{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 19, 2012- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 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(12-302) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Park Master Plan [paragraph no. 12-323\nwas moved to July 3rd: and announced that the Resolutions of appointment [paragraph\nno.\n12-308 would be addressed after Oral Communications.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-303) The City Attorney introduced the new Assistant City Attorney Stephanie Sierra.\n(12-304) Presentation of Arbor Day Award from CAL FIRE Urban Forestry Program to\nthe City.\nJames Scheid, CAL FIRE, gave a presentation and presented the award to Mayor\nGilmore.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-305) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, reminded the public of the annual AWRL Field\nDay, June 23 - 24 at the Sequoia Arena.\n(12-306) Serena Chen, American Lung Association, presented the State of Tobacco\nControl Report Card and submitted information.\n(12-307) Ken Peterson, Alameda, stated that he appreciates budget workshops and\ndiscussed the matter of balancing the budget and the economic health of the City.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(12-308) Resolution No. 14683, \"Reappointing Dean Batchelor as a Member of the Civil\nService Board. Adopted;\n(12-308 A) Resolution No.14684, \"Appointing Jonathan Bond as a Member of the\nEconomic Development Commission.\" Adopted.\n(12-308 B) Resolution No. 14685, \"Reappointing Alan Ryan as a Member of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 2, "text": "Economic Development Commission.\" Adopted;\n(12-308 C) Resolution No. 14686, \"Reappointing Dennis Owens as a Member of the\nHistorical Advisory Board.\" Adopted;\n(12-308 D) Resolution No. 14687, \"Reappointing Michael Henneberry as a Member of\nthe Planning Board.\" Adopted;\n(12-308 E) Resolution No. 14688, \"Reappointing Elizabeth Candelario as a Member of\nthe Public Art Commission.\" Adopted,\n(12-308 F) Resolution No. 14689, \"Appointing Daniel Hoy as a Member of the Public Art\nCommission.\" Adopted;\n(12-308 G) Resolution No 14690. \"Appointing Esther Mallouh as a Member of the\nPublic Art Commission,\" Adopted ;\n(12-308 H) Resolution No.14691, \"Appointing Mary Sutter as a Member of the Public\nUtilities Board. Adopted;\n(12-308 I) Resolution No.14692, \"Reappointing Douglas Biggs as a Member of the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board. Adopted;\n(12-308 J) Resolution No.14693, \"Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted;\n(12-308 K) Resolution No. 14694, \"Reappointing Mary Orbeta as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted; and\n(12-308 L) Resolution No. 14695, \"Appointing Luna Tilles as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of\nAppointment to Mr. Bond, Ms. Caldelario, Mr. Hoy, Ms. Mallouh, Ms. Sutter, Mr.\nSchatmeier, and Ms. Tilles.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Plans and Specifications for Janitorial Service\n[paragraph no. 12-312]; the Plans and Specifications for Annual Heating, Ventilating,\nand Air Conditioning Systems [paragraph no. 12-313]; the Agreement with the Alameda\nUnified School District [paragraph no. 12-314]; the Resolutions Approving the\nMemorandums of Understanding [paragraph no. 12-318]; and the Resolution\nSupporting Renaming the Eastshore State Park [paragraph no. 12-322 were removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-309) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 15,\n2012. Approved.\n(*12-310) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 2,029,580.42.\n(*12-311) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Landscape Maintenance of Median Strips and Special Areas, No. P.W. 05-12-\n11. Accepted.\n(12-312) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Janitorial Service in City Buildings, No. P.W. 05-12-12.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Fire Department's training facility in\nBuilding 522 at Alameda Point has been vacated, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded in the negative, stating the building is still in use.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a training facility at Alameda Point to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Fire Station 5 contains administrative offices,\nto which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the building is currently being used for\noperations to which the Public Works Director stated the building is still being used,\nhowever it's not functioning as a fire station.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired where Building 522 is located, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded the building is across from the Red Cross and is used for\ntraining.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would like further clarification because it is listed for\ntraining use two days a week.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-313) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Annual Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems Maintenance in\nVarious City Facilities, No. P.W. 05-12-13.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired for clarification that Fire Station 5 is still being used for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 4, "text": "administrative offices, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-314) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a One-Year\nAgreement with the Alameda Unified School District for the Operation of the District\nSwimming Pools.\nCouncilmember deHaan expressed concern regarding the safety of the facility.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the facility is safe and in need of repair to\ncontinue to function; the School District continues repairs to keep the safe level.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the staff report indicates that the City is responsible for\nongoing repair including custodian repair and maintenance; inquired whether funds are\nadequate to keep safe status, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether additional repair would be required a later\npoint in time, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded not to staff's\nknowledge; stated there is always potential; repairs are not anticipated and capital\nrepairs are the School District's responsibility.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the report indicates either party may terminate the\nAgreement; in the event the facility improvement costs are excessive, either party may\nterminate the Agreement without cause after thirty days written notice; inquired if the\namount beyond the ability of a party to pay has been defined.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded a dollar amount is not defined; however,\nthe School District is responsible for any capital improvement or repair; if the School\nDistrict requests cost sharing or says they will terminate, staff would bring the matter to\nCouncil immediately.\nCouncilmember Tam stated if costs to replace the pumps exceed the City's contract\nshare, Council would revisit the matter and could consider terminating the Agreement.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the City has the ability within 30 days to\nterminate the Agreement without cause; the capital repair of pumps would be the\nSchool District's responsibility.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the School District could not repair the problem within\nbudgetary constraints, the City would not have a pool, to which the Recreation and\nParks Director responded it is a possibility.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the School District is responsible for capital cost; inquired what\nkind of cost the City pays, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the\nCity pays ongoing maintenance and half of the utilities.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about an example of ongoing maintenance, the\nRecreation and Parks Director stated the City provides all custodial services, pool\nservicing, and chemicals which essentially pays for normal wear and tear of using the\nfacility.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the School District is responsible if anything breaks\ndown, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded the City makes every\nattempt to fix minor repairs with band aids and duct tape, significant repairs are on the\nSchool District.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the City provided the lights but the really big ticket\nitems, like the pumps, are on the School District; the School District came to the City\nwith a project which was not the City's responsibility; the matter was discussed and the\nSchool District ended up paying for the large item; the School District found the money\nin their budget but whether they will be able to find money in the future is unknown.\nCouncilmember Johnson left the dais at 7:41 p.m. and returned at 7:42 p.m.\n*\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1]\n(*12-315) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with\nYork Risk Services Group, Inc. for Third Party Administrator Services for the City's\nWorkers' Compensation Program. Accepted.\n(*12-316) Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland + Knight in the\nAmount of $144,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services. Accepted.\n(*12-317) Recommendation to Award Contract to the Alameda Journal for Legal\nAdvertising for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Accepted.\n(12-318) Resolution No. 14696, \"Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding\nBetween the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and the City of Alameda for\nthe Period Beginning January 1, 2012 Through December 26, 2015.\" Adopted;\n(12-318, A) Resolution No. 14697 , \"Approving a Revised Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Alameda Management and Confidential Employees\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 6, "text": "Association (MCEA) and the City of Alameda for the Period Beginning January 1, 2012\nThrough December 26, 2015.' Adopted;\n(12-318 B) Resolution No. 14698 , \"Approving a Revised Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit\n(PANS) and the City of Alameda for the Period Beginning January 1, 2012 Through\nDecember 26, 2015.\" Adopted; and\n(12-318 C Resolution No. 14699 , \"Approving a Revised City of Alameda Executive\nManagement (EXME) Compensation Plan for the Period Beginning June 17, 2012\nThrough December 26, 2015.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested an explanation of how the revenue sharing\nmechanism works.\nThe City Manager stated there are five revenue streams that form the basis of the\ngeneral fund: property tax, sales tax, transfer occupancy tax, utility users tax and real\nestate transfer tax; the five revenue streams will be reviewed; if the aggregate of all five\ngoes up 4%, the employees would be entitled to a 2% wage increase; the revenue\nsharing is 50% of the percentage increase; the five revenue streams were selected after\na great deal of discussion with the bargaining units; the bargaining units did not want to\njust use the General Fund, which can be redefined by Council resolution.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the increases do not take effect until 2015.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount is a gross to which the City\nManager responded in the affirmative; stated the largest single expense for any\nmunicipality is wages.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a need for additional expenditures\nin those years does that get in consideration of this basic gross revenue increase and\nshare?\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the City Manager stated the formula\ndoes not change; agreement was made with the unions; noted there is a cap and a\nminimum; in 2014, 1.5% is the minimum; 4% is the maximum; half of any dramatic\ngrowth in revenues is not being pledged; it is important to note there are no wage\nincrease or cost of living adjustments in the first two years; the formula takes effect in\nyears three and four; however, staff will begin contributing money to medical premium\nand PERS contributions; there are significant concessions by labor which are structural\nand will help the City dramatically.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the staff reports show the net savings; there is no\ncost to the City, even once the revenue sharing proposals kick in.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a net savings if the 4%\nincrease occurs, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 7, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated even with the revenue sharing, a net savings will be\nrecognized because the additional PERS contribution is part of the employer share and\nthe employees are picking up part of the health care increase. f the additional PERS\ncontribution which is part of the employer share not the employee share and the\nemployees are picking up part of the increase in health care expenditures.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard of revenue sharing in the public\nsector; that he is guessing an increase around 3% a year would occur; that he has a\nconcern because he has never seen it done.\nThe City Manager stated the MOUs are not merely revenue sharing but cost sharing as\nwell; labor is picking up 50% of the medical premium increase which has been the\nlargest exposure over the past fifteen years; the City should be proud no one else has\ndone it; the plan is terribly innovative and creates a true partnership and an\nunderstanding between management and labor; sharing in hand times and if revenues\nget better the City is not committing to something that cannot be paid because the\nincreases are tied to revenue growth; employees are picking up costs either way.\nThe Human Resource Director stated on the PERS side, employees will be picking up\n1.868% which is the maximum which they can.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she agrees with the City Manager; the revenue sharing\nprovision is a recognition that there is a partnership; employees recognize the economic\nrealities the City is facing; at the same time, the City recognizes that between 2008 and\n2013 employees will not have any pay increases; in spite of costs such as garbage\nrates increasing, employees are seeing net decreases in wages; there is a mutual\nunderstanding of the fiscal constraints the City is facing and recognizing that the\nemployees are willing to help share in the healthcare cost and in the pension\nobligations.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the proposal is innovative; that she expects to see\nsimilar in the future; employees have made significant concessions in the MOUs;\nagreed with the City Manager that the City might be a leader in this front; employees\nhave made significant concessions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he concerned about budget difficulties and the\nimpact on other bargaining groups.\nThe City Manager stated staff has already talked with the public safety units and intends\nto engage in bargaining as soon as possible, a meeting is scheduled with Fire in July to\nreopen the MOU precisely for concessions; the City will need to petition the State to\nallow the City to require employees to pay additional money to PERS; Council should\nnot look at the percentage number because the miscellaneous is a different structure\nthan public safety; employees will be paying half of the premium increases in medical\nand the maximum amount allowable in California for pensions; the City cannot do better\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 8, "text": "than that; bargaining units are going to pay the maximum allowable under California law\nassuming the City gets PERS approval.\nMayor Gilmore thanked the bargaining units for recognizing the tough times, stepping\nup to the plate, and being a good partner with the City; stated Council recognizes how\ndifficult the situation may be given the fact that employees are asked to contribute more\nto pensions when pay increases have not been given for four years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated expenditure requirements have always been increased\nby 3% per year; growth has not been at that rate ink the last two or three years.\nThe City Manager stated staff is forecasting that revenue projections would yield the\nbottom of the ladder for what these wage increases are scheduled to be; staff is\nbasically forecasting no growth; budget projections are at the high end on expenses,\nand at the dramatically low end on revenues; departments have pushed down on\nexpenses very hard; the Assistant City Manager and Controller got the projections right\non the revenues and were able to jam down on expenses; by doing so, there was\nactually money left over.\nSpeaker: Bill Garvine, MCEA, expressed his appreciation of Council recognizing\nMCEA's contribution to the process.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved for approval. Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion\nwhich carried by unanimous voice votes - 5 ayes.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*12-319) Resolution No. 14700, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application\nto the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $187,957 in\nFunding from the Lifeline Transportation Program to Continue Operation of the Estuary\nCrossing Shuttle, to Commit to Pursuing the Necessary Local Match for the Estuary\nShuttle Program, and to Execute all Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\n(*12-320) Resolution No. 14701, \"Approving Parcel Map PM-10086, for the Subdivision\nof 55.6 Acres into Four Parcels Located Mostly South of Mitchell Avenue and East of the\nCoast Guard Housing Site Commonly Referred to as a Portion of the (Alameda Landing\nSite) and Certain Reservations, Dedications, Acceptances, and Easement Vacations.\nAdopted.\n(*12-321) Resolution No. 14702, \"Electing to Receive a Portion of the Tax Increments\nfrom the Exchange Area of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and\nPursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5.' Adopted; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 9, "text": "(*12-321 A) Resolution No. 14703, \"Electing to Receive a Portion of the Tax Increments\nfrom the Original Area of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the\nWest End Community Improvement Project Area Pursuant to Health and Safety Code\nSection 33607.7. Adopted.\n(12-322) Resolution No. 14704, \"Supporting Renaming the Eastshore State Park to the\nMcLaughlin Eastshore State Park.\" Adopted.\nSpeaker: Alan Carlton, Eastshore State Park Committee member, stated Ms.\nMcLaughlin was founder of Save the Bay.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-323) Adoption of Resolution to Accepting Parks Master Plan and Technical Studies\nfor Urban Greening Plan. Moved to July 3, 2012.\n(12-324) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14705, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,\nIsland City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Johnson recused herself and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\n(12-325) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14706, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,\nMaintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).' Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(12-326) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14707, \"Establishing Integrated\nWaste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 10, "text": "for Rate Period 11 (July 2012 to June 2013). Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-327) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation\nFees, Vacant Building Monitoring Fees, Administrative Penalties and Abatement Costs\nVia the Property Tax Bills for Subject Properties.\nThe Building Official gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore requested the Building Official provide a general overview of the noticing\nand time line.\nThe Building Official gave a brief review of the procedure.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the amount is placed on the property tax, to which the\nBuilding Official responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether the properties have been in the system\nfor over a year, the Chief Building Official stated the properties have been in the system\nfor more than a year; one has been in the system for 20 years.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated including the time period in the staff report would be\nhelpful.\nWilliam Petzel, Attorney for 1710 Jay Street, provided a history of the property;\nrequested Council not make a decision for 45 days in order to allow the property owner\nto file a demolition permit or apply for a variance; the City could place the lien on the\nproperty if the property owner does not do so in 45 days.\nMayor Gilmore inquired about the time line to lien the property, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded July 1st.\nMayor Gilmore stated granting 45 days would not allow an opportunity to lien the\nproperty until next year.\nThe Chief Building Official noted the citations have been assessed regardless of\nwhether or not a permit or variance is done in the future.\nMr. Petzel stated the property owner is not objecting to the amount of the assessment,\nbut objects to a lien being placed on the property.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 11, "text": "correct the health and safety issues.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process for issuing\ncitations, to which the Chief Building Official responded guidelines do not include a set\ntimeframe; stated time, normally 30 days, is permitted to allow the matter to be fixed\nbefore the citation becomes effective; the citations can be appealed; none were\nappealed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether communications were going on when\ncitations were issued, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether citations continued to be issued at the same\ntime.\nThe Chief Building Official responded staff held off on issuing citations due to an\nagreement with the attorney; outlined the significant recent work.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the realistic time line\nbetween citations, the Chief Building Official stated the time line is seldom fewer than 30\ndays and is often 60 days; the time line is based on the significance of the violation;\nsignificant electrical work was done in large portions of the house presenting a\nsignificant fire danger; repairs were in the interest of the property owner and the City;\ncitations are the mechanism for gaining compliance and making the building safe; the\nprocess is not used lightly.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff was in contact with the lawyer, to which\nthe Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the property was not\nbrought to Council last year because the attorney indicated he would work with the City,\nwhich did not occur.\nMs. Harrington noted the prior attorney only worked 12 hours on the matter in two\nyears, which is not significant; read the letter from the City outlining the violations;\nstated the property is not in great disrepair.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired about the fines and citations issued for 500 Central to\nprovide comparison, to which the Chief Building Official responded that he does not\nhave said information.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's further inquiry, the Chief Building Official\nstated five citations were issued for 1523 Pacific Avenue in the past 12 months.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated $16,000 in citations is typical and should be compared.\nMayor Gilmore noted unpermitted electrical and water heater work is a danger to the\nproperty owner and adjacent properties.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there should be a standard practice for issuing\ncitations.\nThe Chief Building Official outlined the significance of the violations; noted each citation\ncould have been appealed; stated staff moved forward to gain compliance.\nMs. Harrington noted an electrical permit was pulled on April 4, 2012; urged the City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 13, "text": "allow the property owner to attempt to come into compliance.\nThe City Manager stated that he disagrees with doing so; staff has tried to negotiate\nwith the prior attorney; placing a lien will not put anyone out of the house; maintaining a\nproperty in a way that is an eminent hazard is not fair to adjacent property owners;\nquestioned how Council would determine which cases require mercy; exercising\ndiscretion that might result in a pattern could make the City subject to accusations about\nwhy cases were selected.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she agrees with the City Manager that there should\nbe no discretion, which is why she wants to ensure internal policies do not put\nenforcement at the discretion of individual staff members; particular properties should\nnot be zeroed in on.\nThe City Manager stated that he has no objection to suspending the accrual of\nadditional fines and penalties for 90 days; urged the amount not be waived.\nMs. Harrington stated Council has discretion and should use it.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding Ms. Harrington's concern with the\nfine being assessed, Ms. Harrington stated the property owner is struggling financially\nand cannot tolerate the expenses associated with the situation; the lien would accrue\ninterest.\nThe City Manager stated regardless of interest, the amount would not be payable and\nwould not impact the property owner's cash flow; noted no appeals were filed.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding appeals, the Chief Building\nOfficial stated appeals are heard by the Appeals Officer, who is a Building Official from\nanother city.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the notice includes information about the\nright to appeal, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired when Ms. Harrington became involved, to which Ms.\nHarrington responded last week.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether not assessing the lien for 90 days would effectively\ndelay the lien for one year, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the\naffirmative.\nAnita Longoria, 1523 Pacific Avenue, provided additional background on the permits.\nThe Chief Building Official stated the 2010 inspection record indicates everything\nappeared to be very new and was not 25 year old work.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 14, "text": "Ms. Harrington stated correspondence from the City reflects there is an illegal unit and\nrooms that were never permitted; there is a discrepancy.\nJohn Lopes, Jr., 2053 Lincoln Avenue, outlined the issues with the property; requested\nthe lien not be issued.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:13 p.m. and returned at 9:15 p.m.\n*\nMayor Gilmore inquired when the work was done, to which Mr. Lopes responded 2007.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Lopes did work on another property with permits, to\nwhich Mr. Lopes responded in the affirmative; stated work was also done at 2053\nLincoln Avenue with permits.\nMayor Gilmore stated Mr. Lopes is seasoned and aware permits are needed for most\nwork.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the back unit, Mr. Lopes\nstated his daughter lives in the back unit.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City offers installment plans, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded in the affirmative; stated in cases where the work was done\nby a contractor, the City advises the property owner to go to the contractor to request\npayment of the permit fees; noted the case is gas lines installed without a permit, which\nis a significant health and safety issue.\nMr. Lopes expressed objection to the project being called a safety issue.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the name of the contractor,\nMr. Lopes responded Olson Plumbing.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether citations are always issued when the City\nlearns of unpermitted work, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the\nnegative; stated a series of requests are made prior to issuing a citation, which is a last\nresort; the citation was issued after a fourth notice and three months.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether no citations or penalties would have been\nassessed if the property owner applied for a permit after receiving the notices, to which\nthe Chief Building Official responded investigation fees would have been charged,\nwhich is four times the permit amount.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there is an opportunity to avoid citations, to\nwhich the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Lopes stated he was told he had to pay four times the amount, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded said amount is the investigation fee; stated the investigation\nfee is assessed once a complaint is filed for work without a permit.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding the permit cost, the Chief Building\nOfficial stated the permit cost is around $150.\nMr. Lopes stated the total fine is around $2,000 now.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the citations are mailed to the residence, to which\nthe Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nMr. Lopes outlined his financial hardship; stated that he is sorry he made the mistake;\nhe would rather go to jail or find another way to pay the City.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the permit and investigation fee was around $1,000\nwhen Mr. Lopes was first noticed.\nMr. Lopes stated there are two gas lines, so the amount is double.\nMayor Gilmore stated the amount would have been $2,000 as opposed to $14,000;\na\npayment schedule could have been worked out if Mr. Lopes talked to the Building\nOfficial.\nMr. Lopes stated staff always told him he had to pay the full amount; he was never told\nhe could make payments; further stated that he thought the meeting tonight was the\nappeal process.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Lopes was aware of the appeal process\non the citation, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he tried to talk to staff.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Lopes knew the appeal process was\ndescribed on the citation, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he cannot recall; stated\nthe citation looks like a traffic ticket; he asked about the next steps in the process.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Lopes knows how many citations he\nreceived, to which Mr. Lopes responded approximately 13 or 14.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many times the liens have come to Council, to\nwhich the Chief Building Official responded the past three years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some cases have been over 5 years; inquired why liens\nwere not brought to Council sooner and whether a threshold needs to be met.\nThe Chief Building Official responded the threshold is when it appears the property\nowner is no longer interested in working with staff; stated some properties have prior\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 16, "text": "liens and new liens are being proposed, such as the Roosevelt property.\nMark Cederborg, 2319 Santa Clara Avenue Trustee, gave background information on\nthe trust; stated citations were issued prior to the transfer; outlined current activities;\nstated said activities show the trust wants to cooperate with the City.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if citations have stopped being issued since Mr. Cederborg's\nclient is attempting to come into compliance, to which the Chief Building Official\nresponded the last citation was issued March 1st and the first contact with the trustee\nwas May 1st; stated the City has stopped issuing citations.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether $5,000 for the compliance inspection is\nunder discussion, the Chief Building Official stated the $5,000 is due before a permit\ncan be issued; all outstanding amounts, including citations, have to be paid before a\npermit can be issued.\nMr. Cederborg stated the last property tax bill included a special assessment of over\n$7,000, which cannot be paid; the liens are not just assessed when the property is sold\nand have to be paid on the property tax bill.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the amount is a City lien, to which the Chief Building\nOfficial responded the amount might be an assessment from a previous year.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the liens are paid yearly or when the property is sold.\nThe Chief Building Official responded that his understanding is that the amount is\ncollected when the property is sold; stated the County pays the City half three months\nafter the lien is filed and the other half six months after; that he does not know if the\nCounty charges the property owner that year or at time of sale; that he understood it\nwas at the time of sale.\nThe City Manager noted in the case, the amount could be included because the\nproperty transferred.\nThere was a brief discussion about the divorce case and the trust.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about whether property owners cannot\ntake out permits to do the required work once a citation is issued, the Chief Building\nOfficial stated all fees due must be paid before a permit is issued; exceptions are made\nfor life safety issues; an exception was made in this case to allow electrical repairs.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether staff negotiates penalties and fees, to which\nthe Chief Building Official stated only payment plans are negotiated; stated staff does\nnot have authority to waive the fee once a citation has been assessed and the appeal\nperiod has passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 17, "text": "In response to Councilmember Johnson's further inquiry, the Chief Building Official\nstated the ordinance is clear that people be given the opportunity to correct once a\ncitation has been issued; a penalty is not assessed if the matter is appealed or\ncorrected in the timeframe, which is usually 30 days.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there is no penalty, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded in the affirmative; stated only the permit and investigation\nfee are charged.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how the citation amount is set, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded the amount is set in the ordinance; the first citation is $250,\nthe second is $750, and the third and subsequent are $1,000.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why 14 citations are only $5,000, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded the City has placed prior liens on the property.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Chief Building Official stated the\nliens would be submitted to the County by July 1st; property owners have until the end\nof\nthe day on June 28th to pay.\nThe City Attorney noted the lien is released if the debt is paid.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there is a resource to help property owners;\nstated property owners get frightened and shut down; information needs to be clear; the\ncitations look like parking tickets; the appeal process needs to be made clear on the\nnotice; the ordinance has been in place for a while and should be reviewed and\nimproved.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether citations continue once a lien has been placed on a\nproperty, to which the Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he would recuse himself from 1710 Jay Street and 2319\nSanta Clara Avenue in an abundance of caution because he has a relationship with the\ninterested parties; that he would vote, but would also like to address 1523 Pacific\nAvenue separately from the rest.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she should recuse herself from 2319 Santa Clara\nAvenue.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she should recuse herself as well, which makes three\nmembers.\nThe City Attorney stated one person is allowed to vote if a quorum is lost.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether someone discussed another property, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded 2053 Lincoln Avenue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 18, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding hardship, the Chief Building\nOfficial stated the County may have a process if property owners have hardships and\ncannot pay property taxes; the City is not a part of said process.\nMayor Gilmore stated there seems to be some confusion; inquired whether the liens are\npart of the property tax paid twice per year or whether the amount is paid when the\nproperty is sold.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 19, "text": "The Chief Building Official stated that his understanding is the amount is assessed at\nthe time of sale; the County pays the City in advance of collecting the money.\nThe City Attorney stated liens typically have to be cleared when the property is sold, but\nproperty can be foreclosed on due to liens.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City needs to check with the County.\nThe Chief Building Official stated that he would contact the County.\nThe City Attorney stated there are many different types of liens; assessments are paid\nas part of property taxes; a lien is not an assessment.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the attorney indicated the County has a process for reviewing\nhardships.\nMs. Harrington stated as an example, San Francisco County places a lien and\nforecloses on property if taxes are not paid for 5 years; whether or not the property\nwould be foreclosed upon is not clear.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what is the City's process for hardships, to which the Chief\nBuilding Official responded staff works with property owners willing to make payments;\nstated enforcement is not stopped until the property is in compliance.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether enforcement means additional citations, to which\nthe Chief Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the first letter, the Chief\nBuilding Official stated the first letter informs the property owner that the City needs to\ninvestigate a complaint; if a violation is found, the second letter states the property\nowner needs to comply and pay the permit and fees; citations are brought up after there\nis no compliance; three to four letters are sent prior to issuing the first citation; there are\nmany Code Enforcement cases and only a 13 are being brought to Council.\nThe City Manager reminded Council the issues are health and safety issues that could\nimpact surrounding properties.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of providing a 90 day moratorium for 1523 Pacific\nAvenue whereby there will be no additional fines imposed and giving an opportunity for\nthe attorney to work out a plan with staff.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what happens to the $16,750, to which Vice Mayor Bonta stated\nthe attorney would discuss the amount with staff.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Vice Mayor Bonta is referring to how the amount would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 20, "text": "be paid, to which Vice Mayor Bonta responded a payment plan or lump sum.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the motion is to approve a 90 day moratorium for\n1523 Pacific Avenue and allow a payment plan where the City does not impose the lien;\nif the property owner does not pay up, the matter would come back next year, to which\nVice Mayor Bonta responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the intent of the motion is\nto allow discussion of the penalty amount, to which Councilmember Tam responded the\nintent is to allow the property owner to work out an installment plan with staff.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the motion fixes the amount, to which Vice\nMayor Bonta responded the motion does not contemplate the fixing of the amount or\nhow it is paid, which he leaves to staff; it is fine if agreement is reached and staff holds\nthe line and requests the whole amount be paid; that he is not saying one way or the\nother and is giving flexibility; the time and process are the most important component.\nThe City Manager stated the woman is elderly and does not have income; that he does\nnot see how an installment plan will happen.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated family members are willing to pay.\nThe City Attorney stated the attorney indicated the property owner is willing to fix the\nproblem; requested clarification about whether the amount owed would be paid.\nMs. Harrington responded the amount of the citation should be lowered; that she would\nwant to review the amount of the fee; the family is willing to do whatever it takes to save\nthe property.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Ms. Harrington believes the citations are all\nfor current work, to which Ms. Harrington responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the wiping out the past work should make the case\neasier to resolve; that she would like the matter included in the motion.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the motion allows working out the amount and\nwhether there should be abatement based on when work was done and prior permits;\nstated the flexibility does not need to be discussed.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he would like to delegate the flexibility to staff.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would support the motion because in this case there is a\ndiscrepancy whether the work was old work or new work, which is different from other\ncases.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 21, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Gilmore provided an overview of 2053 Lincoln Avenue.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a payment plan was not offered; inquired whether the\nproperty owner would move forward with a payment schedule.\nMr. Lopes' daughter stated that she is willing to pay $1,000 for the next two months to\nget the permit and following that, will make payments on the $12,000; begged the lien\nnot be placed on the house.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 2053 Lincoln Avenue should be sent back to\nstaff to give time to set up requirements for payment.\nMayor Gilmore stated there is a promise on the record to make payments.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of 90 days and direction to staff to work out\na\npayment schedule.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion is to give 90 days to work out a plan for\ncoming into compliance and a payment schedule.\nVice Mayor Bonta clarified there would be a moratorium during the 90 days so that no\nadditional citations would be imposed.\nThe City Manager stated Mr. Lopes indicated PG&E said the gas lines are fine.\nMr. Lopes stated that he does not have a problem with putting in the valves; City staff\nsaw pictures and said the material was not good, however, PG&E indicated that the\nmaterials is being used everywhere instead of metal pipe.\nMayor Gilmore requested the motion be amended to include that the gas valve and\nmaterial of the piping to ensure City requirements are met.\nThe Chief Building Official stated said matter would be addressed as part of the\ninspection process once a permit is issued; the gas lines have to be unburied to do the\ninspection; a test is done to ensure the gas line does not leak and the material is proper\nand will not rot.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Lopes will not come back and argue that PG&E\nsaid the material is fine, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he understands.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is an indication that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 22, "text": "the pipes do not meet standards.\nMr. Lopes responded staff told him everything would have to be replaced, which he\ndoes not believe; inspection will pass once the valves are installed.\nMayor Gilmore stated the motion includes that there will be a complete inspection of the\ngas lines, including the valves and material composition of the lines.\nMr. Lopes stated a couple of spots would be uncovered to check the material, depth\nand test pressure.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, the\nCity Attorney responded not unless the Councilmember declares bias.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he does not believe he technically has a conflict, he just\ndid so out of an abundance of caution.\nThe City Attorney stated the rule of necessity allows for a drawing to be held to make\na\nquorum; Vice Mayor Bonta does not appear to have a true conflict.\nMayor Gilmore and Councilmember Tam expressed they do not have a true conflict\neither.\nVice Mayor Bonta and Councilmember Tam voluntarily recused themselves and left the\ndais.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the County required payment of a prior\nassessment due to the property transfer, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the\naffirmative; stated the amount is $7,800.\nCouncil discussed whether or not the amount could be the School District parcel tax.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the amount is not being disputed, to which\nMr. Cederborg responded the property owner has worked in good faith and citations\nhave continued to accrue.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated health and safety concerns are greater for commercial\nspace.\n*\n(12-328) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the next three\nordinances [paragraph nos. 12-329, 12-330, and 12-331 after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 23, "text": "[Absent: Vice Mayor Bonta - 1.]\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the property owner needs to go forward with\nthe work to allow a tenant to move in, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Chief Building Official stated once the lien has been filed, the $5,000 goes away\nand permit fees could be discussed.\nMayor Gilmore stated placing a lien on the property wipes the slate clean and allows the\nproperty owners to obtain the permits needed.\nThe City Manager stated the property is out of compliance; staff can be directed to work\nwith the property owner to get into compliance; the $5,000 lien is not operative now.\nMayor Gilmore stated placing the lien would allow the property owner to go back to\ncourt and explain there was misrepresentation.", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember deHaan started the matter is a continuing step in the review process.\nMayor Gilmore stated having five members makes having a quorum easier.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding other Boards and Commissions\nwith five members, the City Clerk listed seven bodies: Civil Service Board, Historical\nAdvisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Commission, Library\nBoard, Open Government Commission, Public Art Commission and Public Utilities\nBoard.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the two open spots have made having a quorum\ndifficult.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the Recreation and Park Commission President was\ndirected to have the Commission consider the matter and come back to Council.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.\n(12-330) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 2-67 Relating to Prevailing Wages.\nThe Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker: Andy Slivka, Carpenters Union/Building Trades, stated that the one thing he\ndisagrees with is the staff report indication that there would be 15% increase in cost;\nurged adoption of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-331) Ordinance No. 3048 \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing\nSubsections 18-5.10 (Lateral Testing Upon Sale). 18-5.11 (Private Sewer Lateral\nTesting Procedures and Requirements), 18-5.12 (Failure of Test), 18-5.13 (Lateral\nCertification), 18-5.14 (Condominium and Cooperative Apartment Buildings) of Section\n18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections) in their Entirety, and by Adding\nSection 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) to Article 1 (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and\nWater). Finally passed.\nThe City Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 25, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-332) The City Manager announced that two members of Council provided potential\nfrequently asked questions regarding pension and labor issues, for a total of 16\nquestions ; requested the remaining Councilmembers submit questions.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested the City Auditor and City Treasurer be invited to\nsubmit potential questions.\nThe City Manager agreed to do so.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-333) Dr. Carol Gottstein, Alameda, discussed the June 6th minutes and requested to\nview the A&B Tow contract.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-334) Councilmember Tam made announced that she attended a League of\nCalifornia Cities meeting on June 14th\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned themeeting at 10:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-06-19", "page": 26, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 19, 2012- - 6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:07 p.m. and Vice\nMayor Bonta arrived at 6:10 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-300) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95); Claimant: David Ellis; Agency\nClaimed Against: City of Alameda\n(12-301) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; (54956.9) Name of Case:\nRobert Zack, Bernice Jolliff, The Estate of Raymond Zack VS. City of Alameda, County\nof Alameda, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Superior Court of California, Alameda\nCounty; Case No. RG12632015; this lawsuit stems from the tragic drowning of\nRaymond Zack at Crown Beach in May 2011. Family members are seeking un\nspecified monetary damages.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the Council gave direction to\nstaff; and regarding Existing Litigation, Council gave direction to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:04 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\nJune 19, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf"}