Thursday, July 21, 2011

City Council Meeting - Monday, July 25, 2011


City Council Meeting Agenda, pages 1-92.  Amended Overview,  pages 1-4. 

Consent calendar (pass through, pages 5-63 )
1.  Cash disbursements approval $2,090,261.27. Quick checks, amount $505,235.65.
2.  Minutes approval.
3.  Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP) new Centrifuge Unit and it appurtenances, amount $257,814. 
4.  2010 Various Federal-Aid Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, $755,607.85, low bid contract to CF Archibald Paving, inspection services to Mendoza Associates.
5.  Cancel city council meeting, 8/22/2011.
6.  Disposal of certain obsolete city documents and papers.
7.  San Pedro Creek bridge replacement project, $293,096 from Highway 1 Fund Reserve, Wilsey Ham contractor agreement, item 5, pages 45,46, will employ certain outside contractors with written approval and payment by the city.  An archeological project is pending, pages 54-55. 
8. Financing City Services Task Force, appoint Veronica Romeyn.


Special presentation (no pages) - Proclamation - Cecilia Quick  

Public hearing (pages 64-65) -  9.  Sewer service charges for fiscal year 2011-12

Consideration (public discussion, pages 66-92).
10.  San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury - standardized use of police Tasers (training, deployment, reporting, review) throughout the county. Include Menlo Park and East Palo Alto who do not use Tasers currently..
11.   Interim city attorney services and special counsel services agreement with Burke, Williams and Sorensen, LLP.
12.  Sewer facility construction fund 34 to fund $5,000 to teach 2-6 grade classes about litter and the ocean through Pacifica Beach Coalition. Our Children's Earth Foundation settlement. 


Posted by Kathy Meeh

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

So how much do the Pacifica taxpayers have to pay to get rid of CQ

Anonymous said...

Pacifca PD use tasers.
Federal Ninth Circuit issued this use of force ruling:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/12/ninth-circuit-upholds-ruling-limiting.php

"The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that police must face an "immediate threat" from an offender before using a taser gun to subdue them" (snip)

Is Pac PD use of tasers consistent with this ruling?