pages: CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf, 21
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 21 | provided. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from the primary job, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures show approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired whether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount. The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated W-2's have not been received from the Peralta Community College District; $2,900 is an estimate. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for actual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Commissioner Daysog's inquiry regarding the income threshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager stated the income threshold is $83,800. Chair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in the application package. The Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient information was available to determine that the Rutledge's income was over the threshold; the Rutledge's only provided information regarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City inquired whether the Rutledge's wished to submit additional information; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005 income tax returns, and W-2's would be requested if the determination process were starting now. Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security Administration overtime communication occurred. The Development Services Director responded the Rutledge's wanted to dispense with any overtime in order to qualify stated the City requested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the City determined that overtime could occur. Commissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the first group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that an evaluation would not be made initially. The Development Services Director responded all applicants are Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |