{"body": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 1, "text": "Alameda/AC Transit Inter-Agency Liaison Committee\nJanuary 3, 2018 Meeting Notes\nAttendees: President Ortiz, Chris Peeples, CM Ashcraft\nAC Transit Ridership\nGail - Line 96 increase in ridership likely due the start of EasyPasses at the\ncollaborative\nCM Ashcraft - why is transit ridership dropping\nLine 51A\nCapital improvements\nGail - bus stop relocations were a key to this project\nOrtiz - what do we do to remedy customer complaints - how do we change culture?\nSal talked about courtesy\nAshcraft - how do we address pass-ups?\nRobert - can't add buses and operators, but we can adjust fleet size\nSal - ride-a-line will come into affect\nPeeples - can we put artics on the 51a?\nAndrew Thomas - is there correlation between ridership and customer\ncomplaints\nAshcraft - is there a correlation between customer feedback and ridership?\nPeeples - if you compare complaints to ridership, the 51 could be the\nlowest percentage of complaints\nOrtiz - we take complaints such as no-shows very seriously\nThomas - if you add the Line 19 into the 51 ridership looks similar to what it was\nbefore\nMaria Gallo - alameda needs to increase its advertising of transit\nElsa - there will be marketing this year of transit (Gail concurred)\nTony Cuttner - the predictions are often inaccurate\nLine 96\nGail explained the potential for extending Line 96 for employees at Alameda Point, but\nneed to keep the service cost neutral\nPeeples - what is the employee population of Alameda Point compared to Marina\nVillage?", "path": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 2, "text": "Andrew has reached out to Marina Village\nAshcraft - reach out to individual businesses include Alameda Unified; there is a\npotential for younger riders due to the type of businesses available in Marina Village\nAndrew - wants all of these businesses to be EasyPass holders\nAshcraft - willing to discuss with the school board; she is the liaison\nGail - line 19 could cover much of the loss of the 96\nAndrew - can we issue easy passes to businesses outside of the buffer zones in easy\npass\nPeeples - the premise for the buffer is to ensure that we don't issue\nEasyPasses that the public won't use\nAshcraft - lime bikes can help with the first and last mile issues\nLine 21\nGail - service is not hundred percent reliable\nAshcraft - has a reputation of being unreliable\nThomas - should we change approach and focus resources elsewhere?\nOrtiz - only 8 passengers? Should we focus this much resource here?\nAshcraft - we were hoping that AC Transit would be a good solution to a change in the\nparking policies\nOrtiz - what is the harbor bay ridership\nMichael G - about 600-700\nOrtiz - how are they getting there?\nMichael G - completing ridership survey shortly\n250 parking spaces were filled; also walking or riding bikes\nAshcraft - charging for parking helps but it may not pay for the shuttle\nThomas - ferry passengers are coming from nearby; is the line 21 a correct solution?\nMichael gougherty - people who aren't driving have other options. Parking policy can\nbetter balance demand - hired cdm smith to conduct a parking fee study based on a\nset of principles that WETA board approved. Harbor bay will be a pilot program to\nmeet the principles/goals. Hope to implement in August of 2018.\nElsa - does WETA have authority to charge parking?\nMichael - yes, we have authority\nAshcraft - does not see an issue with this\nAndrew - want to provide options\nGail - look into marketing all of the alternatives, including Line OX", "path": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 3, "text": "Michael G - appreciate the effort to improve the service; and it is a difficult connection\nto make with the ferry. Goal of the parking fee is to encourage other modes to connect\nto the ferry.\nAHSC\nMoving forward this month\nLooking for a larger bus for Llne W\nHigh-street\nNon-issue - buses are meeting regulations and the issue is the maintenance of the\nbridge; need to check with the county to improve\nAVL Status - testing the mini fleet right now\nOrtiz - will we have our own app?\nSal - unsure. If there is an additional cost, then no\nAshcraft - target date\nMini fleet will start at the end of January for 30 days; start full installation in\nFebruary if mini-fleet is successful\nAlameda Shuttle\nOrtiz - do we have a cost for the shuttle proposal?\nKuttner - we have rough numbers but not exact\nOrtiz - how would you finance?\nKuttner - need everyone to pay (businesses, residents) but free to the\nend user. Need funding source to be consistent.\nPeeples - everyone likes the shuttle, but only a third are willing to pay\nAshcraft - the study is supposed to look at funding sources and other planning\nlogistics\nKuttner - everyone wants this\nAshcraft - impressed with emery go-round service, but there is a cost\nMaria Bella - commends the effort; AC transit is large, but this is what works for City of\nAlameda\nKuttner - AC and Alameda will be cooperative\nTransbay Tomorrow\nGail - commends AC Transit for the effort and is opposed Line OX\nRM3 Update\nPoll financed by MTC shows support for going forward\nOrtiz - drive is to go with the June 2018 ballot", "path": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 4, "text": "Kuttner - can we break out the complaints as a percentage of ridership?\nGail - city budget allows for an increase with Easy Pass program. Is Island\ncontinuation or service sector employees an option?", "path": "CityofAlameda-ACTransitInteragencyLiaisonCommittee(ILC)/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 1, "text": "City of Alameda Page 1\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, January 3, 2018\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. by Vice President Malloy.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT: Vice President Marguerite Malloy, Members Jan Brandt, John Nolan,\nHuman Resources Director and Executive Secretary of the Civil Service\nBoard, Nancy Bronstein\nABSENT:\nPresident Dean Batchelor, Member Troy Hosmer\nSTAFF PRESENT: Chris Low, Senior Human Resources Analyst\nSabina Netto, Human Resources Analyst II\nJessica Romeo, Human Resources Analyst I\nSteven Woo, Human Resources Analyst I\nNafisah Ali, Administrative Technician II\nAlan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney II\n3.\nMINUTES:\nApproval of Minutes of the Regular meeting of October 18, 2017.\nMember Brandt moved to accept the October 18, 2017 Minutes. Motion was\nseconded by Member Nolan which was passed by a 3-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A. SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND\nCLASSIFICATIONS FOR OCTOBER 18, 2017\n4-A-i. ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\n(September 1, 2017 - November 30, 2017)", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda Page 2\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\nAssistant General Manager - Energy Resource\nPlanning\n09/19/2017\n2017-31\nConstruction Inspection & Survey Supervisor\n11/16/2017\n2017-3080-01\nExecutive Assistant - AMP\n11/08/2017\n2017-7003-01\nFire/Building Code Compliance Officer\n10/24/2017\n2017-2077-01\nFirefighter\n10/23/2017\n2017-4500-01\nLine Working Supervisor\n09/18/2017\n2017-24\nMaintenance Worker I\n10/19/2017\n2017-2510-01\nSenior Transportation Coordinator\n11/15/2017\n2017-3147-01\nUtility Energy Analyst\n10/30/2017\n2017-7630-01\nPolice Officer\nAddy, Jermaine\n09/11/2017\n2017-4040-02\nSouthwell, Beau\n09/11/2017\n2017-4040-02\nPirnie, Jaime\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-02\nNemah, Patrick\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-02\nMigo, Leo\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-02\nMasuoka, Tim\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-02\nGatti, Joshua\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-02\nBalaburova, Petya\n09/15/2017\n2017-4057-02\nYi, Tae\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nThau, Mikael\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nMarques, Shawn\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nLeyva, Anthony\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nHan, Benny\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nDiaz-Smitherman, Julian\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nAlvarez, Serena\n09/22/2017\n2017-4057-02\nYamsuan, Jose\n09/28/2017\n2017-4057-02\nWright, Sydney\n09/28/2017\n2017-4057-02\nNunn Jr., Jason\n09/28/2017\n2017-4057-02\nKumar, Vaneesh\n09/28/2017\n2017-4057-02\nHa, Tuan\n09/28/2107\n2017-4057-02\nSun, Lu\n10/12/2017\n2017-4057-02\nLofthouse-Wolf, Cheyenne\n10/12/2017\n2017-4057-02\nHayes, Windrell\n10/12/2017\n2017-4057-02\nWood, Taylor\n10/12/2017\n2017-4040-01\nTozier, Evan\n10/12/2017\n2017-4040-01\nLee, Michael\n10/12/2017\n2017-4040-01\nShing-Chun, Harrison\n10/13/2017\n2017-4040-02\nVanderbilt, Michael\n11/07/2017\n2017-4040-01\nSeaborn, Kalin\n11/07/2017\n2017-4040-01\nLy, Daivy\n11/07/2017\n2017-4040-01\nCampana, Nicholas\n11/07/2017\n2017-4040-01\nVillas, Benjamin\n11/07/2017\n2017-4057-02\nParacha, Samir\n11/07/2017\n2017-4057-02\nHayden, Christopher\n11/07/2017\n2017-4057-02\nBryant, Alanna\n11/07/2017\n2017-4057-02\nSutten, Tyler\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02\nSaffarian, Dariush\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02\nSaephan, Justin\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02\nMcCall, Dylan\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02\nKavehkar, Amber\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02\nBlach, Garren\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda Page 3\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\nArrizon, Anna\n11/09/2017\n2017-4057-02\nStalker, Nicole\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nSpieth, Trevor\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nRodriguez-Aguila, David\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nPerez, Ivan\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nHadidian, Taylor\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nDaspit, Jonathan\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nBaker, Kyle\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nAllington, Jacob\n11/17/2017\n2017-4057-02\nRiosbaas, David\n11/17/2017\n2017-4040-01\nMoore, Michael\n11/17/2017\n2017-4040-01\nKennedy, Joseph\n11/17/2017\n2017-4040-01\nGleese, Kenneth\n11/17/2017\n2017-4040-01\n4-A-ii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAdministrative Technician II\n10/10/2016\n2016-46\nCustodian\n11/28/2016\n2016-53\nFire Captain\n11/22/2016\n2016-34\n4-A-iii. ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIRED/\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nCANCELLED/EXHAUSTED\nAccount Clerk\n05/24/2017\n2017-19\nAdministrative Services Coordinator - AMP\n05/11/2017\n2017-15\nCity Engineer\n03/03/2016\n2016-02\nCombination Building Inspector\n08/31/2017\n2017-3245-01\nCustomer Service Representative\n04/26/2017\n2017-18\nDivision Chief\n09/23/2015\n2015-16PR\nEngineering Manager\n04/26/2017\n2017-14\nHuman Resources Analyst Il\n11/14/2017\n2017-1260-01\nHuman Resources Manager\n11/02/2015\n2015-70\nPublic Works Superintendent\n01/30/2017\n2016-64PR\nRedevelopment Project Manager\n10/20/2015\n2015-52\nPublic Works Project Manager III\n03/13/2017\n2017-10PR\nUtility Information Systems Billing Specialist\n05/03/2017\n2017-13\nUtility Project Manager\n05/09/2017\n2017-07\n4-A-iv. LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS\nExisting Classification Specification Revision:\n- None\nNew Classification Specifications:\n-\nPark Maintenance Supervisor\n-\nPark Maintenance Worker II\nVice President Malloy moved to approve Consent Calendar items 4-A-i, 4-A-ii, and\n4-A-iii. Motion was seconded by Member Brandt, which was passed by a 3-0 vote.\nItems under section 4-A-iv were pulled for further discussion. Per Member Nolan's\nrequest, a copy of the Recreation and Parks Department organizational chart was passed.\nout. HR Director Bronstein stated that she and HR Analyst Netto are working with the", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 4, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A. Activity Report - Period of September 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017\nFULL-TIME HIRES\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n9/13/17\nPolice\nCrime Prevention Technician\n9/18/17\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n9/18/17\nCommunity Development\nCombination Building Inspector\n9/19/17\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker II (x2)\n9/25/17\nRecreation & Parks\nGardener\n10/18/17\nCity Attorney\nAssistant City Attorney Il\n11/27/17\nFinance\nIntermediate Clerk\nPROMOTIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n9/3/17\nFire\nFire Apparatus Operator\n10/1/17\nAMP\nLine Working Supervisor\n11/27/17\nHuman Resources\nHuman Resources Analyst II\n11/28/17\nPublic Works\nPublic Works Supervisor\nRETIREMENTS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION\n9/16/17\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n9/30/17\nPolice\nPolice Sergeant\nSEPARATIONS\nDATE\nDEPARTMENT\nJOB CLASSIFICATION", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda Page 5\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\n9/12/17\nPublic Works\nMaintenance Worker I\n9/22/17\nPublic Works\nTraffic Signal Maintenance Technician\n10/3/17\nPolice\nPolice Officer\n10/5/17\nFinance\nIntermediate Clerk\n10/7/17\nAMP\nMeter Reader\n10/26/17\nCommunity Development\nAdministrative Technician I\n10/28/17\nAMP\nAssistant General Manager -\nEngineering & Operations\n11/1/17\nAMP\nSystem Operator\n5-B. Correction in Article VIII Section 3 of the Civil Service Rules\nVice President Malloy moved to accept the correction to the Civil Service Rules.\nMotion was seconded by Member Brandt, which was passed by a 3-0 vote.\n6.\nGENERAL DISCUSSION OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES\nMember Nolan asked for clarification on the Civil Service Rules Section 1e of Article VII\nwhere it describes that those in a police academy or apprenticeship program may be\nplaced on an eligible list by the HR Director. HR Director Bronstein explained that Police\nOfficer Recruit is a part-time classification. Once the academy is completed in six (6)\nmonths, they are moved into the full-time Police Officer position without a new\nrecruitment. HR Director Bronstein continued to explain that Firefighters are initially\nhired in a full-time Firefighter position while attending the academy. She also explained\nthat apprentices are hired full-time then moved up. For example once the four (4) year\napprenticeship program for an Apprentice Lineworker is completed, they are moved into\nthe Lineworker classification.\nVice President Malloy stated that addressing updates and questions on the Civil Service\nRules may require several sessions. HR Director Bronstein agreed that it will be\nbeneficial to go piece by piece over multiple meetings so staff can go back and work on\nthe revisions and ultimately put together a final packet for Council approval.\nArticle I Section 2 - Vice President Malloy noted that Military or Veterans status was not\nlisted. HR Director Bronstein agreed it was important update the language in\naccordance with the law.\nArticle II Section 1 - Vice President Malloy suggested update the language \"salary\nincrease\" and perhaps changing it to \"increase in compensation pay\" or \"increase in\nwage rate\" because there are salaried and hourly paid employees.\nArticle II Section 3 - Vice President Malloy asked for clarification if appointments are\nformerly made by Council. HR Director answered that Council approves the funding of\nthe position and the City Manager signs off on all the hires.\nArticle II Section 9 - Vice President Malloy would like to see a definition distinguishing\n\"employee\" and \"Civil Service Employee\". She also asked what makes someone \"legally", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 6, "text": "City of Alameda Page 6\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\nappointed\". HR Director Bronstein answered for a Civil Service position, it is a position\nthat Council has approved as part of the budget process. Positions are not filled if not\nfirst approved by Council.\nArticle II Section 13 - Vice President Malloy would like to change \"no benefit\nentitlement\" to \"not a Civil Service position\". HR Director Bronstein added that laws do\nprovide benefits so the language needs to be updated. Vice President Malloy was not\nclear if the process of how part-time employees are selected was left out intentionally\nfrom this section. HR Director Bronstein explained that someone fills out an application\nfor a specific part-time position then goes through an interview and reference check. So\nit does not go through an opening and closing of a recruitment nor establishing an\neligible list. Vice President Malloy suggested perhaps adding the part-time hiring\nprocess.\nArticle II Section 14 - Member Brandt thinks perhaps replacing \"permanent employee\"\nas no one is permanent in a position.\nArticle II Section 15 - Vice President Malloy would like to define the term \"position\" with\nsub-categories such as part-time position or temporary position.\nArticle Il Section 17 - Vice President Malloy asked if it would be beneficial to add\nlanguage that speaks to the length of the probationary period. HR Director Bronstein\nanswered that since probationary periods are negotiated, they can reference this in the\nsection.\nArticle II Section 19 - Vice President Malloy would like to include the term \"promotional\nexam\" in Article II Section 11 since it is listed in this section.\nArticle II Section 20 - Vice President Malloy would like to update the sentence to \"The\ninvoluntary separation of an employee and would like to add language that the\nemployee is being separated from the position held verses just separating the\nemployee.\nArticle II Section 22 - Vice President Malloy would like to update the sentence to \"The\ninvoluntary temporary separation.\n\"\nArticle II Section 23 - Vice President Malloy suggested to clarify the language which\ndescribe a position that is being filled is of a limited duration verses a person filling the\nposition for a limited time.\nArticle II Section 24 - Vice President Malloy would like to see consistency when using\n\"separation\" verses \"discharge\" and changing \"work completion\" to \"work assignment\".\nAssistant City Attorney Alan Cohen believes the second sentence is vague.\nArticle II Section 25 - Vice President Malloy understood this section to mean that an\nemployee can move from department to department if the position is similar. HR", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 7, "text": "City of Alameda Page 7\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\nDirector Bronstein believe this section applies to positions that have similar\nqualifications such as a Utility Accountant at AMP and an Accountant with the Finance\nDepartment. One person can possibly move from one position to another without going\nthrough a recruitment. The language overall was suggested to be reviewed for\nclarification.\nArticle IV Section 1 - Vice President Malloy would like to see the term \"Position\nClassification Plan\" defined in the document.\nArticle V Section 3 - Vice President Malloy would like to change \"salary range\" in the\nsecond sentence to \"wage range\" or something similar since everyone is not paid on a\nsalary. She also wanted clarification on the second sentence on the usage of\n\"classification\".\nArticle VI Section 1 - Vice President Malloy noticed in the second paragraph that\nreferences applications being signed by the applicant which is not applicable anymore.\nThere also needs to be an update on language on when an application is rejected. Vice\nPresident Malloy asked if applicants are given notices of rejection. HR Director\nBronstein confirmed applicants will receive a notice letting them know they are not\nselected.\nArticle VI Section 3 - Vice President Malloy asked if it is at the discretion of the HR\nDirector if applications are received after the time limit as described in the second\nsentence. Assistant City Attorney Cohen added for due process purposes there should\nbe parameters established. HR Director Bronstein added that if one applicant is allowed\nto amend their application then we allow all to amend in similar circumstances.\nArticle VI Section 4 - Vice President Malloy suggested updating the language for the\nexamination components.\nArticle VI Section 5 - Vice President Malloy wanted clarification for the term \"City\nemployees\" and whether that means part-time, full-time, or Civil Service employee. It\nwas agreed to update the language and to define \"promotional examination\" used in this\nsection.\nArticle VI Section 7 - Vice President Malloy suggested to update the language since\nresults of examinations are not \"posted\" anymore.\nArticle VII Section 6 - Vice President Malloy suggested adding that if you accept the job\nyour name will be removed off the eligible list if that is in fact the practice.\nArticle VIII Section 3 - Vice President Malloy asked if it may be beneficial to refer to the\nprobationary term as the number of hours worked verses months to help account for\nthose who are absent for a period of time. HR Director Bronstein responded that is\nsomething to think about as there are overtime hours to consider as well. Assistant City\nAttorney Cohen added that there would need to be a cross reference against the", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 8, "text": "City of Alameda Page 8\nCivil Service Board Minutes\nRegular Meeting January 3, 2018\nvarious MOUs and Municipal Code that reference the probationary period.\nArticle VIII Section 4 - Vice President Malloy asked if the second paragraph is intended\nto allow someone to go back to their \"held position\" or only if they've tenured in the\nposition. HR Director responded said they will look at the language to clarify. Member\nNolan asked if there is a time limit to re-hire an employee. HR Director Bronstein\nanswered that once the promotional probationary period is complete and the disciplinary\naction resulting in discharge occurs after this period, they do not have return rights.\nArticle VIII Section 5 - Assistant City Attorney Cohen suggested updating the language\nthat refers to arbitrary termination since someone cannot be arbitrarily terminated.\nArticle VIII Section 6 - Vice President Malloy wanted clarification on what happens to an\neligibility list if no one is hired from the list and whether you can bring back a temporary\nperson if it exceeds one (1) year. It was suggested to look at temporary verses\nprovisional language for this section.\nArticle IX Section 1 - Vice President Malloy suggested updating the language that a\ntransfer can happen at any time to a transfer can happen based on departmental needs.\nHR Director Bronstein said all the above changes will be worked on where it can be\nbrought back and reviewed again.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nAssistant City Manager, Liz Warmerdam gave a presentation about the City's housing,\ntraffic, infrastructure, and the A1 bond measure addressing affordable housing. There has\nbeen outreach to various boards and commissions, as well as surveys given to the public\nabout what is going on in the community and what issues are a priority to them.\n8.\nCONFIRMATION OF NEXT CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MEETING\nThe April meeting was confirmed for Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:00 PM. The July 4th\nmeeting was postponed to July 11th.\n9.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nNancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director\nand\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MINUTES\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nWednesday, January 3, 2018 6:00PM\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent: Chairman Daniel Hoy, Mark Farrell, Adam Gillitt\n2. MINUTES\nApproved. Motion made by Adam Gillitt and seconded by Mark Farrell 2nd. The motion carried,\n3-0.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A 2017-5039: Public Art Selection Panels. A request to appoint members to the Ad Hoc Public Art\nCommission Committees.\nMs. Amanda Gehrke, Economic Development staff, gave a presentation on the proposal evaluation\nprocess and the role of the selection panel. Ms. Gehrke explained that there will be two selection\npanels, one for Cultural Arts and Arts Programming and the other for Physical Art, and both will have\nfive members: two from the Public Arts Commission and three will be outside members.\nMs. Gehrke then explained the process for recommending the outside members, gave a short\nbackground for each of the recommended panelists, and asked for the PAC to appoint the\nrecommended panelists to the selections panel.\nMs. Gehrke also asked for approval a change to the Cultural Arts' selection panel: removing\nCommissioner Brandy Graham and adding Commissioner Mark Farrell, per Commissioner Graham's\nrequest.\nFollowing Ms. Gehrke's presentation to Commissioners there were follow-up questions and answers\nCommissioner asked: Where will the finalists be displayed?\nMs. Gehrke responded that the location is still to be determined.\nCommissioner asked: Do all six panel members live in Alameda?\nMs. Gehrke responded that all but one of the recommended panelists live in Alameda.\nCommissioner Gillitt asked if there will be 3 finalist per funding level?\nMs. Gehrke responded that yes, there would be 3 finalists per funding level.\nPage 1 of 2\nDRAFT MINUTES\nPUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nJanuary 3, 2018", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2018-01-03", "page": 2, "text": "Public Speaker(s):\nBrett Pedersen, a local resident and artist expressed support for the program and offered support in\nassisting in some fashion.\nPublic Comments closed\nCommissioner Gillitt made a motion to appoint the recommended panelists, including the appointment\nof Commissioner Farrell to the Cultural Arts panel to replace Commissioner Graham.\nCommissioner Farrell seconded the motion.\nThe motion carried 3-0.\n4-B 2017-5051: Staff Presentation on Repairing Alameda's Aging Infrastructure and Related Survey\nLois Butler, Economic Development Manager, began by asking if the panel if they've taken the\ninfrastructure survey and asked about familiarity of the survey. All members were aware of the survey.\nShe explained that the survey tool and the presentation is online to view.\n5. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nMs. Butler stated she is the new secretary as of this meeting\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nMs. Butler stated there was written communication via email about the Buena Vista Avenue Public Art.\n7. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS\nChairman Daniel Hoy thanked Mark Farrell for being there.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nPage 2 of 2\nDRAFT MINUTES\nPUBLIC ART COMMISSION\nJanuary 3, 2018", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2018-01-03.pdf"}