My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010604
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCMIN010604
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:38 AM
Creation date
12/19/2003 9:15:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/6/2004
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN010604
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Pico believed this was a totally different circumstance. As part of the <br />operation agreement, the City is agreeing to pay for all of the operating expenses of the <br />golf course. He wanted to make sure the City was socially responsible. Without having <br />this information available, he believed it was not possible to make a decision. He was <br />concerned that no pension plan was available, and believed there ought to be some type <br />of basle pension plan available. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky mentioned there was a section in the Operator Agreement that <br />addressed prevailing wages. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nerland pointed out that under State law, landscape workers are required to <br />be paid prevailing wages. This section was included in the agreement so that the <br />Operator understood that it has an obligation and that the City expects it to be fulfilled. <br /> <br /> In response to an inquiry by Ms. Ayala, Ms. Nerland stated prevailing wages do <br />not involve pensions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala believed that if comparable pay was required of the Operator for the <br />golf course, it should be required of all other City contractors. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico, again, pointed out that the operation of a golf course is a different <br />situation. He believed that paying into a pension was a reasonable benefit. He requested <br />that this item be continued until Council received information regarding proposed wages <br />and benefits. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell believed it was not fair to compare wages against other City <br />employees. He believed comparisons should be conducted against other golf courses. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico stated his concern again that there was no reasonable potential <br />pension benefit being paid. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell noted Mayor Pico's concern. From his golfing experience, he <br />believed people who work at golf courses and work there because of their love for the <br />sport. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman believed Mayor Pico made a reasonable request and stated that <br />she would support him. She asked staffis there was any down side in continuing this <br />matter until additional comparison information was provided. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico did not believe Council needed to continue this item. He believed <br />Council could require CourseCo, if it chooses, to provide benefits as the City, is in effect, <br />paying for it. If the issue was not resolved this evening, he believed there would be <br />another opportunity between now and when the golf course opens, particularly when a <br />budget is proposed and adopted. <br /> <br />Ms. Hosterman concurred with Mayor Pico's comments. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 20 01/06/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.