Laserfiche WebLink
S. This would allow for quicker decision making. <br />Definitely reduce to 5!! <br />5. The cost of having 7 council members is not a tiny fraction of the budget. Has the cost of their <br />entire career, overtime and pension been calculated? The cost of living in Redwood city is already <br />exorbitant. The cost of additional 2 members over their career span and then their retirement is <br />way more than the tiny fraction of the budget. <br />5 - It does seem unnecessary to have 7 and I'd like to see districts represented to make the election <br />process more equitable. Reducing to 5 will save a bundle in expenses, training and benefits for <br />council members and some benefits are in perpetuity so the cost savings over time will be <br />significant. The cities with 5 (like San Mateo) do just fine. <br />S. Use the extra savings to help balance the budget <br />5 though I don't reallyThinklt is a cost issue. <br />4: since the City Council looks at the big picture and sets the course for Redwood City, cutting back <br />would be a false economy <br />In opposition: <br />i 1 The entire council is LESS than 0.5% of the budget, so calls to cut 2 of 7 seats is just populist <br />political theater by grouchy people who seemingly can't (or won't) do the math. The marginal cost <br />(or savings) of adding (or cutting) 2 members is essentially nothing due to the overhead of having a <br />council at all. For perspective: police & fire = 59%. Add parks, rec and library and you're up to 82%. A <br />smaller nearby city, Palo Alto, has 9 council members. And so what? What a total waste of time <br />when practically every other issue imaginable is of greater significance. <br />+a 1 My comments: As a city manager who has worked in cities with both 5 and 7 council I am firm <br />supporter of 7 council members. 7 members doesn't guarantee a wider diversity of opinion but the <br />opinions will be more diverse with 7 vs 5. Also when a very difficult person (ie bit of a jerk) is <br />elected, which can easily happen, that person is less disruptive in a 7 vs 5 person council. <br />+a 1 - This is silly. Cutting two councilmembers doesn't get us better representation, nor does it <br />save any significant money. It just gives us two less people to vote for (or against). There have <br />definitely been times when I've been glad we have had 1-2 people there expressimg a minority <br />opinion. With 5 members, that's even less likely to happen.@ <br />