AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 15 being discussed in the past and pondering if this was a core service. She agreed the Council had a moral responsibility to run the city with fiscal stability, but she felt that this option would meet the needs of the Council. In her recollection, the staff brought back exactly what was requested. She said she cannot look at the community or labor groups in light of unfunded reserves, PERS liabilities, etc. and justify supporting this indefinitely. Vice Mayor Aguirre would support the motion and it was amazing to her that Redwood City had been able to provide so much support to date. She was nervous about using the reserves for this but she supported another Council Member's request to look at other options without including reserves. One Council Member would not agree with the motion. She shared data and statistics she believed show that Redwood City had a disproportionate share and need in this area. She believed our demographics and community were different. One Council Member asked for the source of that data since no other Council Member had received it. This Council Member explained that these were from a staff report that staff had prepared a number of years ago. Another Council Member opined that this was not competing with the long term ability to cover labor group's needs. This Council Member noted that there was discussion about using a certain percentage of the reserves when we go above the reserves and that was what he was referring to. He reiterated his disappointment at no recommendation. Mayor Ira said that he felt that the 1/3 was a compromise and he was providing a safety net for a phased out approach. He did believe that the employees look at this and it was hard to ask employees to give concessions when he did not believe this was a core service but it had value. He also felt this was a moral commitment and he hoped that in two to three years the Council would be willing to look at potentially providing more funds. Motion passes 5-2 by electronic vote with Bain and Pierce opposing. MINUTE ORDER 11-108 (Between 7:20 and 10:35 p.m. the City Council covered agenda items 7.A and 7.B. For the full content of the discussion please watch the archived stream of the meeting at http://redwoodcitv-ca.aranicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=2&clip id=1161 and select agenda item 7.A.) B. Receive Recommendations from the Charter Ad Hoc Committee Regarding Proposed Charter Amendments Recommendation: Provide Direction Regarding Proposed Charter Amendments Pamela Thompson, City Attorney, said the hour was late, the Charter is long and her remarks would be short. She reported that the Charter was in need of revision and that the primary focus was section 31/2 and that the rest would come later after analysis. This analysis is to come forward in the course of the next year in conjunction with the municipal code revision. She wanted to keep 3'/ as is but apply it only to the Port and create a new section for the rest of the city. She recommended having this before the voters to adopt a new provision. She added the item would come back at the July 11 meeting. One Council Member noted she would reword it so that the public benefit was upfront. She also encouraged staff to take on the Charter but not all at once, but incrementally because it seemed more effective. This Council Member thanked the colleagues who worked on this (Foust and Gee) important matter. JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD June 27, 2011 MEETING/BUDGET STUDY SESSION II MINUTES PAGE 15