{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MARCH - 29, 2011-6:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(11-143) General Fund Budget\nThe Controller gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether other budgets cover General Fund costs, like\npublic safety; stated portions of police costs were paid out of the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority (ARRA).\nThe Controller responded most costs are accounted for out of the General Fund; if there\nare other funds that benefit from the service, a cost reimbursement is done from other\nfunds; ARRA is an excellent example as cost reimbursement is done from that fund for\npolice services provided to ARRA; the cost allocation plan maximizes reimbursement\nfrom other funds.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the complete amount spent on a department,\nsuch as police, is shown in the General Fund, to which the Controller responded mostly;\nstated grant regulations require grant funds to be accounted for separately; the majority\nof police and fire expenses are in the General Fund.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the 31% is spent on fire and 38% is spent on police\ninquired said percentages for previous fiscal years.\nThe Controller responded that he would have to research and provide said information.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he recalls public safety was around 65%; there has\nbeen a growth of 4%, which is of concern.\nThe Controller stated the amount has probably grown due to PERS costs and health\ncosts going up.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there is a tipping point; having to amount be 70% of the\nGeneral Fund would be concerning.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 2, "text": "The Acting City Manager stated public safety costs are typically around 2/3 or higher;\nthe City is not out of the norm.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested the percentage for the last 5 years.\nThe Controller continued the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the assumption of no salary increases through FY15-\n16 along with no bargaining units receiving a salary increase for 3-4 years up to this\npoint, is 6 years without an increase.\nThe Acting City Manager responded staff is presenting the known facts and is not\nmaking a recommendation; the numbers show there is a problem without any salary\nincreases; any salary increases change the picture; since staff does not know what the\nsalary increases might look like, current information was used to make projections.\nMayor Gilmore stated it is hard to expect people to take 6 years of no salary increases.\nThe Controller stated staff did not want to obscure the fact that there is a significant\ndeficit problem even without increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Controller indicated the health benefit increase\nestimate of 14% is mid range; the last time, the range was 12-20%; 14% seems a little\non the low side considering Blue Cross was throwing 30%.\nThe Controller stated 14% is a best guess; PERS is good at trying to keep the rates\ndown; PERS negotiates for a large number of agencies; the news has indicated\nindividuals have had an of 83% increase over the last year; PERS has large clout and\ntends to keep rates down a bit more; the City's OPEB valuation consultant tends to\nestimate on a downward sliding scale for health.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there was hope for a National Health Plan, which is\nobviously not the case.\nThe Controller continued his presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City's expense line continues to rise; inquired whether most of\nthe increases are due to increased health cost, OPEB and PERS, to which the\nController responded in the affirmative; stated one reason salary increases were left out\nin order to keep from clouding the picture; keeping the salary increase out shows the\ndramatic impact of the PERS and health increases, which the City does not have control\nover.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City has a $75 to $80 million shopping list of\ndeferred maintenance; inquired whether the estimates include funding for said list.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 3, "text": "The Controller responded the same level of maintenance expenditures is assumed for\nthe General Fund portion; stated other sources of revenue, such as gas tax and\nMeasure B, can be used for roadway maintenance.\nThe Acting City Manager responded the forecast shows everything remaining static.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether OPEB is being bought down, to which the\nActing City Manager responded in the negative;\nThe Controller stated the estimates assume continuation of pay as you go.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's comments about next budget cycle, the Acting\nCity Manager stated staff wanted to let everyone know about the problem and give the\nCouncil and community time to understand what the City is facing; the City is facing\ndifficult decisions about how to move forward; the presentation assumes that nothing is\nfixed; solutions for FY 11-12 will bring down future deficits; there are difficult decisions;\nstaff is looking at on-going and one time fixes.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted one time revenue was used in FY 10-11.\nThe Controller stated the sources of one time revenue were $1.9 million from the\ntransfer tax and $2 million from reimbursements from outside funds; nether will reoccur\nin FY 11-12, which is part of why revenues are forecasted to drop from $73 million in FY\n10-11 to $67 million FY 11-12; one time solutions do not help the situation long term.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how confident the City is with the State's situation, to\nwhich the Acting City Manager responded an upcoming slide addresses redevelopment.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding gas tax, the Acting City\nManager stated staff has not heard the State talking about the gas tax; redevelopment\nhas been the focus; the State is also messing with libraries; the General Fund is\nimpacted if the State takes away redevelopment.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the $2 million\nreimbursement, the Controller stated Alameda Municipal Power owed the City $1.1\nmillion from something like Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT); $850,000 came from the\nCity not billing the assessment districts properly for administrative costs going back 10\nyears averaging about $80,000 per year; the correct amount will be charged going\nforward; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what portion of the $581,000 in the CIC budget that would\nbe eliminated if the Governor's proposal the eliminate redevelopment is successful is\ncost reimbursement for public safety.\nThe Controller stated that he would look into the matter and provide information back to\nCouncil.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired whether cuts are the only way departments can absorb the\ndecrease in General Fund revenues, to which the Controller responded either General\nFund revenues would have to be raised or expenditures would have to be cut; noted the\nCity plans on conducting a Cost Allocation Plan in FY 11-12.\nMayor Gilmore stated in the event redevelopment goes away, not only the\nredevelopment activity goes away, the redevelopment agency's share of paying for\noverhead in, for example, Legal, Finance, Human Resources; departments will have to\npick up a larger share of costs.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the costs are fixed.\nThe Controller continued his presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson noted the City was expecting to have PERS increases in FY\n12-13, not FY 11-12.\nThe Controller stated the FY 11-12 budget just rolled over the amounts from the FY 10-\n11 budget and did not include any cost of living adjustments.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about whether PERS had indicated\nthere would not be any increase until FY 12-13, the Controller state PERS provided\ninformation in October 2009; PERS was not sure if the assumed rate of return would be\nchanging and indicated the matter would be addressed in February; the Board decided\nnot to increase the rate to 7.5%, which would have increased the City's cost by 1 to 4%.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what the increased amount is based on if PERS did\nnot adjust its rates and is leaving it 7.75%.\nThe Controller responded PERS lost 24% in 2008; PERS valuations are two years\nbehind; reviewed a slide which shows rates remained the same from FY 08-09 to FY\n10-11; stated the first smoothing mechanism PERS adopted did not assume such a\ndramatic loss; the City would have had to pay a huge increase under said mechanism;\nPERS adopted a new smoothing mechanism, which makes the rates gradually go up\nand kept the rates from going up 10% or more in FY 11-12; the drawback is rates will\nstay higher for a longer period of time.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding PERS's current return on\ninvestment rate, the Controller stated the rate changes daily, but he has heard PERS\nhas earned 10 to 11% for the year; earning a little more than 7.75% provides little\nbenefit the next year because it is spread over such a long period of time.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how much loss in the PERS portfolio has not been\nrealized; stated one loss was the huge investment in Mountain House; the property will\nnot be worth very much for a long period of time; PERS has not taken some losses yet.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 5, "text": "The Controller responded staff does not have the full information on that, but it could be\nthe case.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated PERS having a little more transparency would be nice.\nMayor Gilmore stated the public needs to realize PERS takes gains and losses without\nfeeling it; when PERS has a loss, the costs are passed on to the cities, counties and\nagencies in the retirement system; PERS takes no risk as an investment entity and\ndoes not have incentive to be very careful.\nThe Controller continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated staff is creating a benchmark by not adding employees;\nhowever, employees retire and the City will be hiring new people, which adds to the\ncost.\nThe Controller stated the PERS averages the number of retirees per year, how long the\nretirees are living, and the number of active employees; if the number of employees\ndrops, there is a smaller base to spread the PERS cost over; the rate could go up\nbecause there would be a smaller base to spread the costs over; continued the\npresentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not see exposed to the General Fund\nwhen we talk about lawsuits; SunCal could be going against the project, but it usually\ncomes out of General Fund, but he thinks it was put in the ARRA; the City has other\nexposures; inquired how the amount is taken care of.\nThe Controller responded the costs are taken care of several different ways; the City\nAttorney's budget in the General Fund is designed to cover some costs; Risk\nManagement insurance is in a separate internal service fund; departments all pay a pro\nrata charge; the idea is enough reserves are built up over time to cover a one year hit;\ncontinued the presentation.\nThe Acting City Manager began to give her portion of the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore requested clarification on the Controller's statement about PERS costs\ngoing up when there are salary reductions or reductions in the workforce.\nThe Controller stated PERS costs go down, but the rate could potentially go up because\nthere is a smaller base over which to spread costs; for example, the PERS costs could\ngo down by $200,000, but the rate could increase a percent or two; reductions in work\nforce lower salary and benefit costs.\nThe Acting City Manager stated reducing the workforce would create a savings;\ncontinued the presentation.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a theater admission tax has to go to the\nvoters, to which the Controller responded it depends on how it is structured.\nThe Acting City Manager noted new fees are treated differently under Proposition 26.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what is the threshold on a general tax, to which the Acting\nCity Manager responded 50% plus 1; stated a public safety parcel tax requires 2/3 vote.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired the City will not be receiving County EMS service\nrevenue that was going to be generated to pay for arrears.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the $3.2 million in arrears will be paid for over 15\nyears out of first responder Advances Life Support (ALS) franchise fees from the new\nparamedic transport provider, Paramedics Plus.\nThe City Manager noted the amount is in addition to the $860,000 annual amount for\nthe current and next fiscal year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City will forego revenue it would have received from\nthe County; the County is going to go forward with a process to address the annual\ncosts.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the City is working to see if the County's existing\nMeasure C can be extended to Alameda; the City is going through the Local Agency\nFormation Commission (LAFCO) process; then, a Board of Equalization process starts\nin December; the tax will not be added to the tax roll until August 2012.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the amount was accounted for in the out years, to\nwhich the Acting City Manager responded staff is assuming the tax would be collected\nin FY 12-13; if the tax is not collected, the City would have an additional General Fund\nexpense.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated if not\nsuccessful, the amount would be an on-going General Fund expense or the City will\nneed to place a tax on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Firefighters brought forth the concept of doing\nambulance transport with Basic Life Support (BLS) and charging a fee for the service; a\nbusiness plan was presented to City Management at one time; inquired whether there\nhave been any further conclusions about the matter.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the conclusion is that it is not viable for the City to\nprovide an exclusive BLS transport service; the City does not have exclusive rights for\nBLS transportation.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 7, "text": "The Acting City Manager inquired whether the City would not be competitive in the\nmarket place, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated other providers do not keep vehicles on the Island; inquired would\nthe City not have a competitive advantage because its apparatus is here.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the City does not have the legal right to provide the\nservice.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Paramedics Plus has the exclusive right, to which the\nInterim Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated other private ambulance companies\nin the County have the right BLS transport services.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the companies contract with the County, to which the\nInterim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe Acting City Manager stated another challenge is an ambulance providing BLS\ntransport service would not be available to respond to ALS calls.\nThe Interim Fire Chief concurred; stated additional ambulances and staff would have to\nbe added, which would be very expensive.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the County is the licensing agency; and whether the\nfirst step the City would have to go through would be a process with the County to have\nthe right to provide the service.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated staff has discussed the\nmatter with Alameda County EMS; without an exclusive agreement, the City would be\ncompeting with private providers; it could be profitable if the City had the exclusive right\nto BLS transport.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she understands the City would be competing and was\nquestioning whether the City would have a competitive advantaged based on the fact of\nbeing physically on the Island; stated other ambulance services would have to come off\nof the Island to service Alameda residents.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded his concern is with using existing ambulances for the\nservice; transporting non-emergent patients would commit ambulances causing them\nnot to be able to respond to emergency calls.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Hospital had an ambulance; inquired what\nwas the use of said ambulance.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated Alameda Fire Department ambulances, as well as private\ncompany ambulances, are used by the Alameda Hospital.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the Hospital contracts for ambulance service.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the ambulance has Alameda Hospital painted on it.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated said ambulance is an AMR ambulance.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the ambulance is used for the BLS service, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City would be going into a territory that is already\ncovered.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she recalls seeing a provision in the EMS Contract that\nallows the City to have the ability to do BLS transport.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded that he would research the matter and provide\ninformation back to Council.\nMayor Gilmore requested information be provided back.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff would provide the information.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he has heard an argument that there is an exclusive\noperating right for BLS; inquired why staff believes this is not true.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded for 10 years he has heard that the City had an\nExclusive Operating Agreement (EOA) for BLS; in the last 12 months, Alameda County\nEMS clarified that the City does not have an OEA; an OEA is not in the City's contract.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would appreciate staff checking the Contract; that\nshe remembers the Contract including non emergency BLS service.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff would check the Contract and contact the County\nto clarify, if needed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated staff should do more than just check the Contract and\nshould help Council to understand whether or not the matter [of providing BLS] has\nbeen reviewed and the potential to generate revenue has been evaluated in spite of the\nfact that the City has a geographic advantage with the ambulance service being on the\nIsland.\nThe Acting City Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff was thoughtful in putting together the questions; the City\nshould look at doing all of the things presented; the matter is a timing issue; a\ncombination of structural and one time fixes could be done for the next budget year\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 9, "text": "knowing that the next budget year there might be additional structural changes; that she\nis not sure the organization can deal with biting the bullet in one fiscal year; it\n[restructuring] might have to be done over a period of time, maybe the next two to three\nyears; the City will have to look at the cost side; maybe going out for taxes could be\ndone in the third year after appropriate polling has been done; cost sharing with\nemployees will have to be reviewed; there will have to be discussions with employees\nabout certain give backs; the City will have to do all of said things; the presentation is\nstarting the conversation; all of the things will have to be done over the next several\nyears to ensure that the City is put in a position to be fiscally sustainable on the General\nFund side; in terms of across the board cuts versus being surgical, Council direction has\nalways been try to absorb the cuts internally and impact service to the citizens the least\namount possible; the City has been a victim of its own success; services to residents\nhave not been impacted; cuts should be surgical; the City exists to provide services;\nCouncil will have to discuss core services and priorities with residents; decisions and\ndiscussions will be tough.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council should be provided the departments' proposals\nof 5% and 10% cuts.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the departments are putting the finishing touches on the\nproposals.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated providing the information to Council in the upcoming\nweeks or month would be helpful.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether direction about how to make cuts was provided to\ndepartment heads, to which the Acting City Manager responded that she acknowledged\nthat departments know their budgets better than her; stated departments were directed\nto determine core services, what can be lived without and how cuts will be made; the\nnumbers are really large in some departments; cutting contractual dollars, supplies and\nmaterials will not be enough; programs will have to be cut, which might include people\nin some departments; that she wanted to see what departments could do first.\nMayor Gilmore stated when the proposals come to Council, she would like to know\nspecific impacts; that she does not just want to see a number, she wants to know what\nis associated with that number, such as how many people, specifically what programs\nwill be cut, whether programs are internal, such as training, and what community\nprograms are being cut; if it is a question of things that the staff does, such as mowing\nparks every 2 weeks rather than 10 days; she wants to know said impacts so that the\ninformation can be provided to the community and the community and Council can\nunderstand what the cuts mean.\nThe Acing City Manager stated said information can be put together.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated everyone has to be concerned about the out years;\nimmediate years have been addressed through smoke and mirrors, such as refinancing\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 10, "text": "and would be fine if things would be okay in FY 2012-13, which is not the case;\nadditional expenditures are predicted for FY 2012-13 and revenues are not growing to\nkeep pace; structural changes need to be made now to bring expenditures down and\nbring the revenue line and expenditure line closer together.\nThe Controller stated revenues are stagnating and are not growing like they were\nseveral years ago; revenue growth of 2 to 3% is not very much.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated street level service cuts should be minimized; the point where\nservice is delivered to the community should be protected as much as possible; the pain\nshould be shared and spread throughout the entire organization; there should not\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 11, "text": "necessarily be any protected groups, including management and executive teams\nsharing in reductions; a 5% cut was done at the Hospital top to bottom from the Chief\nExecutive Official down, which was good for morale and is a good principle; that he\nwould hate to see only street level cuts brought back without looking at management,\nadministration and overhead closely; everything needs to be on the table; closing the\ngap does need to done by a combination; one time fixes can be a part of the overall\nsolution, but not something that the City relies on too heavily; ways to make structural\nchanges need to be found.\nCouncilmember Johnson concurred with all the Councilmembers saying everything\nneeds to be reviewed; core services have to be defined carefully; some might not\nconsider parks, recreation, or library hours core services; the library is packed every\ntime she is in there; library is a core service; recreation provides child care and after\nschool care, which are core services; there is a structural problem; although the City\nhas probably made cuts every year for the last 8 years, there is still an on going\nproblem; the problem will continue because unlike a private company, the City has a\ndifficult time adjusting expenses; the structural imbalance has to be fixed, which cannot\nbe done in one year.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City is not a private business, has fixed overhead and\nprovides service; the City does not make widgets and cannot adjust its production line;\nemployees are the City's assets; the City has limited methods of trimming overhead and\ndoes not have flexibility like private enterprise; the City has to take into account the\nneeds of its service population, which is its residents.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated property taxes are a driving force of decreased revenue;\nsales are 1/4 of normal; the inventory on the market is four times higher than normal; the\nassessor automatically makes adjustments every year; training, travel, and overtime are\nthe first things addressed and eliminated off the bat, as well as bottled water and\ncatered lunches; the changes start with Council; the City cannot live with overtime of 15\nto 20%; the 4 day was implemented in the early 1990's, which has caused headaches;\nbeing open 5 days with the 4 day work week resulted in more part time workers to fill\nthe gap; there was not really a savings; a decision has to be made about closing down\none day a week; Council is obligated to review said items; hopefully, the City heading in\nthe right direction will help in 2-3 years; one time adjustments cannot be done anymore.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:46 p.m. and returned at 8:48 p.m.\n*\nVice Mayor Bonta stated another way to pursue revenue generation is through business\nattraction and retention efforts, such as VF Outdoors and Lawrence Berkeley National\nLab; said efforts will give transfer taxes, property taxes and increase sales tax revenues\nand are part of the solution.\nThe City Treasurer addressed the Council.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Johnson requested the City Treasurer to explain his statements about\nSan Jose and Oakland.\nThe City Treasurer stated San Jose is looking at 10% pay cuts; Oakland laid off officers,\nwhich ended up in negotiations and officers are sharing PERS costs; there are blue\nprints out there; the Acting City Manager could gather up sample data points; the\nproblem is not unique; the City is not alone in the problem, but is alone in not\naddressing the problem; the City is on the Vallejo trajectory [bankruptcy]; Vallejo's\npublic safety was 75% of its budget; the City is past the red zone.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated current employees and retirees should have the most\ninterest that the City is on a sustainable course; PERS expenses continue to go up and\npolice and fire has to be cut to make PERS payments; cities start defaulting on PERS\nand OPEB payments if the price gets so high that services cannot be cut enough to pay\nfor retiree expenses.\nMayor Gilmore stated in many cases retirees have better benefits than employees\nworking today; the people working today are supporting the retires; in the trajectory of\nthe system, tomorrow's workers will not be there to support the current generation of\nactive employees; if not changed, the active employees will not be collecting anything.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there are current employees under Oakland's old\nretirement system and Oakland is threatening not to pay; retirees should not feel\nsecure.\nThe City Treasurer stated in the Vallejo case, retiree medical benefits were reduced by\n75%; the City has medical obligations it cannot pay.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated government might have to decide between having\ncurrent employees and providing services versus paying obligations for retirees.\nThe City Treasurer stated the City could reach the point where the Courts decide what\nwill be provided if something is not done; something has to be done immediately; that\nhe is available to support the Council and review information.\nThe City Auditor addressed the Council.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City Council does not believe the City will get out of the mess\nby simply raising revenue; it is clear that the City has to make cuts and restructuring has\nto be done; restructuring does not do any good on day 1, but may do some good in 15\nto 20 years; the City has to come up with long terms solutions for its pension and\nOPEB; here and now type of savings are also needed; one way to achieve present\nsavings is tell people to take a cut across the board; another option is layoffs, which\nimpact service to the public; response times being twice as long due to public safety\nlayoffs could be a new reality; the Council has to communicate said things to the public;\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 13, "text": "the community needs to understand and support impacts; it comes back to: need to\nhave, want to have and what the community will accept.\nThe City Treasurer stated some fixes, like changing the system for new employees, will\nnot help in the short term; as far as what the City do today, stop the defined benefit plan\ntomorrow; buy everybody out; the bill would be huge and money would have to be\nborrowed, but the bleeding would be stopped; that he is not sure whether the idea is\nlegal or would be accepted by the unions; public safety has to be discussed because it\nis the lion share of the budget; the City has a specific amount of money and cannot\ncreate a lot more; the City can try to bring in business and revenues, but has a finite\namount of money; services require a certain staffing level; all City employees, including\npublic safety, are in tune with providing high quality services to the citizens; there is a\nfinite amount of money, which should be divided amount the number of employees\ndesired to meet a certain staffing level; the calculation is pretty easy; hopefully,\nemployees and service will not have to be cut.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Auditor's and Treasurer's input is always welcome, valuable\nand appreciated.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what the proposal will be on the OPEB issue, to\nwhich the Acting City Manager responded right now the City is doing pay as you go and\nis not contributing to buying down its liability; a capital improvement discretionary fund\nhas about $2.7 million; some portion could be used to start funding the OPEB liability;\nthat she does not have a plan for really chipping away at the $75 million and growing\nliability; she is focusing on the $6 million budget hole, which is to the detriment of long\nterm needs; the City has both an OPEB and deferred maintenance problem; the matter\nshould have been addressed when the City was in a better financial situation; an\nalternative would be to cut more and put more toward OPEB; the City does not have\nunlimited resources to spread around and start buying down long term liabilities.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City needs to discuss the matter; no year is a good\nyear.\nMayor Gilmore stated more community input is needed when the discussion is held;\nencouraged citizens to participate; really difficult decision will need to be made that will\nimpact everyone; the Council wants to hear from people before making decisions.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City has had budget difficulties for many years and\nwill continue for many years to come; the City needs to start doing something about\nlong term obligations; the City has obligations and needs to ensure what it commits to is\nsustainable and there is enough money to pay.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the start of the fiscal year is only months away; it is too\nlate to get the public to come up with solutions; it is time for the Council to make hard\ndecisions; getting feedback from the public will take months.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated that City will go forward with the normal budget process and\ntimeline; going forward, she wants more members of the community aware what is\nbeing done before the fact as opposed to after the fact.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred; stated decisions have to start being made as soon\nas possible; there will not be consensus from the public; direction will have to come\nfrom Council; the US Government split its retirement system back in the early 1980's;\nworking through the cycle took 30 years; changing the system will not help today;\nCouncil has to start making hard decisions.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:36 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-03-29", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - MARCH 29, 2011--5:59 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-141) Public Employment (Government Code Section 54957); Title: City Manager\n(11-142) Conference with Labor Negotiators; (Government Code Section 54957.6);\nAgency Designated Representatives: Mayor Marie Gilmore, Vice Mayor Rob Bonta;\nUnrepresented Employee: City Manager\nFollowing the Closed Session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Public Employment, the Council provided direction; and\nregarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council provided direction to the\nnegotiators regarding salary parameters.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 29, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-03-29.pdf"}