{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, June 4, 2008\nThe meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Lena Tam\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2008.\n2-B. Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for St. George Spirits at Alameda\nPoint.\n2-C. Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Marc Associates to Extend the Term\nfor Seven Months and Add $45,000 for a Total Budget of $120,000 for Provision of\nIntergovernmental Relations Services.\nVice Chair Tam abstained from Item 2-A (May 7 Minutes) because she was absent from\nthat meeting. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1.\nThe balance of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Alameda Point Update\nDebbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update focusing\non legislation approved by the House, and pending in the Senate, regarding the conveyance of\nAlameda Point. Staff worked with the Navy to pursue this legislation because they felt it was\nnecessary to streamline the conveyance of the property. Since 1993, there have been lots of\nbarriers and the strategy was to look at an approach that would be as efficient as possible in\nconveying the property. The legislation outlines three possible options: 1) take the June 2006\nnegotiated draft term sheet with the Navy and provide a timeframe for allowing SunCal to work\nwith the Navy and ARRA on a Term Sheet that works for them to convey the property; 2)\nprovide a land price formula that SunCal could elect to pursue if they were interested in that land\nprice formula or felt that they couldn't work out a Term Sheet with the Navy on conveyance\nterms, and; 3) in the event the master developer withdrew, allow the ARRA to work with the\nNavy to auction the property. Special legislation is necessary due to public trusts lands which\npreclude the Navy to auction the property on its own. If the bill passes, it will go into effect on\nOctober 1st.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese requested that staff provide more detailed information under 'budget\nconsideration /fiscal impact', i.e., how much did we spend, did we exceed budget, etc. Ms.\nPotter explained that all the activities undertaken by staff and consultants to prepare the\nlegislation is an eligible reimbursement activity pursuant to the ENA with SunCal, that all costs\nare borne by SunCal. Member Matarrese would like to see these details in the staff report. He\nalso asked about the activities SunCal is currently undertaking. Ms. Potter discussed that SunCal\nis\nparticularly focused on examining sea level rise on Alameda Landing and Alameda Point, fill\nand geotechnical grading, updating the infrastructure numbers and hoping to have an updated\nproforma in 2-4 weeks that reflect those numbers. SunCal is also working on scheduling\ncommunity meetings at the end of July or beginning of August, and on Sept. 19, their\nDevelopment Concept is due.\nMember deHaan was hoping for more detail or progress report on each of the myriad activities\nthat SunCal is doing. Ms. Potter explained that staff heard the desire expressed by the Board last\nmonth for a detailed progress report. She stated that SunCal will be back next month with a\ndetailed update the Board is looking for. Member deHaan clarified the purpose of the options of\nthe legislation and Ms. Potter affirmed his clarification.\nVice Chair Tam asked for clarification on the consent calendar item just approved regarding\nincreasing Marc Associates' budget. Ms. Potter confirmed that Marc Associates is the firm that\nworked with staff and the Navy on this legislation, and that their entire effort is covered under\nthe contract amount of $120,000. In an effort to understand our coalition partners and how we\nare stacked in the bill, Vice Chair Tam commented that the Alameda Point legislation Section\n2851 is a small piece. Ms. Potter explained that the entire bill is approximately 1000 pages long\nand Alameda Point is sandwiched between a number of other bases (all branches, not just the\nNavy - including Army, Air Force, etc.) across the country that also have special legislation.\nDavid Brandt, Deputy Executive Director further explained that, in Washington DC, there are\ntwo acts: the Annual Defense Authorization Bill and the Annual Appropriations Bill, and there\ncannot be an Appropriation for any activity without first having Authorization. He stated that\nMarc Associates also works with the City and County of San Francisco and the League of Cities.\nChair Johnson commented on how effective Marc Associates has been on this defense\nlegislation.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A.\nOral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative.\nMember Matarrese reported that there was no RAB meeting between the last ARRA meeting and\nthis one. He did attend a walkthru of some of the sites on Saturday and has photos to share.\nMember deHaan also attended the tour, which he said was presented as an overview on the\nremediation of the sites, but the tour was sidetracked and the focus was more on the fish and\nwildlife activities.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n7. ADJOURNMENT", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 3, "text": "Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAiran Glidden\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 4, 2008 - -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present Councilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(08-252 CC/ARRA/08-035 CIC) Authorize the City Manager/Executive\nDirector to execute a Transfer of the Exclusive Negotiation\nAgreement with SSC Alameda Point LLC to a new entity with D.E. Shaw\nor a transfer of an ownership interest in the Master Developer\nentity, SCC Alameda Point LLC to D.E. Shaw, pursuant to specific\nterms and Conditions.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated SunCal requested that the matter\nbe held over for two week in order to allow representatives from\nD.E. Shaw to be present to answer questions.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked the\nconsultant for coming through and hitting important points that the\nCity needs to have to protect itself; that she has a problem with\neventually approving a document or agreement that she has not seen\nor read; Councilmembers were elected to make decisions on behalf of\nthe citizens; if she approves the recommendation and things later\ngo south, the citizens are not going to want to hear that she\nrelied on a consultant when she made the decision; essentially, the\nconsultant is framing the discussion about the issues;\nlouncilmembers/Boaro Members/Commissioners might have additional\nitems that the consultant has not flagged or that should be\ndiscussed in public; it is really important for\nlouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners to be able to see and\ndiscuss the Agreement; if SunCal feels strongly about the\nconfidentiality the Agreement could be disclosed in Closed\nSession; that she would be open to signing a confidentiality\nagreement; it is really important that the Council/Board/Commission\nsees underlying documents that she does not want to see SunCal and\nD.E. Shaw in two weeks if the Operating Agreement is not complete;\nsuggested that the matter not return until the Operating Agreement\nis executed, the Council/Board/Commission has copies of the term\nsheet and Operating Agreement and the Council/Board/Commission has\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n1\nand Community Improvement Commission\nJune 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 2, "text": "had an opportunity to review and discuss the matter before voting;\nD.E. Shaw is asking to become the City's partner if D.E. Shaw does\nnot trust the Council/Board/Commission to keep the matter\nconfidential, it does not speak well for the beginning of the\npartnership.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated D.E. Shaw\nis entering into an agreement with the taxpayers; that he would not\nbe willing to sign a confidentiality agreement ; the matter is in\nthe public realm; the background document should be presented to\nand discussed in front of the public.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how there\ncould be an open discussion.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded staff has discussed the\nmatter; the confidentiality issues are D.E. Shaw's issues; staff\nwould discuss the matter with D.E. Shaw's management tomorrow;\nstaff has indicated that the issue would be a problem for the\nCouncil/Board/Commission D.E. Shaw is relying on a section of the\nExclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) that allows confidentiality.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she\nappreciates the concerns i there is an obligation under Section 10\nof the ENA that keeps some of the information between SunCal and\nD.E. Shaw proprietary; inquired what the Council's/Board'\nCommission's role was when Catellus merged with Palmtree; stated\nthe venture is a multi-party partnership and is a business\nrelationship; the City changes financing partners when doing tax\nincrement funding or refinancing bonds; the developer has been able\nto secure a financing partner unlike the prior developer.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the documents were reviewed when\nCatellus assigned part of its agreement to Palmtree; the CIC had\nissues and there were concessions; ARRA approved the Operating\nAgreement between Alameda Point Community Partners and Morgan\nStanley; the financials have always been confidential, but the\nOperating Agreement generally has not been confidential.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager stated\nSunCal has indicated the Operating Agreement would not be ready for\nsixty days; staff thought bringing a term sheet first could be\nhelpful to provide direction to SunCal and D.E. Shaw in negotiating\nthe\nOperating Agreement ; initial direction from\nthe\nCouncil/Board/Commission would allow them to focus on issues of key\nconcern; the Operating Agreement would reflect the intent of the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n2\nand Community Improvement Commission\nJune 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 3, "text": "Council/Board/Commission the Council/Board/Commission might want\nto give direction regarding the key issues to allow the negotiation\nprocess to be a more efficient.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated said\nrecommendation would be fine as long as it is understood that she\nwould not vote for or against the Operating Agreement until she\nsees it; the Council/Board/Commission should see the document.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager stated\nstaff understands that the Council/Board/Commission wants to see\nboth the executed Operating Agreement and term sheet and ensure\nthat the key points outlined in the term sheet are carried over\ninto the Operating Agreement; staff's recommendation is that\ndirection only be given regarding the term sheet; the Operating\nAgreement would have to be entirely consistent with the points\nraised in the term sheet.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that she informed SunCal's\nCounsel that the  ouncil/Board/Commission would want to know all\nthe details; the confidentiality provision of the ENA covers the\nissue sufficiently; if a third party wants to get a document, it\nwould be on SunCal's shoulders; in the event of a legal dispute\nabout whether or not something is discloseable under the Public\nRecords Act, SunCal would have the burden of taking on the dispute.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants\nto hear from SunCal about progress being made; the term sheet and\nOperating Agreement should not curtail or slow operations.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated quite a bit of engineering work\nhas been done; money is being spent.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed consultants.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:36 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n3\nand Community Improvement Commission\nJune 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 4, "text": "Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n4\nand Community Improvement Commission\nJune 4, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nWednesday, June 4, 2008\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Jane Sullwold called the special meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. at Jim's on\nthe Course Restaurant, Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive,\nAlameda.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Commissioner Betsy Gammell,\nVice Chair Ray Gaul, Commissioner Bill Schmitz, and Chair Jane Sullwold.\nAbsent: Secretary Bill Delaney and Commissioner Jeff Wood. No staff member\nwas present.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\nDiscussion/Action on\na.\nGolf Complex finances;\nb.\nResponse to letter of City Auditor Kevin Kearney to Golf Commission\ndated May 20, 2008; and\nC.\nResponse to City Council regarding its discussion of Golf Complex\nfinances at Council meeting on May 27, 2008.\nChair Sullwold introduced the meeting by giving a report on the events that led up to it.\nOn May 27, 2008, City Council held a special meeting at which the Chuck Corica Golf Complex\nbudget for FY 2008/2009 was discussed. No member of the Golf Commission was present\nbecause no one from staff had advised the Commission that the matter would be coming up that\nevening. Fortunately, however, the meeting was videotaped and could be viewed the next day\nthrough the City's website, which all commissioners had done before the meeting.\nThe budget that had been presented by Interim General Manager to the Golf Commission\nat its meeting on April 16, 2008, was presented to Council on May 27. In general, the proposed\nbudget showed that the Golf Complex was anticipated to have a deficit of approximately\n$700,000 in the next fiscal year, unless the City agreed to rescind the Surcharge and Return on\nInvestment (\"ROI\"), in which case the deficit would be reduced to approximately $440,000.\nCouncil immediately questioned why the City should be required to \"subsidize\" a deficit at\nthe Golf Complex out of the General Fund by returning the Surcharge and ROI, and no one from\nstaff pointed out why this was incorrect: that the Complex has actually been subsidizing the\nGeneral Fund for a number of years, and can no longer afford to do so. Council asked\nrepeatedly what the Golf Commission has been doing, what plan it has, and Mr. Lillard told\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 1\n06/04/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 2, "text": "Council that the matter would be referred to the Commission next month, and that the\nCommission is waiting to see the National Golf Foundation master plan before taking action,\nwhich left the impression that the Golf Commission has done nothing to date. Mr. Lillard\ncharacterized the policy changes that the Commission has considered as minor, and City\nManager Debbie Kurita vehemently asserted that the Commission has focused only on what the\nCity has been taking away, and not on \"other things\" (unspecified) that have been causing the\nlosses. No mention was made by either Mr. Lillard or Ms. Kurita of the Commission's\nunsuccessful efforts over the past several months to obtain information from the Finance\nDepartment regarding certain expenditures and the accounting treatment thereof, particularly\nthe $400,000 four-year lease for golf carts, which the Finance Department has fully expensed in\nthis fiscal year despite the fact that 3/4ths of the payments will not be due this year. Also, at the\nCommission meeting on May 21st, Mr. Lillard advised for the first time that the Golf Complex\nhad been charged with $115,063 for expenses related to the Beltline eminent domain litigation\nin this fiscal year, raising the question of whether expenses that came in and were charged to\nthe Complex after the close of the last fiscal year, charges that caused the Complex to end the\nyear with a deficit of $256,000, were also Beltline expenses that went to the Complex but not to\nother City departments that did not generate income. Mayor Beverly Johnson ended the\nCouncil meeting by stating that she wanted an interim report from the Golf Commission\nregarding finances and the budget.\nThis meeting was called so that the Golf Commission can finalize a letter to City Council\nin an effort to correct the misinformation and misperceptions that were conveyed to it by staff in\nits May 27th meeting, and to correct Council's overall impression that the City is being asked to\nsubsidize golf losses from the general fund. The meeting was also called to formulate a written\nresponse to City Auditor Kevin Kearney's letter of May 20, 2008, to the Golf Commission\nregarding accounting treatment of the golf cart lease. Letters had been drafted in advance of\nthe meeting by Chair Sullwold and presented to the Commission for revision and finalization at\nthe meeting.\nChair Sullwold reported that she had sought assistance from Mr. Lillard in noticing this\nspecial meeting, but that Mr. Lillard refused to do so because he personally was not available at\nany time this week. In the course of e-mail communications back and forth on this issue of\nnotice, Mr. Lillard also stated: \"As far as agenda items for a special meeting go it is our position\nthat the Finance Dept. and Auditor have provided more than adequate responses to the\nquestions raised and there is no need for any further response.\" Chair Sullwold announced that\nshe found this position to be particularly troubling in light of the specific charge by the Mayor and\nCity Council at the joint meeting in January 2007 that the Golf Commission should become\nactively involved in the budgeting process and aware of what was going on regarding Golf\nComplex finances.\nCommissioner Bill Schmitz said that his biggest disappointment with the Council meeting\nwas the failure of staff to mention the issues of the golf cart lease and the Beltline litigation\nexpenses as an explanation for alleged budgetary deficits at the Golf Complex. He stated that\nhe liked the draft letters, but asked whether former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica had any\nsuggestions based-on his historical perspective. Commissioner Schmitz said that Mr. Lillard\nand Ms. Kurita made it clear that they want to get rid of the Golf Complex, but he believes they\nare being very short-sighted because it is far from certain that the City of Alameda will be able to\nget any meaningful payments from a golf course company under current conditions.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 2\n06/04/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 3, "text": "Former Golf Commissioner Tony Corica said he found it strange that Council was being\nasked to accept a budget that called for a deficit, and also strange that no questions were asked\nabout the reasons for the deficit between revenues and expenses. Mr. Corica has been\nattending Commission meetings since the start of this year, and has seen the Golf Commission\ntake action to increase tournament play, institute aggressive website marketing, increase demo\ndays by golf equipment manufacturers, institute fee changes (reducing Mif Albright rates and\nincreasing Jack Clark rates) to bring golfers back then increase revenues, end complimentary\ngolf, and request an itemization of service expenses charged to the Golf Complex this year. He\nthinks that all these interventions by the Golf Commission should be mentioned in the letter to\nCouncil, even if they are each small individually. Chair Sullwold agreed that these should be\nincluded, and Commissioner Betsy Gammell added another item: the renewal of Saturday\nmorning junior golf clinics, which bring 120 children and their parents to the Golf Complex and\nincrease play on the Mif Albright course. Mr. Corica noted that the Commission's letter to\nCouncil will probably not change the ultimate decision whether to lease or not to lease, but at\nleast it will show that the Commission has made efforts to change and improve conditions at the\nGolf Complex so that an intelligent decision can be made. Former Commissioner Norma\nArnerich also mentioned the outside company that is willing to prepare scorecards booklets in\nexchange for allowing advertising. Former Commissioner Bob Wood cautioned that the Golf\nCommission may be asked by Council for its estimation of what savings or increased revenue\ncould result from the changes the Commission has proposed. Chair Sullwold said that many of\nthese items could be estimated by someone with access to the underlying information, and that\nstaff should be charged with that task.\nMrs. Arnerich stated that she found it discourteous that Mr. Lillard had not arranged for\nanother staff member to attend this Commission meeting since he could not be present. Chair\nSullwold noted that she had given notice of the meeting herself when Mr. Lillard refused to do\nso, and that Mr. Lillard could claim that he never saw any of the posted notices. Commissioner\nSchmitz, however, agreed with Mrs. Arnerich. Chair Sullwold discussed her conversation with a\nmember of the City Attorney's office about the method of giving notice, and the difference in the\nCity Attorney's interpretation of section 54956 of the Brown Act regarding special meetings. Mr.\nCorica said that the Commission should not be distracted from its goal of getting the correct\ninformation to Council, and Commissioner Schmitz agreed, stating that it was time to get the\nletters out, then to schedule one-on-one meetings with Council members in an effort to set the\nrecord straight. Chair Sullwold said that she has already scheduled a lunch meeting next week\nwith Councilwoman Marie Gilmore, Commissioner Schmitz intends to call Councilman Doug\ndeHaan soon, and Councilman Frank Mattarese is next. Vice Chair Gaul said that he supports\nCouncil's suggestion of having another joint meeting with the Golf Commission, or, even better,\nhaving two Council members come to a meeting. All Commission members supported the latter\nplan. Mrs. Arnerich pointed out that this practice was followed during prior eras of the Golf\nCommission. Mr. Wood emphasized his belief that Council ought to be following what the\nCommission is doing by reading our minutes, particularly because the Golf Complex finances\nare so important to City finances.\nGeorge Humphreys asked if the Golf Commission had seen the detailed budget proposal\nthat has been presented to the Council. Chair Sullwold reported that the Commission was given\nonly the broad outlines, which is why it has asked in the draft letter to Auditor Kearney to see the\ndetailed breakdown of projected expenses. Commissioner Schmitz noted that when he and\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 3\n06/04/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 4, "text": "Commissioner Bill Delaney met with Finance Director Juelle-Ann Boyer and Mr. Lillard in\nJanuary regarding Golf Complex finances, he asked specifically if the Golf Commission could be\ninvolved in preparing the budget for the next two fiscal years. It is impossible to become\ninvolved in the administration of a budget if one has no involvement in the budget preparation\nprocess, and the Council charged the Commission with responsibility for the Golf Complex\nbudget at its joint meeting in January 2007. Nevertheless, no one from the Golf Commission\nwas ever invited to become involved with the budget process.\nMarshal Bill Wehr questioned why the Golf Complex was being asked to fund the Beltline\nlitigation, and whether the costs were being assessed against any other City department. Chair\nSullwold said her best guess was that the City had to charge the expense against the few City\ndepartments that had cash reserves from which the charges could be paid. Commissioner\nSchmitz noted that it was the City's prerogative to assess the charges in that way, because in\nthe final analysis it is the City's money, but the City needs to be honest and open about what it\nis doing, and not take the money away secretly, then complain loudly about the fact that the Golf\nComplex has a projected loss of $440,000 next year. Chair Sullwold pointed out that it is\nunreasonable to take away so much money from Golf Complex revenues that an insufficient\namount remains to pay what are fixed labor expenses and fixed expenses for necessary\nservices such as tree maintenance that cannot be reduced. George Humphreys asked if the\nGolf Complex would be reimbursed after successful final resolution of the Beltline litigation. No\none knows the answer, but most agreed that it was unlikely. Moreover, no one has ever\nsuggested that the Golf Complex be repaid for the loan of $300,000 it made regarding the\npreliminary efforts to build another golf course at Alameda Point. For some unknown reason,\nthat loan earns zero interest.\nGeorge Humphreys noted that the Golf Commission had spent a lot of time investigating\nthe cost of renovating the clubhouse to create banquet space and asked about the results of\nthat investigation. Chair Sullwold noted that the Commission's first effort was a tent structure,\nbut that ended when the Commission learned that infrastructure costs would be millions of\ndollars. Then the Commission concentrated on costing out improvements to the existing\nbuildings, but was frustrated by lengthy delays that were contributed to by staff in certain\nrespects. When the detailed cost estimate by an independent professional cost estimator\nnumbers finally arrived, the total was quite reasonable, but by that time it was apparent that\nthere was no money available to spend from the Golf Complex enterprise fund because that\nmoney was needed to pay ordinary expenses during the time it would take to find an outside\nvendor, should that be the ultimate decision of Council. Chair Sullwold said that she thought a\ndiscussion of this lengthy process should not be included in what is already a long letter, but\nshould be mentioned in private discussions with Councilmembers.\nA discussion ensued as to whether any outside vendor would be interested in leasing the\nChuck Corica Golf Complex. Although many municipalities are seeking outside vendors, and it\nis clearly a buyer's market, the Golf Complex balance sheet shows that, without considering City\ntake-aways, revenues exceed expenses, even with very high labor costs. On the other hand,\nthe courses need lots of expensive capital improvements to be competitive with other area\ncourses. It is unlikely that any vendor will offer a lease payment equivalent to the $900,000 per\nyear that the City has been pulling out of the Complex off the top, although it seems likely that\nsome company will be interested in such a prime piece of golf course real estate.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 4\n06/04/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-06-04", "page": 5, "text": "Commissioner Schmitz noted that Corsco is going back to the City of Oakland to renegotiate the\nterms of its lease of the Metropolitan course because business is down.\nA motion was made by Commissioner Schmitz and seconded by Commissioner Gammell\nthat Chair Sullwold should use her discretion to make minor to moderate revisions to the draft\nletters to City Council and Auditor Kearney as discussed in the meeting, then get the letters out\nas soon as possible. The motion passed unanimously.\nChair Sullwold noted that, at the meeting on May 27, the Mayor and Councilman deHaan\npraised Mr. Lillard highly for his efforts since taking over management of the Golf Complex, and\ncriticized prior management, blaming it (without naming names) for the problems being\nexperienced today. Chair Sullwold learned, however, that former General Manager Dana Banke\nactually had very little to do with preparation of Golf Complex budgets, and that the City's\nFinance Department refused to allow revenue estimates in the budget to decline, even when it\nwas apparent that play was down. Mr. Corica noted, however, that there was a serious lack of\nmarketing efforts over prior years that contributed to Golf Complex financial problems. Vice\nChair Gaul asked whether we could find out where the enterprise fund has gone over the past\nfive years, but it was generally agreed that it was unlikely we will find out precisely how that\nmoney was drawn down. Chair Sullwold noted that the NGF Operational Review does not\ncriticize management or blame it for the financial losses the Golf Complex has been suffering,\nyet Mayor Johnson continues to do so in public meetings. Chair Sullwold also noted that the\nGolf Complex budget will reflect a payment of $80,000 for Mr. Lillard's salary and benefits next\nyear, representing about 1/3 of his total pay, even though it has been estimated that he spends\nless than 10% of his time at the Golf Complex during an average week.\n11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe Meeting was adjourned at 7:38 PM.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 24 hours in advance in accordance with section 54956\nof the Brown Act, pertaining to special meetings.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 5\n06/04/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-06-04.pdf"}