{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -APRIL 17, 2012- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\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(12-162) Introduction of New Alameda Recreation and Park Director.\nThe City Manager introduced Amy Wooldridge.\nMs. Wooldridge made brief comments.\n(12-163) Proclamation Declaring April as Autism Awareness Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Jodi Moore, Commission on\nDisability Issues.\n(12-164) Proclamation Declaring April 15 through April 21, 2012 as Boys and Girls Club\nWeek.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Boys and Girls Club\nrepresentatives: George Philips, Marc Morales, Menirah Hassan, Kezree Morrow, Kyree\nMorrow and John Hamilton.\n(12-165) Proclamation Declaring April 21, 2012, as Earth Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Jeff Cambra, League of Women\nVoters, and Janice Edwards, Alameda Backyard Growers.\n(12-166) Proclamation Declaring May 2012 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Martin Fong, Buena Vista\nMethodist Church.\nMr. Fong encouraged everyone to attend the festival on May 6th\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 2, "text": "(12-167) Proclamation Declaring April 2012 as Fair Housing Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Justine Francis and Nina Lim,\nAlameda Association of Realtors.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-168) Kathleen Brooks, Alameda Unified School District, announced an upcoming\nevent for a bone marrow donor registration drive.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, Ms. Brooks stated the test is just a\ncheek swab.\n(12-169) Eric Schatmeier, Alameda, discussed his concerns with AC Transit service\ncuts.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated staff\nwould suggest holding a meeting of the Inter-Agency Liaison Committee (ILC); that he\nwould follow up with the Mayor regarding ILC membership.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the CLE Engineering contract was removed from the\nConsent Calendar [paragraph no. 12-172].\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*12-170) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 20,\n2012. Approved.\n(*12-171) Ratified bills in the amount of $740,211.35.\n(12-172) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $112,800, Including\nContingencies, to CLE Engineering for the Evaluation, Analysis, and Preparation of\nEngineering Documents for the South Shore Lagoon Dredging Project, No. P.W. 09-09-\n27.\nCouncilmember Tam recused herself and left the dais.\nThe City Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired when the lagoon was last dredged.\nThe City Engineer responded certain areas of the lagoon are dredged periodically;\nstated it has been quite a while since the entire lagoon was dredged.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired how much soil would be taken from the lagoon, to\nwhich the City Engineer responded the amount depends upon project costs.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how often the lagoon would need to be dredged to\nkeep the lagoon in a good condition.\nThe City Engineer responded some areas naturally scour because of the way the water\ncirculates; stated contaminates accumulate in the bends.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether a long-term maintenance plan would be\nconsidered, to which the City Engineer responded the proposed analysis would\ndetermine what a long-term maintenance plan would cost.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the original plan in the early 1950's was to have\nhomeowners pay for a large part of the lagoon system.\nThe City Engineer stated the City has an agreement with homeowners; portions of the\nlagoon are managed by the City; other portions are managed by homeowners;\nhomeowners have been sharing 50/50 in the cost.\nExpressed concern with impacts on the existing clean up process at the Base and\nquestioned how the cleanup would work: Carol Gottstein, Restoration Advisory Board\n(RAB).\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the City Engineer stated the proposed contract\nincludes the additional studies the Navy needs to determine whether or not the material\nis acceptable.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would work with the Navy and the RAB.\nThe City Engineer responded staff would be happy to make a presentation to the RAB;\nstated the City would work with the Navy; staff would come back to Council to request\ngoing out to bid.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a location for storing the material before transport has\nnot been determined.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1.]\n(*12-173) Recommendation to Accept $271,135 from the US Department of Homeland\nSecurity's Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program for the Replacement of Wildland\nFirefighting Personal Protective Equipment and Firefighter Survival Training,\nAppropriate $54,227 from the General Fund to Meet the Matching Funds Requirement\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 4, "text": "of the Grant, and Authorize Purchase. Accepted.\n(*12-174) Ordinance No. 3043, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing\nin Its Entirety Subsection 2-14 (Housing Commission) from Article Il (Boards and\nCommissions) of Chapter Il (Administration). Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-175) Resolution No. 14667, \"Appointing Sandy Wong to the Transportation\nCommission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-176) Recommendation to Review and Approve the Prioritized Transportation\nProject List.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation; stated staff is comfortable with\ncriteria [proposed in correspondence from John Knox White]; two lists could be created.\nMayor Gilmore stated the list is not user friendly and is difficult to read; that she likes the\nidea of having two separate lists.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Public Works Director has indicated that he would like\nto apply for grants while the methodology is being finalized and rankings are refined;\nthat she is not sure which projects staff has in mind.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff has just become aware of possible grants;\nstated eligibility criteria need to be reviewed; staff would look at the highest ranked\nprojects in the Pedestrian and Bike Plans that best meet the criteria; staff is concerned\nthat some [grant funding] opportunities could be missed.\nMayor Gilmore stated the basic question is how projects would be ranked in the first\nplace.\nThe Public Works Director stated the Bike Plan has a lot of projects listed as high,\nmedium, and low priority; however, some highly rated projects in the Bike Plan are not\ntop rated in the prioritized list.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether staff is not thinking of anything specific or immediate\nbut a hypothetical possibility where there might be an opportunity to apply for funding\nand staff wants permission to do so, to which the Public Works Director responded staff\njust became aware of some grants.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated gathering more input from the Transportation\nCommission and Planning Board would not be a quick process and staff might not be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 5, "text": "able to report back to Council until September; some opportunities could be missed for\nhigh priority projects that have already been approved.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff could work with Bike Alameda to obtain buy in for\npossible bike grants; staff does not want to miss any opportunities.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how Measure B would fit in.\nThe Public Works Director responded some projects on the list are included in the\nTransportation Expenditure Plan (TEP).\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether projects are highlighted accordingly, to which\nthe Public Works Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there have been discussions on current TEP\nexpenditures and future funding.\nThe Public Works Director stated that staff did not use the TEP as a criteria; the\nBroadway/Jackson project is not in the TEP; the Miller-Sweeney Bridge and Rapid Bus\nService projects are in the TEP.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some projects are already in the queue and have\nexisting funding in place.\nThe Public Works Director stated none of the projects on the list are shovel ready; the\nintent is to develop a list for applying for future grants; public input would be needed\neven if the City receives grants.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the [March 20, 2012] Alameda County\nTransportation Commission (ACTC) presentation outlined projects beyond the existing\nprojects; questioned how said projects would fit in.\nThe Public Works Director stated some projects would be funded over the course of the\nTEP, but the City would not start the projects without community consensus.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the City cannot count on funds in the event voters do\nnot approve the tax in November.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated staff should move forward with applying for grants; the\nlist should be more user-friendly; having the projects sorted by categories and type\nwould help; inquired whether many sidewalk projects are not listed because there is no\nfunding source.\nThe Public Works Director responded said projects are bundled together.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether general sidewalk and street maintenance is\nincluded.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 6, "text": "The Public Works Director responded general maintenance is included in the\nMaintenance of Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails category; stated locations are not\nidentified.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how much money would be allocated for said\ncategory, to which the Public Works Director responded $5 million per year.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether said amount is funded, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated having new things is nice, but the City needs to\nmaintain what exists; inquired whether the City has a pothole crew.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated potholes are popping up\nthroughout the City because of the rains; Public Works mid-managers have adopted\ncertain streets.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested posting something on the City's website so that\npeople can inform the City of pothole locations.\nThe Public Works Director stated people report potholes via Comcate [known as\nAlameda Access on the City's website].\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated\ncrack sealing is done every year under the resurfacing contract.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked staff for having the Transportation Commission and Planning\nBoard review the draft list; stated the Transportation Commission and Planning Board's\nexpertise is very helpful.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Broadway-Jacksor project is major; street and\nsidewalk maintenance is on-going and mandatory for sustaining the quality of life in\nAlameda; that he considers the maintenance more important.\nThe Public Works Director stated different funding sources are available; the Broadway-\nJackson funding would not be the same source as sidewalk repair; more money would\nbe available for street, sidewalk, and trail maintenance if Measure B3 passes [in\nNovember].\nDiscussed the roles of the Planning Board and Transportation Commission, suggested\nCouncil provide feedback on the list and a wish list be created for projects not vetted:\nJohn Knox White, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the revised process and going forward with grants: Jon Spangler,\nAlameda; and Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated there is consensus for wanting the bike and pedestrian projects to\ngo forward, applying for grants, and sending the matter back to the Transportation\nCommission and Planning Board; complimented staff for all the hard work; stated\nhaving a more user friendly document would help the community be more informed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated maintenance should be a separate category because\nmaintenance needs to be done every year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated lifeline projects are important too; funding sources\nshould be outlined.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of having the matter go back to the Planning Board\nand Transportation Commission; and authorize staff to seek grants for projects already\napproved in the Bike and Pedestrian Plans.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion and requested clarification on whether\nCouncil wants the whole methodology to come back to Council after the Transportation\nCommission and Planning Board review or just the point assignments.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council requested categorizing items, particularly\nmaintenance and lifeline projects.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated items need to be separated out so maintenance\nprojects are prioritized within its own category.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Council wants the methodology or the final list to\ncome back.\nCouncilmember Johnson responded either way would be fine; stated bringing the\nmethodology back might be helpful; that she would not want to drag the matter out\nlonger than necessary.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that maintenance have its own category and that the\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board provide an Off Agenda Report [after\nreviewing methodology] and Council could decide whether to bring the matter back for\ndiscussion.\nThe Public Works Director suggested adding a maintenance category and a column\nidentifying the type of project; stated the list could be sorted by type.\nMayor Gilmore stated projects should be sorted by type; people might not care about\nbike projects but might care about pedestrian projects; having projects sorted by type\nwould make projects easier to find.\nOn the call for the question, to motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-177) Resolution No. 14668, \"Adopting a Policy for Public Participation.\" Adopted;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 8, "text": "and\n(12-177A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Chapter 2 (Administration) of Article Il (Boards and Commissions) by\nRepealing Section 2-20; Amending Sections 2-13.2(a); 2-15.2(a); 2-21.2(a); and\nAmending Sections 2-12.2(b), 2-13.2(b), 2-15.2(b), 2-16.2(b), 2-17.2(b), 2-18.2(b), 2-\n19.2(b), 2-21.2(b), to Dissolve the Film Commission, Revise the Membership of the\nGolf, Economic Development and Youth Advisory Commissions, and Allow\nCouncilmembers to Make Nominations for Commission Vacancies Over 60 Days.\nIntroduced with amendments.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore thanked the sub-committee members, Vice Mayor Bonta,\nCouncilmember Tam, and the Deputy City Manager for putting in the vast amount of\nwork required to drill down and distill the principles.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates staff's hard work in putting together a\nvery comprehensive merging of how to deal with the public participation process; the\nCity needs a public participation policy which deals with not only streamlining boards\nand commissions for the sake of efficiencies while dealing with budget shortfalls but to\nhave effective boards and commissions which compliment the public participation\nprocess; last year, the City held more meetings than working days which clearly shows\nthat Council and staff are exhausting themselves; how boards and commissions\nevolved over time is unclear; the Golf Commission has no purpose but has duties; the\nPlanning Board has a purpose but no duties; it is important to work with boards and\ncommissions on coming up with a consistent format on how boards and commissions\nreport activities to Council and at the same time identify a common purpose to\ncollectively understand authority; people at the public workshop discussed confusion\nwith the jargon of the agendas; for example, people do not associate cutting down trees\nwith the Park Street Streetscape Project or Gibbons Drive or child pedestrian safety at\nLincoln Avenue and Pacific Avenue when addressing the Transportation Element;\nidentifying agenda items in layman's terms would be beneficial.\nVice Mayor Bonta concurred with Councilmember Tam; thanked the Deputy City\nManager for his leadership on the issue; stated a lot of issues have been tackled\nthrough the public meetings; the community is extremely engaged and wants to be\ninvolved with City government and decisions made that impact quality of life; multiple\nmodes of public communication resonated with him; pubic workshop discussions\nincluded ways to keep communication open; determining how to make the work of\nboards and commissions more meaningful while linking the work to the Council's work\nand creating a structure for discipline is being addressed; people want to come away\nfrom a meeting knowing that they have contributed to the City.\nCouncilmember Johnson thanked the sub-committee and Deputy City Manager for\nworking through the issue from the functions of the boards and commissions and the\nfunction and quality of pubic participation; a lot of insight has been brought into the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 9, "text": "matter to help make decisions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the public meetings had slim attendance; inquired\nwhether board and commission members attended, to which the Deputy City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the public is able to communicate with Council through\nemails; communication with boards and commissions is more difficult; suggested\ncreating one email for each board and commission as start; that he does not think the\nnumber of meetings would be reduced by reducing the number of members; the number\nof meetings depend on issues; some commissions and boards have been an outgrowth\nof other boards and commissions; the Film Commission is an outgrowth of the\nEconomic Development Commission; the Public Art Commission is an outgrowth of the\nRecreation and Park Commission; the Transportation Commission is an outgrowth of\nthe Planning Board and could continue to be a standalone commission.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the reason to reduce members on certain boards and\ncommissions is to achieve a quorum, to which the Deputy City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nUrged the number of members on the Recreation and Park Commission be reduced:\nBill Delaney, Recreation and Park Commission.\nEncouraged staff training in addition to board and commission training, having items\nbrought to boards/commissions for action, and basing membership on seats needed,\nnot quorum issues: John Knox White, Alameda.\nEncouraged implementation of a web 2.0 model and need for diversity on boards and\ncommissions: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with the report not going far enough and the disconnect between\nincreasing participation and lowering commission membership; and encouraged a\nRequest for Proposal be issued to hire an expert: Nancy Hird, Alameda Citizens Task\nForce.\nExpressed the community is engaged and encouraged listening to the community:\nGretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with the Planning Board duties being cut off and encouraged names\nof members be listed on agendas: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nFollowing Mr. Delaney's comments, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the\nRecreation and Park Commission has only had five seats filled, to which Mr. Delaney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether the [quorum] problem existed when there\nwere seven members; stated that she does want to reduce the number of members to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 10, "text": "create a quorum since filling the other seats would be a way to get a quorum; that she\nfavors small commissions; however, the Recreation and Park Commission deals with\nsuch diverse issues that she would prefer to have seven Commissioners; that she\nunderstands why the Mayor has not filled the seats; the seats would be filled if the\nCommission remains at seven.\nMr. Delaney stated the existing five members have been effective at handling diverse\nissues in the last year.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the request is coming from the Commission and\nwhether a formal vote was taken on reducing the membership from seven to five.\nMr. Delaney responded the full body of the Commission is making the request.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the Chair sent a letter to the Mayor on behalf of the\nCommission back in December.\nMr. Delaney stated a vote was not taken.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether all five members share the viewpoint expressed\ntonight, to which Mr. Delaney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated public-private partnerships might be established;\nquestioned whether only having five members would be effective; stated the matter has\nnot been addressed; the partnerships could change the dynamics immensely; certain\ninterest groups might want to have a seat.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would prefer to go down to five members for the\nRecreation and Park Commission; the existing Commission can continue to efficiently\nhandle the workload.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the Commission did not vote on the issue, to\nwhich Mr. Delaney responded the Commission could do so.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated having a vote would allow the public to comment on the\nissue; further stated having different perspective on the Recreation and Park\nCommission is good since there are many issues, such as youth, seniors, parks, and\nprograms.\nMayor Gilmore inquired about the process for reducing the number of commission\nmembers, the Assistant City Manager responded the process is via ordinance.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether changing the Recreation and Park Commission change\ncould be inserted tonight, to which the Assistant City Manager and City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nFollowing Ms. Gottstein's comments, Councilmember Johnson stated board and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 11, "text": "commission members names should be added to agendas if there is a way to do so;\nthat she disagrees with the recommendation to have Councilmembers nominate\nmembers if there is a vacancy over 60 days, which she does not believe is consistent\nwith the Charter; consistency with the Charter should be ensured; the Recreation and\nPark Commission vacancies were held for a deliberate reason; Councilmembers\nconcerned about vacancies could raise the issue under Council Communications;\nallowing a Councilmember to nominate somebody is not consistent with the Charter;\nCouncilmembers can address the issue other ways.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated attendance was previously discussed; inquired how\nattendance would be incorporated; stated members are obligated to attend 70% of\nmeetings; if not, a [removal] process can go forward; the matter should be addressed\nand included and should apply to all boards and commissions; inquired whether the\nwebsite shows the boards and commissions.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the members and their terms office are listed\nunder each board and commission.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated having the members on the agenda is not a bad idea.\nThe City Attorney noted that the Charter has the Mayor make nominations to boards;\ncommissions are by ordinance and are not a Charter issue.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there should be consistency; there should not be one\nprocess for appointing boards and another for appointing commissions.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there is a conflict if applied to boards; stated the\nrecommendation is for both boards and commissions.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the actual ordinance only deals with commissions,\nbut the Power Point and report mentioned boards and commissions; Council can\nintroduce the ordinance as presented.\nThe Deputy City Manager noted two commissions [non-Charter entities) are named\nboards [Pension Board and Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board].\nMayor Gilmore stated the Council should consider changing those to make it clear that\nboards are listed in the Charter and commissions are created by ordinance.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether said change should be made now, to which\nMayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the process to clarify and redefine the duties of the\ncommissions is something that needs to be done and the name changes would be\neasy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 12, "text": "The City Manager and Councilmember Johnson stated the names changes could be\ndone now.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that her engineer side understands the difference with\ngetting a quorum when five out of seven are needed versus three out of five; her\npractical public servant side believes it is more important to have the quality input; one\nof the board's and commission's roles is having hearings to allow public input and\nfacilitate community dialogue as a whole; having quality members is important; deciding\nthe number of members is the role of the Council, not the Recreation and Park\nCommission.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the Economic Development Commission has certain\ndesignated seats, which needs to be considered.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the designated seats would be retained and two of\nthe four community-at-large seats would be eliminated.\nCouncilmember Johnson urged the Council to leave the process of having the Mayor\nmake nominations; stated that she would rather reduce the Youth Advisory Commission\nto nine members; all high schools should be represented.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff has provided feedback that there is recruiting problem.\nThe Deputy City Manager expressed staff has to go to great efforts to get the members\nto the meeting.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated since the Youth Advisory Commission does not vote,\nso a quorum should not be a problem.\nThe City Attorney stated all the commissions are subject to the Brown Act and should\nnot meet without a quorum.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether a different process could be followed;\nquestioned if the Youth Advisory Commission could meet less often.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that half of the meetings are cancelled because they cannot\nget seven people present; noted students could participate without being on the\nCommission.\nMayor Gilmore stated having staff track down members is not a good use of staff time;\nthere has to be balance; the forum is being provided.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the members are aware, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager responded that he does not know.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested changing the meeting frequency to quarterly.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated quarterly meetings could result in two meetings per year\nsince the Commission does not meet during the summer.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of the\nresolution and introduction of the ordinance], with [amending the ordinance] to leave out\nthe nomination process and leave the Recreation and Park Commission as it is; and try\nto get a more formalized attendance policy.\nThe motion failed due to a lack of second.\nMayor Gilmore stated changing the names of the boards [Pension Board and Housing\nand Building Code Hearing and Appeal Board] that should be commissions was\ndiscussed; suggested said change be included a motion.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he agrees with Councilmember Tam about the Recreation\nand Park Commission, but he would like to hear from the Commission itself to have\ndata and input.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested the process be bifurcated; moved adoption of the\nresolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with the following:\n1)\nchanging the names of the boards that were inappropriately named boards [Pension\nBoard and Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board] to commission; 2)\ngoing forward with the staff recommendation, which does not include the Recreation\nand Park Commission [membership reduction]; stated that she understands the\nCommission came to Council; however, Council wants to formally know if the\nCommission feels the most effective way to provide input to the Council is as a body of\nfive versus seven; that she would table said discussion; and 3) direct staff to move\nforward with trying to find a way to standardize the roles, responsibilities and duties of\nthe Boards and Commissions, including and up to a review of members' obligations to\nserve; stated clearly, the requirement would not be like the Charter requirement that\nCouncilmembers automatically forfeits their office after three unexcused absences in a\nrow; and 4) taking out the inconsistency between Charter and non-Charter\nappointments and nominations, which is to not move forward with the staff\nrecommendation on having a Councilmember nominate a commissioner if the Mayor\nleaves a vacancy for 60 days.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the motion is to remove [staff report]\nrecommendation 10 [allow for a Councilmember to nominate a board of commission\nmember if the Mayor has not done so after 60 days of the vacancy], to which\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the motion is to have staff come up with\nstandardized procedures for boards and commissions.\nCouncilmember Tam responded said issue is already included in [staff report]\nrecommendation 13 [provide basic information for participation, such as how to use a\nspeaker's card at formal meetings like City Council]; however, she was trying to amplify,\nclarify and synthesize the comments made by Councilmembers Johnson and deHaan.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission was\nheld for further discussion, to which Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative;\nstated feedback should be in the form a letter to the Mayor with a copy to the Council\nfrom the Chair of the Commission after the Commission has vetted the membership\nsize at a public Commission meeting.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(12-178) Introduction of Ordinance Extending the Agreement Between the City of\nAlameda and Waste Management of Alameda County Inc. for Solid Waste Disposal\nServices for a Five-Year Period, Until September 30, 2017. Introduced.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the price is per ton or an annual amount, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded other than the tipping fee, the price is per\nton.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether costs would go down as the City decreases\nthe amount of waste put in the landfill, to which the Public Works Director responded the\ntotal fee would decrease.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the contract was last modified, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded 10 years ago.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the\nordinance].\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-179) The City Manager announced: 1) that a Golf Commission meeting would be\nheld April 24th at Washington Park to consider the two proposals; 2) the Council would\nhold a budget meeting on May 8th; 3) that he met with the Golf Commission to discuss\nthe lease with Jim's on the Course; the Commission unanimously supports the lease; 4)\nevaluations of management staff would commence on July 1st, and 5) the City's\nadministrative practice is to provide responses in one day; encouraged residents to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 15, "text": "contact the City Manager's office if timely responses are not being provided.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-180) Councilmember deHaan stated that he prepared more information on Measure\nC; he further broke down vehicle replacement; provided information to the City\nManager, City Attorney and Mayor for review and comments. [Note: The document was\nnot made part of the record since it was not distributed to the entire City Council.]\nADJOURNMENT\n(12-181) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n10:17 p.m. in a moment of silence in memory of Retired Fire Chief Ernest Servente.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-17", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -APRIL 17, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:10 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-161) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency\nNegotiators:\nCouncilmembers deHaan and Johnson; Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk;\nAnticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions).\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that Council discussed compensation and benefits for the City Clerk and\ngave direction to staff and the Council's negotiating committee.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-17.pdf"}