Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 8, 2017

FAAS slides

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

You know that the FAAS issue wasn’t even on the City Council’s agenda last night right even though public speakers were urged to come out to the meeting.

Anyway, according to folks who were present there were no handouts at the meeting on Monday night about the ask from FAAS.  The only print out that night was a certain blog post that is popular with the the FAAS set.

There was a powerpoint and I have the slides.


Quick note about this slide.  “City’s share has shrunk” really should read “City’s share has stayed the same but our costs have grown” but, framing and all.


“Breach of contract” is strong language for an organization looking to collaborative with the City government, oh, and ask for money from.







Just a note these numbers in this slide do not include in-kind services being offered by the City of Alameda which would take over things like payroll that FAAS is currently paying ADP $25,000.

As the City is offering $1.7 million in direct and in kind contributions, this is more than the $908K needed in City Funding to “survive.”




Here’s the problem about this presentation: it does nothing to justify the increased costs and therefore increased request for money.  It appears, if the “We need least $908,581 from the City to survive” slide desk means a direct cash contribution that FAAS is stepping back from their original direct cash request of $1.4 million.  The question then becomes, if FAAS could make it work at a $908K direct cash request to the City why ask for $1.4 million to begin with?



  1. $908,581? In this context, I would recommend using a rounder number.

    Comment by MP — February 8, 2017 @ 6:35 am

  2. Teachers, Fireman Police all ask for more money to begin with. It is a starting point of negotiation.

    Comment by frank — February 8, 2017 @ 7:21 am

    • I guess not if it is the animal shelter. Then it is time for a smear campaign of epic proportions

      Comment by JSD — February 8, 2017 @ 7:56 am

      • Yup!!! All the ‘political minions’ are hard at work.

        Comment by frank — February 8, 2017 @ 8:07 am

        • the hardworking people down there work so hard in super stressful conditions at a low pay rate. They deserve pay equity also.

          Comment by JSD — February 8, 2017 @ 8:31 am

  3. The new proposal will not allow for any of the necessary pay increases to seriously small salary levels to begin with, and will not allow for new hires we feel are necessary. Therefore it is a compromise based on the what were supposed to be confidential negotiations.
    The 908 figure also hands licensing revenue back to the city. So net to city budget is 794. As city projects 144K in licensing revenue. They could collect more if they used enforcement and hired more animal control which the city needs. Animal control is city responsibility.
    The contract provided for two part time animal control officers, there has only been one. The initial contract also had city provide building maintenance. The city used the 170k figure they have determined they will spend (all deferred maintenance), the new level of animal control 150K, added that to some still in negotiation in kind services and their general fund amount to make it look like they were allowing for a 1.7 million budget.
    All that is not accurate and their is an entirely new proposal.
    I dot ever recall such a focus on disinformation during what are supposed to be private negotiations at the city’s request. Quite bizarre.
    I look forward to “reporting” next time the city is in contract talks

    Comment by JSD — February 8, 2017 @ 7:53 am

  4. typo alert 114K was the projected licensing revenue

    Comment by JSD — February 8, 2017 @ 7:54 am

  5. Both Kearney and Kennedy strongly endorsed and urged the council to close the deal. The City Manager continues to say the deal is close.

    Comment by Roberto Marinelli — February 8, 2017 @ 7:56 am

  6. As the City is offering $1.7 million in direct and in kind contributions, this is more than the $908K needed in City Funding to “survive.”

    It says this in the above post. Logically this makes no sense, clearly, so please articulate what this discrepancy means to you?

    Comment by JSD — February 8, 2017 @ 9:08 am

    • Meaning FAAS said they need $908K to survive. 1.7 million > 908K.

      Therefore more than enough to “survive.”

      Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2017 @ 12:28 pm

  7. Where does the 1.7 in City direct and in-kind contributions come from ? This is a serious question, I searched and can not find any document/presentation with this number.


    Comment by oleczek — February 8, 2017 @ 12:18 pm

  8. So, being off by 54% is fine ?

    Or shall I be more dramatic by whopping 312%

    1700000 – 908000 = 792000 that how much “extra” FAAS is asking using numbers from the post
    1100000 – 908000 = 192000 actual numbers

    792000 – 192000 = 600000

    192000 = 100% therefore 600000 = 312%

    or if I really want to play with numbers

    192000 = 100% therefore 792000 = 412%


    PS. It looks like I just saved a City of Alameda 600K
    PPS. If one subtracts (one can argue about it) 170000 for deferred maintenance 1.1 million suddenly becomes 930K

    Comment by oleczek — February 8, 2017 @ 2:20 pm

  9. At the end of the day – in spite of an orchestrated campaign to smear the hard working volunteers and staff at FASS – the reality is FAAS can do it so much better than the City (remember how awful it was before FAAS came in?!?) and they can do it for less money.

    Comment by Alameda Voter — February 9, 2017 @ 9:39 am

    • If by “orchestrated campaign to smear” you mean fiscal responsibility,….yes, that should be the end of the day, making sure our tax dollars are spent responsibly.

      Comment by baby mama — February 19, 2017 @ 8:58 am

  10. Despite the numbers game, in all of the city’s ongoing probe of FAAS what is glaringly missing? The issue of ANIMAL WELFARE!
    One fun fact from city shelter stats under police dept 2010-11 371 cats impounded and 127 of them euthanized. In comparison to the 1 in 3 cats euthanized by the city. In 2015 FAAS stats 450 impounded 1 euthanized! FAAS Rocks!

    Comment by Matt — February 10, 2017 @ 7:27 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at