{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, January 6, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 12:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2009.\nThe Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member\nMatarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nrepresentative - Highlights of December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he\nreceived a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object\nin\nthe Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member\nMatarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.\nMember deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is\nunknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed\nthat the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,\nstating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along\nwith RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point\ndiscussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant\nto conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of\nthousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.\nChair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:\nconcrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.\nVice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the\nshoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is\neventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be\ncleared out.\nAgenda Item #2-A\nARRA\n02-03-2010", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City\nof Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member\nMatarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option\nto see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther\nalong than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have\nbeen rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member\nMatarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He\nstated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the\nrunways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option\nfor the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an\nengineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it\nfilters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave\naction because it doesn't require maintenance.\nVice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for\nestablishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair\ndeHaan stated that getting \"tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of\noperation.\nChair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the\nARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.\nMember Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one\nrepresentative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail\nwas in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the\nsource to the rumor to see if it has any merit.\n7.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 6, 2010- -7:0 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:24 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-004) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the EDC's\nSubcommittee report [paragraph number 10-015 would be continued to a future date.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-005) Proclamation Declaring January as National Blood Donor Month.\nMayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Lisa Eversole, Red Cross\nDonor Recruitment Account Manager.\nMs. Eversole thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Alameda has been very\ngenerous in donating blood to the Red Cross.\n(10-006) Presentation by Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) on\nthe I-880 Operational and Safety Improvements at 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue\nOvercrossings.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief introduction.\nMatt Todd, CMA Project Manager, gave a Power Point presentation.\nGarret Gritz, RBF Consulting Project Manager, continued the Power Point presentation.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer continued the Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired why a resolution cannot be reached on the matter.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded CalTrans has rigid standards; stated ramps\nare not meeting standards; space is limited; staff has spent many hours trying to find\noptions and alternatives.\nMayor Johnson stated one problem is that ramps are being combined.\nMr. Todd stated combining two ramps into one is causing a delay; an auxiliary lane\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "between 23rd Avenue and Oak Street overcrossing would meet CalTrans standards;\nhowever; State funding needs to be invested right away.\nMayor Johnson stated the Fruitvale Bridge is underutilized; diverting traffic from the\nFruitvale Bridge is not good for Alameda; encouraged CMA to figure out solutions to the\nproblems.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated clearances need to be addressed; having a cue going\nacross the bridge is not acceptable; utilization of the Fruitvale Bridge crossing needs to\nbe revisited.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated sometimes Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) have\nimpacts that cannot be mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations needs to\nbe adopted; inquired what entity would adopt the statement of overriding considerations.\nMr. Todd responded an Environmental Assessment Initial Study (EAIS) is being\nperformed, not an EIR; stated CalTrans would be the final signatory.\nCouncilmember Matarrese questioned whether CalTrans could impose things on\nAlameda unilaterally.\nMr. Gritz stated typically, CalTrans does not force things onto local agencies; the issue\nwould need to be revisited if the unmitigated impact would delay the project.\nMayor Johnson stated CMA needs to go back and figure something out.\nMr. Gritz stated CMA has reviewed a tremendous amount of options; CMA wants to\nutilize the Fruitvale Bridge rather than impact Park Street; the cue back up along the\n23rd Avenue/Park Street corridor is attributed to development forecasted to occur in\nOakland and Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated the current design makes diverting traffic back to the Fruitvale\nBridge from the freeway very difficult; a huge obstacle would be created.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated cars have already exceeded capacity on I-880;\nsomething different needs to be considered; that he is not sure the problem has an\nengineering solution.\nThe Public Works Director stated that staff thought that an agreement was reached with\nCMA and would be included in the environmental documents, but it was not; the\npurpose of the presentation is to receive feedback from Council and the community to\nsee if proposed mitigations seem acceptable; staff is concerned that future studies\nnever get built.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the southbound area of the corridor is the most dangerous\nand is not being addressed; the Miller Sweeney [Fruitvale] Bridge is another concern;\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 3, "text": "sound goes directly into Alameda when a sound wall is put up on the north side of I-880\nwithout another one on the other side.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe to spend the $74 million to build\nthe project.\nMr. Todd responded the timeframe is tight; stated all corridor projects have to have\nenvironmental clearance by April; stated CMA did not submit a project for the\nsouthbound corridor.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether CMA has conceptual plans for the area.\nMr. Todd responded in the affirmative; stated an analysis was performed from I-980 to I-\n238; taking care of overpasses covers a large portion of future costs.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated staff has asked CMA to look at the southbound\nauxiliary lane between the 29th Avenue onramp and Fruitvale Avenue offramp; moving\nthe column would help add more space to the shoulder.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether or not the northbound portion has an alternative,\nto which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded traffic could go to 12th Street.\nMayor Johnson stated people would not go to 12th Street.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated CalTrans does not impose will on local agencies; the\nproject needs to be shovel ready in order not to lose funding; CMA should be\nencouraged to work with staff on mitigation issues so that Alameda does not become a\nsticking point.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda has a good relationship with Oakland; the area is in\nCouncilmember De La Fuente's district; Alameda does not want to jeopardize the\nfunding; Alameda and the CMA have to work together to figure out a way to resolve the\nissue; the project needs to go forward; CMA would risk losing money to the region if the\nproblem is not solved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the problem is trying to squeeze too many cars onto I-\n880; the freeway does not have shoulders and never will; reducing the number of cars\non I-880 is important; the High Street northbound onramp is dangerous; projecting\ntoday's traffic patterns and habits into 2035 is a big problem.\nMr. Todd stated that CMA has a meeting scheduled with City staff for Monday.\nMayor Johnson stated the region cannot lose the money; the project is important to the\nJingletown neighborhood.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council looks forward to seeing mitigations soon.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 4, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolutions Approving Amendment to the MOU and\nAmending Salary Schedules [paragraph nos. 10-012 and 10-012A1 were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*10-007) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting held on December\n15, Approved.\n(*10-008) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,712,971.89.\n(*10-009) Recommendation to Adopt the Legislative Program for 2010. Accepted.\n(*10-010) Resolution No. 14409, \"In Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and\nTransportation Protection Act of 2010. \"Adopted.\n(*10-011) Resolution No. 14410, \"Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding\nBetween the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for\nthe Period Commencing January 1, 2009 and Ending December 18, 2010. Adopted.\n(10-012) Resolution No. 14411, \"Approving Amendment to Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) Between the Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation (MCEA) and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 1,\n2005, and Ending December 20, 2008, and Extended through December 12, 2009.\n\"\nAdopted; and\n(10-012A) Resolution No. 14412, \"Amending the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for the Position\nof Controller. Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker: Bob Haun, MCEA.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*10-013) Ordinance No. 3015, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 5, "text": "Subsection 8-7.8 (Leaving Vehicle on Street in Excess of Seventy-Two Hours);\nAmending Subsection 8-7.9 (Heavy Commercial Vehicles); Amending Subsection 8-\n7.10 (Overnight Parking of Large Vehicles); and Adding Subsection 8-7.11\n(Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers Prohibited) Prohibiting the Parking of\nRecreational Vehicles and Trailer Coaches on City Streets.\" Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-014) Public Hearing to Consider the Housing and Community Development Needs\nfor the Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five-Year Plans.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents: Cynthia Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB)\nPresident; Tina Fleeton, Bananas Inc.; and Doug Biggs, SSHRB Member and Alameda\nPoint Collaborative.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the\nhearing.\nFollowing Ms. Wasko's comments, Councilmember Tam inquired whether the SSHRB\nanticipates changes after the new census.\nMs. Wasko responded the map will change; stated the President is talking about\nchanging the funding formula.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether ten percent of the families in the Alameda\nUnified School District are in a housing transition.\nMs. Wasko responded in the affirmative; stated families are either living with relatives,\ncouch surfing, or staying in shelters.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the housing issue is where people get\nstuck.\nMs. Wasko responded the first step is to provide housing; stated the next step is\nworking on job stability; families are living in cars.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated having ten percent of School District families'\nhomeless is astounding.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired how often Housing Urban Development (HUD)\nupdates income limits, to which the Community Development Program Manager\nresponded annually.\n(10-015) Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development\nCommission's Business Attraction Subcommittee. Continued.\n(10-016) Recommendation to Approve Directing the Interim City Manager to Close the\nMif Albright Course Effective January 31, 2010 and to Relocate the Course to the Front\nNine Holes of the South Course as a Pilot Program.\nThe Interim City Manager and John Vest, Kemper Sports, gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded play has dropped\nthree percent regionally.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how data is gathered, to which Mr. Vest responded the\nNational Golf Foundation (NGF).\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded that tees would be\ncreated off the side [of the south course] for nine holes.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated that Exhibit 2 of the staff report shows rounds\nare up in opening months over the year before; rounds start to drop off in succeeding\nmonths.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the decline in rounds is consistent with other courses.\nMr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated there is a 16% decline from last year.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why the water bill went up during the rainy season.\nMr. Vest responded a lot of water was needed to rejuvenate the course; stated the\noverall number reflects an annual picture of water costs; watering is minimal now.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether water expenses reflect a separately metered\ncharge, to which Mr. Vest responded the property receives a bill for two months.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated in 2008, water consumption was $35,000 for\nthe entire year; most of the use is front end loaded; typically, irrigation is shut off\nsomewhere between October or November and stays off until the end of April or May.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the water bill is anticipated to be less, to which\nMr. Vest responded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 7, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the minimal maintenance cost in\nclosed condition, Mr. Vest stated labor costs would go down; water costs would be\napproximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would be the minimum cost to maintain the property\nwithout a golf course; further inquired how the cost would compare against opening the\nGolf Course during the active session.\nMr. Vest responded costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month if the\nproperty were closed; stated reopening the golf course during busy months would have\nsome start up costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Kemper management costs are strictly\nallocation costs, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether water costs are billed amounts, to which\nMr. Vest responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how having two styles of play on the south course\nhas worked.\nMr. Vest responded the situation was tough in the beginning; stated players were not\neducated; marshals had a hard time getting players in position.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated increasing fees has been discussed; people would still have\nto walk the whole course.\nMr. Vest stated some type of discounted cart fee would be given to those who could not\nwalk the course; accommodating players who just want to play the shorter course on\nSaturday or Sunday mornings will be impossible sometimes.\nMayor Johnson stated the plan is a proposed interim plan; inquired how long the\nselected plan would be in place.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded three to six months; stated Exhibit 4 takes\ninto consideration loss in rounds.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether $7,500 could be lost.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded $15,000 could be lost; stated the profit\nwould be $7,500.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the $21,059 loss includes the $19,000 cost allocation\nfor Kemper management and administration; the same people would be managing\nbetween February and July 2010; inquired whether the money is not really a loss\nbecause people would collect the same salary.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 8, "text": "Mr. Vest responded in the negative; stated Kemper Sports was originally under contract\nfor a 36-hole complex; the management fee would have to be for a 45-hole course as\nwell as the people on the property.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a certain amount of money would be needed for\nmaintenance if the Mif Albright Course was closed; water costs would be approximately\n$1,500 to $2,000; Exhibit 1 shows a $21,059 loss during the peak period; $30,000\nwould be needed for the whole year to break even; the Golf Commission has gone\naround and around regarding raising fees; requested clarification on the issue of raising\nfees.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated fees were cut before the first closure in an\nattempt to increase the number of rounds but it did not work.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether raising fees is not the solution, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what efforts have been made regarding a non-profit\nassociation.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the matter has been explored; stated no\none has been identified.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff was given direction to look into the matter.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter was discussed, but Council did not give\ndirection to evaluate a non-profit; inquired what year fees were increased, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded September 2008.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Commission has considered raising fees.\nMs. Sullwold responded the Golf Commission determined that Mif Albright Course fees\nwere already at the maximum for the condition of the course.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Sullwold feels the same way now.\nMs. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated no capital improvements have been\nmade.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated cutting costs appears to be the only way to break even.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would make the Golf Course better and what would\nbe the cost.\nMr. Vest responded that he does not have exact costs; stated six out of the nine greens\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 9, "text": "have to be rebuilt; sand is needed for some of the bunkers; fairways are cracked.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the rest of the golf course is doing.\nMr. Vest responded rounds and revenues are declining for the Jack Clark Course;\nstated tournament play helps.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what are the costs for maintaining an inactive park, to\nwhich the Recreation and Park Director responded $25,000 annually.\nOpponents (Not in Favor of Staff Recommendation): Grace Na, Alameda High Girls Golf\nTeam; Samantha Essugerra, Alameda High Girls Golf Team; Glenn Van Winkle,\nAlameda; Eric Van Winkle, Alameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee;\nMark Merrigan, Alameda Commuters; Steve Taddi, Alameda Commuters and Alameda\nGolf Club; Al Wagner, Alameda Golf Club; Dorothy Moody, Alameda; Bobbie Hoepmer,\nAlameda; Connie Wendling, Junior Golf; Norma Arnerich, Junior Golf; Lola Brown,\nAlameda; Frank Reed, Alameda; Carol Albright Davis, Lincoln; Betsy Gammell, Golf\nCommission; Joe Williams, Alameda; Svend Svendsen, Alameda; Felice Zensius,\nAlameda; Lester Cabral, Alameda; Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Robert Brown, Alameda;\nCraig Bevan, Alameda; Alex Stevens, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe\nVan Winkle, Alameda; Chris Van Winkle; Fred Framsted; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Joseph\nWatson, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Bob Blanchard, Alameda; Susan Higbee,\nAlameda Niners; James Leach, Alameda; Ray Gaul, Alameda; Keith Gleason, Alameda\n(read letter of Debbie Opperud); Bill Schmitz, Golf Commission and Commuters\nCommittee; Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Gary Walters, Alameda;\nFormer Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and\nCommuters Committee; Cheryl Saxon, Alameda; and Robb Ratto.\nFollowing Jane Sullwold's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:36 p.m. and\nreconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether doing nothing at the Golf Course is a viable option.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the Golf Course could continue as is but the\nquestion is should it; stated the fund balance will continue to be drawn down; the Golf\nCourse is getting older and tougher; the question is where to get money to invest in\nimprovements; there is no capital; the whole complex requires a draw down; a business\ndecision needs to be made at some point; the only way to make the Golf Course work is\nnot to charge a dime from the General Fund; cost allocations were not raised for the\nGolf enterprise fund, but that means the General Fund loses a minimum of $275,000\nplus another $200,000 from the Return on Investment (ROI); the General Fund cannot\nabsorb a $475,000 cut without cutting staff or services; one of the courses has a bad\nsprinkler system and the replacement cost is approximately $1.5 million.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hears that there is the need for a short course\nand for eighteen holes for regular players; the Golf Course is a business, not a park; the\nCity will need to bite the cost allocation bullet at some point; the question is how much\nmoney will be saved if the Mif Albright Course closes tomorrow through long-term\noperator selection; that he cannot say whether or not to close the Mif Albright Course\nbecause the savings is unknown; the City cannot afford to run forty-five holes because\nrounds are down; meeting the needs of a short course and regular play on less number\nof holes is necessary; everything comes down to money.\nMayor Johnson stated the choices are to generate more income or cut expenses.\n*\n(10-017) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past\nmidnight.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n*\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether money would be saved if the Mif Albright\nclosed today.\nThe Interim City Manager responded operating expenses would still exist if the Course\nis kept open during the RFP process; stated the Course would still not pencil out on a\npositive basis if operating expenses were cut in half; the only way is to take the Kemper\nmanagement fee out and have the other courses absorb the cost, which defeats the\npurpose.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is the cost for a round of golf.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the original NGF Operation Report noted\nthe cost is between $25 and $27.\nMayor Johnson inquired what percentage of golfers play on a monthly, junior, or senior\ndiscount pass.\nMr. Vest responded most players have senior monthly passes; stated juniors play in the\nsummertime and afternoons.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated numbers should be understood on a monthly basis; $30,000\nwas spent for renovations to reopen the Course; no effort has been made to explore\nnon-profit options; the $450,000 loss [to the General Fund] would be for the entire Golf\nComplex; questioned why a decision needs to be made tonight if operator selection is a\nmonth away; stated the community needs to be brought together to figure out how to\nmake things work.\nMayor Johnson stated Kemper has been at the Golf Course for over a year; inquired\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 11, "text": "what is the assessment of capital needs.\nMr. Vest responded the south property has a lot of capital needs, such as irrigation and\nthe pump station; stated 80% of the greens need to be redone; the driving range needs\nto be re-covered; tree work is needed.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the condition [of the Course] when Kemper took\nover.\nMr. Vest responded the course was rough; stated the greens had bare spots and were\ndiseased; the course has drainage issues; irrigation lines break daily.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Course was considered to be in acceptable\ncondition when Kemper took over, to which Mr. Vest responded in the negative.\nIn response to Mayor's Johnson inquiry regarding capital projects, Mr. Vest stated the\nsprinkler system and pump station are in dire need of repair.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the costs would be, to which the Recreation and Park\nDirector responded the sprinkler system would be approximately $1.5 million.\nMr. Vest stated the pump station would cost approximately $140,000.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated said information will be provided at the time of the [operator]\nselection process.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff worked very hard to get all reports done for\ntonight's agenda; going through supplemental information provided by vendors\nresponding to the RFP while preparing for tonight's agenda was not humanly possible\nbecause of the short holiday week and extra meeting; hopes are to have a\nrecommendation come to Council the first meeting in February.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the RFP has five different operational configurations; that he\ndoes not know what the best set up would be; the RFP should have been revisited since\nlittle interest was generated; the Golf Course will be closed forever once it is closed and\nwill not be replicated anywhere; every golf course is having problems; the community\nhas prided itself to reach out to every individual sport; moth balling the Course as a\npassive park would cost $30,000 per year.\nMayor Johnson requested clarification on how much the City has made in cuts over the\nlast two years.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she cut 10% of City staff in her first thirty days;\ncash funds have gone down by more than $20 million in the last fifteen months; the\nsituation at the Golf Course is a factual reality of what is happening everywhere.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated deferred maintenance and capital projects are not included in the\ngolf budget; the Golf Course is rotting away; the Golf Course is going to be so far gone\nin five years that no one will touch it; long-term financial viability needs to be\nconsidered.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; the Golf Course is\nmore than just a golf course operation for the City; one of the speakers stated that a\nnine-hole course does not make money but takes juniors and seniors off the main\ncourse; inquired whether liability issues would occur with the south course pilot\nprogram.\nMr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated liability is always possible.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether regulation player's want to just use the north\ncourse, to which Mr. Vest responded regulation players want options.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what method would be used to handle potential\nliabilities.\nMr. Vest responded efforts would be made to position players in a way to ensure that\neveryone is safe and out of harms way.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is being done regarding people cheating [on the\ntype of round played].\nMr. Vest responded people are caught on a daily basis; stated different programs are\nbeing used to address the problem.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is persuaded that waiting for a long-term operator\nto help with an evaluation makes sense; having a discussion in a fuller context is\nappropriate.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of waiting [to decide whether or not to close the\nMif Albright Course] for a long-term operator to provide a fuller evaluation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the RFP selection is coming to Council in the first\nmeeting in February; inquired how long negotiations would take, to which the Interim\nCity Manager responded 90 to 120 days, which would be May.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated an operator would be in place by May; inquired whether\nthe operator would then start the process of figuring out long-term configuration.\nThe Interim City Manager responded staff would provide Council with details of what\nhas been negotiated with the long-term operator at the end of the 90 to 120 days;\nhypothesizing what will happen to the Mif Albright Course is difficult.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many RFP's have been received.\nThe Interim City Manager responded five or six firms were present for the pre-bid;\nstated two firms responded at the time of submittal; of the firms that did not submit a\nproposal, one was cutting staff and the other could not borrow any money to invest in\ncapital.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the situation sounds like the telecom situation; that he\nunderstands there is a need for a short course; inquired whether a short course is part\nof the RFP, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated someone is going to have to give something up\nbecause the Golf Course has been running at a deficit as long as he has been on the\nCouncil; having two 18-hole courses and one 9-hole course is not possible.\nMayor Johnson stated the fund balance was at $5 million two or three years ago;\nspending $20,000 to $25,000 at this point is reasonable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City might as well take the hit to the General Fund\nnow because golf revenue will not go to the General Fund in the future; the reality is that\nthe City is only paying to keep the course up and playable.\nThe Interim City Manager stated firms that did not respond to the RFP could not invest\ncapital based upon the condition of the Course and the RFP requirements; investing\ncapital will be harder because the quality of the Course will worsen; the City of Los\nAngeles had twenty-four courses bundled for an RFP; no responses were received\nbecause the courses were run down; privatizing will be too late at some point; having\ncities operate as in the past is not today's government reality; the General Fund cannot\nsubsidize non-General Fund services.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated approximately $20,000 or less is needed to keep the Mif\nAlbright Course open between now and the end of May; $20,000 is not going to break\nthe City; the bigger point is that something needs to be given up; having a place to\nnurture children is important.\nCouncilmember Tam restated her motion to approve waiting until the end of May in\norder to have a fuller discussion with a long-term operator to provide an evaluation of\nhow the Mif Albright Course fits into the long-term plan of two 18-hole courses with the\nfull understanding that there could be up to a potential $20,000 hit that will be derived\nfrom the $1.1 million remaining reserve fund.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested the motion be amended to include exploring other\noptions to operate the Mif Albright Course separately.\nCouncilmember Tam agreed to the amended motion.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a timeframe would be established so that\neverything culminates in May.\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore stated time is running out.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether cost allocation would take place if long-term leasing\nmoves forward.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the structure would be different; stated the goal\nwould be to figure out an optimum arrangement because both sides have to profit from\nthe negotiations; the City would be paid a percentage of gross from the vendor to the\nGeneral Fund.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund would take a hit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be prepared for the hit.\nMayor Johnson stated people also need to understand that the City would not be paying\nfor capital; maintenance has been deferred for years; systematic methods have never\nbeen established for ensuring that capital projects are funded; the Golf Course fund has\nbeen depleted for unintended uses.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund pays for public safety, parks, libraries,\nand tennis court lighting; the hit to the General Fund will not be pretty.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the amended motion.\nFormer Councilmember \"Lil\" Arnerich stated all operating costs should be known; the\noperator at the Alameda County Fairgrounds knows the cost for each expenditure; staff\nneeds to contact outside sources for help.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the contract would be for thirty years.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the term is subject to negotiations; stated no one\nwill be interested unless amortization can be done for over thirty years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the motion includes looking at a non-profit operator and\nseparating out the Mif Albright Course; inquired how the group would be formed.\nMayor Johnson stated the motion was not to direct staff to bring back a proposal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is not clear on the motion; inquired whether\nCouncil would wait to make a decision until responses are received and whether the\namended motion includes looking at another option, to which Mayor Johnson responded\nin the affirmative.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated the timeline would be May.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-018) Gloria Guerra, Alameda, discussed homelessness.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Guerra has contacted staff regarding the issue.\nMs. Guerra responded that she would discuss the matter with the Economic\nDevelopment Director.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at\n12:54 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- JANUARY 6, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(09-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:\nUnited States of America, et al. V. City of Alameda, et al.\n(09-003) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Craig Jory and\nHuman Resources Director; Employee organizations: International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor\nJohnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Legal Counsel briefed the\nCouncil on the status of the litigation and Council provided direction; regarding Labor,\nCouncil received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of the\nnegotiations.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 6, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler\n2.\nROLL CALL: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Board Members\nDean Batchelor and Linda McHugh\nABSENT: Board Member Roberto Rocha\nSTAFF PRESENT: Executive Secretary Karen Willis, Chris Low and Jill Kovacs, Senior\nManagement Analysts\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of October 7, 2009 were presented for\nBoard approval. Board Member McHugh moved to accept, Board Member\nBatchelor seconded, and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nSUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS\nFOR THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 2009.\n4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nAssistant City Clerk\n12/9/2009\n209-30PR\nCustodian\n12/2/2009\n209-36PR\nDeputy Fire Chief\n11/20/2009\n209-35PR\nEnergy Resources Analyst\n11/9/2009\n209-15\nPolice Lieutenant\n12/3/2009\n209-29PR\nPolice Officer (Academy Graduate or Lateral)\n(SEE ATTACHED LIST)\n209-33\nStorekeeper\n11/5/2009\n209-28PR\n4-B ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI\nDATE ESTABLISHED\nEXAM NO.\nEXHAUSTED\nLine Superintendent\n8/13/2009\n209-18PR\nPolice Officer (Lateral)\n2/2/2008\n208-06\nSenior Account Clerk\n8/27/2009\n209-19PR\nSr Energy Resources Analyst\n7/2/2009\n209-10PR\nUtility Systems Analyst\n7/31/2009\n209-16PR\n4-C LIST OF SPECIFICATIONS:\nNew Classification Specifications:\nController\nProperty and Evidence Technician", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 2 of 3\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of January 6, 2010\nMember McHugh asked about the list of names for Police Officer and why this list was\nbeing presented to the Board in this manner. Chris Low stated that this is the first time the\nCity has used the new system regarding the continuous postings of police officer\npositions. Executive Secretary Willis asked if in the future as new names are added, what\nwould the Board see, the entire list or only the newly certified names? Chris Low\nresponded that only the new names would be certified to the Board. Member McHugh\nstated that she thought this seemed like a good list. Chris Low stated that it is a good list\nbut there are other steps that must be taken such as the background check which may\npotentially eliminate many of the names.\nVice President Horikoshi moved to accept the consent calendar. Member McHugh\nseconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote.\n5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Activity Report Period of September 1, 2009 - November 30, 2009\nExecutive Secretary Willis explained that she had inadvertently left out the Activity\nReport from their packet. It was handed out to the Board. Member McHugh asked\nabout the reason for the two separations. Staff responded that one was due to a\nresignation and the other due to a death.\n5-B Civil Service Ordinance\nExecutive Secretary Willis told the Board that the Civil Service Ordinance was\npassed by Council and had a new number. It has since been placed on the City\nwebsite. General discussion ensued regarding the process and how long it had\ntaken for this ordinance to be updated.\n5-C Update on Reduction-In-Force\nExecutive Secretary Willis updated the Board on the status of the lay-offs at the Golf\nComplex. She stated that eight employees were separated, one got another job\nwith the City and one decided to retire. There is a job opening with Public Works\nand the City is hopeful that will result in someone else being able to get a position\nwith the City. Those employees laid off are eligible to apply as an internal candidate\nfor one year and are eligible for reinstatement into the position formerly held for two\nyears. Vice President Horikoshi asked if reinstatement was done by seniority and\nasked if any of these employees had been with the City for a long period of time.\nExecutive Secretary Willis responded in the affirmative regarding reinstatement and\nMs. Kovacs stated that some employees had been with the City for over ten years.\nIt was pointed out that the City continues to send notices of City job openings to\nthose who were laid off.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere was no one present from the public.\n7.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nPresident Peeler asked if the City utilized equivalencies for the qualifications on City jobs\nand provided an example from the Controller job specification. Jill Kovacs responded that\nthe City does allow for equivalencies with regard to education and experience in most\ncases. Executive Secretary Willis stated that there are cases where a degree is an\nabsolute such as for an engineer or a librarian and in those cases, equivalencies would\nnot be allowed.", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-01-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2010-01-06", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nPage 3 of 3\nCivil Service Board Agenda\nRegular Meeting of January 6, 2010\n8.\nCIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMIMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM STAFF)\nExecutive Secretary Willis gave a brief update on the budget and stated that the Interim\nCity Manager had met with the bargaining units to let them know that it was her intent to\ntry to maintain the status quo and not have any additional lay-offs. Her plan is to roll the\ncurrent budget for an additional year. This plan is contingent upon the State of California\nnot taking cuts from the gasoline tax.\n9.\nPresident Peeler asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member Horikoshi\nmoved to adjourn and Board Member McHugh seconded the motion. The motion passed\n4-0 and the meeting was adjourned by President Peeler at 5:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nKavin bills\nKaren Willis\nHuman Resources Director &\nExecutive Secretary to the Civil Service Board", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2010-01-06.pdf"}