pages: CityCouncil/2011-05-31.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2011-05-31 | 4 | opposition. There was discussion of using the $2.7 million in proceeds from land sales. In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about the $1.3 million in omitted expenses outlined in slide 11, the Controller responded that he does not expect to find any more surprises. Mayor Gilmore stated there is clear direction approving use of one-time funds. There was discussion of use of fund balance and objection to using fund balance for FY 12-13. Councilmember deHaan provided a handout on budget issues. Following discussion, Mayor Gilmore stated that she heard consensus that the Council is grudgingly okay with using $814,000 from fund balance; the Councilmembers concurred. Mayor Gilmore addressed the proposals involving employees on slide 23; stated that she supports addressing the deficits with employee unions; employees should be engaged and might have creative solutions to solve problems; all options should be reviewed; the City should not be limited and should include creative ideas; noted Council concurred. In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding the savings from closing Friday, the Acting City Manager stated the savings are marginal; efficiency is an issue; skeleton crews on Friday cause difficulties serving the public. Mayor Gilmore addressed increasing taxes [listed on slide 24]; stated the property transfer tax was recently increased and should be off the table; staff indicated a survey would be done, which is fine and would provide valuable information; increasing existing taxes is not as a high priority as other things discussed; getting more information from polling would help Council decide how, and if, the City should go forward. Councilmember Tam stated that she would focus on things that give the biggest bang for the buck; the Utility Users Tax might be worth reviewing; encouraged focusing on getting property conveyed and on the tax roll. Mayor Gilmore addressed other revenue generation options [listed on slide 25]; stated polling would be done; that she doubts the public has an appetite for a parcel tax, but having the information would be good; doing the fee study is fine; addressed franchise taxes; stated that she would direct staff to go forward and work on the two areas [fee study and franchise fees]. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission May 31, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-05-31.pdf |