{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 3, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-204) Proclamation Declaring the Month of May as Older Americans Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Nancy Gormley, Mastick Senior\nCenter Advisory Board President; and Miriam Schiffman, Representing Alameda County\nArea Agency on Aging.\n(11-205) Proclamation Declaring May 6 through May 15, 2011 as Affordable Housing\nWeek.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Doug Biggs, East Bay Housing\nOrganization; and Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Development Corporation.\n(11-206) Proclamation Declaring May 12, 2011 as Alameda Bike to Work Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Jeff Cambra and Patty St.\nLouis, Bike Alameda.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-207) Red Wetherill, Alameda, discussed Alameda government.\n(11-208) Clyde Ryan discussed crossing guard issues on Harbor Bay.\n(11-209) Irene Dieter, Alameda, discussed camping at Enterprise Park.\n(11-210) Harvey Wilson, Alameda, Alameda Citizens Task Force, discussed the budget.\n(11-211) Nancy Hird, Alameda Citizens Task Force, discussed not adopting any\nMemorandum of Understandings (MOUs) prior to budget adoption.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 2, "text": "(11-212) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force, discussed the process to\napprove MOUs.\n(11-213) Janet Gibson, Alameda, submitted a handout, discussed the naming of the\nHousing Authority project for the disabled.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested that the matter be brought to Council for discussion;\nstated that she does not like the like the idea of a contest.\nMayor Gilmore stated naming the facility through a contest does not sit right.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the naming process should come to the Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), not the Housing Commission.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City has a policy regarding naming facilities.\nThe Housing Executive Director stated the project is not owned by the City; the facility\nnaming policy applies to City owned facilities, not non-profit projects.\nMayor Gilmore stated community outreach does not appear to be very wide.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City came up with the concept for the project, has\nbeen significantly involved and should have input in the naming of the project.\nThe Executive Director stated the Planning Board and other boards were notified.\nMayor Gilmore stated notifying boards is fine but it depends upon how the notification\nwas done; sending out an email is inadequate versus an agendized notification.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired who owns the property, to which the Housing\nExecutive Director responded the Housing Authority.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the matter needs to come back to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the [contest] announcement does not outline criteria.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff would discuss the matter with the developer and\nbring the matter to the HABOC.\n(11-214) Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, discussed bicycling in Alameda.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that item payment of contribution to Associated Community\nAction Program [paragraph no. 11-218] was removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5, [items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*11-215) Minutes of the Special City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting Held on April 6, 2011; the Special\nCity Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and CIC Meeting and the\nSpecial City Council Meeting Held on April 12, 2011; and the Special City Council and\nCIC Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 19, 2011. Approved.\nNote: Vice Mayor Bonta abstained from voting on the April 19, 2011 meeting.\n(*11-216) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,617,052.76.\n(*11-217) Recommendation to Set June 7, 2011 for a Hearing to Consider Collection of\nDelinquent Business License Fees and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management\nAccounts Via the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.\n(11-218) Recommendation to Authorize Payment of a Contribution in the Amount of\n$75,384.62 to Associated Community Action Program.\nCouncilmember Tam stated it would be a good idea to discuss what happened to the\nprogram last year and receive periodic updates.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a few updates have been provided by the Acting City\nAttorney; initially, the $25,000 contributed by each member was used to clear up\npayroll; the District Attorney confiscated all records; stimulus money was received but\nwhen stimulus money ran out, the operation continued; a 2009 audit showed that the\nAssociated Community Action Program (ACAP) should have been in good condition;\nthe vast majority of services are being provided through other agencies; thankfully,\nDublin's City Attorney and City Manager have taken the lead to unravel the magnitude\nof the problem.\nCouncilmember Tam stated former Councilmember Daysog was the ACAP\nrepresentative before she was elected in 2006 but there was no clear handoff; she was\nasked to attend one meeting and subsequent meetings kept being cancelled; other\nmeetings were in conflict with her schedule; that she notified ACAP when\nCouncilmember deHaan was elected as Vice Mayor; former Mayor Johnson appointed\nformer Vice Mayor deHaan in August, 2009; at the one meeting she attended, the direct\nnexus between what ACAP provided and the benefits to Alameda was not clear; that\nshe was not clear why Alameda needed to have a representative.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated other cities were not clear about the connection; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 4, "text": "Joint Powers Authority requires obligations and liabilities to fall on all members equally.\nMayor Gilmore requested an overview on the programs ACAP provided and what\npercentage of Alamedans were served.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired about ACAP's structure and who hired the Executive\nDirector; further inquired where the auditors have been for the last few years.\nMayor Gilmore stated something went seriously down hill if ACAP received a clean\naudit in 2009; the District Attorney is looking into the issue.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested all Joint Powers Authorities be compiled on a list.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Acting City Attorney stated staff\nhas sought a more extensive accounting.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would happen if the City refuses to pay, to which\nMayor Gilmore responded the City could be sued for breech of contract.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether the County appointed the Executive\nDirector; inquired whether the City would be reserving its right to seek reimbursement if\npayment is made reluctantly, to which the Acting City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether other cities have approved payment, to\nwhich the Acting City Attorney responded other cities have paid the initial $25,000 but\nshe is not sure about the $75,384.62.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated perhaps the City should pay on the condition that other\ncities pay their share.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated other cities are bringing the Cooperation Agreement to\ntheir respective Councils.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City should move forward with payment as showing good\nfaith; having all cities united in one voice would be nice if the City files a claim against\nthe County.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nMayor Gilmore requested that the Acting City Attorney continue discussions with other\ncities regarding County liability.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 5, "text": "(*11-219) Recommendation to Authorize Call for Bids for Legal Advertising. Accepted.\n(*11-220) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of a Sewer Inspection Cargo\nVan in the Amount of $301,000 and Authorize the Acting City Manager to Execute All\nNecessary Documents. Accepted.\n(*11-221) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of a Bio-Diesel Fuel Vactor 2103\nJet-Rodder on an International Chassis in the Amount of $215,085 and Authorize the\nActing City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. Accepted.\n(*11-222) Resolution No. 14563, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing the\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2011 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict 84-2.\" Adopted.\n(*11-223) Resolution No. 14564, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing the\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 21, 2011 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01\n(Marina Cove).' Adopted.\n(*11-224) Resolution No. 14565, \"Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Submit an\nApplication for Measure B Para transit Funding in the Amount of $210,625 for Fiscal\nYear 2011-2012 and to Execute all Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*11-225) Ordinance No. 3031, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing\nSection 12-17 (Preferential Parking Zones) of Article III (Permit Parking) of Chapter XII\n(Designated Parking) in Its Entirety, and by Adding a New Section 12-17 (Preferential\nParking Zones) to Modify the Procedures Relating to the Designation of Preferential\nParking Zones.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-226) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Community\nDevelopment Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the Acting City Manager to\nNegotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpeakers: Cynthia Wasko, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) (submitted\ncorrespondence); and Doug Biggs, SSHRB.\nFollowing Ms. Wasko's comments, Mayor Gilmore stated the people in Washington,\nD.C. making the cuts do not have to live with the cuts; the City has a lobbying firm in\nWashington; Council should discuss how to use said firm to lobby for some compassion\nfor less fortunate community members.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Johnson stated every city across the country is united in supporting the\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; for the last eight years, the\nfederal government has threatened to make cuts to the program; funding has always\nbeen reinstated because all cities are supportive; unfortunately, the same might not\nhappen this year.\nMs. Wasko stated the City would benefit if the allocation formula was changed and\nmore control was given at the local level.\nMayor Gilmore stated CDBG was one of the top issues at the Mayor's Conference.\nFollowing Mr. Biggs' comments, Councilmember Tam inquired whether lobbying efforts\nhave emphasized how money can be spent.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager responded ACAP administers the\nCommunity Service Block Grant (CSBG); stated the federal government has a 15%\nallocation cap on CBDG public services because CSBG funds are supposed to go\n100% to public service programs.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the County would get the CSBG allocation if\nACAP were dismantled.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager responded Oakland and Berkeley,\nwhich do not participate in the Joint Powers Authority, have a large enough population\nto get CSBG funding directly.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Housing Development and\nPrograms Manager stated a book machine was installed at the Alameda Point\nCollaborative; a second book dispenser is proposed for Esperanza Housing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much flexibility the City has to move funds.\nMore than 15% [on public services]; The Housing Development and Programs Manager\nresponded the City cannot spend stated the City has maximized its ability to support\npublic services; planning and program administration activity is capped at 20%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20% cap could be lowered, to which the\nHousing Development and Programs Manager responded planning and program\nadministration activity funding is less than 20%.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether CSBG funding has ever been directed to some of\nthe same services funded by CDBG, to which the Housing Development and Programs\nManager responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether funding could be redirected, to which the Housing\nDevelopment and Programs Manager responded services funded to public services\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 7, "text": "agencies undertake a range of activities that are eligible for CSBG funding.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the CSBG funding cycle is the same as CDBG, to\nwhich the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded that she does not\nknow.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff needs to trace where ACAP funding is going now that it is\nnot going to ACAP and see how funding gets parceled out.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether ACAP would be dissolved, to which the\nActing City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated staff needs to find out whether CSBG funding can\ncome directly to the City once the ACAP Joint Powers Authority dissolves.\nCouncilmember Tam stated poverty and income levels are the issues.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City should get some proportionate share.\nMayor Gilmore stated mechanisms and funds need to be traced to see how the City can\nreceive some of the funds.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated that she would report back to\nCouncil.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff needs to trace funds while ACAP still exists and find out\nwhat will happen once ACAP ceases to exist.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff would discuss the matter.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the SSHRB has been very important in guarding the safety net\nand ensuring that Council is informed regarding the status of services; the SSHRB\nbrainstorms and thinks about different ways to continue to serve vulnerable people in\nthe community.\nMayor Gilmore stated in tough economic times, there is a tendency to look inward but it\nshould be the time to look outward for ways to partner with other cities and\norganizations.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Housing Development and\nPrograms Manager stated redevelopment law requires that 15% of all new housing be\naffordable for low and moderate income people; the State's 15% requirement would go\naway if redevelopment law goes away; the City has a 15% inclusionary requirement\noutside redevelopment project areas; the City might not have the affordable housing\nresources to address the legality of an inclusionary requirement for ownership housing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 8, "text": "The Acting City Manager stated any on-going tax increment from the 20% set aside that\ngoes to affordable housing would disappear.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the City couldn't use CDBG\nfunds for new, affordable housing construction.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated affordable housing requires subsidy.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-227) Resolution No. 14566, \"Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement between\nthe City of Alameda and the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, State of\nCalifornia, and all Necessary Actions to Purchase Tax-Defaulted Property (APN 71-198-\n111) for Economic Development Purposes Pursuant to the Provisions of Division 1, Part\n6, Chapter 8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.' Adopted.\nThe Acting City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(11-228) Review and Comment on Staff's Preliminary Responses to the Regional\nSustainable Communities Strategy - Initial Vision Scenario.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated the assumptions are unrealistic and unattainable and assume no\nfiscal constraints; a lot of things that need to happen would rely on State funding; the\nCity needs to convey that it needs a more realistic scenario; theory should meet hard-\ncore practical reality.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City needs to challenge the numbers with the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); ABAG has admitted that past job\nprojections have been extremely exaggerated and wrong; housing allocation numbers\nare based on job growth; Piedmont should not be exempt because it is residential; the\nregion has not produced jobs in twenty years; how to bring new jobs needs to be\naddressed; the City needs to be aggressive in challenging numbers.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the issue needs to be addressed from a constructive\ncriticism standpoint; the City needs to find out what it can afford and see what is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 9, "text": "May 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 10, "text": "Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board President, stated the Planning Board is excited a\nabout the opportunity to get behind Senate Bill 375; things can be done short of putting\nmore homes on the Island; VF Outdoor has set a high bar.\nThe Acting City Manager announced that the City would host an Alameda Point\nFinancial Basics Webinar on May 18, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-229) Receive a Report and Provide Direction on Boards and Commissions\nRestructuring Options\nThe Senior Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: John Knox White, Alameda; Dave Duffin, Film Commission; Ken Dorrance,\nFilm Commission; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated broader questions need to be addressed regarding how to\nmaximize efficacy; previously, he suggested creating an ad hoc committee to review\nBoards and Commissions; the issue would not need to be addressed if Boards and\nCommissions met to do meaningful work each time; finding ways to make Boards and\nCommissions more efficient and communicative with Council would be a better\napproach; suggested opening up broader, more conceptual fundamental questions.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she has no problem with having a public process to\naccomplish goals; the City has had a 10% staff reduction in the last couple of years;\nadditional staff reductions are likely; most of the cities listed on the chart are larger than\nAlameda and have fewer Boards and Commissions; that she does not see how having\nfewer members would save money; the Transportation Commission should stay at\nseven members; the Youth Commission should stay at eleven members because\nhaving representatives from all of the schools is important; having quarterly meetings is\nnot often enough; some Boards and Commissions need to meet bi-monthly or monthly.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated restructuring is the tip of the iceberg; the Film\nCommission is an excellent example of helping to generate business within Alameda;\nsome Boards and Commissions have designated seats; that he does not know the\nsolution; the City cannot afford what is being done now; more soul searching needs to\nbe done; most Boards and Commissions have attendance requirements.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated eliminating the Film Commission and Public Art\nCommission is difficult for some people to hear; this phase is attempting to address low\nhanging fruit; the next phase would require a tougher conversation and would address\nsome of the substantive, paradigm shifts.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of lowering the number of Commissioners\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 11, "text": "below seven because of quorum issues; having seven members would allow three\npeople to be in a work group, which does not require noticed meetings; that she is not\nsure whether the matter should be sent back to each Board and Commission;\nquestioned whether a Task Force should be put together with one member from each\ncommission, whether there should be a series of public meetings, or whether the matter\nshould be sent back to the Commissions to advise how things are being done now and\nhow things could be done more efficiently.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how Vice Mayor Bonta would envision an ad hoc\ncommittee.\nVice Mayor Bonta responded that he has considered the possibility of some type of\ncross section of representation from existing Commissions; stated the Sunshine Task\nForce model is good.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Sunshine Task Force met ten times; each\nCouncilmember appointed a person from the community; that she is not sure whether\nthe number on each Board or Commission would drive Council to have a clear\nunderstanding of possible staff time savings; the goal would be to maximize the\nefficacies and efficiencies in providing input to Council.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Boards and Commissions provide input to Council and\nprovide the community an opportunity to weigh in on issues; the public gets two bites of\nthe apple by attending the Board or Commission meeting and the Council meeting;\nseeing how the two functions can be performed more efficiently needs to be reviewed;\nthe matter is being discussed now because of resource issues; the Board and\nCommission process does not work as efficiently as it should; the mechanism is the\nstruggle; suggested that a Council Sub-committee come back with a plan and method\nfor moving forward.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he is fine with said idea.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated the process needs to be\nconsidered; more thought needs to be given to the issue.\nMayor Gilmore stated Commissions should be the focus; Board changes would need to\nbe done through a Charter amendment; a plan should be developed for public input and\nmoving the process forward for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of nominating Vice Mayor Bonta and\nCouncilmember deHaan as Sub-committee members.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff would be available to help in any way; the Public\nArt Commission has only one member; at some point, a commission would be needed\nto discuss the Public Art plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Gilmore suggested sending the Public Art plan to the Planning Board in the\ninterim; stated the one person on the Public Art Commission should consult with the\nPlanning Board President; the Planning Board could handle the issue if nothing has\nbeen resolved.\nBy consensus, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the City should harness the power of volunteerism in the\ncommunity.\nMayor Gilmore suggested creating a database for expert residents and professionals;\nstated people could sign up at a central location.\nCouncilmember Tam stated former School Board Member Bill Schaff does not want to\nbe on a Board or Commission but would like to offer help in looking at pension reform\nand retiree healthcare reform.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that staff would get the word out on the matter.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-230) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a happy Mother's Day.\n(11-231) John Knox White, Alameda, discussed informing the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission and other regional bodies about local concerns with the\nSustainable Communities Strategy.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-232) Mayor Gilmore discussed a meeting she had with Alameda's East Bay\nRegional Park District representative, Doug Siden; stated that she would provide\ninformation for review in the City Clerk's office.\n(11-233) Mayor Gilmore inquired when Council would be receiving a report from the\nSub-Committee on the City Clerk Contract, to which Councilmember deHaan responded\nsoon.\n(11-234) Vice Mayor Bonta announced that he attended the League of California Cities\nPublic Safety Policy Committee meeting.\n(11-235) Councilmember Tam suggested forming a Council Sub-committee for City\nAttorney recruitment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the matter is agendized for the May 17, 2011 Council Meeting.\n(11-236) Councilmember Tam inquired when the Sunshine Ordinance would be coming\nto Council, to which the Acting City Manager responded that she would get back to\nCouncil on the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:22 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-03", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - MAY 3, 2011 - -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:40 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjournment to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-202) Public Employment (Government Code Section 54957); Title: City Manager\n*\nThe meeting was recessed at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 7:09 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session, Mayor Gilmore announced that Council discussed\nnegotiations for the hiring of a City Manager.\n(11-203) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing John A. Russo as City\nManager.\nThe Human Resource Director gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers: Allen Michaan, Alameda; Robert Sullwold (read Jane Sullwold's statement);\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Honora Murphy, Alameda; former\nCouncilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; and Kate Quick, Alameda.\nThe Council made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember\ndeHaan - 1.\nMr. Russo made brief comments.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.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\nMay 3, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-03.pdf"}