{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nMONDAY, October 27, 2014\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Board President Peter Horikoshi.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Peter Horikoshi, Vice President Dean Batchelor, Members Linda\nMcHugh, Marguerite Malloy, Zara Santos\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Acting Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary\nto the Board\nStephanie Garrabrant-Sierra, Administrative Services Director\nBeth Fritz, Administrative Assistant Il\nMichael Roush, Attorney - Civil Service Board Legal Counsel\nChris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst-AMP\nTiffany llacqua, Human Resources Analyst I\nMonica Selles, Human Resources Analyst Il\nSharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Technician Il\nTerry Flippo, ACEA Representative\n3.\nMINUTES:\nA.\nApproval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of July 2, 2014.\nMember McHugh moved that the July 2, 2014 Minutes be approved. Motion was seconded by\nMember Malloy which was passed by a 5-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR\nOCTOBER 27, 2014.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda Page 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\n4-A-i.\nELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Technician I\n06/30/2014\n2014-16\n(Media and Communications Technician)\nApprentice Line Worker\n06/02/2014\n2014-09PR\nAssistant General Manager -\n09/02/2014\n2014-23\nEnergy Resources Planning\nCity Engineer\n06/26/2014\n2014-07\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n07/01/2014\n2014-14\nFire Captain\n07/03/2014\n2014-11PR\nMaintenance Worker I\n07/28/2014\n2014-20\nParalegal\n07/27/2014\n2014-22\nPermit Technician I\n09/04/2014\n2014-28\nPublic Safety Communications Supervisor\n08/12/2014\n2014-30PR\nPublic Safety Dispatcher\n06/25/2014\n2014-10\nPublic Works Coordinator\n06/19/2014\n2014-17\nRecreation Manager\n07/10/2014\n2014-18\nRecreation Services Specialist\n09/02/2014\n2014-25\nSenior Utility Accountant\n09/02/2014\n2014-32\nSystem Dispatcher\n07/02/2014\n2014-15\nTechnology Services Coordinator\n08/19/2014\n2014-24\n(CAD/RMS/MDT Specialist)\nPolice Officer\nBrandon Hansen\n07/08/2014\n2012-33\nDarryl DeRespini\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nPierce Hanson\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nPatrick Helfrick\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nTyler Horn\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nBrent McCord\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nErik Rasmussen\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nJeannette Cazares\n09/11/2014\n2013-20PT\nJoseph Couch\n09/11/2014\n2013-20PT\n4-A-ii.\nELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nDivision Chief\n02/04/2014\n2013-39PR\nFinance Supervisor\n11/13/2013\n2013-32\nFire Apparatus Operator\n07/03/2013\n2013-11PR\nIntermediate Clerk\n10/09/2013\n2013-30\nPlanner I\n03/06/2014\n2014-02\nPolice Lieutenant\n02/06/2014\n2013-40PR\nPolice Sergeant\n03/05/2013\n2013-03PR\n4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nAssistant City Attorney\n03/03/2014\n2013-42\nCity Engineer\n06/26/2014\n2014-07\nCode Compliance Officer\n08/14/2013\n2013-23\nCombination Building Inspector\n02/18/2014\n2013-43\nEconomic Development Manager\n02/03/2014\n2013-36\nLine Working Supervisor\n03/06/2014\n2014-03\nMaintenance Worker II\n10/01/2013\n2013-27\nMeter Service Technician\n07/29/2014\n2014-26PR\nRecreation Manager\n07/10/2014\n2014-18PR\nSenior Account Clerk\n04/08/2014\n2014-06\nSubstation and Meter Supervisor\n03/03/2014\n2014-04\nSupport Services Supervisor\n01/27/2014\n2013-33PR\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201- Minutes)2014-10- CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda Page 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\n4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\n-\nSenior Utility Accountant\n-\nSystem Operator\nNew Class Specifications:\n-\nAssistant Community Development Director\n-\nCrime Scene Specialist\n-\nPolice Maintenance Technician (re-presented)\n-\nPolice Technician (re-presented)\n-\nPublic Works Project Manager I\n-\nPublic Works Project Manager Il\n-\nPublic Works Project Manager III\n-\nSystem Operator Trainee\nBoard Member Malloy made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar items with the\nexception of the Senior Utility Accountant, Police Maintenance Technician and the Public\nWorks Project Managers I, II, and III specifications. Vice President Batchelor seconded the\nmotion. Motion was approved 5-0.\nMember Santos asked if the Senior Utility Accountant was classified as non-exempt. Senior Human\nResources Analyst Low stated it is an exempt classification. Member Santos asked how many\nclassification levels there are between Senior Utility Accountant and non-exempt line classifications.\nSenior Human Resources Analyst Low stated it is right above the non-exempt line classes. For the\nUtility Accountant classification family, basically it goes through Senior Account Clerk, Utility\nAccountant, and Senior Utility Accountant. We go from non-exempt at the Senior Utility Accountant\nlevel.\nMember Santos stated that she feels this job description should be revisited. She performs a lot of\nthis type of wage and hour work and this seems that it would be red flagged for an audit. Acting\nHuman Resources Director Kovacs stated an FLSA duties test could be done. What we would be\nlooking for is: are they making independent judgments, are they recommending/formulating\nrecommendations that are going to be substantive in so far as business operations are concerned,\nwhich is the foundation of the exemption under the FLSA.\nMember Santos stated that it looks like they need graduation from an accredited college with a\ndegree in accounting, but when she reads the description she is not so sure that she is seeing the\ndiscretion in independent judgment as related to certain policies and procedures. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated if you look at the definition \" perform responsible utility accounting\nand related work involving financial planning, revisions to general accounting procedures, revisions to\nprocedures and functions, and review of detailed accounting procedures and recommendations for\nthe improvement thereof..\nSo they are involved in making recommendations and review of\nprocesses and procedures.\nMember Santos stated that she is not saying that this is not an exempt classification, but in reading it\nshe would like it revisited. If it is circumscribed by certain procedures, etc., for instance by the\nGeneral Accounting Principles, she is saying that it should be revisited. Acting Human Resources\nDirector Kovacs asked if Member Santos would like HR to do an FLSA duties test on this\nclassification. Member Santos stated that if staff is confident about the FLSA duties then she feels it\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda Page 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\nis fine. The job description can be a little stronger. When she looks at it she does not feel that it is\nclearly exempt.\nMember Santos stated that under California it is a quantitative test. There is no percentage in the\nwage orders. The test is primarily engaged in over 50% and we do not have percentages. This may\nbe okay but when she looks at something right above the non-exempt line she feels it is worth a\nrevisit. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that as a Charter City, Alameda is exempt\nfrom almost all of the provisions of the State Wage Orders, with the exception of minimum wage.\nMember Santos stated that she feels that the job description is not that strong in qualifying for\nadministrative or professional exemption and that it could be better. Member Malloy asked Senior\nHuman Resources Analyst Low if the Board could see the job description which is below the Senior\nUtility Accountant. This may help the Board to have a better sense of the description. The\ndescription covers the bare bones of the job. Senior Human Resources Analyst Low stated that the\nBoard could find the job description on the City's website. He invited the Board to look at the redlined\nversion of the description in the packet, which indicates this job description was last approved in\n1988. The Utility Accountant is going to have similar vintage text. It is not worded as strongly as the\nBoard would prefer as far as the level of description.\nMember Santos stated that you could flush out more of the analysis to highlight the independent\njudgment piece. Administrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra asked if Member Santos was\nactually pointing out a violation of the FLSA duties. Member Santos stated no, this is the kind of job\ndescription that would typically get red flagged as something to look into under the FLSA. Maybe\nthere is less risk as a Charter City. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that this\nclassification could be on the cusp of qualifying for exception. The majority of duties happen to be of\nthe exempt nature and perhaps that can be better reflected in the job specification.\nMember Santos stated that when she looks at \"coordinate\" it is a more non-exempt status, when you\nlook at an audit you are following a certain set of procedures so there is not so much discretion in\nindependent judgment, preparation of general ledger is more on the non-exempt side. Without\nknowing what the job is, she would like to see more of the exempt duties if staff feels this is truly\nexempt.\nAdministrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated maybe we need a legal opinion on this\ndescription. Michael Roush, Attorney-Civil Service Board Legal Counsel, stated he thinks that in\norder to do that, perhaps understanding the percentage of time that this particular job is intended to\ndo these things would help understand if it is exempt or non-exempt. If preparation is done 5% of the\ntime and 50% of the time is spent doing typically more exempt functions, then we would be more\ncomfortable with this description. Without having gone through that process we can take a look at it.\nUnless there is a timing issue, we can bring the information back to the Board. Or, at least come\nback with better definitions to make it more clear on whether it is an exempt or non-exempt position.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that if the Board directs, staff can review the duties\nto make sure they meet the standards of exemption.\nPresident Horikoshi requested that staff take a look at this item and bring it back to the Board for\nreview again.\nVice President Bachelor asked regarding the Police Maintenance Technician, if there was just one\nposition for this job description. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that right now there\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\Al Minutes/201 Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda Page 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\nis only one position assigned to this classification. Vice President Batchelor stated that when he\nlooks at the duties, etc., it is a pretty broad description.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs introduced Captain Leibnitz to the Board to answer\nquestions regarding the Police Maintenance Technician. Captain Leibnitz stated that the\njob\ndescription for the position is fairly broad and has evolved over the years to include understanding\nand troubleshooting Police equipment, air conditioning systems, and anything to do with the Police\nDepartment building, along with other various duties such as purchasing chairs and toilet paper, and\ntroubleshooting other areas. It is expected that this person would have an understanding of basic\ncomputers, police computers, and logistics. Duties cover a wide spectrum and it is beneficial if the\nperson has experience with, and understanding of, basic computers and building maintenance.\nVice President Batchelor asked that when this position goes out for recruitment, what are the aspects\nof the position that Police will be looking at; how will the Department determine what the best\ncandidates will look like; what is the most important piece that the Department will be looking for.\nCaptain Leibnitz stated it is based on something that can be learned, but also a personality trait.\nSomeone that is not afraid to reach out to others for help, someone who has good basic common\nsense, and someone that knows the ins and outs of basic building maintenance. The Department is\nlooking for someone well-rounded and can get the job done. Acting Human Resources Director\nKovacs stated that staff is looking for the custodian facilities maintenance experience as well as\nsubstantial electronics installation experience. So if they have done one form or another of any sort\nof related electronics installation, in theory, they would be able to pick up the specialized electronic\nknowledge that is needed at the Police Department. Additionally, the maintenance experience\ndesired would include working with complex instructions and rules. It could be difficult to find\nsomeone who has actually worked in a Police Department in this line of work, but we would be\nlooking to find someone who has potential and has demonstrated the experience and aptitude to pick\nup the pieces of work where needed. Captain Leibnitz also stated that the person would have to be\nable to prioritize and be very well organized. The person in this position will be pulled in many\ndirections and would need to be able to prioritize and organize.\nPresident Horikoshi asked if this is acceptable as written. Vice President Batchelor stated yes it is\nacceptable.\nVice President Batchelor made a motion to approve the Police Maintenance Technician\nspecifications as written with the redlines. Board Member Santos seconded the motion.\nMotion was approved 5-0.\nDiscussion was held on the specifications for Public Works Project Managers I, II, and III.\nBoard Member Santos stated that it looks like the Public Works Project Manager I does not supervise\nand the Public Works Project Manager Il and III do supervise. Is that correct? Are there any other\ndifferences? Is it a progression? Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that it is a\nprogression. The difference between the classifications is the level of the project. There are certain\nstructural things that have to happen no matter what the size of the Public Works project, and the\ndifferent levels are for the different project magnitudes. The Public Works Manager I would be doing\nentry level and more simple/routine projects; the Public Works Project Manager Il would be doing\nmore moderate and standard projects; and the Public Works Project Manager III would be doing more\ncomplicated or complex projects. One way to identify these levels is by the dollar amount of the\nprojects. In the specifications the amount is not included as they may become obsolete in a short\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 6, "text": "City of Alameda Page 6\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\ntime, so they are described in terms of project scope.\nBoard Member Santos asked in terms of the exempt, non-exempt line where would that be? Acting\nHuman Resources Director Kovacs stated they are all exempt.\nBoard Member Malloy asked if transfer or promotion within the job is available. Acting Human\nResources Director Kovacs stated the City does not have flexible staffing, but that is a future\npossibility.\nBoard Member McHugh stated that one function that is missing from all of the specifications is risk\nmanagement; the identification, mitigation and having contingency plans for risks to the project. Is\nthat done by someone other than the Project Managers? Or, is it implied by something that is in one\nor more of these position descriptions? Administrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra agreed\nthat it is implied in the description because it is project risk where you have to do a cost benefit\nanalysis of procedures and identify where there are problems.\nMember Malloy asked if the Public Works Department uses project management software.\nAdministrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated it will. Member McHugh stated risk\nmanagement is not built into any software program. The ability to capture risk management is, but it is\nnot going to do the analysis.\nAdministrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated that she has seen project management\ndone in many other cities and there are varying ways to calculate and assess risk. Risk can be read\ninto this but it is certainly possible to add it as well. Staff assumed that was read into this.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the key thing to remember in the job\nspecifications is that the intent is to not list every single duty on a specification, but to list examples of\nduties. We try to represent the major focus and try to write the specification so that we can identify\nthe performance factors that are going to be needed to be measured in order to test, recruit, and\nmake an appointment to the job. Staff is not trying to represent every facet of work that may be\nperformed.\nAdministrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated that what is unique in project management\nin the public works field is the fact that the City put out bids for projects that will have all the\nspecifications written out. The Project Manager's responsibility is to ensure that\nprofessionals/contractors are following the specs and doing things on time, on budget, etc., that they\nare on task.\nMember McHugh stated that is a good example. So the risk awareness that the Project Manager\nwould need to have is one of the vendors is going to be late on delivering some component that is\nrequired and it will impact someone else down the line. They will have to find a way around it or find\na way to minimize the impact and analyze what it is going to cost and how to move ahead. That is all\nrisk management. Administrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated that we consider that\nproject management. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs state that Member McHugh may be\ntalking about including development, procurement, successful implementation and quality control\nof each project from inception to completion.\"\nPresident Horikoshi asked Member McHugh if that was a substantial enough explanation. Board\nMember McHugh stated she was not satisfied, but if that is the level that the City is at on project\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201- Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda Page 7\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\nmanagement, maybe it is a maturity thing too. She thinks these are the first project management job\nspecifications that have been defined.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs introduced Public Works Director Bob Haun to answer\nquestions regarding the Project Manager specifications. Member McHugh stated that a key\ncomponent for Project Managers, going by best practices and industry standards, because risk\nmanagement is a big part of the job, it is not just scheduling and budget, etc., and the question is\nwhere is that? Is it done by someone else other than the Project Managers? Is it the Project Manager\nIII who does it? It does not come through in the job description. It has been said that this is not such\na big problem with Public Works because the projects have more predefined requirements.\nAdministrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra stated that these were more of the project\nmanagement duties. Public Works Director Haun stated that is more of a management duty because\nthe City goes through a much more rigorous CIP selection process before the projects even end up\nwith Project Managers. As part of the CIP assessment process, we go through a risk management\ncomponent; how risky is the project, what are the environmental effects, safety risks of the project,\netc. By the time the project comes to a Project Manager, those items would have been identified and\ndealt with.\nMember McHugh stated that things also come up during projects too. The larger and longer and\nmore complex the project, the more likely there will be things that do not go as planned. That is part\nof the Project Managers' duties, to identify those emerging issues and develop contingency plans.\nThat is part of Project Management 101. Public Works Director Haun agreed and stated that maybe\nit was not articulated very well, but it will fall mostly on the Project Manager III. The Project Manager I\nand II will have relatively small projects that do not encompass much risk. The Project Manager III will\nhave direct authority over the Project Manager I and II.\nMember McHugh stated it says that the Project Manager I will have simpler routine projects, Project\nManager Il would have mid-scale, and Project Manager III will have large scale projects. Member\nMcHugh asked Public Works Director Haun to give an example of mid-scale versus large scale\nprojects. Public Works Director Haun stated that a mid-scale project would be more classic public\nworks projects, large-scale would be a building project. For instance a Project Manager III would be\nin charge of constructing a new public works facility. The City is currently working on constructing a\nnew fire station, which would be handled by a Project Manager III. A Project Manager II would handle\nmore public works related projects including roads, sewers, sewer design and construction. A Project\nManager I would handle very small projects such as projects just beginning/starting out.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that on Duty #2, it states \"developing policies and\nprocedures for establishing costs, schedule controls and coordinating activities\", which deals with\ncontrolling the schedule and work. Member McHugh stated that is an administrative duty. Acting\nHuman Resources Director Kovacs referred to Duty #3, \"negotiates and administers conflicts;\nsupervises and coordinates the work of consultants and contractors; resolves conflicts in a timely\nmanner satisfying project needs.\"\nMember Santos stated that on Duty #9 it talks about variances and critical paths, and asked does\nMember McHugh feel that needs to be flushed out? Member McHugh stated that she is a PMP and\nshe is on the Board of Directors for the Project Management Institute, and Project Managers do not\ndo\nthe\nrisk\nmanagement.\nIf\nit\nis\nnot\ncalled\nout\nin\nthe\nposition\ndescription,\nyou\nare\nnot\ngoing\nto\nhave\nit.\nIt is a critical component of getting the result that you want and not having budget overruns, etc.\nKeeping track of the schedule and budget helps but that is really administrative. This requires some\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201. Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 8, "text": "limit a major life activity and cannot perform the essential duties of the position for which\nhe/she has applied, with or without accommodation.\"\nAnd\n\"Change Article VII, Section I to add: The Executive Secretary to the Board shall have the\nauthority and discretion to revise and maintain lists of the classifications considered entry\nlevel and those requiring professional certification or advanced degree, however when any\nchange is made to the list, those changes shall be reported to the Board at the next regularly\nscheduled meeting.'\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2014 Minutes)2014-10-2 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 9, "text": "City of Alameda Page 9\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\nAnd to remove the current list of classifications which enumerate entry level and those\nrequiring professional certification or advanced degree.\" \"\nBoard Member Santos seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0.\n5-B. EUPA Correspondence: Staff Response to Correspondence from the Electric\nUtility Professionals of Alameda (EUPA) and Certain Individual Members\nRegarding Bumping Rights in the Case of a Layoff.\nAdministrative Services Director Garrabrant-Sierra provided a report to the Board regarding letters\nreceived by the Board and Human Resources regarding certain individual members in the new union,\n(EUPA), regarding their bumping rights in the case of a layoff. Administrative Services Director\nGarrabrant-Sierra stated that the City has received previous letters on this subject, but we do not like\nto give an opinion/s on hypothetical subjects because every circumstance is different. There are no\nCivil Service Rules that govern Bumping Rights. Those rules are actually covered by the individual\nMOU's. Staff is advising to not make a determination on something that is covered in the MOU's and\nthat is a hypothetical.\nBoard Member McHugh made a motion to accept the report as written. Board Member Santos\nseconded the motion. Motion was approved 5-0.\n5-C. City of Alameda's Organizational Chart for FY 2013-2014 and FY 2014-2015\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs provided the Organizational Charts for FY 2013-2014 and\nFY 2014-2015 which were requested by the Board.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the Organizational Chart is subject to change\nas approved by Council.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that if the Board has questions on the\nOrganizational Charts, Salary Schedules, Council agenda reports/packets, etc., all of the information\nis available on the City's website. The Board is always welcome to ask questions of staff, but wanted\nto let the Board know that the information is also readily available on the City's website.\nPresident Horikoshi asked the Board if they thought it would be helpful if when job descriptions are\nbeing brought to the Board if it would be helpful if the Organizational Chart for that particular area be\nincluded in the packet. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that the Organizational\nChart is really a reflection of Position Control and Authorized Positions within the City. Establishing\nAuthorized Positions is a function of City Council. President Horikoshi stated that the Board does not\nwant to change that function, but this would help the Board understand certain classifications. Acting\nHuman Resources Director Kovacs stated that if the Board looks at the Salary Schedules they will\nhave a better understanding on the order of things. Salary Schedules are organized by family or\ngroup: management salaries would be on the Management and Confidential Employees Association\n(MCEA) schedule, and general classes are on the Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA)\nschedule. You can also see if a particular position is exempt because the salary will be listed\nannually and if it is non-exempt, an hourly salary will be listed. Salaries are in descending order.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs suggested that the Board might find looking at the Salary\nSchedules helpful.\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\AI Minutes/201 Minutes)2014-10- CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 10, "text": "City of Alameda Page 10\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\nMember McHugh clarified that the Salary Schedule can also be looked at as a classification chart.\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs stated that while there is not one comprehensive Salary\nSchedule, there is a Salary Schedule for each bargaining unit, which could be useful.\nMichael Roush, Attorney-Civil Service Board Legal Counsel, asked as an example, where the Police\nMaintenance Technician would fall on the Police Department Organizational Chart. If you added new\njob classifications, and the Organizational Chart showed where that position would be placed on the\nchart, it would be helpful.\nMember Malloy asked how soon before the approved job description would be put online. Acting\nHuman Resources Director Kovacs stated that it generally takes approximately 1-2 weeks. Staff tries\nto be timely but sometimes it takes longer due to the lack of staffing resources.\nPresident Horikoshi suggested that when staff is including job descriptions in the meeting packets,\nthat they determine whether or not to include the Salary Schedule or Organizational Chart that might\nbe helpful to the Board.\n5-D. Activity Report - Period of June 1, 2014 through August 31, 2014.\nFULL-TIME HIRES\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/06/14\nFinance\nIntermediate Clerk\n07/07/14\nPublic Works\nPublic Works Coordinator\n07/14/14\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n07/21/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nAlameda Municipal Power - General Manager\n08/11/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nElectrical Maintenance Technician\n08/18/14\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n08/25/14\nPolice\nPolice Officers (2)\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/01/14\nHuman Resources\nHuman Resources Manager\n06/26/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nApprentice Line Worker\n07/13/14\nRecreation/Parks\nRecreation Manager\n08/10/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nMeter Service Technician\n08/11/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nSystem Dispatcher\n08/17/14\nPolice\nPolice Sergeant\n08/17/14\nPolice\nPolice Lieutenant\n08/17/14\nPolice\nPolice Captain\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/25/14\nFire\nFire Captain\n07/11/14\nFire\nFirefighter\n08/19/14\nPublic Works\nFleet Mechanic\n08/24/14\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n08/28/14\nPolice\nPolice Captain\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2014 Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 11, "text": "City of Alameda Page 11\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting October 27, 2014\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n06/25/14\nCommunity Development\nPlan Check Engineer\n06/30/14\nCommunity Development\nCommunity Development Program Manager\n06/30/14\nCommunity Development\nDevelopment Manager\n06/30/14\nCommunity Development\nOffice Assistant\n08/22/14\nFinance\nFinance Director\nMember Santos asked if exit interviews are conducted. Acting Human Resources Director Kovacs\nstated yes, whenever possible. Those who were resigning from the City of Alameda were leaving for\nbetter retirements and much better salaries.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(Any person may address the Civil Service Board in regard to any matter over which the Civil\nService Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda)\nNone\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nNone\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nActing Human Resources Director Kovacs informed the Board that all Members are up-to-date on\ntheir Sunshine Training forms.\n9.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nWednesday, January 7, 2015\n10.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSifthe\nJill Kovacs\nActing Human Resources Director and\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\AI Minutes/2014 Minutes/2014-10-27 CSB Minutes-Mtg Final", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nTERKA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., OCTOBER 27, 2014\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Chair Marie Gilmore at 4:30 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Trustees: William Soderlund, and Elizabeth Wamerdam (designated\nSecretary by City Manager for October 27, 2014 meeting)\nAbsent: Robert Follrath, Nancy Elzig,\nStaff: Juelle-Ann Boyer, Interim Finance Director, Lelia Faapouli, Administrative\nTechnician, Human Resources.\n3.\nMINUTES:\nThe minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 28, 2014 were presented but\ndesignated Secretary Elizabeth Warmerdam abstained from voting since she\nwas not in attendance at that meeting and there was not a quorum to vote. The\nJuly 28, 2014 minutes will be held for approval at the next meeting.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n4-A. Pension Payroll and Financial Reports - Quarter Ending September 30,\n2014 and City of Alameda Police & Fire Pension Funds Financial Reports for the\nPeriod Ending September 30, 2014 were presented by Juelle-Ann Boyer, Interim\nFinance Director. Member Soderlund inquired why the third quarter total went up\non Pension Payroll and Financial Report, Juelle-Ann Boyer will research. The\nreports were moved for approval by Member Soderlund and seconded by\ndesignated Secretary Warmerdam. Passed 3-0", "path": "PensionBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, October 27, 2014\nPage 2\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n6.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nThere were no Pension Board communications.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nare\nElizabeth Warmerdam\nAssistant City Manager\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2014\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 PM\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nVice President Henneberry led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresident Burton, Vice President Henneberry, Board Members\nAlvarez-Morroni, Knox White, and Zuppan\nAbsent: Board Members K\u00f6ster and Tang.\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNo Changes\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMr. Ron Cassidy spoke about the Del Monte project and complained about the design of\nthe building and the lack of parking spaces.\nMr. Doug DeHaan mentioned Resolution 12567, which states that an individual has the\nopportunity to speak in front of this Board. He suggested giving 15 minutes for speakers to\nmake their argument.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR:\nItem 6-A. Design Review PLN12-0230- Applicant: Irman Turanovic. Revised signage and\nlandscaping plans for adding a smog station to an existing automotive repair establishment\nat 1928 High Street. Exterior building modifications consist of removing one window facing\nFernside Blvd. and replacing it with a roll-up garage door. This project is categorically\nexempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines\nSection 15301 - Existing Facilities.\nThe item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for public comment.\nMr. Terry Walker lives on Bayo Vista near High Street. He asked for the plan to not be\n\"rubber stamped,\" because the corner is the \"grand entrance\" for Alameda.\nMs. Pamela Knight lives on Fernside Blvd, and she wanted a more efficient plant watering\nsystem. She thinks that the current plan will cause the intersection to be more busy and\ndangerous.\nMr. Albert Bosschler is the owner of European Auto Repair at 1928 High Street. He wants\nto update the premises and for the smog revenue to stay in Alameda. The building has not\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 5\nOctober 27, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 2, "text": "been updated for 30 years, and he wants to do it before the 50-year anniversary of the\nbusiness.\nMr. Irman Turanovic, the applicant, has worked with Albert for two years. He thinks that\nbeing closed on the weekends and holidays is a roadblock to financial success because\nthat is the easiest time for customers to get their smog service.\nPlanning Board closed public comment.\nMr. Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, noted that the corner-landscaping planter is\nirrigated. Neighbors are focused on irrigating the new added landscaped troughs.\nThe Board discussed with staff landscape irrigation, driveway visibility, and managing the\nparking on the site so that cars are not left on neighborhood streets.\nPresident Burton summarized four conditions of approval to include: 1) The addition of drip\nirrigation for the galvanized planters; 2) Removal of the requirement for painted arrows in\nthe parking area; 3) removing the planter and the trellis to avoid the visibility issue on the\nadjacent driveway; and 4) no parking of customer vehicles on the street.\nBoard Member Alvarez-Morroni motioned to approve the Design Review with four\nconditions. Vice President Henneberry seconded. Motion carries 5-0.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\nItem 7-A. Design Review Application for a 9,252 Square Foot Fire Station #3 Building,\nlocated on a 25,085 Square Foot site at 1625 Buena Vista Avenue.\nMr. Andrew Thomas, City Planner, made a presentation, and invited Mr. Christopher Ford,\narchitect, to continue the presentation.\nPresident Burton wanted to know about potential for solar on the building. Mr. Ford replied\nthat the roof could be used for solar, way above the tree line, and can be used to give as\nmuch space as possible. Mr. Barry Reska, assistant General Manager at Alameda\nMunicipal Power reported that they were in the process of making the community solar\nprogram. He wants to evaluate the specific site.\nPlanning Board opened public comment.\nMs. Irma Maria-Nolan, neighbor, lives across the street, and thinks the project is a great\nimprovement, but she is concerned that she didn't see how building looks on Grand St.\nMr. Jay Ingram, neighbor, asked if the police station is an EOC, how many EOCs does\nAlameda have and need.\nMr. Thomas replied that this will be the new EOC, and the current one will be shut down\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 5\nOctober 27, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 3, "text": "and used for police.\nPlanning Board closed public comment.\nVice President Henneberry remarked that the forums were pleasantly non-controversial.\nHe would move the project forward. Board Member Knox White agreed and would like\nmore clarification about planting strip right in front of the station.\nMr. Bob Haun, Public Works Director, replied that existing disabled parking spaces are\nwithin the gate and therefore not open to the public. People will use the facility during\nemergencies, so it would be nice to have accessible space on the street.\nBoard Member Knox White asked if there was a reason why the parking could not be\nmoved closer. Mr. Ford replied that there is a gradient problem with the street.\nPresident Burton expressed his reservations about current design. There is an odd\ndisjunction with two story section and the one story section. He suggested design solutions\nsuch as making some small sections taller, and replacing three small windows with two\nlarger ones. Vice President Henneberry agreed having staff, architects and the Fire\nDepartment address these minor changes.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if the cost of making these changes is a concern to the city.\nPresident Burton replied that there probably will not be a large cost implication. Mr.\nThomas and Mr. Haun agreed.\nMr. Thomas summarized the conditions of approval regarding the change to the\narchitectural design and the landscaping.\nBoard Member Zuppan moved for approval with two conditions. Vice President\nHenneberry seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0.\nItem 7-B. Public hearing to consider approval of a Transportation Demand Management\nPlan and provide direction on the adjacent Street Sections and Plans for the adaptive\nreuse and redevelopment of the Del Monte Warehouse located at 1501 Buena Vista\nAvenue and two vacant areas between the building and Sherman Street.\nMr. Thomas gave a presentation.\nPlanning Board opened public comment.\nMr. Ron Cassidy, neighbor, stated there is a petition from 200 residents that there is a\nparking problem.\nMr. Jonathan Platt, neighbor, stated that he likes the concept of the plan, but was worried\nabout traffic and parking. He thought that there isn't enough parking in the street, and felt\nthat the City is more focused on new residents than existing ones.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 5\nOctober 27, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Stewart Rickard, neighbor, stated that it was the biggest building project in Alameda.\nGetting the parking ratio wrong will amplify traffic problems. Unbundling parking is only\neffective as a deterrent if it is costly. If it is costly, it will cause residents to take up street\nparking. He believed that the current project has a very low amount of parking for the\namount of people with cars.\nMs. Patricia Young, from the Alameda Home Team, was in favor of the transportation plan.\nShe stated that Alamedans are now using different transportation methods such as Uber\nand Lyft, and six car share programs.\nMs. Alison Green, neighbor, wanted the neighborhood to have a successful input for the\nDel Monte project, especially issues that relate to parking input.\nMs. Deborah Arbuckle, neighbor, also agreed with previous speakers that there is not\nenough parking. She feared that parking will be taken up first in the park.\nMr. Lester Cabral owns property on Pacific Avenue; he stated his support for the project.\nMs. Helen Saus expressed support for the project. She was delighted that a developer is\ngoing to preserve that building, which is not earthquake safe.\nMr. Doug DeHaan wanted more clarification on the staff report. He noted that the parking\nratio referenced for the project is the ratio used for BART parking. He worries that the truck\nroute will not be safe where it is and wanted the project to consider Alameda as a whole.\nMr. DeHaan also suggested certain board members recuse themselves to avoid any\nBrown Act violations.\nMs. Farimah Faiz, City Attorney, stated that there was no Brown Act violation, as\nsuggested by Mr. DeHaan. The Board member that has transportation planning expertise\ndoes not have to recuse himself unless there is a financial gain.\nMr. Jay Ingram feared that water taxis are not feasible. He asked why the city has to\nexceed regional housing requirements at Del Monte.\nPlanning Board closed public comment.\nBoard Member Alvarez-Morroni said she appreciates feedback from the community. She\nhad an issue with unbundled parking.\nMr. Thomas replied that the amount of traffic does not change no matter how project is\ndesigned. Building the Clement Avenue extension will move some of the traffic from Buena\nVista to Clement.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked if there is a backup plan in the event there are parking\nimpacts.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 5\nOctober 27, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-10-27", "page": 5, "text": "Board Member Zuppan noted that only $350 per unit per year pays for transit, which\nincludes two passes per unit for AC Transit and shuttle to BART.\nMr. Thomas described various strategies to address parking with future development.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m. if necessary.\nHe also motioned to approve street sections and postpone the TDM discussion until\nNovember 10th. Vice President Henneberry seconded motion. Motion carries 5-0.\n8. MINUTES:\nDraft minutes of August 25, 2014.\nBoard Member Knox White motioned to approve meeting minutes. Board Member Zuppan\nseconded the motion. Motion carries 5-0.\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Zuppan asked Mr. Thomas to look at crosswalk from Del Monte to\nLittlejohn Park that was mentioned in one of the public speaker's comments.\n12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None\n13. ADJOURNMENT: President Burton adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 5\nOctober 27, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-10-27.pdf"}