body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 24, 2012--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-410) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the 28th Annual Art
and Wine Faire.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, made an announcement regarding the
faire and presented commemorative glasses to the Council.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-411) Ron Salsig, Alameda, expressed concern with smokers being evicted due to
the Smoking Ordinance; stated an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer recommends
rewriting Section 12; urged putting the matter to a vote of the people.
(12-412) Jane Sullwold, Alameda, expressed concern about ending negotiations with
Jim's on the Course; urged the City to resume negotiations with Jim's on the Course
and try to reach an agreement.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-413) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 20-Lease with an Option for a 5-Year
Extension Between the City of Alameda and Greenway Golf Associates, Inc., for
Premises Located at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Introduced.
The Assistant City Manager gave a presentation.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the proforma, the Assistant City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,2,"Manager provided handouts and reviewed the proforma.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Golf fund has insufficient funds and would need
transfers from the General Fund.
The Assistant City Manager reviewed the forecast and two projected scenarios;
responded the General Fund would advance funds, which the Golf Fund would pay
back.
The City Manager clarified the most the General Fund would lend at one time would be
$440,000, which would be paid back; stated one scenario is based on Greenway Golf's
projections and the other is based on the Contract; both peak at $440,000 borrowed at
year four.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with the General Fund loaning money to
Golf because the City has been trying to move things out of the General Fund to relieve
pressure; that she has a hard time prioritizing Golf over other needs; the City does not
have money in the General Fund to pay for equipment needs for certain departments,
like Public Works.
The City Manager stated the $440,000 would not take away the current money available
in the General Fund; the proposal is to advance the money from the General Fund
reserve or the Recreation and Park [Athletic Trust Fund] reserve; ideally, staff
recommends the money come from the General Fund reserve, which is 4% over the
20% reserve target; the Recreation and Park Fund reserve would be left with almost
nothing; another option would be a bank loan; however, interest would be charged.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City's budget is over $70 million; the amount
[$440,000] is relatively small compared to the overall General Fund and would come out
of the reserve, which would not affect departmental operations; Greenway Golf is
confident in its numbers; the drop occurs in the first three years after which the City
would be paid back and make money.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is more concerned after the explanation; the
Council struggled to cut $5 million in the last two budgets; $440,000 could be used, for
example, to pay for fire department vehicles instead; tradeoffs should be considered.
Councilmember Johnson stated she agrees with the concern; inquired about the Golf
Fund balance.
The Assistant City Manager responded the number bounces up and down and changes
based on the season and rain; noted the City has to pay expenses associated with the
Lease and needs to figure out the way to pay for said expenses.
Councilmember Johnson stated the Golf Reserve Fund, but nothing more, should be
used; the City should only commit to whatever is in the Golf Fund.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,3,"The Assistant City Manager stated the amount in the Fund would go below $1 million;
the City has to pay [Greenway] $1 million; expenses have to be paid out of that $1
million, which cannot be put into an escrow account; the amount would be reimbursed.
The City Manager stated the City has $1 million today, which could be put into an
escrow account; however, course renovation will lower play; projections are
conservative; staff thought the $1 million should be held back until the new Lessee puts
up money; the City is would pay later instead of putting the money up now.
Councilmember Johnson inquired why the City has a $110,000 loss; questioned
whether the loss would be the tenant's loss.
The Assistant City Manager responded the City is retaining certain charges, such as
$130,000 debt service on the driving range; stated the debt was incurred in 2002 and
refinanced in 2008; staff did not feel the operator should take on the cost because costs
would be incurred to update the driving range; the City is also paying an urban runoff
fee, which brings the amount to $210,000; Greenway is paying the City $100,000 for
lease, inventory and equipment each year causing a negative balance of $110,000 for
the City each year for the first four years.
Councilmember Johnson inquired how the $110,000 affects the City, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded the amount is coming out of the Golf Fund.
Councilmember Johnson's inquired whether whatever is left over after the $110,000 is
taken would be part of the $1 million.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City still has to
come up with funds to reach $1 million.
Councilmember Johnson stated the [$110,000 annually] should be part of the $1 million.
The City Manager stated the Request for Proposals (RFP) represented that the City
would contribute $1 million toward capital improvements of the Course.
Councilmember Johnson stated the City should just give the operator $1 million; the
City is going to give $1 million, plus maybe $110,000 every year.
The City Manager stated the City would not give the $1 million until year three; the fund
would have $330,000 less than $1 million because $110,000 is being spent annually.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she is proposing that the City should give
Greenway the balance left at said time; the City would be making up the $330,000
difference to still come up with $1 million.
The City Manager clarified that the City would have to come up with the $330,000
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,4,"difference spent for debt service [and runoff] at the end of the first three years.
The Assistant City Manager stated there will no longer be $1 million in the Golf Fund at
year three so the City needs to come up with said money from somewhere.
Councilmember Johnson questioned why the City does not just give Greenway
$670,000, and why the City is giving more than $1 million.
Mayor Gilmore stated that the $330,000 is not going to Greenway.
Councilmember Johnson stated the purpose of the Lease is to have the City not
continue to fund Golf course operations.
The City Manager stated the City is not funding operations, but is funding the driving
range capital improvement debt service and urban runoff fee; the City cannot escape
said expenses or impose the expenses on the operator.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she thought Greenway would take on the Golf
Course and get a 20 year lease with a five year option to renew, which includes taking
on Golf Course liabilities.
Councilmember Tam stated $1 million is not being paid up front, but she is still
concerned about the future; there were long discussions during Measure C debates
regarding depreciation and ensuring sufficient vehicle funding; making the budget
choice to have $440,000 come from the General Fund would be hard; the Auditor has
indicated there is not enough in the reserves to meet obligations.
The City Manager stated the amount would come out of reserves; staff would never
suggest having the reserve go under 20%; the money would be advanced to meet the
contractual obligation and the reserve would be paid back.
Councilmember Johnson stated funds should not be taken out of the General Fund
reserve to subsidize the Golf Course lease; the City's obligation for funding for the Golf
Course should be over when the Lease is signed.
Mayor Gilmore requested information on the Athletic Trust Fund.
The Assistant City Manager stated that she does not have all the information at this
time; the Athletic Trust Fund is for programs that are cost covering; the Fund does not
have a lot of money and is being used for staff costs to reduce the Department's
reliance on the General Fund.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether reliance on the Athletic Trust Fund has been
increased.
The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City has made a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,5,"promise through the RFP and negotiations with the operator to come up with $1 million;
staff could combine various funds to develop a funding source that would be paid back;
the funding sources could be paid back very quickly depending on what Greenway can
do with the Golf Course; staff has great faith that Greenway will make money and pay
back the funds.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with money coming out of the General
Fund and has less of a problem using Recreation funds to pay for golf; expressed
concern that the Athletic Trust Fund might not be able to pay the entire amount.
The Assistant City Manager stated she would review the Athletic Trust Fund and look
into the possibility of using a combination of funds.
The City Manager noted the City has three years to decide and can look into: 1) other
funds, like the Athletic Trust Fund, 2) borrowing the balance, or 3) negotiating
something else, like further revenue concessions; stated staff thought using the General
Fund reserve was the most prudent approach because interest would not have to be
paid and the [20%] reserve would be maintained.
Councilmember Johnson inquired why the City should pay the urban runoff fee.
The City Manager responded the Golf Course remains the City's asset; stated
Greenway is making improvements to the asset; the Golf Course is an urban runoff
asset; the urban runoff is going onto the property; Greenway would build a new driving
range and should not have to pay the debt service from the driving range the City built;
the most the advance would be is $440,000; the [Greenway] improvements would have
cost the City about $6 million; that he understands the Council does not want to use
General Fund reserves; staff could make suggestions on advancing the money from
another source at a later point.
Mayor Gilmore stated staff has done an excellent job coming up with the Lease, which
is complex and was negotiated in a relatively short period of time; the source of
[advancing] funds is concerning; that she would be okay with moving forward on the
Lease with the understanding that another source of funds would be used.
The City Manager stated staff is comfortable and could do so.
The Assistant City Manager stated approval tonight would not lock in any particular
funding source; Council would just be saying the Lease is good and the City will put
forth $1 million estimated to be due in the third year; the timing may or may not be in the
third year depending on how quickly Greenway completes Phase 1 renovations; staff
would come up with options and find another source before any decisions are made on
the $440,000.
The City Manager stated the Lease does not commit to the source of the $1 million.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,6,"Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason she is having so much difficulty over the source
of funding is because there was a long, heated discussion over the budget, how the City
would close the gap, and whether General Fund monies would be used to close that
gap rather than cutting City services; the proposal would use General Fund reserves to
pay for recreation, which is not in the same category as other City services; that she has
trouble using the General Fund for golf if the Council has so much trouble using General
Fund reserves to close a budget gap.
Councilmember Tam stated the City is going to have to rely on reserves more without
the flexibility that would have been provided for by Measure C.
Councilmember deHaan stated the RFP indicated $1 million would be provided at the
onset; negotiations changed the $1 million to as needed; that he cannot argue with the
City paying for driving range debt and urban runoff fee; the City still holds the obligation
for the urban runoff; noted the animal shelter was privatized and the City still pays
$300,000 every year.
Councilmember Johnson suggested the urban runoff be pro-rated; the City would pay
$80,000 every year and the operator would not pay anything; some amount must be
attributable to the Golf Course; the City is also paying $130,000 for the driving range
debt service; a 20 to 25 year Lease is buying an asset; generally, liabilities are taken
over when an asset is bought; the City is left with a lot of liability for the Golf Course.
The City Manager noted no principle would remain after 10 years; stated the debt would
be paid off.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the repair and rehabilitation of the driving range,
drainage, and irrigation would qualify for prevailing wage in light of the City's prevailing
wage ordinance; further inquired whether prevailing wage would be paid.
The City Attorney responded Greenway would be operating the Golf Course with its
own employees; there is no obligation to have Greenway's employees be paid
prevailing wages; Greenway has indicated work would be done using its employees, so
the requirement to pay prevailing wages would not be triggered; prevailing wages come
up in the context of public construction projects; Phase 1 improvements, including the
Mif Albright and driving range, are in the maintenance category and can be done with
internal employees; Phase 2 might be different; analysis and planning would be brought
to Council; going out to bid on an at least $100,000 public facility project would trigger
prevailing wages.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether prevailing wage would be required if the project
went out to bid.
The City Attorney responded prevailing wages would need to be paid if staff does not do
the improvements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,7,"In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about the prevailing wage effective date, the
City Attorney stated the ordinance does not go into effect until August 2nd.
Councilmember Johnson suggested adding language about school golf team activities;
stated that she does not think the maintenance requirements are strong enough and did
not see time requirements; inquired what are the initial requirements for bringing the
Golf Course up to a certain standard.
David Sams, Golf Consultant, responded the maintenance standards are vague; stated
specific tasks and frequencies could be added.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there are requirements to: 1) bring the Golf
Course in general up to a certain condition in a certain amount of time, and 2)
maintaining said condition; stated Greenway promoted lower use of herbicides,
pesticides and pest control; however, the Lease requires use of herbicides and
pesticides and pests control; there seems to be a conflict between what Greenway
promotes and the Lease.
Mr. Sams responded the maintenance standard would have to begin after construction
is finished; stated keep the course up to championship quality before construction is
fully completed would be difficult.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Lease describes: 1) the period of time
when the overall Golf Course must be brought up to a certain level and 2) the
requirement to maintain said level.
The City Attorney responded Exhibits C and D may help with the explanation; stated
Exhibit C Phase 1 repairs and rehabilitation outlines work to be done and states that
work on the driving range and the Mif will be completed by July 2013; Exhibit D covers
drainage and irrigation issues which is the rest of the Golf Course, including tees,
greens and sand traps; timeframes are scattered throughout Exhibit D.
Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the Lease indicates the Golf Course has
to be brought up to a certain level and maintained at that level.
The City Manager read part of Exhibit D and confirmed the Lease calls for a high quality
facility and playing experience.
Councilmember Johnson suggested separating major construction from general
improvements since the timelines are two to three years; stated certain activities are
enhanced maintenance rather than major construction and could be completed in
sooner than three years.
The City Attorney stated the milestones hold the operator responsible for completing the
work, allows development of a plan, provides time for the public to comment on the
plan, and lets the City complete the appropriate environmental review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,8,"The City Manager noted staff promoted the concept of starting with the driving range
and the Mif; stated the Lease requires that construction begins two years from the
commencement date so major improvements are completed on the front end; the
schedule is very aggressive; both courses might not necessarily close.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the plans for the North Course in the first year
or so.
Mr. Kelly responded discussions have involved converting the fairway surfaces of the
North Course; stated the process would not be difficult; a machine would be brought in
to plant the grass within six months; disruption would be minimal to the playing surface;
there would be significant coverage within eight weeks; the grass requires minimal
maintenance compared to other grasses; the driving range is a bigger project than
originally anticipated; the intent is to work on the driving range and the Mif as soon as
possible; Greenway wants to show golfers it is making a difference on the Golf Course.
Councilmember Johnson requested an explanation of the Lease provisions relating to
pest and rodent control, fertilizers and herbicides.
The Assistant City Manager stated a lot of the provisions state how and when fertilizers
and herbicides would be use but do not require that the chemicals absolutely have to be
used; one reason Council was in favor of Greenway was because of the green
approach to dramatically reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides on the Course.
Councilmember Johnson stated the Lease needs to be reviewed carefully to ensure that
Greenway would not be required to use chemicals unnecessarily; suggested the Lease
be revised to eliminate language that would require Greenway to use chemicals.
The City Manager suggested that Council authorize the City Attorney to discuss
provisions with Greenway and change language from ""as required"" to ""only if
necessary.'
Mr. Kelly concurred with the suggestion.
Councilmember Johnson also inquired whether maintenance and capital spending
would be capped, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
The Assistant City Manager stated page six of the Lease regarding capital improvement
payments has a capital improvement fund maximum; Greenway would pay into the fund
until the maximum is reached; then, money would be spent and contributions would
start again; the 3% provision would keep the money from being banked and not spent
on necessary capital improvements.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the 3% preovision, the
Assistant City Manager stated Greenway would be required to contribute 3%.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,9,"Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the provision would limit or cap Greenway's
maintenance and capital improvement spending.
The City Manager responded Greenway's obligations outlined in the Exhibits would not
be paid out of the capital improvement funds; stated Greenway would contribute to the
capital improvement fund every year after renovations are complete so there would a
pot of money; money would be put aside upfront so money to fix things would be
available in the future.
The Assistant City Manager stated there are two funds; one is a tenant improvement
fund for Greenway's $1 million; Greenway has already deposited $250,000 and would
deposit $750,000 more; the City would also put in $1 million for big ticket items and
renovations; Greenway would put in about $5 million in additional funds for a total of
about $6.7 million.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the standards for maintaining the Golf
Course would require Greenway to come up with money to meet the maintenance
standards even if the maintenance and capital improvement fund is insufficient.
The City Manager responded Greenway has to maintain the Course; stated
maintenance expenses would not be paid out of the capital improvement fund.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the standards would be high enough to
require Greenway to put in extra money to complete necessary improvements.
Mr. Sams responded 3% is typical in the industry; stated funds would be sufficient to
meet standards; a decision would have to be made about funding if something
unpredicted occurs; Greenway would be contributing about $150,000 into the fund.
Councilmember Johnson stated there should not be any question about funding; funds
should come from the operator; the City should not be liable.
The City Attorney read the Lease provision clarifying that the tenant [Greenway] shall at
its sole cost, maintain the premises in good order and condition after Phase 1 and 2.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the tenant would have to come up with the
money, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City can terminate the Contract after four years if Greenway
has not resolved drainage and irrigation issues to the satisfaction of the City; inquired
how ""satisfaction of the City"" would be defined and about the thought process behind
the requirement.
Mr. Sams responded Greenway proposes to have wall to wall cart paths on both
courses; stated no golf course would drain properly in the event of 100 year rain; typical
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,10,"rain for Alameda is 24"" per year; players would be able to leave the cart paths within
two days of typical rain.
Mayor Gilmore stated the requirement is important because drainage is a consistent
complaint; standards should be included to define satisfaction.
Mr. Kelly stated fixing the drainage is relative and difficult to define; questioned what the
standard would be in the event of an El Niño Year; stated players would be able to go
off the cart paths within two to three days of heavy rain in a standard year.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is excluding extreme conditions, such as El Niño years;
the standard in a typical year should be defined; better drainage is wanted for average
rainfall years.
Mr. Kelly stated that he would talk to his partners; he believes Greenway would agree to
an amendment to define normal year standards.
Mayor Gilmore stated the language currently reads ""to the satisfaction of the City"" and
does not exclude El Niño years.
The City Attorney inquired what section of the Lease is being discussed, to which Mayor
Gilmore responded the termination clause.
Councilmember Tam read Section 7.4.
The City Manager stated the language in the actual Lease reads ""reasonable
satisfaction of the City"" to allow flexibility; setting a standard is difficult.
Councilmember Tam stated reasonableness should be defined so the City is not viewed
as arbitrary and capricious; the language would not have to be specific.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is happy to let the City Attorney and Greenway resolve
the matter.
Mr. Kelly stated neglecting drainage after making major improvements and spending a
considerable amount of money would not be smart; the City should have some comfort
that Greenway intends to fix the drainage
Urged Council to approve the lease and allow the City Attorney to negotiate revisions on
the items discussed: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments to the
Lease.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is a provision covering liability in case
revenues are lower and expenses are higher than projections.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,11,"The City Manager responded Greenway would be responsible.
The Assistant City Manager stated minimum rent is guaranteed regardless of Greenway
meeting projections.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding finance amendments,
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council has been clear that various language changes would
be delegated to the City Attorney.
The City Manager outlined the four changes: 1) change high school to school use; 2)
staff would return to the City Council regarding the source of any difference between the
Golf Fund balance and the $1 million that the City is obligated to pay at the time the City
is obligation to pay.
Councilmember Johnson suggested language be added that indicates General Fund
reserves would not be used.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Councilmember Johnson; stated any advances
should be General Fund alternatives.
Mayor Gilmore stated staff should be instructed to find monies other than the General
Fund; however, direction should not be enshrined until the time comes.
The City Manager stated staff would not bring forward anything where money would
come out of the City's current expenses or revenues; suggested that Council not restrict
staff from using General Fund reserves until the decision arises.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to see alternative sources come back a little
before the decision has to be made so Council would not be rushed by the deadline.
The City Manager proposed that staff would come back and present alternative sources
to the Council as part of the two year budget covering 2013 to 2015.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the amount would not be part of any shortfall.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated funds would not come out of
General Fund operations.
The Assistant City Manager concurred with the City Manager; stated the amount should
be addressed at the beginning of the two year budget rather than coming back as a
midterm adjustment.
Mayor Gilmore stated the majority of the Council is against using the General Fund;
staff would be obligated to not use the General Fund even though Council is not
explicitly tying staff's hands at this time.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,12,"The City Manager continued to outline the changes: 3) delegating the City Attorney to
review the language of the Lease with Greenway to ensure there are no mandates to
use pesticides on the Course and that pesticides be used only as a last resort to
maintain the Course; and 4) the City Attorney is to further elaborate upon the language
to measure drainage for having the Course ready to be used again in a prompt manner
after standard rainfall; stated the City Attorney would work with Greenway to elaborate
on the standard.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether an amount would be assessed for real
property taxes.
The Assistant City Manager responded Greenway would pay possessory interest tax;
stated Greenway would be responsible for discussing the matter with the County.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether language should be changed, to which the
City Attorney responded possessory interest is viewed as real property taxes.
The Assistant City Manager stated the language is clear; Greenway is aware that it
would need to pay the taxes; the City would not be responsible.
Councilmember deHaan amended his motion to accept the changes outlined [by the
City Manager].
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether work would be subject to the
prevailing wage ordinance if Greenway subcontracts or contracts out drainage or
irrigation construction.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Greenway would be required to
follow the prevailing wage ordinance if work is contracted out.
Vice Major Bonta read from the prevailing wage ordinance; inquired whether the Lease
would trigger the prevailing wage ordinance because the $1 million used to pay for the
work would be from public funds and the drainage and irrigation construction work could
be considered a public work.
The City Attorney responded adding the requirement would be a stretch of the
prevailing wage laws; stated the City is entering into a long term Lease partnering with
Greenway for Golf Course operation; enforcing the law on an operator's employees is
not typical; prevailing wage would only be triggered if Greenway goes to the public
market for a separate construction project.
Vice Major Bonta inquired whether the argument would be a stretch and would likely not
be successful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,13,"The City Attorney responded a Port of Oakland case was not successful at making
tenants pay prevailing wages.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether contracts subject to prevailing wage would be for
work subcontracted out, not long term leases, to which the City Attorney responded in
the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-414) Consideration of Mayor's Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Gilmore appointed John G. Hensill to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-07-24,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 24, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:03 p.m. and Vice
Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:15 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(12-407) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9); Number of Cases: One
(12-408) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title and name: City
Attorney Janet Kern
(12-409) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators:
Councilmembers deHaan and Johnson; Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk;
Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions)
Following the Closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council gave direction to staff; and
regarding Labor, Council gave direction to staff.
*
Mayor Gilmore called a recess to hold the regular meeting at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened
the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced regarding the Performance Evaluation, reviewed the City Attorney's goals
and objectives.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 24, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf