{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- - -APRIL 1, 2015- 6:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:31 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nWORKSHOP\n(15-202) Presentation on Recommended Approach to Citywide Transportation Plan.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation during\nwhich Council questions which were answered by the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point, the Transportation Engineer, Linda Morris, AC Transit, and Nate\nConable, Fehr and Peers.\nDuring the presentation, Councilmember Daysog requested that Council be provided a\nstatus report on Measure BB funding and Mayor Spencer requested future reports\nindicate which shuttles can be used by the public and include statistics.\nFollowing the presentation, Councilmember Oddie inquired about the shelf life of the\nPlan, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded trends change;\nstated, for example, the Bicycle Master Plan was updated in 2010; when the Bicycle\nPlan was used for the Alameda Point Master Infrastructure Plan in 2013, the Plan\nalready seemed out of date; an update is being done; elements which are very specific\nmight be outdated faster than long term policies.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the assumption regarding\ndevelopment, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Transportation\nElement (TE) provides some guidance and requires new developments to have\nTransportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans which include a 30% reduction for\ncommercial and a 10% reduction for residential; Environmental Impact Reports (EIR)\nand California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are different; State law bases how\nmuch analysis is required on the size of the project.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the specific number of homes assumed for\nvarious sites, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded\nassumptions will be included to make some determinations, such as pooling resources\nfrom development; stated other objectives and policies are not tied to the exact number\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "of units; if a goal is to minimize or have zero net new trips at crossings, tools can be\ncreated and implemented by new development.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City can do something to coordinate\nthe shuttles, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded\ncoordinating the shuttles should be part of the Transit Plan.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding centralizing certain\naspects of TDM plans, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff has\ndiscussed exploring centralizing funds.\nMr. Morris made brief comments on AC Transit's current studies, outreach and shuttles.\nUrged the inter-City shuttle issue be fast tracked; expressed concern over having a\ndesignated bicycle lane on Clement Avenue, which is a truck route; suggested creating\nan automobile master plan to better move automobiles and using car pools; stated the\nCity should be leery about following national trends: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation.\nUrged a public opinion survey be done; stated Alameda has a jobs/housing balance\nissue; expressed concern over TDM plans being considered a cure all: Darcy Morrison,\nAlameda.\nStated the Plan is encouraging; expressed support for the approach of getting residents\nout of cars; stated goals should focus on trip times, not capacity; there should be an\ninformed, data driven debate: William Smith, Alameda.\nInquired about shuttle ridership; discussed the disabled and paratransit services:\nsuggested outreaching to the Commission on Disability Issues regarding paratransit:\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog discussed Tube traffic; stated the City has to begin\nimplementing a series of strategies; there is not one silver bullet; the emphasis needs to\nbe on implementation; information has been gathered and needs to be tied together;\npeople need to see and feel solutions; the process outlined by staff regarding reduction\nof Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) rates is right on; increasing High Occupancy\nVehicle (HOV) rates is not just about shuttles or the AC Transit system; fixed systems,\nwhich require investment, should be reviewed; however, distributed systems from new\napplications and technology should also be reviewed; cities are not utilizing Uber and\npoint-to-point car share to deal with traffic; he would like to see the reduction in SOV\nrelative to shuttle uses; implementation steps have to address how targets will be\nachieved and be a quasi-business plan; outlined how options should be provided; stated\nthe pieces need to be pulled together into a implementable plan.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is a little concerned about the cost; however, he is\nwilling to spend the funds if the Plan helps the City move towards goals and does not\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 3, "text": "expire; questioned if SOV versus HOV is a goal, solution or symptom; stated the goal\nshould be minimizing trip time, which needs to be predictable; decisions are based on\nhow long travel will take; transportation needs to be seamless, such as riding the bus to\nconnect to the ferry; that he is concerned about future projects; the number of units\nwould impact the Plan; the inter-City shuttle should be addressed sooner rather than\nlater; discussed technological advancements, which might need to be taken into\naccount in the Plan; stated parking has to be reviewed for ferries and neighborhood\ndevelopments; the Plan should address how TDMs will be enforced, include historic\ninformation on shuttle ridership, and provide costs for achieving different standards.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred that there needs to be a series of strategies\nand implementation; stated drivers would appreciate fewer cars on the road; giving\npeople alternatives results in less cars on the road; sidewalk conditions should be\nimproved for pedestrians; that she would like to see the repair of sidewalks and streets\naccelerated; she endorses moving forward with the consultant; she assumes the City\nwill start with the deliverables in mind; the goals set forth in the report and raised tonight\nare good, including an on-Island shuttle; the City should take credit for what has already\nbeen done, such as the Shoreline Drive cycle track; discussed how ridership of new\nmodes starts slow; stated decisions should be data driven; the Council needs to be\nforward thinking; Council representatives on regional bodies which provide funding,\nsuch as the Alameda County Transportation Commission, need to ensure that the City\nis aggressively pursuing funding opportunities; read a quote about Oakland's Mayor\nbeing inspired by bicycle improvements in Portland, Oregon.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated outreach needs to verify and prioritize the goals, such as\ncommute reduction, cross Island traffic reduction or moving between schools, before\nbeing provided to the consultant; that he is not surprised by the cost; the Plan is\nnecessary to make decisions and set policies and standards; businesses have a right to\nset up shuttles; noted AC Transit's line in Emeryville was drastically reduced when the\nEmery Go Round was established; stated if a shuttle system is used, the City needs to\nreview whether it is sustainable and should be contracted with AC Transit; the\nconsultant should be given the assumptions that a 25 mile per hour speed limit should\nbe retained and there will be no new crossing or BART station; a BART station would be\n30 to 50 years down the road; the consultant should be directed to not start from scratch\nand should use the bicycle and pedestrian plans; not enough emphasis has been\nplaced on economic development and job creation at the former Base; putting more\npeople to work in Alameda would improve the crossings; the economic development\nplan goes hand in hand with the transportation plan; data is needed on how and why\npeople travel, which should start soon; given the complexity, he believes the timeframe\nwill be 18 months.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees that the inter City shuttle needs to be fast\ntracked; if the City spends 12 to 18 months on the Plan, it will be 12 to 18 more months\nuntil anything is done; that she would be happy to work with AC Transit if AC Transit is\nselected to do the shuttle; that she has seen a reduction in AC Transit lines; the City\nshould reach out to AC Transit to see if they would be a viable option; otherwise, the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 4, "text": "City needs to work with other partners and look at other funding sources to make the\nshuttle happen; a deadline, such as one year, should be established; the shuttle service\ndoes not have to be perfect and can be modified, which is what AC Transit does when\nthey correct routes; that she is concerned about any suggestion that the City will end up\nwith a net increase for any bridges, especially the Tube; traffic needs to be decreased\nduring commute hours; she is concerned about improving anything that would increase\ntraffic in the Tube; the City has to figure out something, such as buses or shuttles, which\nprovide an alternative to vehicles; an automobile plan should work together with the\nbicycle plan; the City needs to have the big picture for all modes of transportation; every\nstreet cannot accommodate all modes of transportation; expressed support for\nincreasing car pools, utilizing technology and applications, and conducting a survey;\nstated someone could be hired to create applications; suggested survey questions;\nstated that she agrees with working on the jobs housing balance; higher paying jobs are\nneeded; the City should have trip time data, which should be included in reports or start\nto be gathered; discussed disabled needs and sidewalk improvements; inquired the\nyear of the TE attached to the staff report.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded 2009.\nMayor Spencer stated the year should be included; inquired whether questions in the\nTE have been answered.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is not comfortable hiring a consultant; a consultant was\nprobably hired to complete the TE; inquired whether a baseline was established in\n2009.\nThe Transportation Engineer responded the 2009 TE includes the baseline data; stated\nAssociation of Bay Area Government (ABAG) data was used.\nMayor Spencer stated the TE questions should be answered; if the City is not going to\nutilize work done by a consultant, she would prefer to hire an employee to do the work;\nthat she would like to hire someone who commutes and uses the system; an employee\ncould work with regional partners and look into funding and implementation, such as the\nshuttle; people will not get out of cars with limited public transportation; access to the\ntwo ferries is needed; that she is not convinced a third ferry is needed; having public\ntransportation better connect homes and stores to BART, existing ferries and Amtrak\nwould be marvelous; if connections are made and the City focuses on shuttles or buses,\nthe rest will take care of itself; the City cannot continue to build and have so many cars\ngoing through the Tube and across the bridges; if a survey asks how people would get\nout of cars, she expects the response would be by providing public transportation that\nconnects the City, which the City should make the focus and hire an employee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not favor hiring an employee,\nwhich has implications; stated $250,000 to $400,000 would not just pay the consultant,\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 5, "text": "it includes the cost of studies and services; inquired whether the consultant could be\ndirected to conduct a public opinion survey at the outset to help shape the course.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data driven emphasis is really important; stating\nmore shuttles would take care of the problem and a third ferry is not needed should be\nrecognized as anecdotal; discussed Oakland.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the update process would provide data on whether\nthe 2009 TE goals have been met and would provide a new baseline.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Oakland's Mayor hiring staff,\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was addressing Oakland's Mayor\nrecognizing the policy of getting people out of cars and not just riding bikes for\nrecreation; that she does not know Oakland's budget or what studies might have\nproceeded hiring staff; her point was leadership from the top.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports hiring a consultant; the City would be\nhiring a firm with certain expertise; the firm has a range of individuals with different\nexpertise to address the wide range of questions; issuing a Request for Proposals\n(RFP) for a consultant firm would be a better course of action; if an individual were\nhired, one person could not know everything about transportation and traffic planning;\nregarding the 2009 TE, tracking should be done when the City generates plans and sets\ngoals; that he hears consensus in the desire to improve traffic congestion, not just to\nhave no net increase but to reduce SOV usage; that he sees tremendous potential with\njust the shuttles the City has to today; marketing, coordination and implementable\nstrategies are needed; that he would be happy to move staff's recommendation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the City has staff to do marketing or if someone would\nneed to be hired, and whether a consultant would work with the business districts to\nstart a shuttle or if that would be handled internally.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded if enhancing multi-modal\ntransportation in the City is a goal, the transit plan would look at what are the [specifics].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated just because it has been discussed does not\nmean it is ready to be implemented; that she would like additional information, such as\nroute, frequency, cost, and ridership; information could be gained from the public\nopinion survey; Emery Go Round is very successful; there might be differences\nbetween Emeryville and Alameda; the idea should be reviewed by the consultant team.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the study would review the inter\nCity shuttle cost, possible funding and route; the consultant might have other distributive\nideas other than a shuttle; the planning process would flush out whether it is feasible.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired how long it will take to hire a consultant and receive the report.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the RFP would take 4 to 6\nmonths and the report will take 18 months.\nMayor Spencer inquired how long before the City would start to work on implementing a\nshuttle, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the business\nassociations should be doing a grassroots effort at the same time, including identifying\nfunding sources; stated the shuttle may not even be feasible if there is not funding.\nMayor Spencer inquired how much was spent to create the 2009 TE, to which the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would propose moving forward with the process\nbeing discussed tonight; the City owns a shuttle; a separate discussion could be held on\nusing the shuttle on an interim basis.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the City owns a vehicle, to which\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Recreation and Parks Department has a van.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the staff recommendation could move forward and there\ncould be a discussion on having a shuttle move forward as soon as possible to address\nthe Mayor's concern.\nMayor Spencer stated that her concern is greater than that; the City conducted a study\nand hired a consultant in 2009 which has 42 pages of questions that have not been\nanswered; the City is going to spend another 22 months to get another study; the City\nneeds a response sooner than 2 years; that she is not sure doing another study is going\nto make any difference; expressed concern over not having answers to the questions\nraised in the previous study; stated that she is not sure the City has staff to handle\nmarketing; hiring someone to focus on transportation makes sense.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the City does not have someone for marketing;\nmarketing could be rolled into the Public Information Officer position, which will be filled\nshortly; the Emery Go Round shuttle was successful because it was funded by\nredevelopment; the shuttle is in crisis because there is not funding; Emeryville is looking\nat setting up a business improvement district to fund the Emery Go Round; Alameda\ndoes not have money for a shuttle.\nMayor Spencer stated that is not something the consultant would provide.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the consultant could help staff determine different\nways to fund something.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated that is something an employee could do.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that is not something an employee would typically\ndo; the City does not have said type of expertise on staff; consultants are hired to\nconduct analysis for all of the City's landscaping and lighting districts.\nMayor Spencer noted the Recreation and Parks Director works on grants.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated grants are different; the funding would not be a\ngrant; staff was not aware of Mayor Spencer's questions about the 2009 document; staff\nwould be happy to bring back answers.\nMayor Spencer stated the questions are internal in the document itself; provided an\nexample.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff might have the data, but does not have it\ntonight.\nMayor Spencer stated the City would be asking another consultant to create the same\ndata.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council asking staff substantive questions ahead\nof the meeting is helpful; the information would have been interesting, informative\nmaterial for the public, which could be provided at another time; Council's intent is not to\nmake staff look bad, it is to be informed and inform the public.\nMayor Spencer stated the Council's task is to not waste tax payer dollars and get the\njob done; the document was an attachment to the report, so she expect comments; her\nconcern goes to trying to get the job done; the 2009 document speaks to many of the\nsame things, which the City will be hiring another consultant to do; the City needs to\nfigure out a way to get it done sooner rather than later; it is time to implement\nsomething.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated one way to move forward would be to start the RFP\nprocess; the RFP should return to Council to ensure Council is happy with the\ndeliverables, which should be implementable; the Council could exclude analytic\ndeliverables which seem repetitive; his suggestion might be a way to move forward.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated if that is a motion he would second it.\nCouncilmember Daysog agreed to have his suggestion be the motion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated direction can be given in the RFP to make it a reality\nbased scope of work that would encompass the comments tonight with the realities of\nthe budget and no new crossings; the staff report can include the difference in cost\nbetween using a consultant and hiring an employee.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to address the Mayor's question about\nthe questions raised in the TE when the matter returns; stated everyone wants to start\nto solve the problem; that she does not believe there is sufficient information to indicate\nthat shuttles are the magic bullet that will solve everything; as Councilmember Daysog\nexplained, consultant firms are hired due to having a wide array of expertise.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether an employee would be hired permanently or as\na consultant; whether the employee would need costly software; stated that he is leery\nabout going down the path of evaluating the option of hiring an employee; a finite\ncontract for a finite period of time that gives a deliverable is probably a better way to\nspend resources; time is of the essence; people are concerned about traffic; the staff\nrecommendation is for a consultant; he is reassured by the Vice Mayor's comments\nregarding the cost; everyone likes the shuttle idea; interesting points have been raised,\nsuch as sustainability; he is concerned about having well paid shuttle drivers;\nquestioned if that might require partnering with AC Transit; stated AC Transit has\nhistorically made cuts in Alameda; Emeryville's shuttle is having financial difficulties\nwithout redevelopment funding; the study is looking at all of the transit goals and\noptions; he is not quite as sold on going forward with an immediate shuttle plan after\nhearing concerns; questioned the comment about not being in favor of any plan which\nincreases traffic through the Tube.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has serious concerns; the Council is being told there\nwould be another 22 months of consultants working before implementing any changes;\nit needs to be sooner rather than later.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he interpreted Vice Mayor Matarrese's comment as\nasking for analysis.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he was asking for the staff report to include the cost of\na fully burdened employee versus a consultant.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether completing said analysis would lengthen the\nprocess.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded staff needs clear direction;\nstated the motion is to come back with a RFP, which differs from the staff\nrecommendation; the staff recommendation was to go forward with the RFP without\nreturning to Council and return to Council with a contract; if Council would like to review\nthe RFP, the process would be lengthened.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he shares the Mayor's concern about lengthening the\nprocess.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the RFP should come back to Council.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 9, "text": "conducting a survey, which could cost around $30,000.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated knowing where people are going would be good.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated it is critical.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the survey questions are critical; the Mayor's questions\nabout what would get someone out of their car could only be answered by a survey;\ndata sets should be available about where people work; expressed support for the\nsurvey.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point inquired whether an economic\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 10, "text": "development plan should be included, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the\nnegative.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda stated Point that she heard a lot of consistent\ncomments which will be incorporated in the draft RFP; staff will also answer as many TE\nquestions as possible and address why the staff recommendation is to use a consultant,\nincluding providing employee costs and pros and cons; addressed trip time analysis,\nwhich would also be included in the report.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the question of using trip time analysis should be\naddressed as part of the scope of work, not tonight.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the survey should include other questions the\nconsultant believes are germane.\nOn the call for question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor\nSpencer - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 1, "text": "CHT\nOF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, April 1, 2015\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Board President Peter Horikoshi.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: President Peter Horikoshi, Members Linda McHugh, Marguerite Malloy, Zara\nSantos (late)\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Acting Human Resources Director and Executive Secretary\nto the Board\nStephanie Garrabrant-Sierra, Administrative Services Director\nGlenn Steiger, AMP General Manager\nBeth Fritz, Administrative Assistant Il\nMichael Roush, Attorney - Civil Service Board Legal Counsel\nChris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst-AMP\nRobin Young, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nTiffany llacqua, Human Resources Analyst I\nMonica Selles, Human Resources Analyst Il\nSharlene Shikhmuradova, Administrative Technician II\nBill Garvine, EUPA Representative\nTerry Flippo, ACEA Representative\nABSENT:\nVice President Dean Batchelor\n3.\nMINUTES:\nA.\nApproval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of January 7, 2015.\nBoard Member Malloy moved that the January 7, 2015 Minutes be approved with the following\ncorrections:\nOn page 3, of January 7, 2015 Civil Service Board Minutes, paragraph five, \"you cannot\"\nbe deleted. The second sentence in paragraph five should read: \"Under the law you\nhave an obligation to go through the reasonable accommodation process.'\nMotion was seconded by Board Member McHugh which was passed by a 3-0 vote (Batchelor-\nabsent, Santos-late).", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda Page 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 1, 2015\nDraft\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR\nAPRIL 1, 2015.\n4-A-i.\nELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\n(Dec. 1, 2014 - Feb. 28, 2015)\nAdministrative Services Coordinator -\n12/30/2014\n2014-49\n(Community Development & Resiliency Coordinator)\nDeputy Public Works Director\n01/22/2015\n2015-04PR\nFinancial Services Supervisor\n12/18/2014\n2014-45\nFire/Building Code Compliance Officer\n01/07/2015\n2014-50PR\nFire Administrative Services Supervisor\n01/06/2015\n2014-41\n(Designed from Senior Human Resources Analyst)\nMaintenance Worker Il\n03/04/2015\n2014-51\nMeter Reader\n01/12/2015\n2014-42\nParalegal\n03/04/2015\n2015-03\nPublic Information Officer\n02/19/2015\n2015-02\nSenior Human Resources Analyst\n12/17/2014\n2014-41\nStorekeeper\n02/03/2015\n2014-47\nSupport Services Supervisor\n03/03/2015\n2015-01\n(Utility Procurement Administrator)\nUtility Information Systems Billing Specialist\n12/22/2014\n2014-46\nUtility Information Systems Billing Technician\n01/22/2015\n2014-46\n(Designated from Utility Information Systems Billing Specialist)\n4-A-ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nPolice Lieutenant\n02/06/2014\n2013-40PR\nPublic Safety Communications Supervisor\n08/12/2014\n2014-30PR\n4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nAssistant General Manager -\nEnergy Resources Planning\n09/02/2014\n2014-23\nDeputy Public Works Director\n01/22/2015\n2015-04PR\nDivision Chief\n02/04/2014\n2013-39PR\nFire Administrative Services Supervisor\n01/06/2015\n2014-41\n(Designed from Senior Human Resources Analyst)\nFire/Building Code Compliance Officer\n01/07/2015\n2014-50PR\nPermit Technician\nI\n09/04/2014\n2014-28\nPlanner I\n03/06/2014\n2014-02\nPolice Officer\n02/19/2013\n2013-05\nPolice Officer\n12/09/2013\n2013-05\nPolice Officer\n07/08/2014\n2013-05\nPolice Sergeant\n03/05/2013\n2013-03PR\nRecreation Services Specialist\n09/03/2014\n2014-25\nSenior Utility Accountant\n09/02/2014\n2014-32PR\nTechnology Services Coordinator\n08/19/2014\n2014-24\n(CAD/RMS/MDT Specialist)\n4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revisions:\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2015 Minutes)2015-04-01 CSB Minutes-Final w-signature.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda Page 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 1, 2015\nDraft\n-\nSenior Utility Accountant (re-presented delayed until July 1, 2015)\n-\nCustomer Service Representative\n-\nFinancial Services Manager\n-\nFleet Mechanic\n-\nPark Maintenance Equipment Operator\n-\nStock Clerk\nNew Class Specifications:\n-\nComputer Services Technician - AMP\n-\nUtility Database Analyst\n-\nUtility Geographic Information Systems Analyst\n-\nUtility Information Technology Business Analyst\n-\nUtility Information Technology Manager\nBoard Member Malloy made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar items. Board Member\nMcHugh seconded the motion. Motion was approved 3-0 (Batchelor-absent, Santos-late).\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A.\nDesignation\nof\nEligible\nList\n-\nSenior\nHuman\nResources\nAnalyst,\n2014-41 for Fire Administrative Services Supervisor Vacancy, FD.4605.001\nExecutive Secretary Kovacs stated that this report is an advisory/informational report and there is no\naction to be taken by the Civil Service Board. The Senior Human Resources Analyst Eligible List has\nbeen designated to fill the Fire Administrative Services Supervisor vacancy in the Fire Department.\nBefore the specialized classifications were created, these two positions were both in the Senior\nManagement Analyst classification. There was a short list with a very viable candidate for the Fire\nDepartment position.\n5-B. Designation of Eligible List - Utility Information Systems Billing Specialist,\n2014-46 for Utility Information Systems Billing Technician Vacancy, AP.7311.002\nExecutive Secretary Kovacs stated that this report is an advisory/informational report and there is no\naction to be taken by the Civil Service Board. The Utility Information Systems Billing Specialist has\nbeen designated to fill the Utility Information Systems Billing Technician vacancy. This is an example\nof a higher level classification Eligible List being used to fill a lower level vacancy in a similar career\nchain.\n5-C. Activity Report - Period of December 1, 2014 through February 28, 2015.\nFULL-TIME HIRES\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n01/06/15\nPolice\nTechnology Services Coordinator\n01/12/15\nPolice\nPublic Safety Dispatcher\n01/13/15\nLibrary\nSupervising Librarian\n01/13/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nFinancial Services Supervisor\n01/26/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nMeter Reader\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/201 Minutes)2015-04-01 CSB Minutes-Final w-signature.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda Page 4\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 1, 2015\nDraft\n01/26/15\nCommunity Development\nAdministrative Services Coordinator\n02/02/15\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n02/09/15\nFire\nFire Administrative Services Supervisor\n02/09/15\nHuman Resources\nSenior Human Resources Analyst\n02/09/15\nLibrary\nLibrary Technician\n02/23/15\nFinance\nFinance Director\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n12/14/14\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n01/25/15\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n01/25/15\nFire\nDivision Chief\n01/25/15\nCommunity Development\nFire/Bldg Code Compliance Officer\n02/08/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nUtility Information Systems Billing Technician\n02/08/15\nPublic Works\nDeputy Public Works Director\n02/08/15\nFire\nFire Captain (2)\n02/22/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nStorekeeper\n02/22/15\nPolice\nPolice Sergeant\n02/22/15\nPolice\nPolice Lieutenant\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n12/02/14\nLibrary\nSupervising Librarian\n12/13/14\nFire\nDivision Chief\n12/25/14\nFire\nDivision Chief\n12/26/14\nFire\nFire Chief\n12/26/14\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n12/26/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nStorekeeper\n12/27/14\nAlameda Municipal Power\nUtility Information Systems Billing Specialist\n12/30/14\nRecreation/Parks\nEquipment Operator\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n12/06/14\nCommunity Development\nAdministrative Technician I\n12/07/14\nRecreation/Parks\nPark Maintenance Worker\n01/06/15\nCommunity Development\nPlanner I\n01/07/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nSupport Services Supervisor\n01/08/15\nPublic Works\nAssistant Engineer\n01/14/15\nFire\nFire Administrative Services Supervisor\n01/20/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nDistribution Engineer\n01/31/15\nAlameda Municipal Power\nSystem Dispatcher\n02/13/15\nFire\nFirefighter\nBoard Member Malloy asked the reasons for separation. Executive Secretary Kovacs stated that the\nreasons for separation were as follows:\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2015 Minutes)2015-04 CSB Minutes-Final w-signature.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda Page 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 1, 2015\nDraft\n-\nAdministrative Technician I (Community Development) - Resignation\n-\nPark Maintenance Worker (Recreation/Parks) - Death\n-\nPlanner I (Community Development) - Resigned\n-\nSupport Services Supervisor (AMP) - Released from Probation\n-\nAssistant Engineer (Public Works) - Resigned\n-\nFire Administrative Services Supervisor - Resigned\n-\nDistribution Engineer - Resigned\n-\nSystem Dispatcher - Retirement (should be moved to Retirement list)\n-\nFirefighter - Resigned\nBoard Member McHugh stated that there were a lot of resignations this time. Executive Secretary\nKovacs stated that Human Resources staff were aware of the following resignation reasons:\n-\nFirefighter left to take a position in Contra Costa County.\n-\nDistribution Engineer resigned to be closer to family in southern California.\n-\nFire Administrative Services Supervisor resigned to take a position with the Federal\nReserve Board in San Francisco.\n-\nAssistant Engineer resigned to take a position in Roseville.\n-\nSupport Services Supervisor (AMP) was released from probation.\n-\nPlanner I resigned due to a family situation.\n-\nAdministrative Technician I resigned to work for a property management company.\nExecutive Secretary Kovacs welcomed Board Member Santos (late) to the meeting.\n5-D. Elections of Civil Service Board President and Vice President.\nPresident Horikoshi invited Executive Secretary Kovacs to conduct the elections and she opened\nnominations for President and Vice President.\nBoard Member McHugh made a motion that Vice President Dean Batchelor be elected\nPresident of the Civil Service Board. Board Member Santos seconded the motion. Motion\npassed 4-0 (Batchelor-absent).\nBoard Member Santos made a motion that Board Member Malloy be elected Vice President of\nthe Civil Service Board. Board Member Horikoshi seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0\n(Batchelor-absent).\nVice President Malloy took over duties of conducting the meeting.\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)\nBill Garvine, EUPA representative, congratulated Marguerite Malloy on being elected as the Civil\nService Board Vice President and Dean Batchelor on being elected President.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nBoard Member Horikoshi welcomed the City of Alameda's new Mayor, Trish Herrera-Spencer, to the\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes)201 Minutes\\2015-04 CSB Minutes-Final w-signature.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2015-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2015-04-01", "page": 6, "text": "City of Alameda Page 6\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting April 1, 2015\nDraft\nCivil Service Board Meeting.\nBoard Member McHugh thanked the Human Resources staff for their hard work over the years and\nstated that it had been a very collaborative experience.\nVice President Malloy thanked Board Members Peter Horikoshi and Linda McHugh for their service\non the Civil Service Board.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nExecutive Secretary Kovacs thanked both Peter Horikoshi and Linda McHugh for their many years\nserving on the Civil Service Board and presented them with going away souvenirs.\n9.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nWednesday, July 1, 2015.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nstifts\nJill Kovacs\nActing Human Resources Director and\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board\nG:\\Personnel\\CSB\\All Minutes/2015 Minutes\\2015-04 CSB Minutes-Final w-signature.doc", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2015-04-01.pdf"}