body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 12:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he
received a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object
in
the Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member
Matarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.
Member deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is
unknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed
that the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,
stating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along
with RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point
discussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant
to conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of
thousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.
Chair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:
concrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the
shoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is
eventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be
cleared out.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
02-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City
of Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member
Matarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option
to see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther
along than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have
been rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member
Matarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He
stated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the
runways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option
for the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an
engineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it
filters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave
action because it doesn't require maintenance.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for
establishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair
deHaan stated that getting ""tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of
operation.
Chair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the
ARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.
Member Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one
representative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail
was in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the
source to the rumor to see if it has any merit.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 6, 2010- -7:0 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10-004) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the EDC's
Subcommittee report [paragraph number 10-015 would be continued to a future date.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-005) Proclamation Declaring January as National Blood Donor Month.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Lisa Eversole, Red Cross
Donor Recruitment Account Manager.
Ms. Eversole thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Alameda has been very
generous in donating blood to the Red Cross.
(10-006) Presentation by Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) on
the I-880 Operational and Safety Improvements at 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue
Overcrossings.
The Public Works Director gave a brief introduction.
Matt Todd, CMA Project Manager, gave a Power Point presentation.
Garret Gritz, RBF Consulting Project Manager, continued the Power Point presentation.
The Supervising Civil Engineer continued the Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired why a resolution cannot be reached on the matter.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded CalTrans has rigid standards; stated ramps
are not meeting standards; space is limited; staff has spent many hours trying to find
options and alternatives.
Mayor Johnson stated one problem is that ramps are being combined.
Mr. Todd stated combining two ramps into one is causing a delay; an auxiliary lane
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,2,"between 23rd Avenue and Oak Street overcrossing would meet CalTrans standards;
however; State funding needs to be invested right away.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fruitvale Bridge is underutilized; diverting traffic from the
Fruitvale Bridge is not good for Alameda; encouraged CMA to figure out solutions to the
problems.
Councilmember Matarrese stated clearances need to be addressed; having a cue going
across the bridge is not acceptable; utilization of the Fruitvale Bridge crossing needs to
be revisited.
Councilmember Gilmore stated sometimes Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) have
impacts that cannot be mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations needs to
be adopted; inquired what entity would adopt the statement of overriding considerations.
Mr. Todd responded an Environmental Assessment Initial Study (EAIS) is being
performed, not an EIR; stated CalTrans would be the final signatory.
Councilmember Matarrese questioned whether CalTrans could impose things on
Alameda unilaterally.
Mr. Gritz stated typically, CalTrans does not force things onto local agencies; the issue
would need to be revisited if the unmitigated impact would delay the project.
Mayor Johnson stated CMA needs to go back and figure something out.
Mr. Gritz stated CMA has reviewed a tremendous amount of options; CMA wants to
utilize the Fruitvale Bridge rather than impact Park Street; the cue back up along the
23rd Avenue/Park Street corridor is attributed to development forecasted to occur in
Oakland and Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the current design makes diverting traffic back to the Fruitvale
Bridge from the freeway very difficult; a huge obstacle would be created.
Councilmember Matarrese stated cars have already exceeded capacity on I-880;
something different needs to be considered; that he is not sure the problem has an
engineering solution.
The Public Works Director stated that staff thought that an agreement was reached with
CMA and would be included in the environmental documents, but it was not; the
purpose of the presentation is to receive feedback from Council and the community to
see if proposed mitigations seem acceptable; staff is concerned that future studies
never get built.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the southbound area of the corridor is the most dangerous
and is not being addressed; the Miller Sweeney [Fruitvale] Bridge is another concern;
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,3,"sound goes directly into Alameda when a sound wall is put up on the north side of I-880
without another one on the other side.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe to spend the $74 million to build
the project.
Mr. Todd responded the timeframe is tight; stated all corridor projects have to have
environmental clearance by April; stated CMA did not submit a project for the
southbound corridor.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether CMA has conceptual plans for the area.
Mr. Todd responded in the affirmative; stated an analysis was performed from I-980 to I-
238; taking care of overpasses covers a large portion of future costs.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated staff has asked CMA to look at the southbound
auxiliary lane between the 29th Avenue onramp and Fruitvale Avenue offramp; moving
the column would help add more space to the shoulder.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether or not the northbound portion has an alternative,
to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded traffic could go to 12th Street.
Mayor Johnson stated people would not go to 12th Street.
Councilmember Gilmore stated CalTrans does not impose will on local agencies; the
project needs to be shovel ready in order not to lose funding; CMA should be
encouraged to work with staff on mitigation issues so that Alameda does not become a
sticking point.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda has a good relationship with Oakland; the area is in
Councilmember De La Fuente's district; Alameda does not want to jeopardize the
funding; Alameda and the CMA have to work together to figure out a way to resolve the
issue; the project needs to go forward; CMA would risk losing money to the region if the
problem is not solved.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the problem is trying to squeeze too many cars onto I-
880; the freeway does not have shoulders and never will; reducing the number of cars
on I-880 is important; the High Street northbound onramp is dangerous; projecting
today's traffic patterns and habits into 2035 is a big problem.
Mr. Todd stated that CMA has a meeting scheduled with City staff for Monday.
Mayor Johnson stated the region cannot lose the money; the project is important to the
Jingletown neighborhood.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council looks forward to seeing mitigations soon.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,4,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolutions Approving Amendment to the MOU and
Amending Salary Schedules [paragraph nos. 10-012 and 10-012A1 were removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*10-007) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting held on December
15, Approved.
(*10-008) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,712,971.89.
(*10-009) Recommendation to Adopt the Legislative Program for 2010. Accepted.
(*10-010) Resolution No. 14409, ""In Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and
Transportation Protection Act of 2010. ""Adopted.
(*10-011) Resolution No. 14410, ""Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding
Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for
the Period Commencing January 1, 2009 and Ending December 18, 2010. Adopted.
(10-012) Resolution No. 14411, ""Approving Amendment to Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) Between the Management and Confidential Employees
Association (MCEA) and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 1,
2005, and Ending December 20, 2008, and Extended through December 12, 2009.
""
Adopted; and
(10-012A) Resolution No. 14412, ""Amending the Management and Confidential
Employees Association Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for the Position
of Controller. Adopted.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Speaker: Bob Haun, MCEA.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*10-013) Ordinance No. 3015, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,5,"Subsection 8-7.8 (Leaving Vehicle on Street in Excess of Seventy-Two Hours);
Amending Subsection 8-7.9 (Heavy Commercial Vehicles); Amending Subsection 8-
7.10 (Overnight Parking of Large Vehicles); and Adding Subsection 8-7.11
(Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers Prohibited) Prohibiting the Parking of
Recreational Vehicles and Trailer Coaches on City Streets."" Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-014) Public Hearing to Consider the Housing and Community Development Needs
for the Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five-Year Plans.
The Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: Cynthia Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB)
President; Tina Fleeton, Bananas Inc.; and Doug Biggs, SSHRB Member and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Following Ms. Wasko's comments, Councilmember Tam inquired whether the SSHRB
anticipates changes after the new census.
Ms. Wasko responded the map will change; stated the President is talking about
changing the funding formula.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether ten percent of the families in the Alameda
Unified School District are in a housing transition.
Ms. Wasko responded in the affirmative; stated families are either living with relatives,
couch surfing, or staying in shelters.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the housing issue is where people get
stuck.
Ms. Wasko responded the first step is to provide housing; stated the next step is
working on job stability; families are living in cars.
Councilmember Matarrese stated having ten percent of School District families'
homeless is astounding.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,6,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired how often Housing Urban Development (HUD)
updates income limits, to which the Community Development Program Manager
responded annually.
(10-015) Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development
Commission's Business Attraction Subcommittee. Continued.
(10-016) Recommendation to Approve Directing the Interim City Manager to Close the
Mif Albright Course Effective January 31, 2010 and to Relocate the Course to the Front
Nine Holes of the South Course as a Pilot Program.
The Interim City Manager and John Vest, Kemper Sports, gave a brief presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded play has dropped
three percent regionally.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how data is gathered, to which Mr. Vest responded the
National Golf Foundation (NGF).
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded that tees would be
created off the side [of the south course] for nine holes.
The Recreation and Park Director stated that Exhibit 2 of the staff report shows rounds
are up in opening months over the year before; rounds start to drop off in succeeding
months.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the decline in rounds is consistent with other courses.
Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated there is a 16% decline from last year.
Councilmember Tam inquired why the water bill went up during the rainy season.
Mr. Vest responded a lot of water was needed to rejuvenate the course; stated the
overall number reflects an annual picture of water costs; watering is minimal now.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether water expenses reflect a separately metered
charge, to which Mr. Vest responded the property receives a bill for two months.
The Recreation and Park Director stated in 2008, water consumption was $35,000 for
the entire year; most of the use is front end loaded; typically, irrigation is shut off
somewhere between October or November and stays off until the end of April or May.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the water bill is anticipated to be less, to which
Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,7,"In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the minimal maintenance cost in
closed condition, Mr. Vest stated labor costs would go down; water costs would be
approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month.
Councilmember Tam inquired what would be the minimum cost to maintain the property
without a golf course; further inquired how the cost would compare against opening the
Golf Course during the active session.
Mr. Vest responded costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month if the
property were closed; stated reopening the golf course during busy months would have
some start up costs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Kemper management costs are strictly
allocation costs, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether water costs are billed amounts, to which
Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how having two styles of play on the south course
has worked.
Mr. Vest responded the situation was tough in the beginning; stated players were not
educated; marshals had a hard time getting players in position.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated increasing fees has been discussed; people would still have
to walk the whole course.
Mr. Vest stated some type of discounted cart fee would be given to those who could not
walk the course; accommodating players who just want to play the shorter course on
Saturday or Sunday mornings will be impossible sometimes.
Mayor Johnson stated the plan is a proposed interim plan; inquired how long the
selected plan would be in place.
The Recreation and Park Director responded three to six months; stated Exhibit 4 takes
into consideration loss in rounds.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether $7,500 could be lost.
The Recreation and Park Director responded $15,000 could be lost; stated the profit
would be $7,500.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the $21,059 loss includes the $19,000 cost allocation
for Kemper management and administration; the same people would be managing
between February and July 2010; inquired whether the money is not really a loss
because people would collect the same salary.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,8,"Mr. Vest responded in the negative; stated Kemper Sports was originally under contract
for a 36-hole complex; the management fee would have to be for a 45-hole course as
well as the people on the property.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a certain amount of money would be needed for
maintenance if the Mif Albright Course was closed; water costs would be approximately
$1,500 to $2,000; Exhibit 1 shows a $21,059 loss during the peak period; $30,000
would be needed for the whole year to break even; the Golf Commission has gone
around and around regarding raising fees; requested clarification on the issue of raising
fees.
The Recreation and Park Director stated fees were cut before the first closure in an
attempt to increase the number of rounds but it did not work.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether raising fees is not the solution, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what efforts have been made regarding a non-profit
association.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the matter has been explored; stated no
one has been identified.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff was given direction to look into the matter.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter was discussed, but Council did not give
direction to evaluate a non-profit; inquired what year fees were increased, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded September 2008.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Commission has considered raising fees.
Ms. Sullwold responded the Golf Commission determined that Mif Albright Course fees
were already at the maximum for the condition of the course.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Sullwold feels the same way now.
Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated no capital improvements have been
made.
Councilmember Gilmore stated cutting costs appears to be the only way to break even.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would make the Golf Course better and what would
be the cost.
Mr. Vest responded that he does not have exact costs; stated six out of the nine greens
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,9,"have to be rebuilt; sand is needed for some of the bunkers; fairways are cracked.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the rest of the golf course is doing.
Mr. Vest responded rounds and revenues are declining for the Jack Clark Course;
stated tournament play helps.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what are the costs for maintaining an inactive park, to
which the Recreation and Park Director responded $25,000 annually.
Opponents (Not in Favor of Staff Recommendation): Grace Na, Alameda High Girls Golf
Team; Samantha Essugerra, Alameda High Girls Golf Team; Glenn Van Winkle,
Alameda; Eric Van Winkle, Alameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee;
Mark Merrigan, Alameda Commuters; Steve Taddi, Alameda Commuters and Alameda
Golf Club; Al Wagner, Alameda Golf Club; Dorothy Moody, Alameda; Bobbie Hoepmer,
Alameda; Connie Wendling, Junior Golf; Norma Arnerich, Junior Golf; Lola Brown,
Alameda; Frank Reed, Alameda; Carol Albright Davis, Lincoln; Betsy Gammell, Golf
Commission; Joe Williams, Alameda; Svend Svendsen, Alameda; Felice Zensius,
Alameda; Lester Cabral, Alameda; Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Robert Brown, Alameda;
Craig Bevan, Alameda; Alex Stevens, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe
Van Winkle, Alameda; Chris Van Winkle; Fred Framsted; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Joseph
Watson, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Bob Blanchard, Alameda; Susan Higbee,
Alameda Niners; James Leach, Alameda; Ray Gaul, Alameda; Keith Gleason, Alameda
(read letter of Debbie Opperud); Bill Schmitz, Golf Commission and Commuters
Committee; Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Gary Walters, Alameda;
Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and
Commuters Committee; Cheryl Saxon, Alameda; and Robb Ratto.
Following Jane Sullwold's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:36 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether doing nothing at the Golf Course is a viable option.
The Interim City Manager responded the Golf Course could continue as is but the
question is should it; stated the fund balance will continue to be drawn down; the Golf
Course is getting older and tougher; the question is where to get money to invest in
improvements; there is no capital; the whole complex requires a draw down; a business
decision needs to be made at some point; the only way to make the Golf Course work is
not to charge a dime from the General Fund; cost allocations were not raised for the
Golf enterprise fund, but that means the General Fund loses a minimum of $275,000
plus another $200,000 from the Return on Investment (ROI); the General Fund cannot
absorb a $475,000 cut without cutting staff or services; one of the courses has a bad
sprinkler system and the replacement cost is approximately $1.5 million.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hears that there is the need for a short course
and for eighteen holes for regular players; the Golf Course is a business, not a park; the
City will need to bite the cost allocation bullet at some point; the question is how much
money will be saved if the Mif Albright Course closes tomorrow through long-term
operator selection; that he cannot say whether or not to close the Mif Albright Course
because the savings is unknown; the City cannot afford to run forty-five holes because
rounds are down; meeting the needs of a short course and regular play on less number
of holes is necessary; everything comes down to money.
Mayor Johnson stated the choices are to generate more income or cut expenses.
*
(10-017) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past
midnight.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
*
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money would be saved if the Mif Albright
closed today.
The Interim City Manager responded operating expenses would still exist if the Course
is kept open during the RFP process; stated the Course would still not pencil out on a
positive basis if operating expenses were cut in half; the only way is to take the Kemper
management fee out and have the other courses absorb the cost, which defeats the
purpose.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the cost for a round of golf.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the original NGF Operation Report noted
the cost is between $25 and $27.
Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of golfers play on a monthly, junior, or senior
discount pass.
Mr. Vest responded most players have senior monthly passes; stated juniors play in the
summertime and afternoons.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated numbers should be understood on a monthly basis; $30,000
was spent for renovations to reopen the Course; no effort has been made to explore
non-profit options; the $450,000 loss [to the General Fund] would be for the entire Golf
Complex; questioned why a decision needs to be made tonight if operator selection is a
month away; stated the community needs to be brought together to figure out how to
make things work.
Mayor Johnson stated Kemper has been at the Golf Course for over a year; inquired
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,11,"what is the assessment of capital needs.
Mr. Vest responded the south property has a lot of capital needs, such as irrigation and
the pump station; stated 80% of the greens need to be redone; the driving range needs
to be re-covered; tree work is needed.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the condition [of the Course] when Kemper took
over.
Mr. Vest responded the course was rough; stated the greens had bare spots and were
diseased; the course has drainage issues; irrigation lines break daily.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Course was considered to be in acceptable
condition when Kemper took over, to which Mr. Vest responded in the negative.
In response to Mayor's Johnson inquiry regarding capital projects, Mr. Vest stated the
sprinkler system and pump station are in dire need of repair.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the costs would be, to which the Recreation and Park
Director responded the sprinkler system would be approximately $1.5 million.
Mr. Vest stated the pump station would cost approximately $140,000.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated said information will be provided at the time of the [operator]
selection process.
The Interim City Manager stated staff worked very hard to get all reports done for
tonight's agenda; going through supplemental information provided by vendors
responding to the RFP while preparing for tonight's agenda was not humanly possible
because of the short holiday week and extra meeting; hopes are to have a
recommendation come to Council the first meeting in February.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the RFP has five different operational configurations; that he
does not know what the best set up would be; the RFP should have been revisited since
little interest was generated; the Golf Course will be closed forever once it is closed and
will not be replicated anywhere; every golf course is having problems; the community
has prided itself to reach out to every individual sport; moth balling the Course as a
passive park would cost $30,000 per year.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on how much the City has made in cuts over the
last two years.
The Interim City Manager stated that she cut 10% of City staff in her first thirty days;
cash funds have gone down by more than $20 million in the last fifteen months; the
situation at the Golf Course is a factual reality of what is happening everywhere.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,12,"Mayor Johnson stated deferred maintenance and capital projects are not included in the
golf budget; the Golf Course is rotting away; the Golf Course is going to be so far gone
in five years that no one will touch it; long-term financial viability needs to be
considered.
Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; the Golf Course is
more than just a golf course operation for the City; one of the speakers stated that a
nine-hole course does not make money but takes juniors and seniors off the main
course; inquired whether liability issues would occur with the south course pilot
program.
Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated liability is always possible.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether regulation player's want to just use the north
course, to which Mr. Vest responded regulation players want options.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what method would be used to handle potential
liabilities.
Mr. Vest responded efforts would be made to position players in a way to ensure that
everyone is safe and out of harms way.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is being done regarding people cheating [on the
type of round played].
Mr. Vest responded people are caught on a daily basis; stated different programs are
being used to address the problem.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is persuaded that waiting for a long-term operator
to help with an evaluation makes sense; having a discussion in a fuller context is
appropriate.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of waiting [to decide whether or not to close the
Mif Albright Course] for a long-term operator to provide a fuller evaluation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the RFP selection is coming to Council in the first
meeting in February; inquired how long negotiations would take, to which the Interim
City Manager responded 90 to 120 days, which would be May.
Councilmember Gilmore stated an operator would be in place by May; inquired whether
the operator would then start the process of figuring out long-term configuration.
The Interim City Manager responded staff would provide Council with details of what
has been negotiated with the long-term operator at the end of the 90 to 120 days;
hypothesizing what will happen to the Mif Albright Course is difficult.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,13,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many RFP's have been received.
The Interim City Manager responded five or six firms were present for the pre-bid;
stated two firms responded at the time of submittal; of the firms that did not submit a
proposal, one was cutting staff and the other could not borrow any money to invest in
capital.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the situation sounds like the telecom situation; that he
understands there is a need for a short course; inquired whether a short course is part
of the RFP, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated someone is going to have to give something up
because the Golf Course has been running at a deficit as long as he has been on the
Council; having two 18-hole courses and one 9-hole course is not possible.
Mayor Johnson stated the fund balance was at $5 million two or three years ago;
spending $20,000 to $25,000 at this point is reasonable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City might as well take the hit to the General Fund
now because golf revenue will not go to the General Fund in the future; the reality is that
the City is only paying to keep the course up and playable.
The Interim City Manager stated firms that did not respond to the RFP could not invest
capital based upon the condition of the Course and the RFP requirements; investing
capital will be harder because the quality of the Course will worsen; the City of Los
Angeles had twenty-four courses bundled for an RFP; no responses were received
because the courses were run down; privatizing will be too late at some point; having
cities operate as in the past is not today's government reality; the General Fund cannot
subsidize non-General Fund services.
Councilmember Gilmore stated approximately $20,000 or less is needed to keep the Mif
Albright Course open between now and the end of May; $20,000 is not going to break
the City; the bigger point is that something needs to be given up; having a place to
nurture children is important.
Councilmember Tam restated her motion to approve waiting until the end of May in
order to have a fuller discussion with a long-term operator to provide an evaluation of
how the Mif Albright Course fits into the long-term plan of two 18-hole courses with the
full understanding that there could be up to a potential $20,000 hit that will be derived
from the $1.1 million remaining reserve fund.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested the motion be amended to include exploring other
options to operate the Mif Albright Course separately.
Councilmember Tam agreed to the amended motion.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,14,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a timeframe would be established so that
everything culminates in May.
Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore stated time is running out.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether cost allocation would take place if long-term leasing
moves forward.
The Interim City Manager responded the structure would be different; stated the goal
would be to figure out an optimum arrangement because both sides have to profit from
the negotiations; the City would be paid a percentage of gross from the vendor to the
General Fund.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund would take a hit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be prepared for the hit.
Mayor Johnson stated people also need to understand that the City would not be paying
for capital; maintenance has been deferred for years; systematic methods have never
been established for ensuring that capital projects are funded; the Golf Course fund has
been depleted for unintended uses.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund pays for public safety, parks, libraries,
and tennis court lighting; the hit to the General Fund will not be pretty.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the amended motion.
Former Councilmember ""Lil"" Arnerich stated all operating costs should be known; the
operator at the Alameda County Fairgrounds knows the cost for each expenditure; staff
needs to contact outside sources for help.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the contract would be for thirty years.
The Interim City Manager responded the term is subject to negotiations; stated no one
will be interested unless amortization can be done for over thirty years.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the motion includes looking at a non-profit operator and
separating out the Mif Albright Course; inquired how the group would be formed.
Mayor Johnson stated the motion was not to direct staff to bring back a proposal.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not clear on the motion; inquired whether
Council would wait to make a decision until responses are received and whether the
amended motion includes looking at another option, to which Mayor Johnson responded
in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,15,"Councilmember Gilmore stated the timeline would be May.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(10-018) Gloria Guerra, Alameda, discussed homelessness.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Guerra has contacted staff regarding the issue.
Ms. Guerra responded that she would discuss the matter with the Economic
Development Director.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at
12:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-01-06,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- JANUARY 6, 2010- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and
Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(09-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:
United States of America, et al. V. City of Alameda, et al.
(09-003) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and
Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor
Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Legal Counsel briefed the
Council on the status of the litigation and Council provided direction; regarding Labor,
Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of the
negotiations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 6, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2010-01-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010
1.
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler
2.
ROLL CALL: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Board Members
Dean Batchelor and Linda McHugh
ABSENT: Board Member Roberto Rocha
STAFF PRESENT: Executive Secretary Karen Willis, Chris Low and Jill Kovacs, Senior
Management Analysts
3.
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 2009 were presented for
Board approval. Board Member McHugh moved to accept, Board Member
Batchelor seconded, and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS
FOR THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 2009.
4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
Assistant City Clerk
12/9/2009
209-30PR
Custodian
12/2/2009
209-36PR
Deputy Fire Chief
11/20/2009
209-35PR
Energy Resources Analyst
11/9/2009
209-15
Police Lieutenant
12/3/2009
209-29PR
Police Officer (Academy Graduate or Lateral)
(SEE ATTACHED LIST)
209-33
Storekeeper
11/5/2009
209-28PR
4-B ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI
DATE ESTABLISHED
EXAM NO.
EXHAUSTED
Line Superintendent
8/13/2009
209-18PR
Police Officer (Lateral)
2/2/2008
208-06
Senior Account Clerk
8/27/2009
209-19PR
Sr Energy Resources Analyst
7/2/2009
209-10PR
Utility Systems Analyst
7/31/2009
209-16PR
4-C LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:
New Classification Specifications:
Controller
Property and Evidence Technician",CivilServiceBoard/2010-01-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2010-01-06,2,"City of Alameda
Page 2 of 3
Civil Service Board Agenda
Regular Meeting of January 6, 2010
Member McHugh asked about the list of names for Police Officer and why this list was
being presented to the Board in this manner. Chris Low stated that this is the first time the
City has used the new system regarding the continuous postings of police officer
positions. Executive Secretary Willis asked if in the future as new names are added, what
would the Board see, the entire list or only the newly certified names? Chris Low
responded that only the new names would be certified to the Board. Member McHugh
stated that she thought this seemed like a good list. Chris Low stated that it is a good list
but there are other steps that must be taken such as the background check which may
potentially eliminate many of the names.
Vice President Horikoshi moved to accept the consent calendar. Member McHugh
seconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A Activity Report Period of September 1, 2009 - November 30, 2009
Executive Secretary Willis explained that she had inadvertently left out the Activity
Report from their packet. It was handed out to the Board. Member McHugh asked
about the reason for the two separations. Staff responded that one was due to a
resignation and the other due to a death.
5-B Civil Service Ordinance
Executive Secretary Willis told the Board that the Civil Service Ordinance was
passed by Council and had a new number. It has since been placed on the City
website. General discussion ensued regarding the process and how long it had
taken for this ordinance to be updated.
5-C Update on Reduction-In-Force
Executive Secretary Willis updated the Board on the status of the lay-offs at the Golf
Complex. She stated that eight employees were separated, one got another job
with the City and one decided to retire. There is a job opening with Public Works
and the City is hopeful that will result in someone else being able to get a position
with the City. Those employees laid off are eligible to apply as an internal candidate
for one year and are eligible for reinstatement into the position formerly held for two
years. Vice President Horikoshi asked if reinstatement was done by seniority and
asked if any of these employees had been with the City for a long period of time.
Executive Secretary Willis responded in the affirmative regarding reinstatement and
Ms. Kovacs stated that some employees had been with the City for over ten years.
It was pointed out that the City continues to send notices of City job openings to
those who were laid off.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was no one present from the public.
7.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)
President Peeler asked if the City utilized equivalencies for the qualifications on City jobs
and provided an example from the Controller job specification. Jill Kovacs responded that
the City does allow for equivalencies with regard to education and experience in most
cases. Executive Secretary Willis stated that there are cases where a degree is an
absolute such as for an engineer or a librarian and in those cases, equivalencies would
not be allowed.",CivilServiceBoard/2010-01-06.pdf
CivilServiceBoard,2010-01-06,3,"City of Alameda
Page 3 of 3
Civil Service Board Agenda
Regular Meeting of January 6, 2010
8.
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMIMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)
Executive Secretary Willis gave a brief update on the budget and stated that the Interim
City Manager had met with the bargaining units to let them know that it was her intent to
try to maintain the status quo and not have any additional lay-offs. Her plan is to roll the
current budget for an additional year. This plan is contingent upon the State of California
not taking cuts from the gasoline tax.
9.
President Peeler asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Horikoshi
moved to adjourn and Board Member McHugh seconded the motion. The motion passed
4-0 and the meeting was adjourned by President Peeler at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kavin bills
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director &
Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board",CivilServiceBoard/2010-01-06.pdf