pages: CityCouncil/2012-07-24.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |