1. finance

RULES COMMITTEE: 02-24-12
Item: E
CITY OF ~
SAN JOSE
Memorandum
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: Honorable Mayor &
City Council
SUBJECT: The Public Record
February 17 - 23, 2012
FROM: Dennis Hawldns, CMC
City Clerk
DATE: February 24, 2012
ITEMS TRANSMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Memorandum to City Clerk Dennis Hawldns from Finance Director Julia Cooper dated
February 6, 2012 regarding Public Record Director’s TEFRA Public Hearing.
Letter to Mayor Reed and the City Council from Dr. Lawrence Ames, San Jose
Neighborhoods Commission, District 6, dated February 20, 2012 regarding
Restructuring City Commissions.
Letter to Mayor Reed and the City Council from Brian Darrow, Chair of the Housing
and Community Development Advisory Commission, dated February 23, 2012
regarding Potential Consolidation of Boards and Commissions.
Letter to Mayor Reed and City Council fi’om David Wall dated February 22, 2012
regarding "$650 Million (or higher) ’estimate’ of pension costs not incorporated into
public documents, why?"
Letter to Mayor Reed and City Council dated February 22, 2012 regarding "PreTreatment Program needs reorganization, new management. ESD should be
reorganized."
Letter to Mayor Reed and City Council from David Wall dated February 22, 2012
regarding "(Week #8): Citizens ’apologies’ to venerable and Honorable City Attorney
at ’RULES’."
Letter to Mayor Reed and City Council fi’om David Wall dated February 22, 2012
regarding "Are Community Centers the new ’gulags’ or worse, ’death camps’ for the
aged and informed?"
Letter to Mayor Reed and City Council from David Wall dated February 23, 2012
regarding "Airport teetering on financial doom, high fuel prices and lower than
predicted air travel cited."
Letter to Mayor Reed and City. Council from David Wall dated February 23, 2012
regarding "Please post contract services agreement with Downtown Business
Association."
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
February 24, 2012
Subject: The Public Record: February 17 - 23, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Dennis Hawkins, CMC
City Clerk
DH/tld
Distribution:
Mayor/Council
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to City Manager
Council Liaison
Director of Planning
City Attorney
Director of Transportation
Public Information Officer
San Jos6 Mercury News
Library
Director of Public Works
City Auditor
Director of Finance
PUBLIC RECORD_
CITY Ol~ ~
SAN JOSE
Memorandum
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: Dennis D. Hawkh~s, CMC
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Public Record
Director’s TEFRA Public Hearing
FROM: Julia H, Cooper
DATE: February 6, 2012
Attached is Certificate No. 2012-1, Meeting Report, signdn sheet, agenda packet and Notice of
Public Hearing for the Director’s TEFRA Public Hearing of February 2, 2012, as requested by
City of San Jos~ as Issuer. The hearing was published and the agenda was posted as required by
law.
Please file.as part of the public record. If you have any questions, please call Peter Detlefs at
extension 57015.
H. COOPER
Director of Finance
Attachments
Arn Andrews, Finance Department
Maria ~)berg, Finance Department
Charlene Sun, Finance Department
Peter Detlefs, Finance Department
Patty Deignan, City Attorney’s Office
Paul Lippm"t, Housing Department
Isaac Orona, Housing Department
Certificate No. 2012-1
of the
MAYOR
The undersigned, Chuck Reed, Mayor of the City of Sar~ Josd (the "City"), hereby
certifies as follows:
1. I am the Mayor of the City, duly elected by the people of the City.
2. Pursuant to Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"),
I am the chief elected executive officer of the City, and, as such, Imn the "applicable elected
representative" of the City authorized to approve the issuance of bonds by or on behalf of the City.
3; The City of San Josd (the "City") proposes to issue an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $53,500,000 of its revenue bonds, designated as City of San Josd Multifamily
Housing Revenue Bonds (La Moraga Apm’tments) (the "BOnds"), to finance the costs of the
construction by St. Anton Capitol, LLC, (the "Borrower") of a 275-unit housing project (a por’tion.
of the housing units is affordable to lower-income and/or very low-income residents) to be located
at the so.utheast corner of Raleigh Road and Charlotte Drive in tl~e City of San Josd !the "Project").
4. The City caused to be published on January 13, 2012 in the San Jose Mercmy
News, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, a notice of a public hearing to be held at San
Josd City Hall on February 2, 20t2, at 11:00 a.m, concerning the issuance of the Bonds, all in
accordance with the requirements of Section 147(0 of the Cod&
5. On February 2, 2012, the Director of Finance, pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 5.06.430, held a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code at which
hearing interested persons were given an oppo~tmity to express their views for or against the
issuance of the Bonds and on the nature and location of the Project.
6. I have been provided with a summm’y of the hearing and information
concerning the Project and the Bonds.
7. Pursuantto Section 147(f) of the Code, I hereby approve the issuance of an
aggregate principal mnount not to exceed $53,500,000 of the Bonds by the City.
8. This action is taken expressly for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code and
nothing contained herein shall be construed to signify that the Project complies with flaeplanning,
zoning, subdivision and building laws and ordinances applicable thereto or to suggest that the City
or any officer or agent of the City will grant any such approval, consent or permit that may be
required in connection with the Project, or that the City will make any expenditures, incm" any
indebtedness or proceed with the financing of the Project.
Executed this _~ day of Febmea’y, 2012,
CHUCK REED
Mayor of the City of San Jos~
179711
1
crI’Y OI~ ~
Memorandum
SAN JOSE
CAPITAL OD SILICON VALLEY
CITY OF SAN JOSE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR’S TEFRA PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING REPORT
Februa~T 2, 2012
CaLl to Order
Hearing Officer Julia H. Cooper, Acting Director of Finance, called the meeting to order at.
11:03 a,m.
Present:
Staff:
Julia H. Cooper (Acting Director of Finance)
Arn Andrews (Acting Assistant Director of Finance)
Peter Detlefs (Financial Analyst)
Steve Peters (Financial Analyst)
Janet Shum (Analyst)
Patty Deignan (Chief Deputy City Attorney)
Isaac Orona (Development Officer)
All Others:
Trisha Malone (St. Anton Partners)
Megan Quisenberry (St. Anton Partners)
2. Minutes
Minutes of previous meeting of December 12, 2011- were noted and filed.
3. TEFRA Hearing Requirements
Pursuant to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 ("TEFRA"), where a
project is to be financed by the sale of certain tax exempt b6nds, a noticed public hearing
must be held to receive public comment on the proposed issuance of bonds or the location
and nature of the facilities to be financed. The hearing must be held in a location convenient
to the project by the local agency whose jurisdiction the project lies within. The applicable
elected official for that agency must then approve the issuance of bonds for the purposes of
TEFRA.
City of San Jos6 Finance Depm’tment
Director’s TEFRA Public Hearing
Februat3z 2, 2012
Page 2
4. Public TEFRA Hearing
Pursuant to TEFRA, a properly noticed public hem’ing was held at San Jos6 City Hall on
February 2, 2012 regarding the proposed issuances, by the City of San Jos6 (the "City"); of
Mtdtifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in a maximum aggregate face atnom~ts not to exceed
the following:
Name:
La Moraga Apartments
Location:
Southeast corner of Raleigh.Road and Charlotte Drive, San
Josr, CA 95123
Bond Amount;
$53,500,000
Proceeds fi’om the sale of the proposed bonds will be used to provide financing for the
construction of the project.
No members of the public were present at the hearing. Ms. Cooper asked if any parties
present wished to provide comments or present petitions. No patties Nesent iMicated a
desire to provide comments,
5, Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a,m.
6. Certificate
Certificate No. 2012-1 approving the issuance has been prepm’ed for the Mayor’s signature
pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 147(f). This certificate, staff recommendations,
and the public comment or petitions, if any, will be provided to the Mayor. Upon execution,
the certificate will be filed with the City Clerk.
~cer
lI C
J LIA H. COOPer of Finance
0
o
©
0
o
o
0
00
0
~
o
0
Oi
0
o
o
0
_o
0
0
0
_o
DECLARATION NO. 2012-1
A DECLARATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND THE DIRECTOR OF
HOUSING OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE EXPRESSING ITS INTENT TO ISSUE TAX
EXEMPT DEBT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS
(LA MORAGA APARTMENTS)
WHEREAS, the City of San Josd (the "City") is authorized by Chapter,7 of Part 5 of Division
31 of the Health and Safety Code Of the State of California, as amended (the "Act"), to issue and
sell revenue bonds for the purpose of providing financing for the construction of La Moraga
Apartments by private developers of multifamily rental housing facilities located within the City
of San Jos~, .California, a portion of which to be occupied by lower-income and/or very lowincome tenants; and
WHEREAS, St. Anton Capitol, LLC (the "Developer"), the proposed developer of a 275-unit
housing project to be located at the souttieast comer of Raleigh Road and Charlotte Drive in the
City of San Jos~ (the "Project") has requested the City to issue revenue bonds (the "Bonds")
pm’suant to the Act for the purpose of financing the construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City has
been published, to the effect that a public heea’ing would be held by the City’s Director of
Finance on February 2, 2012, regarding the issuance of the Bonds by the City and the nature and
location of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the interest on Bonds the City intends to issue to assist in flae financing of the
construction of the Project would be excluded fi’omgross income for federal income tax
purposes; and
WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1,150~2 provides generally that
proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for
reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless cetXain
procedures are followed, among which is a requirement that (with certain exceptions), prior to
the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer must deelare an intention to reimburse such
expenditure (the "Declm’ation"); and
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be considered to be "qualified exempt facility bonds" under Section
147’(f) of the Code provided the "applicable elected representative" with respect to the City holds
a public hearing on the Project to be constructed by the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, the elected legislative body of the City; has authorized the
Director of Finance and the Director of Housing by Municipal Code Chapter 5,06, Part 4, to
apply for private activity bond allocation for the Project from the California Debt Limit
Allocation Committee ("CDLAC"),
NOW THEREFORE, THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND THE DIRECTOR OF
HOUSING DO HEREBY RESOLVE,~ ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, The City intends to issue the Bonds in aprincipal amount not }o exceed
$53,500,000,00 for the purpose of paying the costs of financing the construction of the Project,
SECTION 2, The Director of Finance and the Director of Housing shall take all the
actions appropriate to obtain allocation for the issuance of private activity bonds from CDLAC in
the amount not to exceed $53,500,000,00 (the "Allocation").
SECTION 3, The Dire ctor of Finance aM the Director of Housing hereby declm’e that it
reasonably expects that a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used for reimbursement of
expenditures for the construction of the Project that are. paid before the date of initial execution
and delivery of the Bonds. The maximum amount of proceeds of the bonds to be used for
reimbursement of expenditures for the construction of the Projeetis $53,500,000.00.
SECTION 4. The adoption of this Declaration is solely for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of the Tax Law Reimbursement Provisions and the Code and shall not be construed
in any other manner, neither the City nor its staff having fully reviewed or considered the
financial, feasibility of the Project or ~he expected operation of the Project with regards to any
State of California statutory requirements. Such adoption shall not obligate without further
fm~al action to be taken by the City Council, including, but not limited to, the approval of the
financing documents by the City Council by resolution, (i) the City to provide financing to the
Developer for the construction of the project or to issue tl~e Bonds or taxable obligations for
purposes of such financing; or.(ii) the City, or any department of the City, to approve any
application or request for, or take any other action in connection with, any .envirormmntal,
General Plan, zoning or any other permit or other action necessary for the rehabilitation or
operation of the Project.
EXECUTED this ~]__ day of January, 2012,
%~et~o~’0f Housi~
’ ~ting Dire~tor of~{~ance
CITY OP ~
SAN JOSE
Memorandum
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
JULIA H. COOPER
SUBJECT: TEFRA HEARING­
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS
FROM: Janet Shum
DATE: FebruaE¢ 2, 2012
The Finance Director’s TEFRA Hearing for the Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for La
Moraga Apartments is.held on February 2, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Room T-1254 at City Hall.
This Hearing is held in accordance with the City Council’s Delegation of Authority, as approved
by the City Council on June 11, 2002, and documented in Ordinance No. 26657.
To provide background on the proposed issuance, we have assembled the items listed below for
yore’ review and reference. Additionally, a representative fi’om the Housing Department will be
available at the Heating to answer questions fi’om the public about the project.
1, Agenda
2, Agenda with your script
3, Minutes of Previous Heating (Decelnber 12, 20i 1)
4, Notice of Public Hearing in the San Jose Mercwy News
’ 0115’ OF
SANJOSE
~APiTAL OF SILICON VALLEY
SAN JOSE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FINANCE DIRECTOR’S TEFRA HEARING
San Josa City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street, Room T-1254
San Jos~, CA 95113-1905
Meeting Agenda
Febmat~¢ 2, 2012, 11:00 a.m.
Julia H. Cooper, Acting Director of Finance
1, Call to Order
2, Minutes
3. Public Hearing
The public hearing is required by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
("TEFRA") to provide an opportmfity for the public to comment on the proposed bond
issuance. Following consideration of oral petitions and staffrecommendation, the Mayor
of San Jos~ will execute a certificate indicating that the hearing was held for the
following project and the certificate will be filed with the City Clerk.
Name:
Location:
Developer:
Issuer:
Bond Amount:
La Moraga Apartments
Southeast corner of Raleigh Road and Charlotte Drive, San
Jos~, CA 95123
St. Anton Capitol, LLC
City of San Josd
$53,500;000
4. Oral Petitions
5. Adjom’nment
200 E, Santa Clara 8L 13t~ Floor, San Jos~, CA 95113-1905 tel (408) 535-7010 fax (408) 292-6482 www.sanjoseea.gov
CITY 01~ ~
SAN JOSE
F~nance Department
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
SAN JOSE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FINANCE DIRECTOR’S TEFRA HEARING
San Josd City Hall
200 East Sama Clara Street, Room T-1254
San Josd, CA 95113-1905
Meeting Agenda
February 2, 2012, 11:00 a.m.
Julia H. Cooper, Acting Director of Finance
1. Callto Order
Minutes
Note and file minutes of December 12, 2011.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
3. Public Hearing
The noticed public hearing is required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 as amended, The hearing is on the proposed bond issuance, by the City of San Jos~
(the. "City"), of tax-exempt Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. Proceeds fi’om the sale
of the proposed bonds will be used to provide financing for the construction of the
following project:
Name:
Location:
La Moraga Apamnents
Located at the South East Corner of Raleigh Road and Charlotte
Drive, San Jose, CA 95123
Bond Amount:
$53,500,000
The City may consider adoption of a bond sale resolution in 2012 providing for the sale
of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for La Moraga Apartments. Any conmaents
provided at this hearing will be made available to the City Council prior to taking action
on bond sale resolution..
200 E. Santa Clara St. 13t~ Floor, San Jos6, CA 95113-1905 tel (408) 535-7010 fax (408) 292-6482 www.sanjoseca.gov
TEFRA Hearing
Febt~aary 2, 2012
Page 2
If there are parties present who wish to voice flleir opinion and provide comments on the
proposed issuance of bonds, I would ask that they be recognized now by raising their
hand,
4. Oral Petitions
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
5. Adjournlnent
200 E, Santa Clara St. 13t~’ Floor, San Jos6, CA 95113-1905 tel (408) 535-7010 fax (408) 292-6482 www.sanjoseoa.gov
CITY O~ ~
Memorandum
SANIOSE
CAPI’IAL O}~ SILICON VALLEY
CITY OF SAN JOSE FINANCE ])EPARTMENT
DII~ECTOR’S TEFRA PUBLIC HEARING
MEETING REPORT
Decen,~ber 125 2011
Call to Order
Hearing Officer Julia H. Cooper, Acth~g Director of Fhaance, called the meeting to order at
10:04 a.m.
2, Minutes
Minutes of previous meeth~g of September !4, 2011 were noted and filed.
3, TEFRA Heariug Requh’ements
Pursuant to the Tax Equity and FisoaI Responsibility Ao~ of i982 ("TEFRA"), where a
wojeet is to be financed by the sale of cel~ai~ tax exempt bonds, a noticed publte hearing
must be held to recolve public comment on the proposed ism~ance of bonds or the location
and nature of the facilities to be finemced. Tl~e hem’tng must be held J~ a. location ¢onvenlent
to the project by the local agency whose jt~risdiotton the project lies within. The applicable
elected official for that agency must then approve fl~e issuance of bonds for the put, poses of
TEFRA.
4. Public TEFRA Itearing . ~
Pursuant to TEFRA, a p,’operIy noticed public hearing was held at San Jos6 ~ty Hall on
December 12, 2011 regarding the proposed issuemces, by ,he City of San Jos6.(the "City"); of
Multlfamily Hm;shag Revenue Bonds.in amaximum aggregate face amounts not to exceed
the following:
Name’,
Location:
Developer:
isstler’,
Bond Amotmt:
Name:
Location:
First and Rosemary Fmnily Apartments
66, 80 East Roseanary Street, San Josd, CA 95112
Fh’st and Rosemary Family Housing L.P., a California Limited
Partnership
City of San Jos~
$36,000,000
First and Rosemary Senior Apa,t~ments
North First Street and East Rosemary Street, San Jos~, CA
95112
Developer:.
Issuer:
Bond Amount:
Fia’st mad Rosema13r Senior Honslng L.P., a Califol:nia Limited
Partnerstfip
City of San Jos6
$15,500,000
Proceeds fi’om the.sale of the proposed bonds will be used lo provide fin!toeing tbr ttle
construction of the projects. TEFRA hear’hags for the First ancl Rosemary Fatnily Apartments
project, were previously held on December 9, 2008 find March 10, 2011; 0nd a TEFRA
hear’hag for the Ffl’st and Rosemary Senior Apartments project was previously heldon
December 9, 2008,
~
No members of tlm public were present at lhe heating, Ms. Cooper asked if any pm~ies
present wished to provide comments or present petitions. No pa~’ties Wesent iud[cated a
desire to provide comments.
Adjom’nment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06
Certificate
Certificate No. 2011-5 and No, 2011-6 approving flaese issugrmes taave been prepared ~br the
Mayor’s signature pursuant to Internal Revenue CodeScotlon 147(~. These certificates, staff’ ­
reoo~endafions, mad the publ~, comment or petitions,
Mayor. Upon execution, fl~e cer~i~eates w~t be filed with ~he City Clerk.
Dkector of Finance
Notice of Public Hearing
NOTIC~ IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Jos~’s Finance Depat~nent, at: an open session~
on Februaz3r 2, 2012 at 11:00 AM will hold a public hearing on the intent by tlte City of San JosO
(tl~e ."city") to issue tax-exempt multi-family 1~ousing revenue bonds £or ~e constrttcfion of the
followh~g project:
PROJECT/UNITS
La Moraga Apar~nents.
275 Unit Development
LOCATION
Located at
SoUth East Co~ne~"
of Raleigh Road
and Chca’lotte
Drive, San Jose,
CA
DEV./O .WNF~. ~
Developer’, St.’Anton
Capitol~ LLC
AMOUNT
853,500,000,00
Owner: La Moraga San Jose,
AI[ ~ose interested in matte~’s related {o either the ~ssuance of the bonds or ~he location or
operation of ~e projects are i~vited ’to attend and be heardat the open session, wl~ich Will
co~unence at 11:00 AM, and wffi be held in T-[1254, at .200 E. Santa Clara Street of the City of
San Jos~, Callfor~ia 95113. If you have troy questions with respect to this matter, please catl J.
PauI Lippert, Senior’ Development Officer, Depa~’~dnt of Housing of fl~e City of San Jos6, at
(408) 975-4443
Dated: Ja~-tt~aJ:y 5, 2012
Dennis Hawl~ins, City Clerk
City of San Jos6, California
(To be published no later than January 13, 2012)
Sail Jose Me ’cury Hews
750 RIDDER PARK DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95190
408-920-~332
¯PROOF OF PUBLICATION
INTHE
OITY OF 8AN JOSE,
8TATI~ OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SAN JOSE,CITY OF
OFFICE THE CITY GROUP/RIEBECCA,200 E SANTA
CLARA STREET,2ND FLOOR
San Jose CAF~IS~I~o. S.Guzzetta
In the matter of
The 8an Jose Mercury News
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says; Thal at
all limes hereinafter mentioned afliant was and still Is a citizen of
the United States, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to or Interested in the above entitled proceedings; and was at and
during all said times and 8till Is the principal .clerk of the printer, and
publisher of the San Jose Mercury News, a newspaper of generaf
circulation printed and published dally In the olty of San Jose In
said County of Santa Clara, State of California as determined by
the cotlrt’s decree dated J[lne 27, ’1952, case numbers 84096 and
84097, and ~hat said San Jose Mercury News Is and was at all
times herein mentioned a newspaper of general circulalion as that
term Is defined by Sections 6000 and following, of the Government
Code of the State of California and, as provided by said sections, Is
published for the’ dissemination of local or telegraphic news and
intelligence of a general character, having a bona fide subscription
list of paying subscribers, and Is not devoted to theinterests or
published for the entertainment or Instruction of a particular class,
professional, trade, calling, race or denomlnatlon,.or for the
entertainment and instruction of any number of such cl~,sses,
pr0fesslonals, trades, callings, races or denominations; that at all
times said newspaper has been established, prlnled and published
in the aald city of San Jose In said County and State at regular
intervals for more than one year preceding the first publication of
the notice herein menlioned. Said decree has not been revoked,
vacated or set aside,
I declare lhat the notice, of which the annexed Is a true printed
copy, has b.een published In each regular or entire issue of said
newspaper and not In any supplement thereof on the following
dates, to
Dated at San Jose, California
01P13/t2
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and
correct,
Signed .... £ .~,.~(~C-’~’4k.~;’{~L~L/~"-~
Principal clerk of the printer and publisher of the 8an Jose Mercury
News.
Legal No..
0004296324
REOEIVEI~
8an,Jdse Olty Olerk
71]l,Z. JAN I"8,
PUBLIC RECORD b~ ....
RECEIVED
San Jose City Clerk
February 20, 2012
Mayor Chuck Reed
City of San Jos~
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, CA 95113-1905
cc:
~
Councilmembers
Dennis Hawkins, San Jos~ City Clerk
re: Restructuring City Commissions
Dear Mayor Reed,
When you consider the forthcoming recommendations on city commissions, I urge you to
adopt those measures that will preserve or enhance the public’s engagement in our city.
About two years ago, San Jos~ initiated an innovative experiment, the Neighborhoods
Commission, to better involve the residents in the shaping of our city. We on the Commission
were selected by the communities themselves and were tasked to serve as a conduit of the
public’s interests and concerns to the city leaders, and also as a way for the City to communicate
with its residents. As one of the Commissioners representing District 6, I have passed along to
the various neighborhood leaders your concerns and recommendations on the city’s budget, and I
have told you of their concerns and the need to preserve a balance between neighborhood
services - community centers and local libraries - and the fire and police.
The Neighborhoods Commission is in a trial period and is to be evaluated at the end of
two years. The City Clerk has been directed to review it, and to review the other city
commissions at the same time. A set of recommendations have been developed that you and the
City Council will soon be reviewing. A number of these recommendations are quite reasonable
and ones I support: finding commonality in agenda formats and bylaws, introductory training for
new commissioners, and possibly eliminating those commissions that haven’t found the need to
meet in a number of years. However, there are two major points to which, speaking for myself, I
have strong objections: (1) the sunsetting of the Neighborhoods Commission, and (2) the
consolidation of other commissions.
The Neighborhoods Commission:
The chart package publicly presented lists the commissions that are recommended for
preservation, consolidation, or elimination, but the Neighborhoods Commission isn’t even
mentioned. When pressed on this omission, the explanation given was that the point was moot
since the Neighborhoods Commission, after its two-year run, was to "sunset". That is not the
case. I have been on the Neighborhoods Commission since the beginning, and have worked with
the community activists who worked for years beforehand to bring the Neighborhoods
Commission into reality: after two years there is to be a revisiting of the Commission’s format
and charter, but not an end to its very existence.
I personally feel that the Neighborhoods Commission has not been as useful as it could
be. We have helped inform the communities about the budget issues, we have served as a
"sounding board" for city departments wishing to gauge the community response to proposals
such as community notification policies, tree maintenance, and community policing, and we
have written to you and the Council about issues such as the need to maintain communitysupport services. But I feel we could do more. When I served on the Board of the Willow Glen
Neighborhood Association, we helped bring a number of issues to the City’s attention, resulting
in the "Flag Lot" policy, policies to stop unpermitted tree removal and drive-through businesses
in residential neighborhoods, the "24 Hour" policy, and the "Monster House" policy. There
remain many issues that affect neighborhoods across the city, and the Neighborhoods
Commission would be a perfect forum at which to discuss them: the implementing and enforcing
of the city’s Riparian ("streamside") Corridor Setback Policy, developing design guidelines for
the interface between high-density/commercial "Main Street" developments and the surrounding
neighbors, discussions on Bus Rapid Transit and "Grand Boulevards", and more. But we on the
Neighborhoods Commission have been hobbled: our charter precludes us from discussing topics
that even might fall under the purview of other Commissions. Thus, even though the Parks and
the Planning Commissions are principally involved in specific issues such as whether a given
project is appropriate for its parcel rather than the more global issues like the definitions of
setbacks and development interfaces, we can’t discuss those topics because they conceivably
might.
Perhaps the structure of the Neighborhoods Commission could be improved: with thirty
Commissioners, it can sometimes get a little unwieldy. Additionally, the process of calling a
district-wide neighborhood caucus each time there’s a Commission vacancy could be
streamlined, and a procedure to train and recruit community activists willing to serve on
commissions would help as well. But, overall, the Neighborhoods Commission is well worth
preserving and improving.
Commission Consolidation
The second matter of concern is even more important: it doesn’t affect me personally as a
commissioner, but instead it affects us all as residents of San Jos6.
The recommendations you will receive call for consolidating the commissions, the most
egregious case being the lumping together of the following into a single conglomerate: Arts,
Early Care & Education, Library (including Parcel Tax Oversight), Parks & Rec, and several
Bond Oversight Committees (Libraries, Parks & Rec, and Public Safety). These consolidations
are "to save money". I have asked how much money this could save, but have only been told
that it takes time to post agendas and take minutes. Yet it appears that financial benefits to the
city, such as several significant revenue enhancements the commissions have identified, haven’t
been included in the analysis.
Prior to serving on the City’s Neighborhoods Commission, I served two terms on the
County’s Parks & Rec Commission. My fellow commissioners and I all immersed ourselves in
2
our subject: we "ate, slept, and breathed parks" for the duration of our terms. We assisted the
County’s Parks & Rec Department by reviewing EIRs and other CEQA documentation, we
reviewed the design plans and recommendations of department staff and consultants alike, and
we received and considered public cormnent. The latter was especially important: we could take
the time to leam about the local issues relevant to planned projects, and we could listen to and
understand the concems of the nearby residents who might be affected by those projects, and
then we rephrased those concerns into the language of EIRs, CEQA, and the department’s
planners.
From the other side of the table, I have also attended quite a few Planning, Parks & Rec,
and other City Commissions over the years: it was the means by which we in the community
were able to work with developers and city planners to find design adjustments so that the new
projects better fit in with the surrounding neighborhoods. But if the various commissions are
consolidated, there probably would be little time (if any) on the overcrowded agenda for public
comment, and the commissioners themselves quite likely won’t be able to become immersed in,
and well-versed on, the various issues at hand.
Mr. Mayor, I am justifiably proud of you and the City for adopting the award-winning
Envision 2040 General Plan update, based upon your "Green Vision for San Jos6". It is an
exemplary public collaboration, with a Task Force that was comprised of developers, planners,
community activists, and the public. Envision 2040 includes a section (CE 1.7) on "Community
Engagement" to "ensure the work of government is inclusive": it instructs the City to "[provide]
adequate time and opportunities for early engagement so cormnunity members may have impact"
and "provide support for increased community participation." However, if the various
commissions are consolidated as recommended, it wilt make a sham of these worthy goals.
I personally urge you to consider the various recommendations on city commissions, and
to adopt those measures which improve efficiency and effectiveness. I urge you to renew,
unshackle, and reinvigorate the Neighborhoods Commission. And I urge you to reject those
recommendations that could possibly limit the public’s engagement in our city.
I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or to talk more about the
Neighborhoods Commission and community involvement.
Dr. Lawrence Ames,
San Jos6 Neighborhoods Commission, Dist. 6
past President, Willow Glen Neighborhood Assoc.
past Commissioner, Santa Clara Co. Parks & Rec.
PUBLIC RECORD~
cFrY OF A
SA JOS
Department of Housing
CAPITAL OP SILICON V~
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMISSION
February 23, 2012
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 18m Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
RE:
POTENTIAL CONSOLIDATION OF BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed consolidation of the
City of San Jose’s Boards & Co~mnissions as recormnended inthe City Clerk’~s memorandmn to
the Rules Committee on December 7, 2011. The Housing and Community D~velopment
Advisory Co~mnission (Housing Commission) recognizes there may indeed be Opportunities to
improvethe way Boards and Commissions function. However, despite the cun’ent context of
budget challenges, the Conm~ission strongly believes that any changes in an effort to streamline
operations must continue to preserve the core purposes of government and of the Comanissions.
The Housing Commission believes that these core purposes include civic engagement, providing
voice for those who’do not have it, cnsuxing an equitable playing field, and creating public goods
that are needed for a high-qnality civic life but are not produced through the market on its own.
With regards to tl~e Housing m~d Community Development Advisory Connnission,fl~e.City
Clerk has recommended that it be combined ~vith the Advisory Commission on Rents and the
Mobilehome Advisory Commission with a total of 15 members. The Housing Commission
discussed the consolidation proposal at length at its special meeting on January 25~ 2012. The
following are the key issue areas that the Commission believes require additional consideration
or clarification regarding Commissmn consolidations generally, and the Housing Commission
consolidation specifically: ’"
1) Cost-benefit Analysis of Consolidation
As suggested in the Mayor’s June 2011 Budget Message, the primary goal of
consolidation is to achieve savings. Therefore, a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed
consolidation needs to be m~ essential aspect of the proposal. Yet, the proposed
consolidation was dete~xnined without the benefit of such an analysis. Without it, it is not
possible to determine whether the proposed consolidation would achieve cost savings or
benefits over existing conditions.. It is also possible that if the tangible (eg, staffing,
materials, etc) and intangible (~ivic engagement, facilitation of public processes, etc.)
200 E. Santa Clara Street, San .los~, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3860 fax (,108) 292-6206 ~mow,sjlmusing.Or~
~fhe Honorable Mayor and City Council
RE.: Proposed Boards & Commissions Consolidation
Housing and Community Development Advisory Commission
Page 2 of 4
benefits m’e not fully accotmted for, the proposed consolidation could prove more
expensive than existing conditions. Any consolidation proposal should hMude a
thorough cost-benefit analysis in order to ensure we are improving Commission functions
in reality and not just abstractly.
2) Potential Reduction of Civic Engagement
One of the intangible benefits of the Commissions is that they institutionalize a
mechanism for civic engagement and democracy. Consolidating the Commissions may
potentially weaken this mechanism for participation and voice, There is a value to civic
engagement that should be accounted for in the cost-benefit of consolidation.
3) Politicizafion of Co~nmission Appointments
The Housing Commission has significant concerns about the proposal for
Councilmembers mad the Mayor to select the seats across the City’s newly consolidated
Commissions: While the underlying rationale for this proposal is laudable - Citywide
and diverse representation - putting this selection into the hands of the Mayor and
Couneilmembers unnecessarily introduces politics into the process. The Housing
Commission strongly feels that independent appointments to the Cormnission are a
necessary balance to the political process of policy and decision making,
4) Reduction/Dilution of Commissioner Participation and Volunteer Expertise
The Commissioners across the City’s Commissions represent a significant asset to the
City, They bring expertise and passion to specific policy areas in order to improve the
quality of life in San Jose. This asset is contributed on a volunteer basis and leveraged
through the staffing ofthe Commissions. This leveraged asset should be acconnted for as
a benefit and its potential reduction as a cost.
A subsequent, unintended consequence of a consolidated format may be the dilution of
Commissioner expertise. With more agenda items to cover across multiple issue areas,
Commissioners may be spread too thin to fully utilize their expertise and to dive deeply
into agenda items.
5) Equity & Representation Framework for Commission Composition
What was the framework for determimng the mobilehome and renter representation in the
newly formed Commission? Whereas the current Mobilehome Advisory Commission
has five members and the Advisory Commission on Rents has seven members, the
proposal reduces that to two members each. How was this reduction determined?
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
RE: Proposed Boards & Commissions Consolidation
Housing and Community Devclopmcnt Advisory Commission
Page 3 of 4
6) Issue Area & Workplan Framework for Commission Groupings
What was the frm~ework for detem~ining which Connnissions would be grouped
togetller? What was the analytic framework for assessing the issue areas and workplans
that may overlap between the Commissions? While there might appear to be overlap
between grouped Commissions at first glance based on nomenclattu’e or generic
similarities, the appearance of overlap may be of a superficial nature that’masks real mad
important differences in the scope and issue areas between the Commissions.
With regards the proposed Housing Commission consolidation:
There are possible synergies and overlap with the Advisory Commission on Rents
upon review of its workplan.
¯ The Mobilehome Advisory Commission and the Housing Commission deal
largely with distinct issues that may be more difficult to consolidate:
Holding focus group meetings with staff and cun’ent Connnissioners regarding the proposed
consolidations could prove very useful in determining areas of synergy between the
Conunissions. Co~rmaission consolidations where the workplans do not sutliciently align can
create future challenges and difficulties in terms of productivity, Commission management,
and diminished issue area focus that can negate whatever potential benefits might accrue
from consolidation. Certain Commission’s agenda items and dialogue as proposed would not
make for an efficient or effective board/corm~ission,
7) Staffing
As part of the cost-benefit analysis, it would be important to understand the potential cost
savings or benefits fi’om a staffing perspective. This analysis should include a
comparison of existing staffing levels and costs versus the costs as a result of
consolidations. Tlfis analysis should also include an assessment of the potential costs and
benefits to develop the capacity and ability of a reduced City staff to manage the day-to­
day operations of consolidated Co~mnissions that cover a wide range of policy and issue
areas.
In addition, it is important to understand the staffing issue fi’om an operational
perspective, particularly ’. where consolidation includes Cormnissions staffed by City
employees from different departments. Understanding the future potnts of contact and
how the day-to-day division of labor would look ~vill be an important part 0f the
proposal.
In sum, the Housing Comanission tmderstands and is sensitive to the budgetary cliallenges
that the City of San Jose faces, as well as the significant amount of work that has gone into
the initiaI consolidation proposal. Finding ~vays to operate govennnent more efficient!y is
always a laudable goal when taken in combination with the prese~wation of government’s
core purposes. Additional clarity on the criteria and analyses (as identified above) that was
used to guide the initial consolidation proposa! will greatly help in ackieving a final outcome
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
RE: Proposed Boards & Commissions Consolidation
Housing and Community Deve!opment Adv|so~y Commission
Page 4 of 4
that does both, The Housing Commission looks forwm’d to working with the City to achieve
increased efficiency with Our Boards and Commissions while preserving an open and
equitable structure for citizens,to meaningfully engage in their govenm~ent.
Sincerely,
Brian Darrow, Chair
Housing& Community Development Advisory Commission
CC: Demais,Hawkins, CMC
PUBLIC RECORD~
David S. Wall
RECEIVED
San jose City C~erk
February 22, 2012
Mayor Reed and Members San Jos~ City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, California 95113-1905
Re: $650 Million (or higher) "estimate" of pension costs not incorporated into public documents, why?
Mayor and City Manager both have "Communication Czars" costing taxpayers plenty.
So, how could such a "colossal omission" of the "estimate" escape inclusion into the record?
If deliberate, is it Adolph Hitler’s "Big Lie?"
Dateline: City Desk [Wednesday, (02.22.12)]. There’s too much "goose-stepping" around the truth going on.
The issue of the "omission" of the word "estimate" in the "$650 million dollar or higher" figures used in public
documents pertaining to city employee pension costs have created looming questions whether a catasta’ophic lack of
oversight occurred versus intentional misconduct was used to deceive the public to achieve a political goal.
Both the Mayor and City Manager Offices have "Communication Czars", who in tw’n, have command and
control over resources such as; dedicated staff and lush budgets for consultants to oversee and or to construct evety
communicative detail uttered by these "Offices" at considerable taxpayer expense.
How could the word "estimate" have escape inclusion into the public record?
Did elected officials intentionally use "$650 million dollar or higher" figures without the word "estimate" to
intentionally "mislead" and or to "deceive the public on a premise if they "got caught", let’s say by a television news
entity, they would then "come clean" by stating that it was an "estimate" all along. By admitting the error of omission,
the scandal dies and a modicum of confidence is restored in government.
This formula of deception is a confidence scheme in which a desired message, the fear of financial collapse of
the city, to achieve apolitical goa# the further "take down of city employee benefits is predicated on telling a "Big Lie";
the intentional "omission" of the word "estimate. "Yet, when caught and confronted the "Big Lie" is mitigated down to
a negligent act and thereby excused upon admitting an "error was made."
In the world of high power communications, the damage is done. The "Big Lie " message is what is remembered
by the voting public as the truth and not the admonition of error. Further, how many citizens would have ever thought
about the aforementioned process as a series of intentional acts by their government?
Adolph Hitler’s "Big Lie" technique thrives by, "telling a lie so colossal that no one would believe that
someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
Why did San Jos~ Mercury News Editorial Board fail miserably to discuss the issue of; the "omission" of the
word "estimate" in the "$650 million dollar or higher" figures used in public documents pertaining to city employee
pension costs, since such an "oversight" should not have been possible with reference to the "Communication Czars and
their lush resources" in their editorial, "Pension plot allegations against San Jose mayor miss the mark, (02.16.12)?"
Methinks the goose-stepping Nazis at city hall are not alone in the perpetration of the "Big Lie."
Cc: City Attorney / City Auditor / City Manager... Respectfully submitted,
David S. Wall
PUBLIC RECORD~
RECEIVED
February 23, 2012
Mayor Reed and Members San Jos~ City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, California 95113-1905
Re: Pre-Treatment Program needs reorganization, new management. ESD should be reorganized.
Dateline: City Desk [Thursday, (02.23.12)]. Incompetent management threatens WPCP operations.
You have the following positions of responsibility to ensure the integrity of WPCP operations;
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Two (2) Deputy City Managers
Environmental Services Director
Assistant ESD Director
Five (5) Deputy ESD Directors
Five(5) ESD Program Managers in "Watershed Protection Division"
Several "Senior Environmental inspectors"
Yet, with all of this "management" the San Jos~ / Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)
Pre-Treatment Program, received eighty five (85) "actionable items" from the Environmental Protection
Agency and State Water Resources Quality Control Board during two (2) independent audits of the program.
In the afterglow of the damning audits, it is past time to "clean house". First, incompetent and
responsible managers should be fired. ESD itself requires "re-organization.
The Pre-treatment Program needs to be "overhauled" as to mission and as to staffing assignments
around the clock, on weekends and holidays. There are enough "Inspectors" to do the job.
The current task and staffing assignments is insufficient to protect WPCP. Inspectors should be
"setting samplers" more frequently, on all shifts, including weekends and holidays. Why? First, that’s their
job and second, incoming sewage and industrial wastes does not stop.
The Pre-Treatment Program is the only defense WPCP has to meet outside threats to WPCP
operations and to inform operational command staff to facilitate remedies to protect WPCP’s integrity.
Co: City Attorney / City Auditor / Manager... Respectfully submitted,
David S. Wall
PUBLIC RECORD
RECEIVED
February 22, 2012
Mayor Reed and Members San Jos~ City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, California 95113-1905
Re: (Week #8): Citizen "apologizes" to venerable and Honorable City Attorney at "RULES."
City Manager disingenuous "Thanks" City Attorney during Budget Study Session discussed.
Is the City Manager discerning and reflecting on issuing a "Public Apology" in the management cave?
City Manager still has to "publically apologize" for the loss of $440,000 "Free" dollars.
Dateline: City Desk [Wednesday, (02.22.12)]. $440,000 loss of "Free Money" still haunts city hall.
The Applegate Johnson, Inc. settlemen¢ as it fully appears on the City Council Meeting Agenda for
[Tuesday, (01.10.12); Consent Calendar, (Item 2.7)] is a glaring testament that the throwing away of
$440,000 "Free dollars" should force "Regime Change."
The City Manager continues to shirk all personal and professional responsibility for the loss of
$440,000 dollars from the Applegate-Johnson scandal. The City Manager still needs to issue an
"apology" to the taxpayers. A "genuine apology" is now linked to resignation from city service.
During the Rules and Open Government Committee meeting; [Wednesday, (02.22.12): a portion of
Agenda Item F (f)] was read into the record. Also, this citizen offered up a sincere apology to the venerable
and honorable City Attorney that flowed from his negligence that was the direct and proximate cause of the
City Manager being permitted to issue a "disingenuous Thank-You" to the City Attorney.
The Office of the City Attorney was compelled to provide; unexpected and unfunded services to
extricate the City Manager out of the snarling teeth of the Applegate-Johnson scandal so the city manager
could pursue bathing in the inclement administrative weather of the New Market Tax Credit financing scheme
that supports the Ponzi-esque financial structure associated with the Environmental Innovation Center.
Under normal circumstances, a person in the position of the City Manager would have issued a
genuine apology and a genuine "Thank-you" in a timely and thorough manner but, sadly and without any
measure of intestinal remorse, only a "disingenuous Thank-you" was entered into the permanent record by the
city manager which has resulted in serious questions as to character and the ability to manage.
It is good, right and salutary to ask, "If any person were to negligently lose $440,000 of another and
after several weeks of prodding to "Thank the City Attorney" for his services, only then to issue a
"disingenuous Thank-you," certainly "slapped the faces" of the Office of the Attorney and citizens; does this
act begin to define the character of the city manager and the resulting ability to manage the City of San Jos~?"
What type of person would issue a "disingenuous Thank-you and not "apologize for losing $440,000 dollars
of another’s money?"
My hero, Mr. Lew Wolff says,
"Performance is relatively simple to measure, and performance is what counts."
"What would Lew do if the City Manager worked for him and lost $440,000 of hi_..~s dollars?"
Cc: City Attorney / City Auditor / Manager... Respectfully subm#ted,
David S. Wall
PUBLIC RECORD__~~
RECEIVED
San,~,-.~,,~°.~ City. Clark
February 22, 2012
Mayor Reed and Members San Jos~ City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, California 95113-1905
Re: Are "Community Centers the new "gulags" or worse)"death camps" for the aged and infirmed?
Reports from seniors, "Community Centers" are forcing old people into hard labor to receive food.
Dateline: City Desk [Wednesday, (02.22.12)]. Do oldpeople have an affirmative duty to die?
Prior to the Rules and Open Government Committee meeting, two senior citizens approached the
citizen stationed at "City Desk" and gave poignant testimony of how at least one Community Center has
forced hard labor upon the old and infirmed people in order for them to receive their daily ration of bread.
The seniors, weak from being under nourished, told their horrific tale of social injustice reminiscence
of how the Nazis treated the old and infirmed back in the 193 O’s. However, the "Community Center S S
guards" have yet to whip or beat the aged and infirmed seniors.
The seniors pleaded with the citizen at "City Desk" for assistance in this matter.
During Rules and Open Government Committee meeting; [Wednesday, (02.22.12): a portion of
Agenda Item F (c); "IBM Operations Efficiency Diagnostic Report Harms the Public’s safety"] was read
into the record, specifically, the issue of Senior citizens being forced to slowly and painfully starve to death as
a result of the aforementioned report suggesting that senior nutrition programs be eliminated.
The report stopped short of stating that "senior citizens have an affirmative duty to die."
An investigation by "City Desk" is underway.
Respectfully submitted,
Cc: City Attorney / City Auditor / Manager
PUBLIC
David S. Wall
~n 3ose .Ci:~ Clerk
February 23, 2012
Mayor Reed and Members San Jos~ City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, California 95113-1905
Re: Airport teetering on financial doom, high fuel prices and lower than predicted air travel cited.
The Airport, out of cost reduction options is One incident away from serious financial trouble.
Airport may not be able to retain San Jos~ Police and Fire.
Cackling OED executive and fellow bovines disrupt tense Airport Competitiveness Committee meeting.
Dateline: City Desk [Thursday, (02.23.12)]. Debt service at Airport is knocking at Council’s door.
It is not a good time for the city council to be planning a celebration that redemption for all their
stupid frivolous spending at the airport to bear any money making fruit is near. There is no fault of airport
staff outside of the Master Plan’s predictions concerning increase in passenger travel.
In short, the airport could face irreparable financial disaster if fuel prices continue to climb and
passenger traffic declines.
For example, what would happen if war in the mid-east breaks out? Iran has been asking for a
clobbering for many years. Oil embargo by Europeans as part of the world wide sanctions against the Iranian
nuclear program has already begun to push "futures prices" to new highs.
A couple of questions were asked;
At what price of fuel will trigger eliminating all San Jos~ Police Officers and Fire Fighters from
the airport operations?
At what price of fuel will trigger bankruptcy of the airport, the doomsday scenario?
There were no answers to these questions at today’s meeting.
One speaker recommended abandoning the Airport’s Master Plan’s predictions, such as passenger
growth. Passenger travel to San Jos~ was only a piker’s 1.3% down from 2.1%.
The issue of imminent domain on airport lease holders was discussed and all ears were stretched to
capacity to gather in all words to this issue, spoken by the extremely Honorable former City Attorney.
Of course the tense meeting was briefly interrupted by a cackling executive from the Office of
Economic Development and her fellow bovine friends. A citizen tried in vain to quiet the cows but, there was
no oat hay available and the cows continued to laugh loudly and cut jokes.
Cc: City Attorney / City Auditor / Manager... Respectfully submitted,
David S. Wall
PUBLIC RECORD
San ,~ose City Clerk
February 23, 2012
Mayor Reed and Members San Jos~ City Council
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jos~, California 95113-1905
Re: Please post "contract services agreement with Downtown Business Association."
It would be nice to see the contract terms prior to CED meeting on Monday (02.27.12).
Dateline: City Desk [Thursday, (02.23.12)]. DBA’s newfound religion in food grown locally is refreshing.
I request that if the contract for services agreement with the San Jos~ Downtown business Association
be posted prior to Monday’s (02.27.12) Community and Economic Development (CED) meeting if it is ready
to be discussed.
The DBA’s new and improved business model could be an exciting and uplifting event for all those
who frequent the Downtown.
It is my hope at least one school will be identified as to provide fresh vegetables, grown locally to be
used in Downtown restaurants and to provide a revenue source for the school.
Respectfully submitted,
Cc: City Attorney / City Auditor / Manager