pages: CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-04-29 | 8 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of pay go, to which the Assistant City Manager responded pay go has nothing to do with salaries; stated it is the amount the City pays on an annual basis for retirees. Councilmember Daysog stated pay go does not help buy down the unfunded liability; the unfunded liability is the difference between the pay go amount and what the City really should be paying for the liability. Mayor Spencer stated there were two votes by the City Council in closed session; the first unanimous vote was to continue with negotiations; at a subsequent meeting, there was another vote on a tentative agreement; Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie voted to proceed, Councilmember Daysog abstained and she voted no. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the second vote was Council direction to negotiate on the terms. The City Manager concurred with what was said; stated the unanimous voice was to begin formal negotiations; the 3-1-1 vote was on the general terms. Mayor Spencer stated Council saw the actual red line proposal for the first time when it was made public. The Assistant City Manager stated the term sheet outlined everything included in the red line. The City Manager noted 15 day notice is 5 times longer than what is required under State law. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated getting complete unanimity is difficult; the question is what course of action is best for the City; there is not a magic solution; public safety understands this is the beginning of the road; questioned whether the debt should be allowed to continue to grow when the City has a solution now; stated people have argued the MOUs could have gone further; public safety came to the table even though the current MOUs do not expire for two years; waiting for the contracts to expire would be rolling the dice and the City would lose the agreed upon contributions; more changes will be explored going forward; creating a hostile environment would be a loss; that she would like a task force, similar to the fiscal sustainability and OPEB, convened; letting the opportunity pass would be a shame; that she supports going forward with the MOUs. Councilmember Daysog stated the topic is very important; that he does not see anything magical about making a decision tonight; the City could hold off for four weeks to vet issues raised by the City Auditor and Treasurer; that he would like time to look at a suggestion he has; he did not support the matter in the closed session because he wanted more information; that he has been seeking a comprehensive plan on the unfunded liability; spectacular detailed information has been provided, including the 30 Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 29, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf |