{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE 28, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Board\nMembers/Commissioners\nBonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nGilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson arrived at 7:08 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-338 CC) Jennifer Solomon, Alameda, discussed finding stolen goods in an\nabandoned bike trailer.\n(11-339 CC) Adam Gillitt, Alameda, discussed the Crown Memorial Beach drowning\nincident and budget.\n(11-340 CC) Frances Montell, Alameda, discussed open political discourse.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Gilmore announced that the resolution [paragraph no. 11-342 CC was\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of\nthe Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*11-341 CC/11-053 ARRA/11-029 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,\nARRA and CIC Meetings of May 31, 2011; and the Regular ARRA Meeting of June 1,\n2011. Approved.\n(11-342 CC) Resolution No. 14580, \"Approving the Purchase of a Replacement Disk\nStorage Solution and Implementing Server Virtualization, at a Cost Not to Exceed\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n1\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 2, "text": "$230,000.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation for the urgency to purchase a\nreplacement disk storage solution.\nThe Information Technology Manager stated systems have been running on servers\nand the EMC Storage Area Network system for a number of years; storage has been\ndepleted because of email growth and graphics; email is 90% full; messages cannot be\nretrieved when a server is out of disc space; disk space has not been increased over\nthe last six years.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that the current system does not have\nthe ability to recover lost information if the system crashes.\nThe Information Technology Manager stated system backups are stored on unreliable\nlegacy magnetic tapes; multiple tapes are needed as disk space continues to grow;\nspace is not available to hold all of the data.\nMayor Gilmore stated storage space is cheap; inquired why the Replacement Disk\nStorage Solution is so expensive.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded the Storage Area Network allows\neveryone to share data and provides fault tolerance.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the proposed storage platform is the best\nprice.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded four proposals were submitted; stated\nCompellent, Dell's midrange system, is the fastest growing vendor in the industry; price\nis not the only issue; technology is important; Compellent provides options and provides\nmore disk space for the money; Compellent uses 60% disk drive versus other vendors\nusing 50%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what type of on-going support would be needed.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded the vendor would provide a three-year\nwarranty; stated training would be provided to allow staff management of many\nfeatures.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether a support contract would be needed, to which\nthe Information Technology Manager responded definitely.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired how long the City's needs would be met with the proposed\nsolution.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n2\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 3, "text": "The Information Technology Manager responded staff assumed that the current solution\nwould last ten years when purchased seven years ago; forecasting is very difficult and\ndepends upon use; hopefully, the solution will last five to six years.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(11-343 CC) Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for\nFY11-12 and Resolution No. 14581, \"Establishing the Appropriations Limit for FY11-12.\"\nAdopted;\n(11-343A CC) Resolution No. 14582, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and\nCapital Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.\" Adopted;\n(11-054 ARRA) Resolution No. 54, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and Capital\nBudget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.\" Adopted; and\n(11-030 CIC) Resolution No. 11-182, \"Approving and Adopting the Operating and\nCapital Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.' Adopted.\n(11-343B CC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14583, \"Amending Master Fee\nResolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees.\" Adopted\nThe Controller gave a brief presentation on the Proposition 4 Limit.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Proposition 4 resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nA vote on the motion was held until after the budget resolutions were discussed.\nThe Assistant City Manager and Controller gave a Power Point presentation on the\noperating and capital budget.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated staff would begin to work on next year's budget in July;\nconcepts should be brought to the public in the fall if significant services might be cut,\nsuch as the Animal Shelter; the public should have the opportunity to prioritize the nice\nto haves versus the need to haves; receiving input in January or February might be too\nlate.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated getting information out sooner rather than later\nwould be better.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n3\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 4, "text": "The Controller responded said revenue is primarily generated from ambulance transport\nservices; stated Police Department revenue is generated from parking citations, traffic\noperations, patrol, court fines, and special grants.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Police\nDepartment costs $2 million more but generates $1 million less in revenue than the Fire\nDepartment.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Police Department\nhas fewer sworn staff.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the Police Department\nrole is different than the Fire Department; the Police Department does not have the\nopportunity to generate revenue; the Fire Department would not generate revenue\nwithout ambulance services; inquired what type of contractual services would be\neliminated and who would pick up the duties.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded it would depend upon the department; stated\nthe City Manager's office has money for contractual services which has not been used\nbecause contracts have been ratcheted back for a variety of reasons.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the City should not put\nitself in a position of needing to hire extra staffing because of contractual services.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated part time staff performs a variety of duties; every\ndepartment has money for contractual services; the budget has a City Manager\ncontingency; money could be taken out of the non-departmental fund to pay for hiring\na\nprofessional polling firm to poll for possible revenue measures.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson inquired whether all non-sworn\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n4\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 5, "text": "Fire Department staffing would be eliminated, to which the Assistant City Manager\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated playground staffing\nshould be kept if possible.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Recreation and Parks Department organizational\nchanges are pretty deep; that she does not think the Recreation and Parks Department\ncould still offer all programs and keep the sites; staff has reviewed reducing the number\nof special events in favor of keeping program sites; special events benefit the entire\ncommunity; staff thinks that it would be better to put limited resources into special\nevents and keep half of the free sites available; paid program sites are still available.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated fee programs are great\nbut do not accommodate the same children that are served by having free directors at\nthe playground.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired what type of police vehicles are leased, to which the Chief\nof Police responded undercover vehicles.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated the City has significantly improved its position with regard to\nworkers compensation and risk management over the last two years.\nThe Controller stated a new section [R76 and R77] has been added to the budget,\nwhich provides more detail for each fund; reserves need to be built for workers\ncompensation and risk management.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Gilmore's inquiry, the Controller stated the budget shows\nthe workers compensation forecast for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 with an ending fund\nbalance of approximately $1.2 million; as of last year, the estimated workers\ncompensation future liability is approximately $6.2 million; the fund balance is only\nabout 20% of what it should be; the fund was in the negative in Fiscal Year 2009-2010.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether risk management works the same way, to which\nthe Controller responded in the affirmative.\nThe Acting City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the net negative has been on going for\nover six years.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether workers compensation and risk management are\npart of cost allocation.\nThe Controller responded an estimate is made every year and allocated to each\ndepartment; stated a temporary negative balance would result if claims come in higher;\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n5\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 6, "text": "staff reviews the issue every year and cost allocations are adjusted.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether adjustments have not been made for the last six\nyears, to which the Acting City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta concurred with Councilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner Johnson regarding having an early preview workshop in the fall;\ninquired whether any plans are being made to increase ambulance billing collection.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he cannot guarantee\nincreased collection this year; staff has been working hard to improve record keeping.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated another inspection concept would be\ncoming to Council, which could generate approximately $100,000 per year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a conscious decision has\nbeen made to lease big apparatus over the last two years; inquired whether support\nvehicles are purchased, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated procurement for the next\ntwo years is aggressive.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated a report was provided several months ago outlining\nfinancing options; fire trucks and engines need to be replaced on a scheduled basis to\navoid passing their useful life.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the former Interim\nFinance Director alerted Council to the workers compensation deficit; a policy needs to\nbe established so that the same situation does not happen again.\nThe Controller stated having a fund with a deficit for one year is okay, but becomes a\nproblem over multiple years.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated a policy needs to be in\nplace; a budget should not be balanced by not contributing to funds.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated a policy could be brought to Council.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Council wants to\nestablish separate funding to build up revenue for vehicle replacement and workers\ncompensation; getting away from leasing vehicles would be good.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff would bring back a policy for review in\nSeptember; the vehicle replacement fund would be completely wiped out if expensive\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n6\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 7, "text": "vehicles were purchased, not leased.\nThe Controller stated the terms of a lease would not exceed the useful life of the\nequipment.\nSpeakers: Barbara Kahn, Alameda; Honora Murphy, Alameda; Kate Quick, Alameda;\nGeorge Phillips, Alameda; Rudy Rebago, Alameda; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation; Lois Pryor, Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht; Mike Henneberry,\nAlameda; David Connolly, Alameda; Kathy Moehring, Alameda; Judi Friedman, West\nAlameda Business Association; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; Adam Gillitt, Alameda;\nRosemary McNally, Alameda; Bruce Knopf, Alameda; and Alan Pryor, Alameda.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation on the Fa\u00e7ade Grant.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether there would be no guarantee for replenishment if\nthe entire $250,000 were budgeted; further inquired whether three years would be\ncovered by lowering the amount spent annually, to which the Deputy City Manager\nresponded three full years and a partial fourth year would be covered [at the proposed\nlower budget amount].\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated twenty projects are cued up; only half would be funded by\nsplitting the money; businesses have already paid designers and architects.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated that she assumes the\nChamber of Commerce and Greater Alameda Business Association are on the same\npage as other business associations; she supports accelerating the use of funds and\ncontinuing to look for funding sources.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated twenty projects could be funded with the $250,000.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated the City has to put its best foot forward because of the\nheavy competition for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory project.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated the economy is down and difficult right now;\nprices are lower; there are more than adequate reasons to accelerate funding.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the issue could be revisited next year.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she is in favor of moving forward and getting through\nthe projects in the cue.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the $250,000\nis available now, to which the Deputy City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n7\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether projects in the\ncue would use most of the $250,000.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the money would cover fifteen to twenty projects;\nstated staff would pursue grants.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta stated that he is supportive of taking\nadvantage of lower costs; he is worried about the lack of on-going funding for the\nprogram; inquired how the program would continue.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded staff does not have a detailed plan; stated Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center (FISC) lease revenue funds that have been kept available in\ncase something happens to the warehouses could be used.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether a finite time limit has\nalways been assumed for the program.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded staff has always assumed that another funding\nsolution would be needed.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the program has always been successful and money\nhas been well spent; staff is working on an alternative but cannot promise that a solution\nwill be found down the road; the City does not have a lot of unrestricted funds.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the $250,000 leverages\na lot of money from the private sector; inquired how much money [for projects] comes\nfrom businesses and building owners.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded that she does have said information at this time\nbut it would be provided.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated the she is hearing a consensus to go ahead and spend the\nmoney aggressively and try and take care of as many of projects in the cue as possible;\nprovided direction to increase the fa\u00e7ade grant program to $250,000.\n*\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 9:00 p.m. and\nreturned at 9:02\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Alameda's reserves are\nat the lower end compared to other cities.\nThe Controller stated Alameda has a fair amount of reserves; however, the chart\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n8\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 9, "text": "indicates that the City has a long way to go.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Other Post Employment\nBenefits (OPEB) have increased ten percent over the last year; inquired whether said\nincrease is noted in the budget.\nThe Controller responded page A-1 notes contributions; stated contributions jump from\n$2.3 million in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to $2.7 million in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and to $3\nmillion in Fiscal Year 2012-2013.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he has yet to see\none-time dollars being used at such a high rate.\nThe Controller stated the City has a significant deficit issue; trying to do all the cuts in\none year would be dramatic; one time revenues and a small portion of reserves would\nbe used.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that she requested five and ten percent cuts\nCitywide; the community has not had an opportunity to provide input regarding cuts;\nusing one time sources would provide a method of transitioning to a lower level of\nservice while planning more appropriately for the future.\nThe Controller stated staff has been upfront regarding using one time funds; a five-year\nforecast has been provided; the deficit jumps so much in Fiscal Year 2013 because one\ntime funds would not be available in 2013.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City threshold of\nhaving 20% in reserves would erode by next year; that he does not see the economy\nchanging quickly; opening up the next budget dialogue needs to be done soon; the\nestimated increase in revenue for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 is 1% and expenses are 1.3%,\nwhich is not in character with past budgets.\nThe Controller stated the reason for the small revenue increase is primarily due to\nproperty taxes; foreclosures are still happening; the property tax increase would be\nminimal.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she disagrees with\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan; commended staff for fixing\nsome prior budget problems; stated the former City Manager forgot to pay $1.3 million\nin debt and also forgot to pay the County for the administration of collecting property\ntaxes; stated using one-time fees for a one time event is appropriate; a 21% reserve is\ncommendable given the changes the City is going through; service cuts are going to be\nreal and hard for the community; concessions need to be appreciated; the City is very\nreliant on property taxes as a revenue source; the City will be stuck without diversifying\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n9\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 10, "text": "its revenue portfolio; Pleasanton relies less on property taxes.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated the City is over reliant on property taxes;\nthe City has never recovered from the loss of business at the former Naval Air Station;\nthe City can grow at the former Naval Air Station and other commercial, industrial, and\noffice park areas; the Assistant City Manager and Controller worked hard to avoid\ndipping into the reserves; reserves are a rainy day fund; the economy is the worst since\nthe 1930's; some cities have used reserves during spiking revenue periods; the City\nneeds economic growth.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta thanked staff for all the hard work;\nstated that he is proud to have a balanced budget and healthy reserve; many past,\nunhealthy practices are being discontinued; moved adoption of the budget resolutions.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Johnson stated that she has been reluctant to use one\ntime funds; the City has faced a number of years of bad economy; public services have\nbeen severely cut; the use of one time funds is reasonable for now in order to avoid\neven more cuts; seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor/Chair Gilmore thanked staff for the hard work and willingness\nto work in a cooperative manner and continuing to enhance the budget format; stated\nthe document is more readable; that she supports using one time funds now but would\nnot support using a significant amount of fund balance to balance next year's budget.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated staff would start working\non next year's budget in a few weeks; everyone understands that the process does not\nend tonight.\nThe Controller inquired whether direction to raise the Fa\u00e7ade Program to $250,000 is\npart of the motion or would be done administratively, to which Mayor/Chair Gilmore\nresponded direction has been given to raise the amount.\nOn\nthe call for the question, the motion on the Proposition 4 Resolution carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nOn the call for the question, the motion on the budget resolutions carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners Bonta,\nJohnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 4. Abstention: Councilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner deHaan - 1.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated next year's budget\nprocess needs to start now; the nation is struggling; the City will be feeling the heavy\nhanded cuts made by the State.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n10\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 11, "text": "The Assistant City Manager thanked staff for all of the hard work in preparing the\nbudget.\nThe Controller gave a brief presentation on the Master Fee Resolution.\nSpeaker: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nIn response to Ms. Gottstein's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the scofflaw fee involves\nfees issued when a parking ticket is not paid.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the master fee resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(11-344 CC) Discuss and Consider Taking a Position on the Audit Legislation (SB 186,\n449; AB 187, 229, 253).\nMayor Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City Auditor has reviewed the issue, to\nwhich Mayor Gilmore stated that she has no idea.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City Auditor should be in the loop.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City Auditor is participating through an\nauditor association group.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded that she does not know; stated Council adopted\na Legislative policy that allows Council to oppose unfunded mandates on the City;\nCouncil can comment on the bills if so inclined.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the League of California Cities has taken a\nposition on the matter.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the League wants the bills to match up with the\nLeague's principles.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the legislation would apply to Charter cities,\nto which Councilmember Tam responded two of the auditors are from Charter cities.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Charter cities need to be more vigilant about pushing\nback on Charter authority violations; following up and commenting on the matter would\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n11\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 12, "text": "be good and should be brought back to Council.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would like the City Auditor to join with other city\nauditors to comment on the matter.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff could refer the matter to the City Auditor and\nsend a letter from the Mayor on behalf of the Council with suggestions made by the\nBerkeley and Oakland City Auditors.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Auditor could provide an Off Agenda Report, to\nwhich the Assistant City Manager responded that she would ask.\nThe City Manager stated that he would be meeting with the City Treasurer and City\nAuditor on Friday and would discuss the matter with them.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated having the City Auditor join with other city auditors in creating\na course of voices saying the same thing would be powerful; that he would like the City\nAuditor to sign a letter, if he so agrees.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that the City Auditor could be requested to weigh in\non the matter.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated feedback can include language about not applying to\nCharter cities under the Constitution.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated other Charter cities should be encouraged to put similar\nlanguage in their communications; inquired why the State thinks it knows more about\nbudgeting than local governments.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:38\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n12\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}