{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- APRIL 3, 2012- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 4.\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-142) Proclamation Declaring April 3, 2012 as the Isle of Flicka Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Fredericka Von Stade.\nMs. Von Stade thanked the Council for the proclamation.\n(12-143) Proclamation Declaring the Week of April 9 -15 as Alameda Education\nFoundation Appreciation Week.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Alameda Education Foundation\nMembers Steve McAdams, Katie Wolfe, Judy Blank, and Tam Chang.\n(12-144) Announcement Regarding the Need for Election Workers for the June 5, 2012\nElection.\nThe City Clerk made a brief announcement.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-145) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, submitted information and discussed teacher salary\nissues.\n(12-146) Carol Gottstein, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), discussed the March 8th\nRAB meeting.\n(12-147) Carolina Salazar, Senator Loni Hancock District Representative, introduced\nherself and provided business cards to Councilmembers.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Gilmore announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 12-148 and the resolution\namending the Alameda City Employees Association Salary Schedule [paragraph no. 12-\n150] were pulled for discussion.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(12-148) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 6,\n2012 and Special City Council Meeting Held on March 7, 2012. Approved.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why the [March 7, 2012] minutes do not reflect his\nrequest for a project summary and cost breakdown for the proposed ballot measure.\nThe City Clerk responded page 2 of the minutes notes estimated costs for the Carnegie\nand 50-meter swimming pool, and lists other proposed projects totaling $12.5 million.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is requesting a cost\nbreakdown on a separate sheet, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the minutes read that \"Councilmember deHaan inquired\nwhether a greater breakdown would be provided if the measure goes forward\" and \"The\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative\"; inquired whether said statements are what\nCouncilmember deHaan is referencing, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was expecting the cost\nbreakdown to be part of the minutes.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the negative; stated the request for a cost\nbreakdown was a separate direction.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Manager stated the proposed special tax would exclusively\npay for capital items, equipment, facilities, and an Emergency Operations Coordinator\nsalary; that he had advised Council there would be a greater breakdown if the measure\nwent forward, meaning if the measure wins; twenty frequently asked questions\nregarding the measure were posted to the City's website at the close of business\nyesterday; staff has recommended certain projects, which are premature at this time; $5\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 3, "text": "million has been recommended for a 50-meter swimming pool with lockers and shower\nfacilities; staff hopes to build a greater aquatic facility in partnership with the swim\ncommunity in keeping with the City's commitment to public/private partnerships; clarified\nthe following estimated costs are in contrast to costs posted on a blog that sites what\npurports to be a City document, but is not a City document: 1) $1 million is estimated for\na lighted, all-weather multi-purpose playing field, not $1.9 million; the sporting\ncommunity would be challenged to come up with the balance; 2) $300,000 could be\nadvanced through a bond for the Library, not $600,000; $125,000 to $150,000 could be\nused for a second elevator; the balance could be used to dramatically improve\nequipment, the electronic book collection, and computers; 3) the Carnegie estimate is\nbetween $3.5 million and $3.6 million with a contingency for cost overruns, not $4.1\nmillion; the 2007 estimate [$3.5 million] was projected at the peak of the housing real\nestate boom; staff does not believe the cost would be more than the 2007 estimate; he\nasked the architect, who is the author of the report, whether the Carnegie could be\ncompleted for $3.5 million today and the answer was absolutely for sure given the\ndecline in construction and labor costs; 4) $4.5 is estimated for Fire Station 3 with a\nEmergency Operations Center, not $5.6 million; stated a dramatic amount of\nmisinformation has been circulated regarding the measure; apologized if staff has been\nunclear; stated no one should be unclear about numbers after tonight; stated the\nfinance people believe that the City could safely float a bond at a low interest rate and\nthat $15 million to $16 million could be generated in bond revenues; an extra $1 million\nwould be left over for any unforeseen circumstances; other items would be funded with\nthe balance of the sales tax revenue on an as needed, ongoing basis; urged everyone\nto visit the website and review the frequently asked questions; stated any further\nquestions should be directed to him personally.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.]\n(*12-149) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,564,465.18.\n(12-150) Resolution No. 14664, \"Amending the Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Recreation Services\nSpecialist.\" Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether employees would have bumping rights, to which the\nAssistant City Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation of the Athletic Trust Fund.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the Athletic Trust Fund is a portion of the\nbudget that covers all revenue producing programs.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the proposed position would be funded through\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 4, "text": "program fees, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated the\nGeneral Fund contribution would be reduced by $400,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Athletic Trust Fund is fee based; inquired whether\nan additional $400,000 would need to be generated.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded in the negative; stated staff took a look at\nthe actual figures for the last two years; projections amount to approximately $185,000;\ncities that operate under a similar model generally experience a 5%-7% increase in\nrevenue right away.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any fee increases are anticipated, to which\nthe Assistant City Manager and Recreation and Park Director responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether special events would be cut back or\neliminated.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded scopes would be reduced, particularly the\ntree lighting ceremony.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much would be saved [by reducing tree lighting\nceremony costs].\nThe Assistant City Manager responded $15,000; stated $15,000 was spent on an\nemployee picnic, which will be scaled back dramatically.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission is\naware of the proposed cuts.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the matter would be discussed at the\nRecreation and Park Commission meeting next Thursday.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the issue is operational and is not under the purview\nof the Recreation and Park Commission; the matter would be presented as a courtesy.\nUrged youth services not be cut: John Orla Bukowski, Alameda Soccer Club and Futsal\nClub.\nExpressed concerns with the proposal: Christina Hanson, Alameda, Sandra Soares\nBertero, Employee; and Marc Ames, Alameda Soccer Club.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the Recreation and Park Department\noperational budget, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $4 million.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage is cost recovery, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded approximately 50%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the percentage of cost recovery for other\ncities, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the goal is 60%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what programs, if any, would be lost.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded programs would remain in tack because\nmost services are provided by part time staff; stated park maintenance and field\nscheduling would not be affected; the change would be at the full time supervisory level.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the Recreation and Park Department's\nGeneral Fund budget, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $2 million,\nincluding parks.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the Recreation and Park Department's cut\nlast year, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded 7 1/2 percent.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated five of the ten playground sites were closed and a\nposition was cut.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated things need to be looked at as a whole; not all\ndepartments can be cut at the same level.\nThe City Manager stated not all departments would be cut at the same percentage;\nExecutive Management's theory is that cuts should be focused away from programs;\nmanagement operations would need to be streamlined for each department;\nmanagement would be cut instead of playground staff whenever possible; no additional\ncuts would be made to the Recreation and Park Department unless staff comes back\nwith a figure much higher than $4.4 million [budget deficit]; the goal is to rebuild the\nRecreation and Park Department through a more entrepreneurial, fee-based approach.\nMayor Gilmore requested clarification for the timing of the proposed reorganization and\npossible impacts to the public.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated staff would like to have the reorganization\ncompleted by May 1st, which would allow six weeks before summer programs begin; the\npublic should not be impacted.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether field scheduling would be in place, particularly for fall\nsports, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the transition should be\nseamless.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that staff does not think the matter needs to go to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 6, "text": "Recreation and Park Commission; inquired whether the proposed timeline could be met\nif the Recreation and Park Commission weighs in on the matter.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the proposed reorganization would need to be\napproved now in order to be in place by May 1st; recruitment would take time; a six-\nweek transition process would be needed.\nThe City Manager stated the issue is administrative; a change in City policy is not\nproposed; staff would be supporting City policy by focusing cuts away from public\nservice and programs; any change in fees would need to come to the Recreation and\nPark Commission and then to Council.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated cutting programs was a concern before tonight's discussion;\nCouncil has heard assurances about what the proposal is and is not in terms of impacts;\nthat he agrees with the concept of moving cuts away from street level services and\nprograms; inquired whether involving the new Recreation and Park Director in the\ndecision has been feasible.\nThe City Manager responded the new Recreation and Park Director would be one of the\nthree interviewers.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the new Recreation and Park Director is on board\nwith the staff recommendation and feels that it is the right direction in order to preserve\nservices to the community.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she met with the Assistant City Manager and Recreation and\nPark Director to be assured there would be no disruption to the community before the\nsummer programs begin; that she does not want to see a group of angry parents\ncamped out at the Recreation and Park Department because of snafus going forward;\nover the years, staff has risen to the challenge of having to do more with less;\npreserving community programs is important because programs are what makes\nAlameda, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore's comments; stated staff is listening\nto Council; the proposal is responsive to past discussions regarding maximizing cost\nrecovery, ensuring that front line services are not cut, and making cuts at the top before\nimpacting the community; initially, the proposed ballot measure [Measure C] did not\ninclude an all-weather field until Council requested that the City Manager include one.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Bonta and Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstention:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\nCouncilmember deHaan stated discussing the matter at the budget hearing would be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 7, "text": "more appropriate; less than 3% of the total budget is for the Recreation and Park\nDepartment; that he wants to ensure that programs would not be impacted.\n(*12-151) Resolution No. 14665, \"Resolution Reclassifying Deputy City Attorney\nI\nPosition to Assistant City Attorney Il Position.\" Adopted.\n(*12-152) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nRepealing in Its Entirety Subsection 2-14 (Housing Commission) from Article II (Boards\nand Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration). Introduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-153) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14666, \"Designating the Bruton\nHouse at 1240 Saint Charles Street City Monument #30.\" Adopted.\nMayor Gilmore recused herself.\nThe Planner Il submitted a handout and gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's request, Woodruff Minor gave a brief history of\nthe house.\nCouncilmember Tam noted that Mr. Minor wrote an article in the Alameda Preservation\nPress recognizing the Bruton House.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what the proposed designation would mean.\nThe Planner Il responded designating the house as an Alameda Historical Monument\nwould afford protection; stated any future changes would need to be approved by the\nHistorical Advisory Board.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n3. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson and Mayor Gilmore - 2.]\n(12-154) Receive Presentations by KemperSports and Greenway Golf and Provide\nDirection on Negotiations for the Long-term Lease of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\nBen Blake, Steve Skinner, and Jay Blasi of KemperSports gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncil asked questions and commented on the proposal.\nGeorge Kelley, Greenway Golf, gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 8, "text": "Council asked questions and commented on the proposal.\nIn favor of selecting Greenway Golf: Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Mark Massara; and Karen\nBey, Alameda.\nOpposed to selection KemperSports Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nIn favor of selecting KemperSports Victor Quintell, Alameda; and Tim Skates, Alameda.\nCommented on both companies: Ray Gaul, Alameda.\nThe City's Golf Consultant, David Sams, provided and reviewed a staff handout\ncomparing the finances of the proposals.\nMayor Gilmore stated both entities expect the City to invest $1 million; inquired whether\nGreenway Golf would be investing more of its own money than KemperSports.\nMr. Sams responded Greenway Golf would be investing approximately $5.7 million\nversus KemperSports investing $5 million.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Greenway Golf's projected rounds are higher; inquired\nwhether the number of rounds is reasonable.\nMr. Sams responded in the affirmative; stated 105,000 rounds are played now; 135,000\nrounds were played six or seven years ago.\nThe City Manager noted 200,000 rounds were played ten years ago.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether KemperSports' projected rounds are\nconservative.\nThe City Manager responded neither assumption is overly aggressive; stated Greenway\nGolf's theory is to have a signature course which would create interest and drive rounds\nand leave the north course pretty much; KemperSports' theory is that people do not\nwant a lot of change; courses would be upgraded and would be more challenging; both\nfirms want to fix infrastructure.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City would be a partner with an entity for 20-30 years; that\nshe has a concern with the KemperSports proposal because the City and\nKemperSports would be investing approximately $6 million for a golf course that would\nbe similar to what the City had fifteen to twenty years ago; questioned how a similar golf\ncourse would pencil out twenty years from now; inquired whether golfers would want to\nplay the same style course or whether the Greenway Golf proposal would future proof\nthe City.\nThe City Manager responded one path shows that golfers love their home course and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 9, "text": "would like to restore the course; stated Greenway Golf wants to change the south\ncourse into a links course on the theory that a links course would drive traffic and bring\nin more golfers; Council needs to make a psychological and financial determination;\nCouncil needs to determine what would make golfers happy and which golfers would be\nhappy.\nMayor Gilmore stated the issue goes back to how to increase revenue; a links course\nmight provide a marketing edge because of being new and different; some local golfers\nmight be unhappy but having the convenience of driving five minutes to the Golf Course\ncannot be beat.\nMr. Sams stated playing conditions are important; however; the most important thing is\nwhere golfers' friends play; many residents play with non-resident friends; golf courses\nhave lost a lot of resident players because non-resident rates went up so high; both\nfirms do an outstanding job maintaining golf courses.\nThe City Manager stated the whole process has been different because plans for the\nGolf Course have been kicked around for at least six years; staff intends to bring a\nreport to Council for a decision on May 15th\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the next step would be to submit\nthe proposals to the review committee.\nThe City Manager stated the proposals would be presented to the review committee\n[prior to May 15th].\nCouncilmember Tam stated the process started because Council wanted to find a way\nto preserve the golfing experience with a municipal golf course for residents and youth;\nCouncil had to find a way to generate revenue in order to preserve the golfing\nexperience; having a golfing experience that benefits residents is important; that she\nwould like to see a lower rate for residents and preserve lower rates for youth and\nseniors; the golf issue is similar to what the City experienced with the theater; people\ncommented that they would be happy with just one screen and that multiple screens\nwere not needed; however, multiple screens were necessary to make marketing viable;\nthat she will rely upon staff to advise which option would be the best for the future.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.\n*\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked KemperSports and Greenway Golf for good presentations;\nstated both presentations are strong; the chart presented by Mr. Sams is excellent and\nclarifies projections; that he would like to have staff provide a similar chart comparing\n\"green\" management; ensuring that both companies would have the ability to fulfill\npromises is important, particularly on delivering front end capital improvements;\nGreenway Golf has a distinct vision, which is new and bold; that he has no idea whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 10, "text": "the vision is right for a successful financial operation; he would like to learn more about\nwhat a link style course could mean to the community and whether the risk could be\nassessed.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she wants to know the associated cost for each of Kemper's\n\"green\" levels; the City is in a very fortunate position of having two excellent operators\ncompeting to operate the Golf Course; that she does not see that a wrong decision\ncould be made; either operator would be excellent; Council has the happy but difficult\ndecision to pick the firm that would be the best operator for the City.\nThe City Manager stated the two firms will have until April 10th to make any final, written\nchanges to the proposals; the review committee consists of the Golf Commission Chair,\nJunior Golf Chair, the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Sams, and the Recreation and Park\nDirector; the review committee will review changes on or about April 13th and\ncommunicate any final questions to the two firms; the two firms will have until April 20th\nto address said questions; the review committee will make recommendations to the City\nManager by April 25th; the Golf Commission will hold a special meeting the last week of\nApril to discuss policy questions regarding any major or minor changes to the Golf\nCourse; staff will report recommendations of the review committee, Golf Commission,\nand staff to Council on May 3rd; the final proposals will be presented to Council at the\nMay 15th City Council meeting; that his intention is to complete negotiations by the end\nof June in order to present Council with a lease in July.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-155) The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the first Oversight Board\nmeeting.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-156) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Transportation\nCommission.\nMayor Gilmore nominated Sandy Wong for appointment to the Transportation\nCommission.\n(12-157) Councilmember deHaan discussed an airport meeting; questioned when the\nOpen Government Commission would meet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 11, "text": "The City Clerk stated the Open Government Commission would meet on May 7th.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned how the Training Center, new fire station, and\nvehicle replacement would be funded [from Measure C].\nThe City Manager stated there is a difference between the total amount of money that\nwould be raised over thirty years by the Measure and the amount that would be\nadvanced through floating a bond; the City needs to reserve the right not to be locked\ninto a project if a problem occurs such as a major problem with draining or ground water\nfor the all-weather, multipurpose field; the City would only bond up to 50% of the $1.86\nmillion that should be brought in per year; between $900,000 to $1 million would pay the\nbond depending upon the rate; the remaining $900,000 to $1 million should be available\nevery year; the City would partner with other agencies for the Training Center; the entire\nfleet would not be replaced in one year; the Police and Fire Departments are now\nrequired to start depreciating to ensure that the City will not be in the same position in\nthe future; the question is what would be done with the first $15 million generated by the\nbond, as opposed to what to leverage out of the rest of the funds that would come to the\nCity over the thirty-year period.\n(12-158) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California\nCities Policy Committee Meeting.\n(12-159) Mayor Gilmore made an announcement regarding the US Coast Guard ship\nchristening.\nADJOURNMENT\n(12-160) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n10:46 p.m. in a moment of silence in memory of the seven students killed at the Oikos\nUniversity.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- APRIL 3, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore -\n4.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:08 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-140) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nLiz Williams V. City Council, et al; Superior Court of California, Alameda County; Case\nNo. RG12622649. Not heard.\n(12-141) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nCity of Alameda, et al. V. Al Bouraq Aviation, Inc., et al; Superior Court of California,\nAlameda County; Case No. RG 08386940.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Al Bouraq Aviation, Inc., Council authorized settlement\naccepting $130,000 cash in exchange for full release of claims; a copy of the settlement\nis available upon request.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the special meeting at 6:31\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}