{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "City of Alameda Page 1\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 11, 2017\nthe\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Board Vice President Marguerite Malloy.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: Vice President Marguerite Malloy, Members John Nolan, Jan Brandt, Troy\nHosmer\nABSENT:\nPresident Dean Batchelor\nSTAFF PRESENT: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director and Executive\nSecretary to the Board\nChris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nRobin Young, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nMonica Alvarez-Selles, Human Resources Analyst II\nSabina Netto, Human Resources Analyst II\nJessica Romeo, Human Resources Analyst I\nAlan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney II\nCaptain Don Owyang, Alameda Police Department\n3.\nMINUTES:\n3-A Approval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of October 5, 2016.\nVice President Malloy noted correction to the vote count for motions to approve Sections\n4-A-i, 4-A-ii, 4-A-iii on page four (4), section 4-A-iv with the exception of the Energy\nResource Analyst, Substation Technician and Crime Prevention specialist, and section 5-\nA, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E and 5F, votes were incorrectly listed as 3-0 and should be corrected\nto 4-0.\nVice President Malloy asked for clarification on page four of the October 5, 2016 minutes,", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda Page 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 11, 2017\nunder Section 4-A-iv, she suggested a correction to be made to correct her statement as,\n\"\nwanted to understand the reason for the new specification.\"\nVice President Malloy asked for clarification on page four of the October 5, 2016 minutes,\nunder Section 5-F, she suggested a correction to be made to correct her statement as,\n\"\ntheir place which can happen if you open a new exam.\"\nMember Nolan moved that the October 5, 2016 Minutes be approved with\ncorrection. Motion was seconded by Member Brandt which was passed by a 4-0\nvote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A. SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND\nCLASSIFICATIONS FOR JANUARY 11, 2017\n4-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\n(September 1, 2016 - November 30, 2016)\nCustomer Service Representative\n09/19/2016\n2016-50\nFinancial Services Manager\n09/29/2016\n2016-43\nAdministrative Technician II\n10/10/2016\n2016-46\nFirefighter (continuation of 2014-34)\n10/17/2016\n2016-61\nMaintenance Worker I (designated from 2016-19)\n10/18/2016\n2016-60\nAccountant I\n11/15/2016\n2016-44\nAccountant II\n11/21/2016\n2016-45\nAssociate Civil Engineer\n11/21/2016\n2016-40\nFire Captain\n11/22/2016\n2016-34\nCustodian\n11/28/2016\n2016-53\nPolice Officer\nAnderson, Dominic\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nBatta, Rame\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nCrawford, Bradley\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nDe Claro, Neil\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nHassan, Abrahim\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nJericoff, Michael\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nKnight, Emily\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nRingle-Baker, Nicholas\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nSklar, Jacob\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nVierra, Jacob\n10/19/2016\n2016-26PTc\nPrado, Noel\n10/19/2016\n2016-28c\nReinhardt, Alan\n10/19/2016\n2016-28c\nSchanen, Ryan\n10/26/2016\n2016-26PTc\nJohnston, Brenden\n10/26/2016\n2016-26PTc\nMcQuade, Mason\n10/26/2016\n2016-29PTc\nMontalvo, Kayla\n10/26/2016\n2016-26PTc\nRivera, Roland\n10/26/2016\n2016-28c\nCallahan, Garrett\n10/26/2016\n2016-28c\nNguyen, Lai\n10/26/2016\n2016-28c\nArana, Daniel\n10/26/2016\n2016-28c", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda Page 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 11, 2017\nAng, Andrew\n10/26/2016\n2016-28c\nOrduno, Ryan\n10/26/2016\n2016-30PTc\n4-A-ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nRedevelopment Project Manager\n10/20/2015\n2015-12\nDivision Chief\n10/23/2015\n2015-16PR\nHuman Resources Manager\n11/02/2015\n2015-70\nCity Engineer\n03/03/2016\n2016-02\nLibrarian\n04/05/2016\n2016-09\nFire/Building Code Compliance Officer\n05/31/2016\n2016-16\n4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nParalegal\n03/04/2015\n2015-03\nAssistant General Manager - Engineering & Operations 07/21/2015\n2015-23\nPublic Works Manager II\n08/05/2015\n2015-34\nUtility Geographic Information Systems Analyst\n08/20/2015\n2015-26\nDeputy City Clerk\n09/02/2015\n2015-54\nTraffic Signal Maintenance Technician\n10/13/2015\n2015-60\nAdministrative Technician II\n10/21/2015\n2015-67\nSenior Clerk\n11/03/2015\n2015-72\nPublic Relations Officer\n11/10/2015\n2015-37\nPermit Technician\n11/24/2015\n2015-82\nElectrical Distribution Technician\n02/24/2016\n2015-79\nAdministrative Technician Il\n03/02/2016\n2015-81a\nManagement Analyst\n03/17/2016\n2016-17\nPark Maintenance Foreperson\n03/28/2016\n2016-07\nUtility Construction Compliance Specialist\n04/28/2016\n2016-01\nCombination Building Inspector\n05/03/2016\n2016-15\nPublic Safety IT Systems Coordinator\n05/31/2016\n2016-20\n4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\n-\nEngineering Manager\n-\nSubstation Technician\nNew Classification Specifications:\n-\nCrime Prevention Technician\nMember Brandt moved to approve Consent Calendar items 4-A-i, 4-A-ii, and 4-A-iii.\nMotion was seconded by Member Nolan which was passed by a 4-0 vote.\nVice President Malloy requested to pull item 4-A-iv for further discussion. Vice President\nMalloy first asked for comments or questions on Classification Specification Revisions for\nEngineering Manager and Substation Technician. Member Nolan stated that he had\nquestions regarding the Engineering Manager. Member Nolan requested clarification on", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "for the evaluation of those reports. Senior Human Resources Analyst, Chris Low clarified\nthat reports to the Engineering Manager will be differing levels of professionals, including\nelectrical engineering staff, as well as, paraprofessional computer drafters and that\nperformance evaluations will be split between the Engineering Manager and most likely\nthe Senior Electrical Engineer.\nVice President Malloy and Member Nolan agreed that management includes supervision.\nVice President Malloy emphasized the importance of understanding the primary function\nof the position; whether it be management of process, procedures, and functions or\nwhether it be supervision of people, from the specification and that the specification was\nnot clear in this respect. Chris Low clarified that the Engineering Manager's primary\nfunction is managing the electrical engineering function and that its secondary function is\nsupervision.\nMember Nolan also asked for clarification on the requirements for the Engineering\nManager specification. Member Nolan asked for clarification whether requirements other\nthan registration as a professional engineer, such as certificates, would be required.\nSenior Human Resources Analyst Chris Low responded that the primary requirement for\nthe classification is registration as a professional engineer, however, other requirements\nmay be desired at the time of recruitment but that none were now required also clarifying\nthat this revised specification will result in a recruitment not a reclassification as the\nposition is currently vacant. Vice President Malloy suggested the re-examination of the\nuse of the term supervise in the specification, as well as, the addition of \"or management\"\nafter \"supervisory capacity\" under employment standards, in order to open it up\nrecruitment for those applicants with more varied experience. With the suggested\nchanges the board approved the Engineering Manager revision and did not need to see\nfurther revisions.\nVice President Malloy asked for comments or questions on Substation Technician\nSpecification. Member Brandt called attention to a correction from the October 5, 2016\nmeeting minutes that had not been incorporated into the specification revision. Human", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda Page 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 11, 2017\nResources Director Bronstein apologized and both she and Chris Low stated that the\nchanges will be incorporated. The Substation Technician specification was approved with\nthe proposed amendment.\nVice President Malloy then began a discussion of the Crime Prevention Technician\nspecification expressing her appreciation for Robin Young's work putting together the e-\nmail describing the questions posed by the Civil Service Board at the October 5, 2016\nmeeting. Vice President Malloy found the e-mail very responsive to the Board's especially\nin allowing the department to respond to the Board's specific questions. Member Brandt\nalso expressed her appreciation for the e-mail addressing the Board's questions and had\nno further concern or comment. Member Nolan, though finding the email helpful, asked\nfor clarification regarding education and experience requirements as described in the\nspecification.\nMember Nolan noted that of the four agencies surveyed in conjunction with creating the\nCrime Prevention Specification, only one required education beyond a high school\ndiploma. Member Nolan was concerned that the additional experience required by the\nnew Crime Prevention Technician specification would deter otherwise excellent\ncandidates from applying. Vice President Malloy responded to Member Nolan's concern\nstating that applicants are generally not deterred from applying for lack of required or\ndesired education or experience and that from her experience she did not believe that\napplicants would be deterred from applying if they believed they were capable of doing\nthe job regardless of the requirements.\nSenior Human Resources Analyst Robin Young added that, from a testing perspective,\nadditional education, experience or certificates deemed desirable but not required are\nuseful in screening and identifying the best qualified candidates from recruitments that\nreceive large numbers of applicants. Robin Young went on to explain that a two year\ndegree, if in a subject related to criminal justice or crime prevention or something specific\nto the nature of the job, would be a reasonable way to screen applicants. Member Nolan\nasked if colleges offer two year degrees in crime prevention as opposed to just police\nofficer courses and whether a certificate is available in crime prevention. Senior Human\nResources Analyst Robin Young explained that there is a certificate available through a\nprofessional association but was not aware of a certificate through college course work.\nShe further emphasized that lack of two years of college course work or lack of the\ncertificate would not exclude applicants.\nMember Brandt moved to approve Consent Calendar item 4-A-iv with the\nrecommended amendments and changes. Motion was seconded by Member Nolan\nwhich was passed by a 4-0 vote.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 6, "text": "Utilities Database Analyst\n09/18/16\nFire\nFirefighter Assigned to Civil Service Position from Safer\n10/03/16\nFire\nFirefighter (Safer) X 3\n10/03/16\nHuman Resources\nAdministrative Technician Il\n10/03/16\nCommunity Development\nAdministrative Technician I\n10/16/16\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n10/17/16\nAMP\nCustomer Service Representative\n10/17/16\nInformation Technology\nIT Services Coordinator\n10/17/16\nFinance\nIntermediate Clerk\n10/24/16\nPolice\nMaintenance Worker I\n11/14/16\nPublic Works\nIntermediate Clerk\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n09/18/16\nFire\nApparatus Operator\n09/18/16\nFire\nAdministrative Technician III\n09/18/16\nPolice\nPolice Lieutenant\n09/29/16\nPublic Works\nProject Manager I\n10/02/16\nPolice\nPolice Sergeant\n10/03/16\nPublic Works\nPublic Works Supervisor\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n10/13/16\nPolice\nAdministrative Technician II\n10/13/16\nPolice\nPolice Records Supervisor\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n09/01/16\nRecreation & Parks\nCustodian\n09/03/16\nAMP\nGeneral Manager\n09/08/16\nHuman Resources\nAdministrative Technician Il\n09/18/16\nAMP\nEngineering Supervisor\n10/14/16\nAMP\nUtility Construction Compliance Specialist\n11/07/16\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n11/15/16\nPolice\nPolice Officer", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda Page 7\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 11, 2017\n5-B.\nInformational Report, October 13, 2016, Regarding Designation of Eligible\nList - Maintenance Worker II, 2016-19 for Maintenance Worker I vacancy,\nPW.2510.006\nMember Nolan questioned the reason for the designation of the Maintenance Worker II\neligible list expressing a concern that the designation process was not being used for\n\"cherry picking.\" Human Resources Director Bronstein responded to this concern and\ninformed the board that the designation was due to the existence of a Maintenance\nWorker II eligible list and a lack of a Maintenance Worker I list. The board was satisfied\nwith the explanation provided.\n5-C. Informational Reports,\nDecember 21, 2016, Acknowledgement of Administrative Assignment -\nPatrick Corder\nDecember 21, 2016, Acknowledgement of Administrative Assignment\n-\nArmondo Baldizan\nMember Nolan requested clarification on 5-C, how those in an administrative assignment\nare paid for their Holidays. Senior Human Resources Analyst Robin Young explained that\nas a fire fighter in a suppression assignment, fighting fires, are eligible for holiday-in-lieu\npay which is a percentage of their base pay and every bi-weekly pay period. However,\nwhen a firefighter is moved into an administrative assignment they no longer receive the\nholiday-in-lieu pay and instead are awarded a prorated amount of the holidays remaining\nin the year. Human Resources Director Bronstein further explained that firefighters in an\nadministrative assignment receive the holiday hours to use to take the holiday off.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENTS)\n(Any person may address the Civil Service Board in regard to any matter over which the\nCivil Service Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the\nagenda).\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nHR Director Bronstein informed the board of the birth of Nafisah Ali's third child and\nintroduced two new Human Resources Analysts, Sabina Netto and Jessica Romeo who\nwere unable to attend the October 5, 2016 meeting due to a training.\n8.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nThe next Civil Service Board meeting was confirmed for April 5, 2017 at 5:00 PM.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 8, "text": "City of Alameda Page 8\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 11, 2017\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 5:25p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nmm\nNancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director\nand\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "CITY\nof\nof\nMINUTES OF THE\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nCatherine Atkin, Board Member\nKathleen Kearney, Vice President\nNancy Lewis, Board Member\nGertrude Woods, Board Member\nSuzanne Whyte, President\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nLori Amaya, Recording Secretary\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so enacted or approved on the Consent Calendar\n*A.\nReport from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of November and\nDecember 2016.\n*B.\nDraft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of November 9, 2016.\n*C.\nLibrary Services Report for the Months of October and November 2016.\n*D.\nFinancial Report Reflecting FY16/17 Expenditures by Fund for November and December 2016.\n*E.\nBills for Ratification for the Months of November and December 2016.\nDirector Chisaki informed the Board that the ILS project is on schedule and moving forward. The public\ncomponent was completed first. The next phase is for back of house functions, such as ordering new\nmaterials. The security gate installation at the Caf\u00e9 entrance will be completed soon.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "Page 2 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nJanuary 11, 2017 Meeting\nThe Red Cross held a blood drive in the Stafford Room on January 5th, which was well attended with 38\nreservations. There will be a new liaison by the next blood drive in March.\nThe Made in Alameda program is coming up. So far, two artists and one author have expressed interest.\nFriends are co-sponsoring the event and can purchase the one day liquor license, if necessary. Vice\nPresident Kearney asked if there are any flyers she can forward to a friend for information. Director\nChisaki responded that the Library's website has a link to more information for those interested in\ncompleting an application to participate. An ad will be placed in the newspaper further down the road.\nThe Foods for Fines drive was last done in 2014, and this summer would be a good time to have another\ndrive. The drive was an overall positive experience as it brought books back in to the library, cleared\npatron accounts allowing them to use library services again, and provided donations for the food bank.\nDirector Chisaki expects to have designs of the new logo soon. The Friends logo is contingent on the\nLibrary's logo, so they are looking forward to seeing the designs. Vice President Kearney asked if any\nfeedback was given to the designer and Director Chisaki confirmed she had provided him with several\nsuggestions. The designer is incorporating a bridge theme in the design.\nDirector Chisaki explained that the Services Report numbers for October are similar to what they normally\nare. November numbers were lower because there were some closure days, so December numbers will be\nlower as well. Door counters are now working properly. Director Chisaki clarified that the months\nincluded in the Services Report are always one month behind the months that are included in the\nExpenditure Report and Check Registers, because it allows staff more time to input the data.\nThere were no changes to the Draft Minutes of the November 9, 2016 Library Board meeting.\nVice President Kearney moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Board Member Atkin seconded the\nmotion, which passed with a 5-0 vote.\nUNFINISHED BUSINESS\nA.\nIntegrated Library System: Status Report (J. Chisaki)\nThis item was discussed during the Report from the Library Director.\nB.\nNew Logo for the Library (J. Chisaki)\nThis item was discussed during the Report from the Library Director.\nNEW BUSINESS", "path": "LibraryBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "Page 3 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nJanuary 11, 2017 Meeting\nA.\nCirculation Trends Report: Discussion (J. Chisaki)\nDirector Chisaki discussed the reports and explained that overall circulation continues to decrease, which\nmatches national trends. E-book numbers have increased, but are not as high as print material. Director\nChisaki is concerned with circulation at the branches, especially the West End Branch. Although\ncirculation numbers are down, staff report they are busy and chairs are filled. Children's circulation is\nconstant. Director Chisaki doesn't see anything alarming in the report because as the numbers fluctuate,\nthe pattern matches what is happening across the country. School Resources Services Liaison, Sarah\nBurkey, visits elementary schools to push the Summer Reading Program. This brings the children to the\nlibrary looking for the books Sarah showed them in class. Director Chisaki shared a letter from Sarah\nabout an encounter she had with a parent that thanked her for visiting her child at school and teaching\nher\nabout the library. Vice President Kearney mentioned an encounter with a patron that came in with her\nchild and asked for a title in hard cover, but there weren't any available copies. Director Chisaki will let\nthe Teen Services Librarian know to acquire more copies.\nB.\nPatron Suggestions/Comments (Speak-Outs) and Library Director's Response\nNone.\nLIBRARY BOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nDIRECTOR'S COMMENTS\nDirector Chisaki commented that the Library met with ARPD and HandsOn Bay Area to build 10 Little\nFree Libraries at no cost to the Library. They will be mounted in the parks throughout Alameda and will\nbe stocked with the Library's advanced reader copies. ARPD will monitor the Little Free Libraries and\nreplace with a spare, if vandalized. President Whyte asked if there is anything similar at the ferry stops for\ncommuters and Director Chisaki explained that the library has found most commuters prefer the\nconvenience of e-books, and even some libraries that have book machines at transit centers are being\nremoved because they aren't circulating.\nDirector Chisaki met with the new Vice Mayor, Malia Vella, and learned that she and her grandmother are\nlibrary users. Vice Mayor Vella expressed interest in the various programs and activities the library has to\noffer.\nStudent Success Card is moving forward. The first draft of the MOU will be completed soon.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA GENERAL", "path": "LibraryBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "Page 4 of 4\nMinutes of the\nAlameda Free Library Board\nJanuary 11, 2017 Meeting\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJane Chisaki, Library Director and\nSecretary to the Alameda Free Library Board", "path": "LibraryBoard/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 1, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nRent Review Advisory Committee\nWednesday, January 11, 2017\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nThe meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.\nPresent were: Chair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana; Member Vice-Chair Landess; and Members\nGriffiths, Friedman, and Schrader.\nAbsent: None\nVacancy: None\nRRAC Staff: Claudia Young\n2. AGENDA CHANGES\na. None.\n3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS\na.\nStaff announced that there will be a special meeting of the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee on January 12, 2017 at 6:30pm. Staff clarified that the Committee will not\nreview cases at this meeting. Rather, the special meeting will be held to discuss Ordinance\nno. 3148 as it relates to the Rent Review Advisory Committee,\nb. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting agenda and\nexplaining procedures for public comment.\n4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1\na. No public comment.\n5. CONSENT CALENDAR\na. Approval of the Minutes of the December 5, 2016 Regular Meeting.\nMotion and second (Schrader and Landess). Approved by unanimous consent.\n6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS\na. No unfinished business.\n7. NEW BUSINESS\n7-A. Case 582 - 2007 Lincoln Ave., Unit C\nProposed rent increase: $55.00 (5.0%), effective December 1, 2016\nNo Committee review. Case postponed one month to the February 6, 2017 RRAC meeting.\nPage 1 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 2, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\n7-B. Case 624-344 - Westline Dr., Unit C205\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $124.00 (4.9%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $676.00 (26.7%); Under review\nEffective date delayed until Committee Review\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-C. Case 629- - 915 Shorepoint Ct., Unit E319\nProposed rent increases:\n12-month lease - $43.00 (2.0%); No review\nMonth-to-month agreement - $350.00 (16.2%); Under review\nEffective date delayed until Committee Review.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a rent\nincrease between 0-5%.\n7-D. Case 640.1 - 1537 Schiller St., Unit D\nProposed rent increase: $110.00 (10.0%), effective February 1, 2017.\nNo Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord agreed to a\nrent increase between 5.1-10%. -\n7-E. Case 651 - 1721 St. Charles St.\nTenant/public speakers: Monica Vehryzka\nLandlord/public speakers: Harold Nelson\nProposed rent increase: $ 150.00 (12%) effective March 1, 2017\nStaff noted that the landlord filed a request to raise the rent in 2016. The rent increase was found\ninvalid as it did not comply with regulations. The landlord rescinded the rent increase. The current\nOrdinance provides that after a rent increase is found invalid, a landlord may proceed with a rent\nincrease request if a new notice, in compliance with regulations, is served on the tenant.\nThe tenant, Ms. Vehryzka, stated the reasonable maximum monthly rent increase would be $62.50\n(5.0%). The tenant explained that she has limited income that is not increasing as fast as her rent.\nShe also stated that the landlord did not provide her with documents required by Ordinance\nno. .3148. She explained that she has been a good, long-term tenant and considers Alameda her\nhome.\nThe landlord, Mr. Nelson, stated that there have only been two rent increases in the past six years\nand the current rent does not cover maintenance and mortgage costs. The landlord explained that\nhe considers the market rent for comparable units to be $1,700.00 to $1,800.00. Mr. Nelson\nexpressed concern about his income as he nears retirement. He explained that the unit was re-\npainted, and received upgraded the flooring as well as new appliances when the tenant moved in.\nPage 2 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 3, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\nHe explained that the procedures for rent increases were difficult to follow. He stated that the\nBay Area is an expensive place to live and that he should not be responsible for the tenant's\nincome. Member Friedman noted that the Committee is concerned about affordability. The\nlandlord stated he did not want to raise the rent by less than 10.0%.\nStaff clarified that there is currently no hard cap on rent increases in the City of Alameda.\nThe Committee unanimously passed a motion to extend time on the case by 10 minutes. Motion\nand Second (Griffiths and Landess).\nPublic Comment:\nErick Strimling: Mr. Stimling noted that a rent of $1,150 in 2014 gave the landlord an\nadequate rate of return. He questioned the landlord's consideration that an additional\n$3,000.00 of rent per year was a reasonable rate of return.\nThe parties were unable to reach an agreement. The Committee discussed a binding\nrecommendation for the rent increase.\nMember Griffiths recommended an increase of $62.50 immediately followed by an\nincrease of $62.50 in six months. He explained that he generally prefers stepped increases\nsince they give the tenant time to adjust to an increase and place only a temporary burden\non the landlord. He also noted that the Committee should make a recommendation that has\nthe best chance of being accepted by both parties.\nMember Friedman noted that both sides have valid perspectives. He emphasized the\ntenant's financial constraints and the landlord's cost constraints after years of not raising\nrent. He favored a 5.0% increase now, followed by a 5.0% increase in six months. He noted\nthat this has the best chance of being accepted.\nVice-Chair Landess emphasized that she thought the tenant raised important concerns. She\nnoted that the landlord did not take the opportunity to show more empathy for the tenant's\nsituation. In addition, she noted that the landlord lacked transparency in his documented\ncosts. She stated that a 5.0% increase is fair.\nMember Schrader stated that a 10.0% increase would be reasonable since it averages out\nto an increase of less than 3.0% per year since the last rent increase. However, he stated he\nwould support a 5.0% increase now, followed by a 5.0% increase in six months.\nChair Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana noted that both parties have reasonable positions. He emphasized\nthat the intent of the Ordinance is to keep Alamedans in their homes. He explained that\nstepped increases can cause confusion. Thus, he favored an 8.5% increase.\nThe Committee unanimously recommended a rent increase of $62.50 to a monthly rent of\n$1,312.50, effective March 1, 2017 followed by a $62.50 increase to a monthly rent of $1,375.00,\neffective September 1, 2017. Motion and second (Griffiths and Friedman).\nPage 3 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee", "date": "2017-01-11", "page": 4, "text": "Approved Minutes\nJanuary 11, 2017\n8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.\na. No public comment.\n9. MATTERS INITIATED\na. Member Friedman noted that he will submit a discussion outline to Staff for the\nCommittee's January 12th Special Meeting.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nand\nRRAC Secretary\nClaudia Young\nApproved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on February 6, 2017.\nPage 4 of 4", "path": "RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-01-11.pdf"}