.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City Manager would be making less than some\nPolice Captains by using the compensation in the brochure.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated a salary survey could be conducted.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the League of California Cities recently conducted a\nsalary survey.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the survey does not provide an apple to apples\ncomparison.\nMayor Gilmore stated as a policy several years ago, the Council decided that the City\nManager should be the highest paid employee because of the responsibility; Police\nCaptains are inching up; the topic is complicated and needs to be agendized for\ndiscussion; the salary structure Citywide needs to be addressed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated several Senate committees and the State Controller\nrequested each city within the State to submit the City Manager and top five to ten\ncompensation packages; the information is readily available; a salary survey is not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 13, "text": "needed.\nMayor Gilmore stated a motion is needed to confirm the sub-committee and to instruct\nthe sub-committee to work with the Human Resources Director to proceed with the\nsearch.\nThe Acting City Manager stated Council provided input on the brochure this evening;\nthe sub-committee would finalize the brochure, review the applications, and select the\ncandidates for interviews.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the brochure would not come back to Council but would\nbe finalized by the sub-committee.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of said direction.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she and Vice Mayor Bonta are the subcommittee members.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-018) The following speakers addressed the December 28th Council meeting\ndecision regarding the Interim City Manager: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Jean Sweeney,\nAlameda; Harvey Wilson, Alameda; Denise Lai, Alameda; David Howard, Alameda; Red\nWetherill, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Corinne\nLambden, Alameda; Carol Gottstein, Alameda; Adam Gillitt, Alameda; Robert Todd,\nAlameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Darcy Morrison, Alameda; Eugenie Thompson,\nAlameda.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(11-019) Consider Changing the Order of the City Council Agendas.\nMayor Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many times people stay very late in order to comment;\ntonight's Oral Communication ran past fifteen minutes; inquired whether\ncommunications would be consolidated if Oral Communications were over fifteen\nminutes.\nMayor Gilmore responded that she is not suggesting consolidating; stated the City Clerk\ncould randomly pick five or six speakers, and the rest would speak later.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the community paces itself [on the timing of agenda\nitems]; a speaker would have an opportunity to speak later, if the first opportunity to\nspeak is missed; that he would like City Manager Communications to stay in the same\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 14, "text": "order.\nMayor Gilmore stated having Oral Communications addressed twice would not happen\nvery often; that she wants to move City Manager Communications down in order to\naddress items sooner; many times, action items do not start until after 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated moving Oral Communications up might make sense;\nthat she would like to leave City Manager Communications the same because topics\nare often of general interest to the community.\nMayor Gilmore stated City Manager Communications are not action items and can be\npushed over to the next meeting; many times, applicants are sitting with consultants and\nlawyers to address Planning Board appeals.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she does not have a strong preference.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that his real concern is the length of the meetings; he\nwould be willing to go along with the 15-minute rule [for Oral Communications] but is not\nsure about picking names to speak.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Sunshine Task Force addressed ending meetings earlier and\nnot addressing items after a certain time; the matter would come back for Council\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would like to try the change of order; every\nmeeting would have the flexibility to change the order to accommodate people.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a second section would need to be added for Oral\nCommunications.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council Meetings need to start at 7:00 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore stated starting Closed Session meetings before 6:00 p.m. is difficult\nbecause some Councilmembers have other jobs or commitments; comments would\nneed to be very concise in order to conclude by 7:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Closed Session items could be carried over to after the\nCity Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City Council meeting starting time needed to be\nflexible; Council cannot always start at 7:00 p.m.; the goal should be to start at 7:00\np.m.; perhaps the agenda should note the starting time as 7:00 p.m. \"or as soon\nthereafter as possible.\"\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta stated reconvening the Closed Session after the City Council meeting\nis the appropriate thing to do; Oral Communications, Phase 1, needs to be pushed up\non the agenda.\nMayor Gilmore stated the proposed change should be tried; the order can be changed if\nnecessary.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated pushing agenda items off to the next Council Meeting is\nnot a practical idea; conducting City business is the purpose of City Council meetings\nand needs to be a priority.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Sunshine Task Force is not recommending ending the\nCouncil meetings at a certain time, but not to bring up new items after a certain time.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of directing staff to come back with a resolution to\namend the order of business to reflect having Oral Communications in two parts and\nmoving City Manager Communications after Item 7.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-020) Councilmember deHaan stated that he has a lot of concerns with the\nadministrative leave given to the Interim City Manager; he is a strong supporter of the\nInterim City Manager for many reasons; the Interim City Manager has accomplished a\nnumber of key issues; continuity has been lost; that he has never seen a more\ndedicated City Manager.\n(11 - 021) Vice Mayor Bonta stated the Measure A campaign kickoff will be at 10:00 a.m.\non Saturday at Lum School.\n(11-022) Councilmember Johnson stated a lot of people have commented on the\nDecember 28th Special Meeting; a report should be provided regarding whether or not\nthe meeting was in compliance with the Brown Act and Charter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he was present for the meeting via teleconference;\nthat he appreciates all employees; employees need to have their day to express\nthemselves and to understand what is happening; he is not sure said situation occurred.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 16, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\n(11-023) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n11:37 p.m. in a moment of silence in memory of Fire Captain Scott Carnevale.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-04", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2011 - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-001) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Joe Wiley and Human\nResources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire Managers Association,\nAlameda Police Managers Association, Alameda Police Officers Association, and\nInternational Association of Fire Fighters\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that the labor negotiators gave a presentation to Council; Council provided\ndirection.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:45 p.m.\n*\n(11-002) Liability Claim (54956.95) - Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant: Matthew\nPetty; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda\nFollowing the closed session, meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced\nCouncil was briefed on the matter and provided direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-04.pdf"}