body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- APRIL 3, 2012- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 4.
Absent:
Councilmember Johnson - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(12-142) Proclamation Declaring April 3, 2012 as the Isle of Flicka Day.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Fredericka Von Stade.
Ms. Von Stade thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(12-143) Proclamation Declaring the Week of April 9 -15 as Alameda Education
Foundation Appreciation Week.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Alameda Education Foundation
Members Steve McAdams, Katie Wolfe, Judy Blank, and Tam Chang.
(12-144) Announcement Regarding the Need for Election Workers for the June 5, 2012
Election.
The City Clerk made a brief announcement.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(12-145) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, submitted information and discussed teacher salary
issues.
(12-146) Carol Gottstein, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), discussed the March 8th
RAB meeting.
(12-147) Carolina Salazar, Senator Loni Hancock District Representative, introduced
herself and provided business cards to Councilmembers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,2,"Mayor Gilmore announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 12-148 and the resolution
amending the Alameda City Employees Association Salary Schedule [paragraph no. 12-
150] were pulled for discussion.
Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by
an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(12-148) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on March 6,
2012 and Special City Council Meeting Held on March 7, 2012. Approved.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the [March 7, 2012] minutes do not reflect his
request for a project summary and cost breakdown for the proposed ballot measure.
The City Clerk responded page 2 of the minutes notes estimated costs for the Carnegie
and 50-meter swimming pool, and lists other proposed projects totaling $12.5 million.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is requesting a cost
breakdown on a separate sheet, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated the minutes read that ""Councilmember deHaan inquired
whether a greater breakdown would be provided if the measure goes forward"" and ""The
City Manager responded in the affirmative""; inquired whether said statements are what
Councilmember deHaan is referencing, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was expecting the cost
breakdown to be part of the minutes.
Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative; stated the request for a cost
breakdown was a separate direction.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Manager stated the proposed special tax would exclusively
pay for capital items, equipment, facilities, and an Emergency Operations Coordinator
salary; that he had advised Council there would be a greater breakdown if the measure
went forward, meaning if the measure wins; twenty frequently asked questions
regarding the measure were posted to the City's website at the close of business
yesterday; staff has recommended certain projects, which are premature at this time; $5
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,3,"million has been recommended for a 50-meter swimming pool with lockers and shower
facilities; staff hopes to build a greater aquatic facility in partnership with the swim
community in keeping with the City's commitment to public/private partnerships; clarified
the following estimated costs are in contrast to costs posted on a blog that sites what
purports to be a City document, but is not a City document: 1) $1 million is estimated for
a lighted, all-weather multi-purpose playing field, not $1.9 million; the sporting
community would be challenged to come up with the balance; 2) $300,000 could be
advanced through a bond for the Library, not $600,000; $125,000 to $150,000 could be
used for a second elevator; the balance could be used to dramatically improve
equipment, the electronic book collection, and computers; 3) the Carnegie estimate is
between $3.5 million and $3.6 million with a contingency for cost overruns, not $4.1
million; the 2007 estimate [$3.5 million] was projected at the peak of the housing real
estate boom; staff does not believe the cost would be more than the 2007 estimate; he
asked the architect, who is the author of the report, whether the Carnegie could be
completed for $3.5 million today and the answer was absolutely for sure given the
decline in construction and labor costs; 4) $4.5 is estimated for Fire Station 3 with a
Emergency Operations Center, not $5.6 million; stated a dramatic amount of
misinformation has been circulated regarding the measure; apologized if staff has been
unclear; stated no one should be unclear about numbers after tonight; stated the
finance people believe that the City could safely float a bond at a low interest rate and
that $15 million to $16 million could be generated in bond revenues; an extra $1 million
would be left over for any unforeseen circumstances; other items would be funded with
the balance of the sales tax revenue on an as needed, ongoing basis; urged everyone
to visit the website and review the frequently asked questions; stated any further
questions should be directed to him personally.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:
Councilmember Johnson - 1.]
(*12-149) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,564,465.18.
(12-150) Resolution No. 14664, ""Amending the Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Recreation Services
Specialist."" Adopted.
The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether employees would have bumping rights, to which the
Assistant City Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tam requested an explanation of the Athletic Trust Fund.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the Athletic Trust Fund is a portion of the
budget that covers all revenue producing programs.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the proposed position would be funded through
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,4,"program fees, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated the
General Fund contribution would be reduced by $400,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Athletic Trust Fund is fee based; inquired whether
an additional $400,000 would need to be generated.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the negative; stated staff took a look at
the actual figures for the last two years; projections amount to approximately $185,000;
cities that operate under a similar model generally experience a 5%-7% increase in
revenue right away.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any fee increases are anticipated, to which
the Assistant City Manager and Recreation and Park Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether special events would be cut back or
eliminated.
The Recreation and Park Director responded scopes would be reduced, particularly the
tree lighting ceremony.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much would be saved [by reducing tree lighting
ceremony costs].
The Assistant City Manager responded $15,000; stated $15,000 was spent on an
employee picnic, which will be scaled back dramatically.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission is
aware of the proposed cuts.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the matter would be discussed at the
Recreation and Park Commission meeting next Thursday.
The Assistant City Manager stated the issue is operational and is not under the purview
of the Recreation and Park Commission; the matter would be presented as a courtesy.
Urged youth services not be cut: John Orla Bukowski, Alameda Soccer Club and Futsal
Club.
Expressed concerns with the proposal: Christina Hanson, Alameda, Sandra Soares
Bertero, Employee; and Marc Ames, Alameda Soccer Club.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the Recreation and Park Department
operational budget, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $4 million.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage is cost recovery, to which the
Recreation and Park Director responded approximately 50%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the percentage of cost recovery for other
cities, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the goal is 60%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what programs, if any, would be lost.
The Recreation and Park Director responded programs would remain in tack because
most services are provided by part time staff; stated park maintenance and field
scheduling would not be affected; the change would be at the full time supervisory level.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the Recreation and Park Department's
General Fund budget, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $2 million,
including parks.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the Recreation and Park Department's cut
last year, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded 7 1/2 percent.
The Assistant City Manager stated five of the ten playground sites were closed and a
position was cut.
Councilmember deHaan stated things need to be looked at as a whole; not all
departments can be cut at the same level.
The City Manager stated not all departments would be cut at the same percentage;
Executive Management's theory is that cuts should be focused away from programs;
management operations would need to be streamlined for each department;
management would be cut instead of playground staff whenever possible; no additional
cuts would be made to the Recreation and Park Department unless staff comes back
with a figure much higher than $4.4 million [budget deficit]; the goal is to rebuild the
Recreation and Park Department through a more entrepreneurial, fee-based approach.
Mayor Gilmore requested clarification for the timing of the proposed reorganization and
possible impacts to the public.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff would like to have the reorganization
completed by May 1st, which would allow six weeks before summer programs begin; the
public should not be impacted.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether field scheduling would be in place, particularly for fall
sports, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the transition should be
seamless.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated that staff does not think the matter needs to go to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,6,"Recreation and Park Commission; inquired whether the proposed timeline could be met
if the Recreation and Park Commission weighs in on the matter.
The Assistant City Manager responded the proposed reorganization would need to be
approved now in order to be in place by May 1st; recruitment would take time; a six-
week transition process would be needed.
The City Manager stated the issue is administrative; a change in City policy is not
proposed; staff would be supporting City policy by focusing cuts away from public
service and programs; any change in fees would need to come to the Recreation and
Park Commission and then to Council.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated cutting programs was a concern before tonight's discussion;
Council has heard assurances about what the proposal is and is not in terms of impacts;
that he agrees with the concept of moving cuts away from street level services and
programs; inquired whether involving the new Recreation and Park Director in the
decision has been feasible.
The City Manager responded the new Recreation and Park Director would be one of the
three interviewers.
The Assistant City Manager stated the new Recreation and Park Director is on board
with the staff recommendation and feels that it is the right direction in order to preserve
services to the community.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she met with the Assistant City Manager and Recreation and
Park Director to be assured there would be no disruption to the community before the
summer programs begin; that she does not want to see a group of angry parents
camped out at the Recreation and Park Department because of snafus going forward;
over the years, staff has risen to the challenge of having to do more with less;
preserving community programs is important because programs are what makes
Alameda, Alameda.
Councilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore's comments; stated staff is listening
to Council; the proposal is responsive to past discussions regarding maximizing cost
recovery, ensuring that front line services are not cut, and making cuts at the top before
impacting the community; initially, the proposed ballot measure [Measure C] did not
include an all-weather field until Council requested that the City Manager include one.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Bonta and Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstention:
Councilmember deHaan - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]
Councilmember deHaan stated discussing the matter at the budget hearing would be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,7,"more appropriate; less than 3% of the total budget is for the Recreation and Park
Department; that he wants to ensure that programs would not be impacted.
(*12-151) Resolution No. 14665, ""Resolution Reclassifying Deputy City Attorney
I
Position to Assistant City Attorney Il Position."" Adopted.
(*12-152) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by
Repealing in Its Entirety Subsection 2-14 (Housing Commission) from Article II (Boards
and Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration). Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-153) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14666, ""Designating the Bruton
House at 1240 Saint Charles Street City Monument #30."" Adopted.
Mayor Gilmore recused herself.
The Planner Il submitted a handout and gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's request, Woodruff Minor gave a brief history of
the house.
Councilmember Tam noted that Mr. Minor wrote an article in the Alameda Preservation
Press recognizing the Bruton House.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired what the proposed designation would mean.
The Planner Il responded designating the house as an Alameda Historical Monument
would afford protection; stated any future changes would need to be approved by the
Historical Advisory Board.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
3. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson and Mayor Gilmore - 2.]
(12-154) Receive Presentations by KemperSports and Greenway Golf and Provide
Direction on Negotiations for the Long-term Lease of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Ben Blake, Steve Skinner, and Jay Blasi of KemperSports gave a Power Point
presentation.
Council asked questions and commented on the proposal.
George Kelley, Greenway Golf, gave a Power Point presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,8,"Council asked questions and commented on the proposal.
In favor of selecting Greenway Golf: Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Mark Massara; and Karen
Bey, Alameda.
Opposed to selection KemperSports Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
In favor of selecting KemperSports Victor Quintell, Alameda; and Tim Skates, Alameda.
Commented on both companies: Ray Gaul, Alameda.
The City's Golf Consultant, David Sams, provided and reviewed a staff handout
comparing the finances of the proposals.
Mayor Gilmore stated both entities expect the City to invest $1 million; inquired whether
Greenway Golf would be investing more of its own money than KemperSports.
Mr. Sams responded Greenway Golf would be investing approximately $5.7 million
versus KemperSports investing $5 million.
Councilmember Tam stated Greenway Golf's projected rounds are higher; inquired
whether the number of rounds is reasonable.
Mr. Sams responded in the affirmative; stated 105,000 rounds are played now; 135,000
rounds were played six or seven years ago.
The City Manager noted 200,000 rounds were played ten years ago.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether KemperSports' projected rounds are
conservative.
The City Manager responded neither assumption is overly aggressive; stated Greenway
Golf's theory is to have a signature course which would create interest and drive rounds
and leave the north course pretty much; KemperSports' theory is that people do not
want a lot of change; courses would be upgraded and would be more challenging; both
firms want to fix infrastructure.
Mayor Gilmore stated the City would be a partner with an entity for 20-30 years; that
she has a concern with the KemperSports proposal because the City and
KemperSports would be investing approximately $6 million for a golf course that would
be similar to what the City had fifteen to twenty years ago; questioned how a similar golf
course would pencil out twenty years from now; inquired whether golfers would want to
play the same style course or whether the Greenway Golf proposal would future proof
the City.
The City Manager responded one path shows that golfers love their home course and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,9,"would like to restore the course; stated Greenway Golf wants to change the south
course into a links course on the theory that a links course would drive traffic and bring
in more golfers; Council needs to make a psychological and financial determination;
Council needs to determine what would make golfers happy and which golfers would be
happy.
Mayor Gilmore stated the issue goes back to how to increase revenue; a links course
might provide a marketing edge because of being new and different; some local golfers
might be unhappy but having the convenience of driving five minutes to the Golf Course
cannot be beat.
Mr. Sams stated playing conditions are important; however; the most important thing is
where golfers' friends play; many residents play with non-resident friends; golf courses
have lost a lot of resident players because non-resident rates went up so high; both
firms do an outstanding job maintaining golf courses.
The City Manager stated the whole process has been different because plans for the
Golf Course have been kicked around for at least six years; staff intends to bring a
report to Council for a decision on May 15th
Councilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the next step would be to submit
the proposals to the review committee.
The City Manager stated the proposals would be presented to the review committee
[prior to May 15th].
Councilmember Tam stated the process started because Council wanted to find a way
to preserve the golfing experience with a municipal golf course for residents and youth;
Council had to find a way to generate revenue in order to preserve the golfing
experience; having a golfing experience that benefits residents is important; that she
would like to see a lower rate for residents and preserve lower rates for youth and
seniors; the golf issue is similar to what the City experienced with the theater; people
commented that they would be happy with just one screen and that multiple screens
were not needed; however, multiple screens were necessary to make marketing viable;
that she will rely upon staff to advise which option would be the best for the future.
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
*
Vice Mayor Bonta thanked KemperSports and Greenway Golf for good presentations;
stated both presentations are strong; the chart presented by Mr. Sams is excellent and
clarifies projections; that he would like to have staff provide a similar chart comparing
""green"" management; ensuring that both companies would have the ability to fulfill
promises is important, particularly on delivering front end capital improvements;
Greenway Golf has a distinct vision, which is new and bold; that he has no idea whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,10,"the vision is right for a successful financial operation; he would like to learn more about
what a link style course could mean to the community and whether the risk could be
assessed.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she wants to know the associated cost for each of Kemper's
""green"" levels; the City is in a very fortunate position of having two excellent operators
competing to operate the Golf Course; that she does not see that a wrong decision
could be made; either operator would be excellent; Council has the happy but difficult
decision to pick the firm that would be the best operator for the City.
The City Manager stated the two firms will have until April 10th to make any final, written
changes to the proposals; the review committee consists of the Golf Commission Chair,
Junior Golf Chair, the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Sams, and the Recreation and Park
Director; the review committee will review changes on or about April 13th and
communicate any final questions to the two firms; the two firms will have until April 20th
to address said questions; the review committee will make recommendations to the City
Manager by April 25th; the Golf Commission will hold a special meeting the last week of
April to discuss policy questions regarding any major or minor changes to the Golf
Course; staff will report recommendations of the review committee, Golf Commission,
and staff to Council on May 3rd; the final proposals will be presented to Council at the
May 15th City Council meeting; that his intention is to complete negotiations by the end
of June in order to present Council with a lease in July.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(12-155) The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the first Oversight Board
meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(12-156) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Transportation
Commission.
Mayor Gilmore nominated Sandy Wong for appointment to the Transportation
Commission.
(12-157) Councilmember deHaan discussed an airport meeting; questioned when the
Open Government Commission would meet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,11,"The City Clerk stated the Open Government Commission would meet on May 7th.
Councilmember deHaan questioned how the Training Center, new fire station, and
vehicle replacement would be funded [from Measure C].
The City Manager stated there is a difference between the total amount of money that
would be raised over thirty years by the Measure and the amount that would be
advanced through floating a bond; the City needs to reserve the right not to be locked
into a project if a problem occurs such as a major problem with draining or ground water
for the all-weather, multipurpose field; the City would only bond up to 50% of the $1.86
million that should be brought in per year; between $900,000 to $1 million would pay the
bond depending upon the rate; the remaining $900,000 to $1 million should be available
every year; the City would partner with other agencies for the Training Center; the entire
fleet would not be replaced in one year; the Police and Fire Departments are now
required to start depreciating to ensure that the City will not be in the same position in
the future; the question is what would be done with the first $15 million generated by the
bond, as opposed to what to leverage out of the rest of the funds that would come to the
City over the thirty-year period.
(12-158) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California
Cities Policy Committee Meeting.
(12-159) Mayor Gilmore made an announcement regarding the US Coast Guard ship
christening.
ADJOURNMENT
(12-160) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at
10:46 p.m. in a moment of silence in memory of the seven students killed at the Oikos
University.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2012-04-03,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- APRIL 3, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore -
4.
[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:08 p.m.]
Absent:
Councilmember Johnson - 1.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:
(12-140) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
Liz Williams V. City Council, et al; Superior Court of California, Alameda County; Case
No. RG12622649. Not heard.
(12-141) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
City of Alameda, et al. V. Al Bouraq Aviation, Inc., et al; Superior Court of California,
Alameda County; Case No. RG 08386940.
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that regarding Al Bouraq Aviation, Inc., Council authorized settlement
accepting $130,000 cash in exchange for full release of claims; a copy of the settlement
is available upon request.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the special meeting at 6:31
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 3, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf