{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nTERRA\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19th, 2008\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:06 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL: Board Members Michael Rich, Roberto Rocha, Avonnet Peeler, Linda McHugh, Peter\nHorikoshi and Executive Secretary Karen Willis.\nABSENT:\nNone\nSTAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst, Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst\nand Stacey Meier, Administrative Technician I, Human Resources\nOTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Alan Elnick, Linda Justus and various City employees.\n3.\nMINUTES: Member McHugh moved to accept, Member Peeler seconded, and the motion carried by\na 5-0 vote.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A Request for Reinstatement - Permit Technician I\nKaren Willis explained that a person had voluntarily resigned from their position as Permit Technician I\nand that they were requesting to be reinstated. She also explained that should the position become\navailable again, they would automatically be placed on the eligible list. Member Peeler moved to accept\nthe reinstatement, Member Rocha seconded and carried by a 5-0 vote.\n4-B\nEligible List History Review\nKaren Willis explained that the board had requested Human Resources staff to bring back information\nregarding the Golf and Park Maintenance Worker classification, how the job announcements had been\nposted, history of the classification, how bumping rights apply, and how or why there is only one seniority list.\nShe then passed out materials related to this issue. Jill Kovacs explained that one of the documents was a\ngeneral look at the Golf Course as a department and division. She went on to explain dates of when the Golf\nCourse became a division under the direction of the Recreation and Parks Department, and when it finally\nbecame its own department. Karen Willis stated that the Golf Department is currently being overseen by the\nDirector of the Recreation and Parks Department in the absence of a General Manager of the Golf Complex.\nBoard Member McHugh asked how the rolls changed as the responsibility of the function moved. Jill Kovacs\nstated that when Fred Framstead came aboard the contracted operations were brought back under the City\nwhich meant an expanded roll. Member Horikoshi asked if there was a relationship between the Golf Course\nbeing a Division or a Department and whether they are combined classifications or not. Jill Kovacs stated that\nthere was no relation and that the history was for informational purposes and to understand the cohabitation\nof Golf and Parks and Recreation. Board President Rich asked if, once Golf became a separate Department,\nthere was any difference as to how people got reassigned. Derek Taylor, Golf employee, stated that it was\nwell known that at any time an employee could be reassigned to the Parks Department and vice versa\nbecause they were Golf and Park Maintenance Workers. Dennis McDaniels, Parks employee, stated that to\nhis knowledge there had never been any commingling between the two Departments. He also stated that he\nwas not sure whether or not it was a possibility, but as far as he knows it has never been put in place. Mark\nSmith, Golf employee, stated that several Golf employees had taken lateral transfers to the Parks Department", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\npage 2 of 5\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nSpecial Meeting of November 19, 2008\nas recently as 6 months ago and that Golf employees have always provided staff and equipment to the Parks\nDepartment whenever they have had special projects. Executive Secretary Willis confirmed that there was a\nlateral transfer of a Golf employee who transferred to the Recreation and Parks Department. Board Member\nRocha asked if there were any documents showing these moves. Executive Secretary Willis stated that for\neach move there was a Personnel Action Form. Derek Taylor stated that from his perspective the policy was\nthat they were all Golf and Park Maintenance Workers and it was common knowledge that they could be\nmoved from Golf to Parks. Parks employee Dennis Tavares stated that when he was hired his employment\npapers did not say anything about the Golf Course and that he was hired to work strictly at the baseball facility\nonly.\nA job announcement for Park Maintenance Worker - Pools was then distributed to the Board. Executive\nSecretary Willis explained that the Human Resources Department has always had a single classification for\nthe position called Golf and Park Maintenance Worker and that this classification is part of the ACEA MOU,\nclassification 5260. She stated that this is the classification title that goes to the City Council for pay ranges\netc., and it is also the title that was brought to the Civil Service Board when the classification was created.\nShe stated that the earliest date they could find as an example of this was 1972. She also stated that during\na recruitment, bulletins are sometimes posted with the working title showing where the position is to be\nassigned. For example, if it were a Golf and Park Maintenance Worker in Parks it would be posted as a Parks\nMaintenance Worker and vice versa. She explained that all individuals who were hired into the job were hired\nunder the classification of Golf and Park Maintenance Worker, code 5260. She then went on to explain that\nthere were a couple of exceptions that were labeled Park Maintenance Worker and Golf Maintenance Worker\nbut they are still under the same classification code of Golf and Park Maintenance Worker. Dennis Tavares\nquestioned why the history would show him as being hired to \"hardball field only\" if they wanted him to be able\nto move to the Golf Course. Karen Willis stated that when the job was being recruited for, the City wanted to\nattract people with a specific skill to apply for the position. She also explained that there would be different\nrecruitments and different eligible lists based on those different skills. Chris Low stated that he cannot speak\nas to what actually happened during the time of the actual recruitment, but that even today they may give an\nopen position a working title and still reference what the baseline classification title is for payroll purposes. He\nstated that they do this for the purpose of finding the best person for the position. He went on to explain that\nthey will typically hone in on types of skills that they are looking for so that they do not waste the time of\nanyone they might not necessarily consider.\nDerek Taylor stated that the Golf and Park Maintenance Workers have gone to meetings together for months\nand have been presented with seniority lists with all of their names on them. He stated that it is common\nknowledge that they are all working under the same classification. Pam Sibley shared that she worked in\nrecruitment for the City for a number of years and that in order to attract the skill set that was desired they\nwould use different supplemental questionnaires and that the full name of the classification was not listed on\nthe bulletin. She also stated that these recruitments resulted in different eligible lists depending on the skill set\nthat Human Resources was recruiting for. Golf employee Mike McCall shared that numerous people have\ngone back and forth from the Golf and Parks Departments. He stated that Golf maintenance workers have\nalways been the same as the Parks maintenance workers, with the same uniform etc. He also stated that\nbeing a Golf maintenance worker requires more skills than the Parks maintenance workers. He stated that he\nwould like to know how some of their titles changed. For example he was hired as a Golf and Park\nMaintenance Worker and was then promoted to a Leadperson and then his title changed to a Utility Worker.\nHe stated that he was not informed that his title was going to be changed from Leadperson to Utility Worker\nand wanted to know when his title changed and why.\nMember Horikoshi questioned whether everyone on the chart is in the Golf and Park Maintenance Worker\nclassification. Executive Secretary Willis stated that at present they are not, but at one point or another they\nwere. Board President Rich asked if a lateral transfer has to be approved by the department. Karen Willis\nconfirmed that it does. Mark Smith stated that the last transfer was hired as a Golf Maintenance Worker and\nwhen a position came open at the Parks they asked him if he wanted to transfer. He stated that the positions\nare alike because they are all grounds maintenance employees. Bill Hudson, Parks employee stated that he\nhas never seen a Parks Maintenance Worker transfer to Golf. John Brandenburg, Parks employee, stated\nthat he was hired as a Park Maintenance Worker and that he has never had the opportunity to transfer over to\nGolf. Dennis McDaniels stated that the job was presented to Parks employees in a manner that never gave\nthem any idea they were related to the Golf Department until now, when lay-offs are coming.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\npage 3 of 5\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nSpecial Meeting of November 19, 2008\nBoard Member Michael Rich asked how many positions will be eliminated. Alan Elnick stated that 16\npositions will be eliminated out of 29 total positions. Executive Secretary Willis clarified that Golf and Park\nMaintenance Workers are all paid from the same salary range. Board President Rich asked if the lay-offs\nwere happening because of the change in management at the Golf Course or because of the budget. Karen\nWillis stated that it was happening because the Golf Course is losing money, and in turn, the City is leasing\nout the Golf Course. She also stated that once the Golf Course is leased out, those positions will be\neffectively eliminated from City jobs and will not come back if the economy improves. In addition she shared\nthat each person working under the Golf and Park Maintenance Worker classification at the Golf Complex will\nhave certain bumping rights into Golf and Park Maintenance Worker classifications elsewhere within the City\nand the only other place they exist is in the Recreation and Parks Department.\nJill Kovacs distributed salary schedules to the board, showing salaries and increases going back to 1989.\nShe explained that the job classification is shown as Golf and Park Maintenance Worker on each schedule.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the only classification that has been utilized is Golf and Park\nMaintenance Worker, and that anybody who was hired under the title of a Parks Maintenance Worker is also\nunder this title. Chris Low explained that during a recruitment they may use a working title that will attract\npeople with a specific skill in order to fill a vacancy, but that the basic skill requirements are the same. As an\nexample, he explained that in the Library there are two Supervising Librarians, one in children's services and\none in adult services and they both require the same education and experience.\nIn reference to the 11/28/06 Civil Service Board Meeting, Board President Rich asked for an explanation of\nwhat happened during negotiations with the PANS group and their classifications. Executive Secretary Willis\nexplained that PANS had a generic classification (Police Technician I, II, and III) that they wanted to be\nseparate and distinct (i.e. Public Safety Dispatcher and Jailer). This was brought to the Civil Service Board\nand the original classifications were broken up. Board President Rich asked if someone who had been\nreclassified to a Dispatcher position would be able to bump someone hired as a Jailer, after the new job\nclasses had been created, in the event of lay-offs or would the Jailer be protected because they were in a\ndifferent job class. Karen Willis stated that the Dispatcher would not be able to bump the Jailer because they\nhad not previously held that position. She then confirmed that in the case of the Golf and Park Maintenance\nWorker this separation had not occurred.\nDashvinder Paul, Golf employee, stated that his name is not on the seniority list that was passed out at the\nmeeting and he would like the Board to look into it. He stated that he was hired as an Equipment Operator\nand has since been promoted to a Utility Worker and that he does not have any bumping rights. Board\nPresident Rich then stated that the list which was passed out at the meeting is not a bumping list. Karen\nWillis stated that he is not on the list because he is not presently in the Golf and Park Maintenance Worker job\nclass, but that he is subject to lay-off because he works at the Golf Course.\nExecutive Secretary Willis then passed out the most recent version of the job specification for Golf and Park\nMaintenance Worker, as well as the two preceding versions which date back to 1972. Jill Kovacs then\nexplained that job code 2075 became code 5260 when she fixed the coding system for the City in the 1980's.\nBoard Member Horikoshi then thanked staff for providing the job specifications, explaining that he wanted to\nsee if there was consistency and then stating that there was.\nDennis McDaniels shared with the Board that when he was interviewed for his position with the Parks, the\npanel that interviewed him was comprised of professional pool operators, and people who managed\nswimming pool facilities. He stated that they never once discussed shrubbery, grass, tees, etc. and that never\nonce was it presented to him in any way, shape or form that his position would be related to the Golf Course.\nBoard Member Horikoshi asked if Human Resources is required to put the job code on the job announcement\nto say that it is part of the larger classification. Executive Secretary Willis stated that there is no requirement;\nhowever in recent bulletins Human Resources has been doing that. She then verified that the position of Park\nMaintenance Worker - Pools, which was advertised on the job announcement referenced by Dennis\nMcDaniels, does fall under the Golf and Park Maintenance Worker classification. Board Member Peeler\nasked if the exams for all of the positions are the same. Executive Secretary Willis stated that they are not\nnecessarily the same, and that there are different supplemental questionnaires which are part of the exam, as", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 4, "text": "City of Alameda\npage 4 of 5\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nSpecial Meeting of November 19, 2008\nwell as an oral board. She stated that there would be different specialized skills that were asked for, but that\nthe minimum qualifications would be the same. Board President Rich asked how divergent the examples of\ndifferent types of duties that were listed on the descriptions were from the specifications. Pam Sibley stated\nthat, with the bulletins that she worked on, they would pull out the information that applied to that specific\nposition from the job specification.\nBoard Member McHugh asked, when Human Resources negotiates a new contract, how are these issues\ndiscussed and if they are discussed at a classification level between the Union and the City. Terry Flippo,\nParks employee, stated that in 2001/02 negotiations the separation from the Golf Course came up. He stated\nthat they discussed the different duties of the jobs and that he went out to the Parks Department to see what\ntheir maintenance workers were doing and that a Park maintenance worker came to the Golf Course to see\nwhat he was doing. He stated that they were told that it was a Civil Service Board issue and it was not to be\naddressed in negotiations. Alan Elnick confirmed that is indeed what happened and that they could not\nnegotiate that without the approval of the Board, but that it was never taken to the Board.\nBoard President Rich asked if there are any other vacancy's within the City that people might be able to\nbe hired into. Executive Secretary Willis stated that they will try to look at any other vacancies that may\ncome up within the City, but that people being layed-off from the Golf Course would not have the right to\nbump into those positions. She stated that Human Resources would most likely open those positions up\ninternally to give current City employees the opportunity to apply. She stated that right now the City is in\na hiring freeze and she does not know if the budget will cause the City to have to make further\nreductions, and they are not able to fill any vacancies currently.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the Board has the ability to make a decision to say whether or not\nGolf and Park Maintenance Worker is indeed a single classification, but that if the Board wanted to do\nsomething else it would need to be agendized as an action item for a future meeting. Board Member\nHorikoshi asked how the Human Resources Department is saying this ought to go if there are lay-offs.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that the Human Resources Department is using the seniority list to\ndecide who has bumping rights etc. Board Member McHugh asked if the private firm that is leasing the\nGolf Course will be able to hire on some of the City's laid off workers. Executive Secretary Willis stated\nthat there is a clause in the contract that states they will consider the City's employees but there is\nnothing requiring them to take them on. She also stated that there is a consideration to keep the\nmaintenance portion of the Golf Course within the City for a period of time up to one year. She explained\nthat it will be an amendment that will be made through ACEA and will then come back to Council on\nDecember 2, 2008 for final approval.\nBoard President Rich asked, if the Board does not take any action, will the City move forward with the\nreductions based on how the classification is currently set up. Executive Secretary Willis confirmed this\nand stated that she would like to have a decision from the Civil Service Board, but that their decision\ncould only be going forward. She explained that if the Board decided to separate the classification it will\nnot change the way the current situation unfolds. Board President Rich asked if there would be any\nappeal rights that the laid off employees would have if they feel things have been implemented wrong.\nExecutive Secretary Willis stated that it would be through the grievance process unless it was in terms of\nsomeone challenging the classification and then it would have to go to the Civil Service Board. Alan\nElnick explained that one person is slated for lay off as of January 5, 2009 unless someone retires before\nthen. He went on to say that the next lay off date is May 31, 2009, where there needs to be a reduction\nof 3 more positions. The next notification of lay-off date after that is October 31, 2009 with lay-offs of\nDecember 31, 2009, for a total of 16 positions eliminated.\nBoard President Rich stated that his understanding of the situation is that there doesn't seem to be any\naction that the Board can take immediately that would change the status and interpretation of how the\nclasses are set up. He stated that beyond that, even if it were to be agendized for a future meeting, there\nis nothing that the Board can do that would apply retroactively. He went on to say that it seems like if\nthere are people that don't agree with how staff is interpreting the current classification system, with all", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 5, "text": "City of Alameda\npage 5 of 5\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nSpecial Meeting of November 19, 2008\nGolf and Park Maintenance Workers being in the same job class, then there may be some appeal right\nfor them to come back to the Civil Service Board to say that the layoff had been implemented wrong. He\nthen requested that staff get back to the Board on exactly how the appeal process would work. He again\nstated that there is no action the Board would be able to take right now that would decide the question\ndifferently then how staff is interpreting it, and there is nothing they can do in the future that would decide\nhow it will affect the people who are being impacted.\nJon Brandenburg wanted to know why, as Maintenance employees they are unable to bump into Public\nWorks Maintenance positions. He stated that the City had a budget crunch in 1994 and that he was able\nto do so. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she would check into the specifics of that. Dennis\nMcDaniels asked why, as a vested employee who has been working for the City for a decade, his\nseniority over Public Works employees, who are not vested and have only been employed for a year or\ntwo, doesn't matter. Board President Rich explained that each agency is able to adopt its rules and how\nthey handle employment matters differently, and that some cities have it set up where the overall\nseniority is factored. He went on to say that with the City of Alameda's particular set of Civil Service\nRules overall time with the City is not a factor. He further explained that the main reason seniority does\nnot have complete power over everything else is because there are certain situations where the jobs are\nso different that a person would not be able to perform the job they have seniority over.\nBoard President Rich suggested that another meeting be scheduled to answer the questions which had\nbeen posed. He added that he would also like to find out what the appropriate role of the Civil Service\nBoard is relative to providing advice or counsel to people subject to lay-offs. Executive Secretary Willis\nstated that staff will schedule another special meeting for mid-December.\nJohn McDonald, Park Manager, asked if there will be a point where the Golf portion of Golf and Park\nMaintenance Worker will be eliminated, since the City will not be maintaining the Golf Course, so that\nthis confusion will not exist in the future. Jill Kovacs stated that they have to be careful in that situation\nbecause they don't want to detrimentally impact people in lay-off status who could possibly be reinstated\nat a later date. She explained that if the classification they previously held was eliminated, reinstatement\nwould be impossible.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nNone.\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\n9.\nThere being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING\nWednesday, November 19, 2008\n1.\nCALL TO ORDER\nChair Jane Sullwold called the regular meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. at the Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex, Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA\n94502.\n1-A.\nRoll Call\nRoll call was taken and members present were: Secretary Bill Delaney,\nCommissioner Betsy Gammell, Vice Chair Ray Gaul, and Chair Jane Sullwold.\nAbsent: Commissioner Bill Schmitz and Commissioner Jeff Wood. Also present\nwas Assistant Golf Professional Mike Robason.\n1-B\nApproval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 15, 2008\nThe Commission approved the minutes unanimously.\n1-C\nAdoption of Agenda\nThe Commission adopted the agenda unanimously.\n3.\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nChair Sullwold reported that she sent an email to City Council member Frank\nMatarrese following the City Council meeting of November 6, 2008. She had\naddressed her remarks to Council on the staff recommendation that Kemper\nSports take over all aspects of the golf complex management, including the golf\nmaintenance department. It was apparent, however, that City Council had already\nmade the decision to accept the ACEA Union proposal to spare the maintenance\ndepartment from the interim management proposal. Chair Sullwold was\ndisappointed that no effort was made by staff to determine what cost savings\nwould result by the union proposal before accepting it. The salaries in the\nmaintenance division are the largest expenditure for the golf complex and the\nquestion is whether the City of Alameda will save money without turning over\nmaintenance to the interim manager. Councilmember Matarrese responded that\nhe felt the ACEA proposal would help with potential future workforce reductions.\nHe also stated the interim management period will allow the City of Alameda to\nreevaluate whether the Golf Complex can become a self-sustaining enterprise as it\nonce was, and for the City of Alameda to find a way to reduce the General Fund\ntake-backs of revenue from the Golf Complex so that capital improvement projects\ncan be pursued. Secretary Delaney stated that he feels the response was very\nencouraging.\n4.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 1\n11/19/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 2, "text": "4-A\nDiscussion on City Council Action for Golf Course Management.\nChair Sullwold reported that the City Council, at its November 6, 2008 meeting,\napproved the proposal from Kemper Sports Management to manage the Golf\nComplex Operations for an interim period of one year. The City of Alameda will\nsave approximately $32,000 by having the Complex managed. The City of\nAlameda has offered golden handshake retirement packages to eligible\nemployees. Alan Elnick, the union business agent, advised Council that as many\nas six employees will accept the retirement packages. The ACEA union\nemployees that retire will be replaced with non-union employees hired by Kemper\nSports. Chair Sullwold noted a maximum of about $170,000 could be saved by\nthe City of Alameda should all six of the employees accept the offer immediately,\nbut that is unlikely. The one positive note is that Kemper Sports is very\nexperienced in managing golf courses. Ron Salsig encouraged the Golf\nCommission to voice their support for the retention of the teaching professionals at\nthe Complex under the existing compensation scheme. The Mif Albright Course\nwill be closed permanently on November 30, 2008. Mrs. Arnerich stated that all of\nthe trees on the Mif Albright Course were donated and dedicated to the memory of\nloved ones.\n4-B\nUpdate on the Rate Increases.\nSecretary Delaney stated that he has noticed an increase in play on the Earl Fry\nGolf Course and a decrease on the Jack Clark Golf Course that could be due to\nthe rate increase. Mike Robason suggested a more likely explanation is the\nrelatively poor condition of the Clark course recently. Sales of monthly passes are\ndown considerably over last year. Mike reported that many local golf courses are\noffering specials this time of year to attract play, and this may be luring our\nmonthly customers away. The Golf Commission asked Mike to put together more\nspecial packages for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex to increase play and stay\ncompetitive. Chair Sullwold reported that for the first four months of fiscal year\n2008/2009 actual revenue exceeded that predicted in the budget by $273,000.\nAlthough the number of rounds played in November 2008 are slightly lower than in\nNovember 2007, revenue has held steady due to the rate increases.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by Assistant Golf\nProfessional Mike Robason.\nMike Robason reported that another $245 was received from the Youth on the\nCourse Program, bringing the total received from the NCGA to $4, 165 for the year.\nThe tee times for Thanksgiving Day will be in a shotgun format, and the Pro Shop\nwill be having a large merchandise sale over the weekend.\n5-B\nGolf Complex Maintenance activities report by Superintendent Doug Poole.\nNo report.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 2\n11/19/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 3, "text": "5-C\nBeautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nMrs. Arnerich reported that the Alameda High School Girls Golf Team ended their\nseason quite well, and offered special congratulations to the team members who\ncame up through the Alameda Junior Golf program.\n5-D\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course.\nThe General Manager from the restaurant reported that sales are up from last\nyear. He also mentioned that employees have been spoken to about customer\nservice.\n6.\nCOMMISSIONERS' REPORTS\n6-A\nMarketing and Promotions, Commissioner Gammell.\nNothing to report.\n6-B\nGolf Complex Financial Report, Secretary Delaney.\nSecretary Delaney reported that the net income year-to-date improved by\n$151,000 and rounds are up by 770. The Golf Commission is pleased to have\nreceived the line item budget report which allows the Golf Commission to review\nthe various items.\n6-C\nMaintenance, Buildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Commissioner\nWood.\nNo report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nMrs. Arnerich was disappointed at the November 6, 2008 City Council meeting\nthat all of the praise for the Golf Complex was given to Mr. Lillard, with no mention\nof the actual staff members who have been running the Golf Complex. She made\na point of praising the staff at the City Council meeting last night. Ron Salsig\nmentioned that Dong Yi, formerly of the Alameda Junior Golf Club, has completed\nthe 2nd stage of the PGA \"Q\" School, making him eligible to play on the Nationwide\nTour and possibly qualifying for the PGA tour.\n8.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance\nDepartment showing the surcharge payment for October 2008 was $11,283. The\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 3\n11/19/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 4, "text": "year-to-date total to the General Fund is $58,587 for fiscal year 2008/2009.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nUpdate on monthly pass sales\nUpdate on marketing for weekday play\nUpdate on the rate increases.\n11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe Meeting was adjourned at 7:32 PM.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 4\n11/19/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf"}