body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2008.
2-B. Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for St. George Spirits at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Marc Associates to Extend the Term
for Seven Months and Add $45,000 for a Total Budget of $120,000 for Provision of
Intergovernmental Relations Services.
Vice Chair Tam abstained from Item 2-A (May 7 Minutes) because she was absent from
that meeting. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1.
The balance of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update focusing
on legislation approved by the House, and pending in the Senate, regarding the conveyance of
Alameda Point. Staff worked with the Navy to pursue this legislation because they felt it was
necessary to streamline the conveyance of the property. Since 1993, there have been lots of
barriers and the strategy was to look at an approach that would be as efficient as possible in
conveying the property. The legislation outlines three possible options: 1) take the June 2006
negotiated draft term sheet with the Navy and provide a timeframe for allowing SunCal to work
with the Navy and ARRA on a Term Sheet that works for them to convey the property; 2)
provide a land price formula that SunCal could elect to pursue if they were interested in that land
price formula or felt that they couldn't work out a Term Sheet with the Navy on conveyance
terms, and; 3) in the event the master developer withdrew, allow the ARRA to work with the
Navy to auction the property. Special legislation is necessary due to public trusts lands which
preclude the Navy to auction the property on its own. If the bill passes, it will go into effect on
October 1st.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,2,"Member Matarrese requested that staff provide more detailed information under 'budget
consideration /fiscal impact', i.e., how much did we spend, did we exceed budget, etc. Ms.
Potter explained that all the activities undertaken by staff and consultants to prepare the
legislation is an eligible reimbursement activity pursuant to the ENA with SunCal, that all costs
are borne by SunCal. Member Matarrese would like to see these details in the staff report. He
also asked about the activities SunCal is currently undertaking. Ms. Potter discussed that SunCal
is
particularly focused on examining sea level rise on Alameda Landing and Alameda Point, fill
and geotechnical grading, updating the infrastructure numbers and hoping to have an updated
proforma in 2-4 weeks that reflect those numbers. SunCal is also working on scheduling
community meetings at the end of July or beginning of August, and on Sept. 19, their
Development Concept is due.
Member deHaan was hoping for more detail or progress report on each of the myriad activities
that SunCal is doing. Ms. Potter explained that staff heard the desire expressed by the Board last
month for a detailed progress report. She stated that SunCal will be back next month with a
detailed update the Board is looking for. Member deHaan clarified the purpose of the options of
the legislation and Ms. Potter affirmed his clarification.
Vice Chair Tam asked for clarification on the consent calendar item just approved regarding
increasing Marc Associates' budget. Ms. Potter confirmed that Marc Associates is the firm that
worked with staff and the Navy on this legislation, and that their entire effort is covered under
the contract amount of $120,000. In an effort to understand our coalition partners and how we
are stacked in the bill, Vice Chair Tam commented that the Alameda Point legislation Section
2851 is a small piece. Ms. Potter explained that the entire bill is approximately 1000 pages long
and Alameda Point is sandwiched between a number of other bases (all branches, not just the
Navy - including Army, Air Force, etc.) across the country that also have special legislation.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director further explained that, in Washington DC, there are
two acts: the Annual Defense Authorization Bill and the Annual Appropriations Bill, and there
cannot be an Appropriation for any activity without first having Authorization. He stated that
Marc Associates also works with the City and County of San Francisco and the League of Cities.
Chair Johnson commented on how effective Marc Associates has been on this defense
legislation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A.
Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese reported that there was no RAB meeting between the last ARRA meeting and
this one. He did attend a walkthru of some of the sites on Saturday and has photos to share.
Member deHaan also attended the tour, which he said was presented as an overview on the
remediation of the sites, but the tour was sidetracked and the focus was more on the fish and
wildlife activities.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,3,"Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 4, 2008 - -7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present Councilmembers / Board Members
/
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(08-252 CC/ARRA/08-035 CIC) Authorize the City Manager/Executive
Director to execute a Transfer of the Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement with SSC Alameda Point LLC to a new entity with D.E. Shaw
or a transfer of an ownership interest in the Master Developer
entity, SCC Alameda Point LLC to D.E. Shaw, pursuant to specific
terms and Conditions.
The Assistant City Manager stated SunCal requested that the matter
be held over for two week in order to allow representatives from
D.E. Shaw to be present to answer questions.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked the
consultant for coming through and hitting important points that the
City needs to have to protect itself; that she has a problem with
eventually approving a document or agreement that she has not seen
or read; Councilmembers were elected to make decisions on behalf of
the citizens; if she approves the recommendation and things later
go south, the citizens are not going to want to hear that she
relied on a consultant when she made the decision; essentially, the
consultant is framing the discussion about the issues;
louncilmembers/Boaro Members/Commissioners might have additional
items that the consultant has not flagged or that should be
discussed in public; it is really important for
louncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners to be able to see and
discuss the Agreement; if SunCal feels strongly about the
confidentiality the Agreement could be disclosed in Closed
Session; that she would be open to signing a confidentiality
agreement; it is really important that the Council/Board/Commission
sees underlying documents that she does not want to see SunCal and
D.E. Shaw in two weeks if the Operating Agreement is not complete;
suggested that the matter not return until the Operating Agreement
is executed, the Council/Board/Commission has copies of the term
sheet and Operating Agreement and the Council/Board/Commission has
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
1
and Community Improvement Commission
June 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-04,2,"had an opportunity to review and discuss the matter before voting;
D.E. Shaw is asking to become the City's partner if D.E. Shaw does
not trust the Council/Board/Commission to keep the matter
confidential, it does not speak well for the beginning of the
partnership.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated D.E. Shaw
is entering into an agreement with the taxpayers; that he would not
be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement ; the matter is in
the public realm; the background document should be presented to
and discussed in front of the public.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how there
could be an open discussion.
The Assistant City Manager responded staff has discussed the
matter; the confidentiality issues are D.E. Shaw's issues; staff
would discuss the matter with D.E. Shaw's management tomorrow;
staff has indicated that the issue would be a problem for the
Council/Board/Commission D.E. Shaw is relying on a section of the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) that allows confidentiality.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she
appreciates the concerns i there is an obligation under Section 10
of the ENA that keeps some of the information between SunCal and
D.E. Shaw proprietary; inquired what the Council's/Board'
Commission's role was when Catellus merged with Palmtree; stated
the venture is a multi-party partnership and is a business
relationship; the City changes financing partners when doing tax
increment funding or refinancing bonds; the developer has been able
to secure a financing partner unlike the prior developer.
The Assistant City Manager stated the documents were reviewed when
Catellus assigned part of its agreement to Palmtree; the CIC had
issues and there were concessions; ARRA approved the Operating
Agreement between Alameda Point Community Partners and Morgan
Stanley; the financials have always been confidential, but the
Operating Agreement generally has not been confidential.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager stated
SunCal has indicated the Operating Agreement would not be ready for
sixty days; staff thought bringing a term sheet first could be
helpful to provide direction to SunCal and D.E. Shaw in negotiating
the
Operating Agreement ; initial direction from
the
Council/Board/Commission would allow them to focus on issues of key
concern; the Operating Agreement would reflect the intent of the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
2
and Community Improvement Commission
June 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-04,3,"Council/Board/Commission the Council/Board/Commission might want
to give direction regarding the key issues to allow the negotiation
process to be a more efficient.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated said
recommendation would be fine as long as it is understood that she
would not vote for or against the Operating Agreement until she
sees it; the Council/Board/Commission should see the document.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager stated
staff understands that the Council/Board/Commission wants to see
both the executed Operating Agreement and term sheet and ensure
that the key points outlined in the term sheet are carried over
into the Operating Agreement; staff's recommendation is that
direction only be given regarding the term sheet; the Operating
Agreement would have to be entirely consistent with the points
raised in the term sheet.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that she informed SunCal's
Counsel that the  ouncil/Board/Commission would want to know all
the details; the confidentiality provision of the ENA covers the
issue sufficiently; if a third party wants to get a document, it
would be on SunCal's shoulders; in the event of a legal dispute
about whether or not something is discloseable under the Public
Records Act, SunCal would have the burden of taking on the dispute.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants
to hear from SunCal about progress being made; the term sheet and
Operating Agreement should not curtail or slow operations.
The Assistant City Manager stated quite a bit of engineering work
has been done; money is being spent.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed consultants.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
3
and Community Improvement Commission
June 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-04,4,"Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
4
and Community Improvement Commission
June 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-06-04,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jane Sullwold called the special meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. at Jim's on
the Course Restaurant, Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive,
Alameda.
1-A.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Betsy Gammell,
Vice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz, and Chair Jane Sullwold.
Absent: Secretary Bill Delaney and Commissioner Jeff Wood. No staff member
was present.
4.
AGENDA ITEMS:
Discussion/Action on
a.
Golf Complex finances;
b.
Response to letter of City Auditor Kevin Kearney to Golf Commission
dated May 20, 2008; and
C.
Response to City Council regarding its discussion of Golf Complex
finances at Council meeting on May 27, 2008.
Chair Sullwold introduced the meeting by giving a report on the events that led up to it.
On May 27, 2008, City Council held a special meeting at which the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
budget for FY 2008/2009 was discussed. No member of the Golf Commission was present
because no one from staff had advised the Commission that the matter would be coming up that
evening. Fortunately, however, the meeting was videotaped and could be viewed the next day
through the City's website, which all commissioners had done before the meeting.
The budget that had been presented by Interim General Manager to the Golf Commission
at its meeting on April 16, 2008, was presented to Council on May 27. In general, the proposed
budget showed that the Golf Complex was anticipated to have a deficit of approximately
$700,000 in the next fiscal year, unless the City agreed to rescind the Surcharge and Return on
Investment (""ROI""), in which case the deficit would be reduced to approximately $440,000.
Council immediately questioned why the City should be required to ""subsidize"" a deficit at
the Golf Complex out of the General Fund by returning the Surcharge and ROI, and no one from
staff pointed out why this was incorrect: that the Complex has actually been subsidizing the
General Fund for a number of years, and can no longer afford to do so. Council asked
repeatedly what the Golf Commission has been doing, what plan it has, and Mr. Lillard told
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 1
06/04/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-06-04,2,"Council that the matter would be referred to the Commission next month, and that the
Commission is waiting to see the National Golf Foundation master plan before taking action,
which left the impression that the Golf Commission has done nothing to date. Mr. Lillard
characterized the policy changes that the Commission has considered as minor, and City
Manager Debbie Kurita vehemently asserted that the Commission has focused only on what the
City has been taking away, and not on ""other things"" (unspecified) that have been causing the
losses. No mention was made by either Mr. Lillard or Ms. Kurita of the Commission's
unsuccessful efforts over the past several months to obtain information from the Finance
Department regarding certain expenditures and the accounting treatment thereof, particularly
the $400,000 four-year lease for golf carts, which the Finance Department has fully expensed in
this fiscal year despite the fact that 3/4ths of the payments will not be due this year. Also, at the
Commission meeting on May 21st, Mr. Lillard advised for the first time that the Golf Complex
had been charged with $115,063 for expenses related to the Beltline eminent domain litigation
in this fiscal year, raising the question of whether expenses that came in and were charged to
the Complex after the close of the last fiscal year, charges that caused the Complex to end the
year with a deficit of $256,000, were also Beltline expenses that went to the Complex but not to
other City departments that did not generate income. Mayor Beverly Johnson ended the
Council meeting by stating that she wanted an interim report from the Golf Commission
regarding finances and the budget.
This meeting was called so that the Golf Commission can finalize a letter to City Council
in an effort to correct the misinformation and misperceptions that were conveyed to it by staff in
its May 27th meeting, and to correct Council's overall impression that the City is being asked to
subsidize golf losses from the general fund. The meeting was also called to formulate a written
response to City Auditor Kevin Kearney's letter of May 20, 2008, to the Golf Commission
regarding accounting treatment of the golf cart lease. Letters had been drafted in advance of
the meeting by Chair Sullwold and presented to the Commission for revision and finalization at
the meeting.
Chair Sullwold reported that she had sought assistance from Mr. Lillard in noticing this
special meeting, but that Mr. Lillard refused to do so because he personally was not available at
any time this week. In the course of e-mail communications back and forth on this issue of
notice, Mr. Lillard also stated: ""As far as agenda items for a special meeting go it is our position
that the Finance Dept. and Auditor have provided more than adequate responses to the
questions raised and there is no need for any further response."" Chair Sullwold announced that
she found this position to be particularly troubling in light of the specific charge by the Mayor and
City Council at the joint meeting in January 2007 that the Golf Commission should become
actively involved in the budgeting process and aware of what was going on regarding Golf
Complex finances.
Commissioner Bill Schmitz said that his biggest disappointment with the Council meeting
was the failure of staff to mention the issues of the golf cart lease and the Beltline litigation
expenses as an explanation for alleged budgetary deficits at the Golf Complex. He stated that
he liked the draft letters, but asked whether former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica had any
suggestions based-on his historical perspective. Commissioner Schmitz said that Mr. Lillard
and Ms. Kurita made it clear that they want to get rid of the Golf Complex, but he believes they
are being very short-sighted because it is far from certain that the City of Alameda will be able to
get any meaningful payments from a golf course company under current conditions.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 2
06/04/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-06-04,3,"Former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica said he found it strange that Council was being
asked to accept a budget that called for a deficit, and also strange that no questions were asked
about the reasons for the deficit between revenues and expenses. Mr. Corica has been
attending Commission meetings since the start of this year, and has seen the Golf Commission
take action to increase tournament play, institute aggressive website marketing, increase demo
days by golf equipment manufacturers, institute fee changes (reducing Mif Albright rates and
increasing Jack Clark rates) to bring golfers back then increase revenues, end complimentary
golf, and request an itemization of service expenses charged to the Golf Complex this year. He
thinks that all these interventions by the Golf Commission should be mentioned in the letter to
Council, even if they are each small individually. Chair Sullwold agreed that these should be
included, and Commissioner Betsy Gammell added another item: the renewal of Saturday
morning junior golf clinics, which bring 120 children and their parents to the Golf Complex and
increase play on the Mif Albright course. Mr. Corica noted that the Commission's letter to
Council will probably not change the ultimate decision whether to lease or not to lease, but at
least it will show that the Commission has made efforts to change and improve conditions at the
Golf Complex so that an intelligent decision can be made. Former Commissioner Norma
Arnerich also mentioned the outside company that is willing to prepare scorecards booklets in
exchange for allowing advertising. Former Commissioner Bob Wood cautioned that the Golf
Commission may be asked by Council for its estimation of what savings or increased revenue
could result from the changes the Commission has proposed. Chair Sullwold said that many of
these items could be estimated by someone with access to the underlying information, and that
staff should be charged with that task.
Mrs. Arnerich stated that she found it discourteous that Mr. Lillard had not arranged for
another staff member to attend this Commission meeting since he could not be present. Chair
Sullwold noted that she had given notice of the meeting herself when Mr. Lillard refused to do
so, and that Mr. Lillard could claim that he never saw any of the posted notices. Commissioner
Schmitz, however, agreed with Mrs. Arnerich. Chair Sullwold discussed her conversation with a
member of the City Attorney's office about the method of giving notice, and the difference in the
City Attorney's interpretation of section 54956 of the Brown Act regarding special meetings. Mr.
Corica said that the Commission should not be distracted from its goal of getting the correct
information to Council, and Commissioner Schmitz agreed, stating that it was time to get the
letters out, then to schedule one-on-one meetings with Council members in an effort to set the
record straight. Chair Sullwold said that she has already scheduled a lunch meeting next week
with Councilwoman Marie Gilmore, Commissioner Schmitz intends to call Councilman Doug
deHaan soon, and Councilman Frank Mattarese is next. Vice Chair Gaul said that he supports
Council's suggestion of having another joint meeting with the Golf Commission, or, even better,
having two Council members come to a meeting. All Commission members supported the latter
plan. Mrs. Arnerich pointed out that this practice was followed during prior eras of the Golf
Commission. Mr. Wood emphasized his belief that Council ought to be following what the
Commission is doing by reading our minutes, particularly because the Golf Complex finances
are so important to City finances.
George Humphreys asked if the Golf Commission had seen the detailed budget proposal
that has been presented to the Council. Chair Sullwold reported that the Commission was given
only the broad outlines, which is why it has asked in the draft letter to Auditor Kearney to see the
detailed breakdown of projected expenses. Commissioner Schmitz noted that when he and
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 3
06/04/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-06-04,4,"Commissioner Bill Delaney met with Finance Director Juelle-Ann Boyer and Mr. Lillard in
January regarding Golf Complex finances, he asked specifically if the Golf Commission could be
involved in preparing the budget for the next two fiscal years. It is impossible to become
involved in the administration of a budget if one has no involvement in the budget preparation
process, and the Council charged the Commission with responsibility for the Golf Complex
budget at its joint meeting in January 2007. Nevertheless, no one from the Golf Commission
was ever invited to become involved with the budget process.
Marshal Bill Wehr questioned why the Golf Complex was being asked to fund the Beltline
litigation, and whether the costs were being assessed against any other City department. Chair
Sullwold said her best guess was that the City had to charge the expense against the few City
departments that had cash reserves from which the charges could be paid. Commissioner
Schmitz noted that it was the City's prerogative to assess the charges in that way, because in
the final analysis it is the City's money, but the City needs to be honest and open about what it
is doing, and not take the money away secretly, then complain loudly about the fact that the Golf
Complex has a projected loss of $440,000 next year. Chair Sullwold pointed out that it is
unreasonable to take away so much money from Golf Complex revenues that an insufficient
amount remains to pay what are fixed labor expenses and fixed expenses for necessary
services such as tree maintenance that cannot be reduced. George Humphreys asked if the
Golf Complex would be reimbursed after successful final resolution of the Beltline litigation. No
one knows the answer, but most agreed that it was unlikely. Moreover, no one has ever
suggested that the Golf Complex be repaid for the loan of $300,000 it made regarding the
preliminary efforts to build another golf course at Alameda Point. For some unknown reason,
that loan earns zero interest.
George Humphreys noted that the Golf Commission had spent a lot of time investigating
the cost of renovating the clubhouse to create banquet space and asked about the results of
that investigation. Chair Sullwold noted that the Commission's first effort was a tent structure,
but that ended when the Commission learned that infrastructure costs would be millions of
dollars. Then the Commission concentrated on costing out improvements to the existing
buildings, but was frustrated by lengthy delays that were contributed to by staff in certain
respects. When the detailed cost estimate by an independent professional cost estimator
numbers finally arrived, the total was quite reasonable, but by that time it was apparent that
there was no money available to spend from the Golf Complex enterprise fund because that
money was needed to pay ordinary expenses during the time it would take to find an outside
vendor, should that be the ultimate decision of Council. Chair Sullwold said that she thought a
discussion of this lengthy process should not be included in what is already a long letter, but
should be mentioned in private discussions with Councilmembers.
A discussion ensued as to whether any outside vendor would be interested in leasing the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Although many municipalities are seeking outside vendors, and it
is clearly a buyer's market, the Golf Complex balance sheet shows that, without considering City
take-aways, revenues exceed expenses, even with very high labor costs. On the other hand,
the courses need lots of expensive capital improvements to be competitive with other area
courses. It is unlikely that any vendor will offer a lease payment equivalent to the $900,000 per
year that the City has been pulling out of the Complex off the top, although it seems likely that
some company will be interested in such a prime piece of golf course real estate.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 4
06/04/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf
GolfCommission,2008-06-04,5,"Commissioner Schmitz noted that Corsco is going back to the City of Oakland to renegotiate the
terms of its lease of the Metropolitan course because business is down.
A motion was made by Commissioner Schmitz and seconded by Commissioner Gammell
that Chair Sullwold should use her discretion to make minor to moderate revisions to the draft
letters to City Council and Auditor Kearney as discussed in the meeting, then get the letters out
as soon as possible. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Sullwold noted that, at the meeting on May 27, the Mayor and Councilman deHaan
praised Mr. Lillard highly for his efforts since taking over management of the Golf Complex, and
criticized prior management, blaming it (without naming names) for the problems being
experienced today. Chair Sullwold learned, however, that former General Manager Dana Banke
actually had very little to do with preparation of Golf Complex budgets, and that the City's
Finance Department refused to allow revenue estimates in the budget to decline, even when it
was apparent that play was down. Mr. Corica noted, however, that there was a serious lack of
marketing efforts over prior years that contributed to Golf Complex financial problems. Vice
Chair Gaul asked whether we could find out where the enterprise fund has gone over the past
five years, but it was generally agreed that it was unlikely we will find out precisely how that
money was drawn down. Chair Sullwold noted that the NGF Operational Review does not
criticize management or blame it for the financial losses the Golf Complex has been suffering,
yet Mayor Johnson continues to do so in public meetings. Chair Sullwold also noted that the
Golf Complex budget will reflect a payment of $80,000 for Mr. Lillard's salary and benefits next
year, representing about 1/3 of his total pay, even though it has been estimated that he spends
less than 10% of his time at the Golf Complex during an average week.
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 7:38 PM.
The agenda for the meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with section 54956
of the Brown Act, pertaining to special meetings.
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Page 5
06/04/08
Golf Commission Minutes",GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf