City Council Informational Meeting, 4 pM
The meeting is jam packed with presentations;
SF Development Foundation will do a presentation. My educated guess is that it is about their new workforce development manager and what they plan to do.
We also get a progress report on the response to the Emerald Ash borer.
Cotter will give us a water rate increase presentation. Can’t wait! Wonder if he will talk about all the delicious extinguisher foam in our water?
We will get a presentation on the city’s proposal to implement Asset Management Software. This is the first I have heard about this. Should be interesting.
City Council Regular Meeting, 7 pM
Item #1, Approval of Contracts;
(16-17) Enterprise Asset Management Informational System, $835K
Enterprise Asset Management Informational System for strategic asset management and work order system for the City. The system will be deployed city-wide to provide life cycle management and long range forecasting on City assets while creating a standardized workflow for all departments. Contract will be five years from the final approval date with a base cost of $835,000 and an annual software maintenance cost of $60,000 for the first five years. The City has an option for a full pavement management package at $291,500. Contract No. 17-0095
This is the item the CC will be briefed about at the informational meeting. I still have NO CLUE what this is, and when I talked to a city councilor today about it, they were clueless also.
Item #3, Surplus Property. Apparently when a city vehicle gets in a wreck they just junk it out. So the question is, did they get any insurance money? Who’s fault was the accident? No biggee, just junk it out.
Items #14-15, 2nd Readings, Naming rights at the indoor pool. Am I the only one finding it funny one is for a greasy pizza chain and a healthcare provider? Or is it a greasy healthcare provider? I get confused.
Item #16, 1st Reading. Changing public input on 2nd readings that are quasi-judicial from 3 minutes to 5 minutes. While this is all well and good, you know my opinion. On second readings, citizens should have unlimited time if they are defending their neighborhoods. As long as that defense isn’t repetitive or disrespectful and pertinent to the topic. As I have said several times, there are NO time limits on the meetings. So why time limits on public input? Silly, but more importantly, Anti-Democratic.
Item #17, 1st Reading. Renewing the private ambulance provider until 2026. With that kind of time frame, this would be a good opportunity to research a public ambulance service.
l3wis 
