{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 24, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-410) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the 28th Annual Art\nand Wine Faire.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, made an announcement regarding the\nfaire and presented commemorative glasses to the Council.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-411) Ron Salsig, Alameda, expressed concern with smokers being evicted due to\nthe Smoking Ordinance; stated an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer recommends\nrewriting Section 12; urged putting the matter to a vote of the people.\n(12-412) Jane Sullwold, Alameda, expressed concern about ending negotiations with\nJim's on the Course; urged the City to resume negotiations with Jim's on the Course\nand try to reach an agreement.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-413) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 20-Lease with an Option for a 5-Year\nExtension Between the City of Alameda and Greenway Golf Associates, Inc., for\nPremises Located at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the proforma, the Assistant City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 2, "text": "Manager provided handouts and reviewed the proforma.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Golf fund has insufficient funds and would need\ntransfers from the General Fund.\nThe Assistant City Manager reviewed the forecast and two projected scenarios;\nresponded the General Fund would advance funds, which the Golf Fund would pay\nback.\nThe City Manager clarified the most the General Fund would lend at one time would be\n$440,000, which would be paid back; stated one scenario is based on Greenway Golf's\nprojections and the other is based on the Contract; both peak at $440,000 borrowed at\nyear four.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with the General Fund loaning money to\nGolf because the City has been trying to move things out of the General Fund to relieve\npressure; that she has a hard time prioritizing Golf over other needs; the City does not\nhave money in the General Fund to pay for equipment needs for certain departments,\nlike Public Works.\nThe City Manager stated the $440,000 would not take away the current money available\nin the General Fund; the proposal is to advance the money from the General Fund\nreserve or the Recreation and Park [Athletic Trust Fund] reserve; ideally, staff\nrecommends the money come from the General Fund reserve, which is 4% over the\n20% reserve target; the Recreation and Park Fund reserve would be left with almost\nnothing; another option would be a bank loan; however, interest would be charged.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the City's budget is over $70 million; the amount\n[$440,000] is relatively small compared to the overall General Fund and would come out\nof the reserve, which would not affect departmental operations; Greenway Golf is\nconfident in its numbers; the drop occurs in the first three years after which the City\nwould be paid back and make money.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is more concerned after the explanation; the\nCouncil struggled to cut $5 million in the last two budgets; $440,000 could be used, for\nexample, to pay for fire department vehicles instead; tradeoffs should be considered.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated she agrees with the concern; inquired about the Golf\nFund balance.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the number bounces up and down and changes\nbased on the season and rain; noted the City has to pay expenses associated with the\nLease and needs to figure out the way to pay for said expenses.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Golf Reserve Fund, but nothing more, should be\nused; the City should only commit to whatever is in the Golf Fund.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 3, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated the amount in the Fund would go below $1 million;\nthe City has to pay [Greenway] $1 million; expenses have to be paid out of that $1\nmillion, which cannot be put into an escrow account; the amount would be reimbursed.\nThe City Manager stated the City has $1 million today, which could be put into an\nescrow account; however, course renovation will lower play; projections are\nconservative; staff thought the $1 million should be held back until the new Lessee puts\nup money; the City is would pay later instead of putting the money up now.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the City has a $110,000 loss; questioned\nwhether the loss would be the tenant's loss.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the City is retaining certain charges, such as\n$130,000 debt service on the driving range; stated the debt was incurred in 2002 and\nrefinanced in 2008; staff did not feel the operator should take on the cost because costs\nwould be incurred to update the driving range; the City is also paying an urban runoff\nfee, which brings the amount to $210,000; Greenway is paying the City $100,000 for\nlease, inventory and equipment each year causing a negative balance of $110,000 for\nthe City each year for the first four years.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how the $110,000 affects the City, to which the\nAssistant City Manager responded the amount is coming out of the Golf Fund.\nCouncilmember Johnson's inquired whether whatever is left over after the $110,000 is\ntaken would be part of the $1 million.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City still has to\ncome up with funds to reach $1 million.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the [$110,000 annually] should be part of the $1 million.\nThe City Manager stated the Request for Proposals (RFP) represented that the City\nwould contribute $1 million toward capital improvements of the Course.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City should just give the operator $1 million; the\nCity is going to give $1 million, plus maybe $110,000 every year.\nThe City Manager stated the City would not give the $1 million until year three; the fund\nwould have $330,000 less than $1 million because $110,000 is being spent annually.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she is proposing that the City should give\nGreenway the balance left at said time; the City would be making up the $330,000\ndifference to still come up with $1 million.\nThe City Manager clarified that the City would have to come up with the $330,000\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 4, "text": "difference spent for debt service [and runoff] at the end of the first three years.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated there will no longer be $1 million in the Golf Fund at\nyear three so the City needs to come up with said money from somewhere.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned why the City does not just give Greenway\n$670,000, and why the City is giving more than $1 million.\nMayor Gilmore stated that the $330,000 is not going to Greenway.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the purpose of the Lease is to have the City not\ncontinue to fund Golf course operations.\nThe City Manager stated the City is not funding operations, but is funding the driving\nrange capital improvement debt service and urban runoff fee; the City cannot escape\nsaid expenses or impose the expenses on the operator.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she thought Greenway would take on the Golf\nCourse and get a 20 year lease with a five year option to renew, which includes taking\non Golf Course liabilities.\nCouncilmember Tam stated $1 million is not being paid up front, but she is still\nconcerned about the future; there were long discussions during Measure C debates\nregarding depreciation and ensuring sufficient vehicle funding; making the budget\nchoice to have $440,000 come from the General Fund would be hard; the Auditor has\nindicated there is not enough in the reserves to meet obligations.\nThe City Manager stated the amount would come out of reserves; staff would never\nsuggest having the reserve go under 20%; the money would be advanced to meet the\ncontractual obligation and the reserve would be paid back.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated funds should not be taken out of the General Fund\nreserve to subsidize the Golf Course lease; the City's obligation for funding for the Golf\nCourse should be over when the Lease is signed.\nMayor Gilmore requested information on the Athletic Trust Fund.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that she does not have all the information at this\ntime; the Athletic Trust Fund is for programs that are cost covering; the Fund does not\nhave a lot of money and is being used for staff costs to reduce the Department's\nreliance on the General Fund.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether reliance on the Athletic Trust Fund has been\nincreased.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City has made a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 5, "text": "promise through the RFP and negotiations with the operator to come up with $1 million;\nstaff could combine various funds to develop a funding source that would be paid back;\nthe funding sources could be paid back very quickly depending on what Greenway can\ndo with the Golf Course; staff has great faith that Greenway will make money and pay\nback the funds.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with money coming out of the General\nFund and has less of a problem using Recreation funds to pay for golf; expressed\nconcern that the Athletic Trust Fund might not be able to pay the entire amount.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated she would review the Athletic Trust Fund and look\ninto the possibility of using a combination of funds.\nThe City Manager noted the City has three years to decide and can look into: 1) other\nfunds, like the Athletic Trust Fund, 2) borrowing the balance, or 3) negotiating\nsomething else, like further revenue concessions; stated staff thought using the General\nFund reserve was the most prudent approach because interest would not have to be\npaid and the [20%] reserve would be maintained.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the City should pay the urban runoff fee.\nThe City Manager responded the Golf Course remains the City's asset; stated\nGreenway is making improvements to the asset; the Golf Course is an urban runoff\nasset; the urban runoff is going onto the property; Greenway would build a new driving\nrange and should not have to pay the debt service from the driving range the City built;\nthe most the advance would be is $440,000; the [Greenway] improvements would have\ncost the City about $6 million; that he understands the Council does not want to use\nGeneral Fund reserves; staff could make suggestions on advancing the money from\nanother source at a later point.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff has done an excellent job coming up with the Lease, which\nis complex and was negotiated in a relatively short period of time; the source of\n[advancing] funds is concerning; that she would be okay with moving forward on the\nLease with the understanding that another source of funds would be used.\nThe City Manager stated staff is comfortable and could do so.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated approval tonight would not lock in any particular\nfunding source; Council would just be saying the Lease is good and the City will put\nforth $1 million estimated to be due in the third year; the timing may or may not be in the\nthird year depending on how quickly Greenway completes Phase 1 renovations; staff\nwould come up with options and find another source before any decisions are made on\nthe $440,000.\nThe City Manager stated the Lease does not commit to the source of the $1 million.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason she is having so much difficulty over the source\nof funding is because there was a long, heated discussion over the budget, how the City\nwould close the gap, and whether General Fund monies would be used to close that\ngap rather than cutting City services; the proposal would use General Fund reserves to\npay for recreation, which is not in the same category as other City services; that she has\ntrouble using the General Fund for golf if the Council has so much trouble using General\nFund reserves to close a budget gap.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City is going to have to rely on reserves more without\nthe flexibility that would have been provided for by Measure C.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the RFP indicated $1 million would be provided at the\nonset; negotiations changed the $1 million to as needed; that he cannot argue with the\nCity paying for driving range debt and urban runoff fee; the City still holds the obligation\nfor the urban runoff; noted the animal shelter was privatized and the City still pays\n$300,000 every year.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested the urban runoff be pro-rated; the City would pay\n$80,000 every year and the operator would not pay anything; some amount must be\nattributable to the Golf Course; the City is also paying $130,000 for the driving range\ndebt service; a 20 to 25 year Lease is buying an asset; generally, liabilities are taken\nover when an asset is bought; the City is left with a lot of liability for the Golf Course.\nThe City Manager noted no principle would remain after 10 years; stated the debt would\nbe paid off.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the repair and rehabilitation of the driving range,\ndrainage, and irrigation would qualify for prevailing wage in light of the City's prevailing\nwage ordinance; further inquired whether prevailing wage would be paid.\nThe City Attorney responded Greenway would be operating the Golf Course with its\nown employees; there is no obligation to have Greenway's employees be paid\nprevailing wages; Greenway has indicated work would be done using its employees, so\nthe requirement to pay prevailing wages would not be triggered; prevailing wages come\nup in the context of public construction projects; Phase 1 improvements, including the\nMif Albright and driving range, are in the maintenance category and can be done with\ninternal employees; Phase 2 might be different; analysis and planning would be brought\nto Council; going out to bid on an at least $100,000 public facility project would trigger\nprevailing wages.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether prevailing wage would be required if the project\nwent out to bid.\nThe City Attorney responded prevailing wages would need to be paid if staff does not do\nthe improvements.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 7, "text": "In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about the prevailing wage effective date, the\nCity Attorney stated the ordinance does not go into effect until August 2nd.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested adding language about school golf team activities;\nstated that she does not think the maintenance requirements are strong enough and did\nnot see time requirements; inquired what are the initial requirements for bringing the\nGolf Course up to a certain standard.\nDavid Sams, Golf Consultant, responded the maintenance standards are vague; stated\nspecific tasks and frequencies could be added.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there are requirements to: 1) bring the Golf\nCourse in general up to a certain condition in a certain amount of time, and 2)\nmaintaining said condition; stated Greenway promoted lower use of herbicides,\npesticides and pest control; however, the Lease requires use of herbicides and\npesticides and pests control; there seems to be a conflict between what Greenway\npromotes and the Lease.\nMr. Sams responded the maintenance standard would have to begin after construction\nis finished; stated keep the course up to championship quality before construction is\nfully completed would be difficult.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the Lease describes: 1) the period of time\nwhen the overall Golf Course must be brought up to a certain level and 2) the\nrequirement to maintain said level.\nThe City Attorney responded Exhibits C and D may help with the explanation; stated\nExhibit C Phase 1 repairs and rehabilitation outlines work to be done and states that\nwork on the driving range and the Mif will be completed by July 2013; Exhibit D covers\ndrainage and irrigation issues which is the rest of the Golf Course, including tees,\ngreens and sand traps; timeframes are scattered throughout Exhibit D.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether the Lease indicates the Golf Course has\nto be brought up to a certain level and maintained at that level.\nThe City Manager read part of Exhibit D and confirmed the Lease calls for a high quality\nfacility and playing experience.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested separating major construction from general\nimprovements since the timelines are two to three years; stated certain activities are\nenhanced maintenance rather than major construction and could be completed in\nsooner than three years.\nThe City Attorney stated the milestones hold the operator responsible for completing the\nwork, allows development of a plan, provides time for the public to comment on the\nplan, and lets the City complete the appropriate environmental review.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 8, "text": "The City Manager noted staff promoted the concept of starting with the driving range\nand the Mif; stated the Lease requires that construction begins two years from the\ncommencement date so major improvements are completed on the front end; the\nschedule is very aggressive; both courses might not necessarily close.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired about the plans for the North Course in the first year\nor so.\nMr. Kelly responded discussions have involved converting the fairway surfaces of the\nNorth Course; stated the process would not be difficult; a machine would be brought in\nto plant the grass within six months; disruption would be minimal to the playing surface;\nthere would be significant coverage within eight weeks; the grass requires minimal\nmaintenance compared to other grasses; the driving range is a bigger project than\noriginally anticipated; the intent is to work on the driving range and the Mif as soon as\npossible; Greenway wants to show golfers it is making a difference on the Golf Course.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested an explanation of the Lease provisions relating to\npest and rodent control, fertilizers and herbicides.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated a lot of the provisions state how and when fertilizers\nand herbicides would be use but do not require that the chemicals absolutely have to be\nused; one reason Council was in favor of Greenway was because of the green\napproach to dramatically reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides on the Course.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Lease needs to be reviewed carefully to ensure that\nGreenway would not be required to use chemicals unnecessarily; suggested the Lease\nbe revised to eliminate language that would require Greenway to use chemicals.\nThe City Manager suggested that Council authorize the City Attorney to discuss\nprovisions with Greenway and change language from \"as required\" to \"only if\nnecessary.'\nMr. Kelly concurred with the suggestion.\nCouncilmember Johnson also inquired whether maintenance and capital spending\nwould be capped, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated page six of the Lease regarding capital improvement\npayments has a capital improvement fund maximum; Greenway would pay into the fund\nuntil the maximum is reached; then, money would be spent and contributions would\nstart again; the 3% provision would keep the money from being banked and not spent\non necessary capital improvements.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the 3% preovision, the\nAssistant City Manager stated Greenway would be required to contribute 3%.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the provision would limit or cap Greenway's\nmaintenance and capital improvement spending.\nThe City Manager responded Greenway's obligations outlined in the Exhibits would not\nbe paid out of the capital improvement funds; stated Greenway would contribute to the\ncapital improvement fund every year after renovations are complete so there would a\npot of money; money would be put aside upfront so money to fix things would be\navailable in the future.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated there are two funds; one is a tenant improvement\nfund for Greenway's $1 million; Greenway has already deposited $250,000 and would\ndeposit $750,000 more; the City would also put in $1 million for big ticket items and\nrenovations; Greenway would put in about $5 million in additional funds for a total of\nabout $6.7 million.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the standards for maintaining the Golf\nCourse would require Greenway to come up with money to meet the maintenance\nstandards even if the maintenance and capital improvement fund is insufficient.\nThe City Manager responded Greenway has to maintain the Course; stated\nmaintenance expenses would not be paid out of the capital improvement fund.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the standards would be high enough to\nrequire Greenway to put in extra money to complete necessary improvements.\nMr. Sams responded 3% is typical in the industry; stated funds would be sufficient to\nmeet standards; a decision would have to be made about funding if something\nunpredicted occurs; Greenway would be contributing about $150,000 into the fund.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there should not be any question about funding; funds\nshould come from the operator; the City should not be liable.\nThe City Attorney read the Lease provision clarifying that the tenant [Greenway] shall at\nits sole cost, maintain the premises in good order and condition after Phase 1 and 2.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the tenant would have to come up with the\nmoney, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City can terminate the Contract after four years if Greenway\nhas not resolved drainage and irrigation issues to the satisfaction of the City; inquired\nhow \"satisfaction of the City\" would be defined and about the thought process behind\nthe requirement.\nMr. Sams responded Greenway proposes to have wall to wall cart paths on both\ncourses; stated no golf course would drain properly in the event of 100 year rain; typical\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 10, "text": "rain for Alameda is 24\" per year; players would be able to leave the cart paths within\ntwo days of typical rain.\nMayor Gilmore stated the requirement is important because drainage is a consistent\ncomplaint; standards should be included to define satisfaction.\nMr. Kelly stated fixing the drainage is relative and difficult to define; questioned what the\nstandard would be in the event of an El Ni\u00f1o Year; stated players would be able to go\noff the cart paths within two to three days of heavy rain in a standard year.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is excluding extreme conditions, such as El Ni\u00f1o years;\nthe standard in a typical year should be defined; better drainage is wanted for average\nrainfall years.\nMr. Kelly stated that he would talk to his partners; he believes Greenway would agree to\nan amendment to define normal year standards.\nMayor Gilmore stated the language currently reads \"to the satisfaction of the City\" and\ndoes not exclude El Ni\u00f1o years.\nThe City Attorney inquired what section of the Lease is being discussed, to which Mayor\nGilmore responded the termination clause.\nCouncilmember Tam read Section 7.4.\nThe City Manager stated the language in the actual Lease reads \"reasonable\nsatisfaction of the City\" to allow flexibility; setting a standard is difficult.\nCouncilmember Tam stated reasonableness should be defined so the City is not viewed\nas arbitrary and capricious; the language would not have to be specific.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is happy to let the City Attorney and Greenway resolve\nthe matter.\nMr. Kelly stated neglecting drainage after making major improvements and spending a\nconsiderable amount of money would not be smart; the City should have some comfort\nthat Greenway intends to fix the drainage\nUrged Council to approve the lease and allow the City Attorney to negotiate revisions on\nthe items discussed: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with amendments to the\nLease.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there is a provision covering liability in case\nrevenues are lower and expenses are higher than projections.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 11, "text": "The City Manager responded Greenway would be responsible.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated minimum rent is guaranteed regardless of Greenway\nmeeting projections.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding finance amendments,\nMayor Gilmore stated the Council has been clear that various language changes would\nbe delegated to the City Attorney.\nThe City Manager outlined the four changes: 1) change high school to school use; 2)\nstaff would return to the City Council regarding the source of any difference between the\nGolf Fund balance and the $1 million that the City is obligated to pay at the time the City\nis obligation to pay.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested language be added that indicates General Fund\nreserves would not be used.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Councilmember Johnson; stated any advances\nshould be General Fund alternatives.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff should be instructed to find monies other than the General\nFund; however, direction should not be enshrined until the time comes.\nThe City Manager stated staff would not bring forward anything where money would\ncome out of the City's current expenses or revenues; suggested that Council not restrict\nstaff from using General Fund reserves until the decision arises.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would like to see alternative sources come back a little\nbefore the decision has to be made so Council would not be rushed by the deadline.\nThe City Manager proposed that staff would come back and present alternative sources\nto the Council as part of the two year budget covering 2013 to 2015.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the amount would not be part of any shortfall.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated funds would not come out of\nGeneral Fund operations.\nThe Assistant City Manager concurred with the City Manager; stated the amount should\nbe addressed at the beginning of the two year budget rather than coming back as a\nmidterm adjustment.\nMayor Gilmore stated the majority of the Council is against using the General Fund;\nstaff would be obligated to not use the General Fund even though Council is not\nexplicitly tying staff's hands at this time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 12, "text": "The City Manager continued to outline the changes: 3) delegating the City Attorney to\nreview the language of the Lease with Greenway to ensure there are no mandates to\nuse pesticides on the Course and that pesticides be used only as a last resort to\nmaintain the Course; and 4) the City Attorney is to further elaborate upon the language\nto measure drainage for having the Course ready to be used again in a prompt manner\nafter standard rainfall; stated the City Attorney would work with Greenway to elaborate\non the standard.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether an amount would be assessed for real\nproperty taxes.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded Greenway would pay possessory interest tax;\nstated Greenway would be responsible for discussing the matter with the County.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether language should be changed, to which the\nCity Attorney responded possessory interest is viewed as real property taxes.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the language is clear; Greenway is aware that it\nwould need to pay the taxes; the City would not be responsible.\nCouncilmember deHaan amended his motion to accept the changes outlined [by the\nCity Manager].\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether work would be subject to the\nprevailing wage ordinance if Greenway subcontracts or contracts out drainage or\nirrigation construction.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Greenway would be required to\nfollow the prevailing wage ordinance if work is contracted out.\nVice Major Bonta read from the prevailing wage ordinance; inquired whether the Lease\nwould trigger the prevailing wage ordinance because the $1 million used to pay for the\nwork would be from public funds and the drainage and irrigation construction work could\nbe considered a public work.\nThe City Attorney responded adding the requirement would be a stretch of the\nprevailing wage laws; stated the City is entering into a long term Lease partnering with\nGreenway for Golf Course operation; enforcing the law on an operator's employees is\nnot typical; prevailing wage would only be triggered if Greenway goes to the public\nmarket for a separate construction project.\nVice Major Bonta inquired whether the argument would be a stretch and would likely not\nbe successful.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 13, "text": "The City Attorney responded a Port of Oakland case was not successful at making\ntenants pay prevailing wages.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether contracts subject to prevailing wage would be for\nwork subcontracted out, not long term leases, to which the City Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-414) Consideration of Mayor's Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee.\nMayor Gilmore appointed John G. Hensill to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-24", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 24, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:03 p.m. and Vice\nMayor Bonta arrived at 6:15 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-407) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to\nsubdivision (c) of Section 54956.9); Number of Cases: One\n(12-408) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title and name: City\nAttorney Janet Kern\n(12-409) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators:\nCouncilmembers deHaan and Johnson; Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk;\nAnticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions)\nFollowing the Closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council gave direction to staff; and\nregarding Labor, Council gave direction to staff.\n*\nMayor Gilmore called a recess to hold the regular meeting at 7:11 p.m. and reconvened\nthe meeting at 9:31 p.m.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced regarding the Performance Evaluation, reviewed the City Attorney's goals\nand objectives.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.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\nJuly 24, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf"}