pages: CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-02-16 | 22 | choose to make SunCal's documents open to the public; SunCal would have to agree to do so, which would be done by amending the ENA. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a similar request was made six months ago; inquired whether the matter is part of the public record. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would have to check the record; the Council/Board/Commission would have to make a motion to discuss the matter if it was addressed in closed session. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated SunCal would have to agree to an ENA amendment to be more transparent; inquired whether SunCal's letter from last October would not have been sufficient and an ENA amendment would have been required. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she believes the letter proposed choosing item by item what would become public record, which is not the same as lifting the confidentiality provision altogether. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what lifting confidentiality would look like; questioned whether negotiations between staff and SunCal would be done in public. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the confidentiality provision in the ENA has to do with the documents; stated assuming SunCal agrees, the documents would become public record and it would be appropriate to talk about what is in the documents. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether documents are the pro forma, business plan, etc., to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the reason it [lifting confidentiality restrictions] is so important is the City could not divulge what was in the $200 million cap. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is still confused--the agenda item is to consider requests for ENA extension and retraction of the Notice of Default; SunCal has withdrawn both requests; inquired if there is a way to take action aside from what was noticed on the agenda. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the action is relying on what was noticed; the Council/Board/Commission always has authority to approve, deny or ask to do it Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 4 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission February 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf |