{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nWednesday, February 23, 2011\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\nPresent:\nChair Jane Sullwold, Commissioner Ray Gaul, Commissioner\nBetsy Gammell, and Secretary Jeff Wood\nAbsent:\nVice Chair Bill Schmitz\nStaff:\nMatt Wisely, Superintendent, and Mike Winkenbach, Marketing\nDirector\nAlso Present:\nLisa Goldman, Acting City Manager, and Dale Lillard,\nDirector of Park and Recreation\n1-B\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES\nThe Minutes of January 19, 2011 were approved unanimously\n1-C\nADOPTION OF AGENDA\nThe Commission unanimously adopted the agenda.\n2\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n3\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n4\nWRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS\n4-A\nGolf Shop, Driving Range and Maintenance activities written report by\nJohn Vest\nWritten report was submitted by John Vest (attached) and summarized by Mike\nWinkenbach and Matt Wisely.\n1\nGolf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 2, "text": "Mike Winkenbach: \"In January, we had a great tournament month exceeding prior\nyear by over 100 rounds and $2,000 in revenue. We created a 10 play pass which\ngenerated $13,800 in revenue in the month of January. The 10 ride cart pass\ngenerated $1,360 in revenue. We booked $16,132 in future tournament revenue in\nJanuary. We sold 52 monthly passes, and we sold 9 annual passes for a total of\n$13,500. Our 12:00 twilight special generated $9,575 from 383 rounds and our 2:00\ntwilight special generated $3,080 from 154 rounds. Our Chuck Corica/Men's Club\nchallenge event generated $980 from 28 rounds. We did have a President's Day\nSpecial which was $35 including cart after 11:00 and that generated $2,450 in\nrevenue.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"We need to congratulate you because John has given you all the\ncredit all these months for tournaments, so thank you very much for increasing\ntournament play and booking future tournaments.\"\nCommissioner Gammell: \"Mike, I know John was really happy with the play cart\npasses that they were using them up quickly. Is that still happening?' Mike\nWinkenbach: \"Yes, and the theory is when we run a promotion like that is that you\ngain revenue at that time.'\nChair Sullwold: \"I imagine that you're not having such great rounds and revenue this\nmonth with the weather. Did you have any play at all during the week of rain?\" Mike\nWinkenbach: \"On Monday, President's Day, we had the promotion, it wasn't\nextremely busy for a holiday, but it was busy compared to a regular Monday. I do\nhave some figures from last year's February up to this time if you would like that.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"That's all right, we'll get that next month. Since the rain did hit,\nhave you had the same kind of problem we had in December, or is it draining a little\nbetter?\" Matt Wisely: \"It's pretty even.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"How about security concerns, have there been any problems where\nwe're stopping the people trying to sneak on?\" Mike Winkenbach: \"No, not that I'm\naware of. A lot of times things happen later in the day.\"\nNorma Arnerich: \"While Mike is here I wanted to compliment him on the pamphlet\nhe put out. I know he put a lot of work into it for free lessons for juniors and also he\nput down lessons for the advanced after the free lessons and he did a really good\njob on that. And also, he put the junior golf information on the website and I\nwanted to compliment him.'\nBob Sullwold: \"In the month of January, were there any extraordinary expenses\nincurred by Kemper, expenses that were not concentrated in the budget?' Mike\nWinkenbach: \"I'm probably not the right person to ask.' Chair Sullwold: \"It does\nappear that the service charges in the financials is higher.'\nCommissioner Gammell: \"Jane, you asked about the security and the report here\ndoes say here that the cart barn alarm system has been upgraded this month with\nadditional sirens and motion detectors.\"\n2\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 3, "text": "Matt Wisely: \"We've had some rain. Year to date, or for the season to date, we're at\n14 inches. I put together a little report last week, and were at 21.5 inches of rain and\nwe're at 2.18 inches of rain for February. The weekend was little hectic, we're\nexpecting some more rain starting tomorrow afternoon including snow. l'll believe it\nwhen I see it, but everyone keeps saying it's going to happen. They're saying the\nstorm is moving in faster than they anticipated.\"\nChair Sullwold asked: \"Is there, in your opinion, anything that can be done with the\nsloughs and the drainage system without major capital improvements that would\nimprove the drainage off the course?\" Matt Wisely: \"In my opinion, no. We've done\nsome work in the sloughs ourselves, taking the back hoe out and clearing the drain\nopenings, which has helped actually quite a bit this year compared to last year. I\nthink what we're experiencing this year compared to last year, last year we got eight\ninches in five days and we had six inches in December and basically we had all of\nJanuary to dry out. Now we've gotten three more inches in February and the\ndrainage is actually working, it's just working very slowly, and the month of January\nreally helped us out by not having much rain and two weeks of temperatures in the\n80's and lots of wind so we dried out pretty quickly. The drainage sloughs are doing\nwhat they're supposed to do to a certain extent. We're also experiencing some\nareas where the course is settling. In fact, number three fairway on the South\nCourse, right around 200 yards, is a giant cavern that just appeared.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"Do you fill that in with dirt, what do you do?\" Matt Wisely\nresponded: \"Yes, essentially, it's still not to the point that it's like the Grand Canyon,\nbut it's sloped off enough to where it's very noticeable now. It almost looks like it's\nsupposed to be there. It is even all the way through the fairway, and then you get to\nthe bunker and it's gone. I don't know if number three is part of the landfill, I don't\nknow what's underneath that part of the fairway that would cause it to liquify, but I\nknow that the tee project we worked on 13, some of the fill we bought it has already\nliquified just by the amount of rain we've had. Fortunately, it's not in the middle of\nthe tee or anywhere where it's going to affect it.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"When we played the North Course the last time, I was walking\nalong the path along the slough on the left side of the 8th hole and it's not working\nreal good.\" Matt Wisely: \"No, it's been like that since I got here two years ago\nwhere the birds are walking across the water. They need to be dredged in order for\nus to efficiently move water the way we're supposed to.\"\nMatt Wisely: \"We've been working on anticipating some weather, we had Public\nWorks out before the last big storm to suck out some of the water from the pond on\nfive north, so we had a little bit more of an area to fill up before it starts pumping\nagain. We aerified the north greens with a solid tine, we aerified the south greens\non Monday with a solid tine to help wash some of the salt and impurities out of the\ngreens. We're trying to be proactive, including clearing greens.'\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 4, "text": "Chair Sullwold asked: \"Do you know if Public Works is supposed to do this for us, or\ndo we get charged if they come out and do this? I've never quite understood what\nthe Public Works Slough Runoff project budget item is all about.\" Dale Lillard:\n\"They maintain and they control the perimeter and the water that goes out of five.'\nMatt Wisely: \"They maintain the pumping system on the pond on five. Everything\nelse is us.\" Chair Sullwold: \"And that's the main collection pond for the drainage?'\nMatt Wisely: \"And they have full control over that, so when I call them, they come\nout and drain it.'\nMatt Wisely: \"We're continuing our in-house tree trimming and skirting. We finished\nthe tee project on 13; it should be ready and open by the end of the first week in\nMarch. Right now we're training the grass down to get it to tee height. We took\nsome of that sod that we took off the tee and filled the bunker on five fairway south,\nso now it's a grass bunker in the fairway. We also repaired some portions of two\nfairway on the north with some excess sod where grass was not growing. No major\ntrees have come down except the one left of 18 north. Future maintenance activies\nwill include semi-annual aerification of greens on the north on March 15th and 16th\nAs far as staff, we lost our mechanic. He had a friend that was also a mechanic, so\nwe hired him for less than we were paying him. We had them both on property for\ntwo weeks, so Jason could train Matt on reels and things like that. Matt stepped\nright in and is continuing to keep us going on equipment.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"Tell me about the decision the build the new tee on 13, because it\ncame as a real surprise to everybody that all of a sudden you were building a new\ntee. Why was that picked and what was the reason for it?\" Matt Wisely: \"We chose\n13 tee because initially it's an area that's always been settling. There was a bare\narea right in the middle of it where we tried to grow grass, but couldn't. We had a\ncouple of weeks in January when the weather was nice and we had an opportunity\nto go out there and level it off. That's all we were planning on doing. It evolved into\nmaking it bigger so we could get more tee space out of it and made the tee longer.\nIt was something John and I had discussed. We were actually going to sod some\nportions of four tee on the north in the back that does not like to grow. We've been\nfertilizing it and it's started to come back. So, we decided to move to do something\nelse that was a highly visible area and it was something that really needed to get\ndone.\nChair Sullwold: \"Do you know how much it cost?\" Matt Wisely: \"It cost the price of\nthe sod which was $2,300 and it was all done in house.\"\nMatt Wisely: \"We had a 120 new batteries delivered to start putting in the carts. I'm\nnot sure if EZ-Go is going to install them or if we are going to do them\"\n4-B Beautification Program and Junior Golf Club by Mrs. Norma Arnerich\nNorma Arnerich: \"I noticed two new benches out on the course and I understand\nthey were pretty inexpensive and we had decided that all new benches would be\nuniform for people to donate. Do those last very long?\" Matt Wisely: \"I wasn't\n4\noff Commission Minutes - -Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 5, "text": "involved in the ordering of the benches, but the material they are made out of is\npretty durable.'\n4-C\nGolf Complex Restaurant Report, Jim's on the Course\nNone\n5\nAGENDA ITEMS\n5-A Status Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations\nincluding Golf Commission recommendations\nActing City Manager Lisa Goldman stated: \"A couple of weeks ago, I was on a\nconference call with Kemper and one of the Council members, and was surprised\nthat the financing option that Ann Marie had discussed with Kemper was not\nsomething that I was going to pursue. She told them one thing that I just can't do,\nyou all know that. I'm not going to tie the general fund up; I can't do it. It's just not a\ngood idea. The Kemper folks are going back and reviewing options on their end, to\nperfect financing of some kind. They promised to get back to me sooner rather than\nlater. I expect to get something either the end of this week or early next week. If I\ndon't hear back from them by early next week, I will give them a call and see how it's\ncoming along. I did check, just to make sure I really understood it all. I relied upon\ncounsel and checked with underwriters to see if there was any way we could pull off\nwhat Ann Marie had talked about, and it just doesn't work. So, I do believe Kemper\nwill come up with some good options, and as soon as we know what that is, we'll be\nsharing that information. I am not scheduling the special Council meeting until I\nhave something back, and we've had a chance to understand it. So that's where we\nare right now, in the middle of a holding pattern.\"\nCommissioner Gammell: \"What if another company is interested?\" Lisa Goldman\nresponded: \"I did receive letters from two other golf companies. Right now my\ndirection is still what Council voted on last March 16, which is go forth with Kemper.\nSo, I'm giving Kemper the opportunity the see what they can do. If they can't do\nanything, then l'll go back to Council and ask them if they want to change their\ndirection or not. Until they give me different orders, this is what I have. And I will\nsay they are trying really hard to figure out how to make this work for the City and for\nthem. They are a for-profit company, so it'l have to work for them and it'll have to\nwork for us. But, again, Betsy, I cannot go out and start negotiating with some other\ncompany until I get direction from Council; that's not the way it works. So, I do have\nthose letters -- I saved them. If Council says let's open it up, let's reissue the RFP,\nthen that's what I will do.'\nChair Sullwold: \"There appeared to be a little bit of a catch 22 in what you just said,\nI'm not going back to Council, but I can't do anything more without their direction.\"\nLisa Goldman: \"I'm not going back to Council until I hear from Kemper. They got\nbad information. They got information from Ann Marie that turned out not to work for\nthe City. So, they're going back now and revisiting what they can and can't do. I'm\n5\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 6, "text": "letting that happen, I believe I should get something back relatively soon, and once\nI\nhave that I can decide whether it's time to see if this isn't going to work and go to the\nCouncil, or it is going to work and it's time to go to Council and give them the new\ninformation. I can go to Council and say here's Kemper's new information, this is\nwhat they want to do, and they can say, thanks but no thanks, we want you to do\nsomething different, but I do need to respect that prospect that allows them to come\nback and give me whatever they're going to give me. That's where we are.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"I just want to point out that the RFP that Ann Marie drafted\nspecifically states that the successful proposer will provide it's own financing which\nI'm sure you knew when you made your statements to Council on January 26.\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"You all know I wasn't involved in the discussions that she had, and Dale\nwasn't involved in a lot of those discussions that she had, so he didn't hear anything\nand I didn't hear any of it, so I don't know what they said way back when, and then\nshe said \"I have a better idea\". I have no idea. It's kind of water under the bridge at\nthis point. The reality is they were chosen by Council, right or wrong, they were\nchosen, that's the direction I have. I'm letting them come back and give me\nsomething solid. If it's not solid, or even if it is solid, either way I'm going to have to\ngo back to the Council and say, this is what I have, what do you want to do? It's\ntheir decision ultimately.'\nChair Sullwold: \"The concern, of course, is that by having language in the RFP set\nup exactly what the bidding company was supposed to do, you only got two\nresponses, and you pick one of them, and then it turns out that one of them makes a\nsecret deal with Ann Marie for something that wasn't in the RFP at all to begin with.\nAnd many companies, I have learned, were turned off by the RFP, including the\nvarious statements, such as put all your own money to do the improvements. And\nhad it been something different, we would have had more bidders, and perhaps,\nsome better competition.\"\nLisa Goldman: \"I'm not going to go back and revisit history, because you all know I\ndidn't do it. If Kemper can do it, more power to them, and it they can't do it, we'll go\nout and see what our other options are. At this point, that's where I am, that's the\nbottom line. And, I don't think it's productive for us to do the 'would of, should of,\ncould of' at this point -- we have to wait and see. Then, l'll present all the information\nto the City Council, they're my policy makers, they're the deciders and whatever they\ndecide, it's my job to carry it out. I'm going to do the best job I can in carrying it out.\nThat's all I can tell you. When I get information that I can share with you, I will.\"\nCommissioner Gaul: \"If Kemper decides it's feasible financially for them to do 27\nholes, then we have two other people who are laying in the wings that would do 36\nholes, would that be enough to reconsider Kemper?' Lisa Goldman: \"What I would\nhave to do is present all the options to the Council and let them decide, when I go\nwith whatever Staff Report I go with, and I don't know what it will look like right now, I\nwill say, here's the proposal we have, by the way, I've received two other letters,\nthey'll be in the Staff Report so they can see them, and they can decide if these are\nvalid realistic offers. If not, if the offer from Kemper makes sense, it's totally up to\n6\nGolf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 7, "text": "them. I will present them with the information I have at that time and let them decide\nwhat they want to do.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"Is it true that there is no exclusive negotiating agreement with\nKemper?\" Lisa Goldman: \"There's no signed document in the sense that we had a\nsigned document with Sun Cal, known as an exclusive negotiation agreement. We\nare exclusively negotiating with Kemper because that is the direction that the City\nManager received on March 16, 2010. There's no signed document.'\nBob Sullwold: \"Secondly, if you were to explore other options, is it a requirement of\nCity law, that you have to go through the formal RFQ-RFP process, or could you, for\nexample, write a one page letter to one of those 65 companies, to whom the original\nRFP was sent, saying here's what we want, we want a 36-hole golf course, we want\nto know if you want to do a long term lease or a management contract and want to\nknow if you'll put any dough into the deal. Would that be lawful?\" Lisa Goldman:\n\"I\ndon't know the answer to that question, but let me answer it this way, that I believe\nthat this current Council is interested in having open and competitive processes, so I\nwould imagine they would direct Staff to open it up via the RFQ-RFP process rather\nthan sending a letter. But, I don't know the exact answer to your question about\nwhether we could do a one page or not.'\nBob Sullwold: \"Third question, you probably won't want to answer, if you are aware,\nwe know you not only have to speak truthfully, but that you have to disclose all\nmaterial facts necessary to make the statements that you do make not misleading.\nIn your view did Kemper's presentation to the City Council comply with that?\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"I believe that they believe that the way the deal was going to be\nstructured, and Ann Marie did discuss with them, that the City floated the bond but\nthey were responsible for paying the bond via their money or whatever revenue they\nmade at the golf course. They thought we were all on board and knew what the deal\nwas that Ann Marie discussed with them.\" Bob Sullwold: \"They heard what you\nsaid, they heard what the Council members said, which obviously indicated that\nnone of you was fixing to do anything about a bond issue. Why did this guy from\nChicago get up there, make this presentation and fail to say anything about, well, we\nunderstand the deal is, you issue the bond, we're responsible for the debt terms?\nLisa Goldman: \"I can't really answer your question, Bob, because I'm not Mr. Blake\nfrom Kemper. All I can say is I do believe that it came as a big surprise to them that\nI didn't know what they had discussed with Ann Marie. So they thought I got it,\nwhich meant they probably thought everybody else got it, and I didn't get it\nobviously. And so I don't know the answer, [but] I believe he thinks he was making\ntruthful statements, that's all I know.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"And all of the negotiations with Kemper were conducted by Ms.\nGallant?\" Lisa Goldman: \"That's correct.\" Bob Sullwold: \"Mr. Lillard had no\ninvolvement with that?\" Lisa Goldman: \"He was in some of the negotations, but not\nevery single call she had with them.\" Bob Sullwold: \"Other than Ms. Gallant, no one\nknew about the funding?' Lisa Goldman: \"I don't know if anybody else knew; I sure\ndidn't know. It seemed to be a surprise to Council when I talked to them. I talked to\nour financial advisor about it, and he didn't know about it.'\n7\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 8, "text": "Bob Sullwold: \"Can I ask Mr. Lillard whether he knew?\" Dale Lillard: \"The only\ndiscussion I had with Kemper was about who was guaranteeing the payment, not\nwho was issuing the bond.\" Bob Sullwold: \"And who was guaranteeing the\npayment?\" Dale Lillard: \"Kemper was guaranteeing the payment from revenue\ngenerated at the course. There wasn't any signed deal, there wasn't any offer, we\ndidn't get that far.'\nChair Sullwold: \"Did you understand, Dale, that they would be guaranteeing the\npayments whether or not the revenue was sufficient?\" Dale Lillard: \"Yes, they said\nthat in the meeting. If revenues were not enough, Kemper would have to write a\ncheck to cover the debt service. They were obligated to cover the debt service\nwhether revenues fell or number of rounds continued to fall. He did say that at the\nmeeting.'\nChair Sullwold: \"On the other hand, their projection was that the debt service could\nbe entirely met with the revenues from the 27-hole complex that they envisioned, so\nthat their projection was that they weren't going to have to reach into their pockets\nfor one dime.'\nBob Sullwold: \"My point is this, I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone, I'm not\nintending to refer this to the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible\nviolation of the Securities and Exchange Act, but to the extent that you have said\nyou understand your direction to be to exclusively negotiate, despite the lack of an\nENA, with one company, if that company's prior performance has demonstrated\nreason to doubt its credibility, I think that's a relevant factor to be considered.'\nChair Sullwold: \"I have to say I agree with that. I'm very disturbed at how Kemper\nhandled that.\" Lisa Goldman: \"I understand. I get it. I'm still going by the direction\nthat I have, and if the City Council wants to take that direction, by all means. I don't\nhave a dog in it. I'm trying to fix the golf course and save the golf course. I don't\ncare. I'm going to do my darndest to get it done. That's all I can offer you.' Chair\nSullwold: \"I'm going to throw this out. I think it's fairly convenient to make Ann Marie\nGallant the scapegoat for everything bad that's happened, and to say that Kemper is\nnot equally responsible or partially responsible. I do believe that Kemper's\npresentation was deliberately deceptive. It's a big concern to me that a company\nwith whom we want to do business for the next 25-30 years would say those things.\"\nLisa Goldman: \"I know you sent that off to the Council. I would just encourage you,\nwhenever I get it back to Council, get up, which I know you will, and tell them. Let\nthem know. That's all I can do.'\nChair Sullwold: \"On a positive note, I just want to say, I really appreciate that you\nare so responsive to our questions and getting back to us. I know some information\nthat you weren't able to provide that we wanted, but you also got back immediately.'\n\"\n8\nGolf Commission Minutes February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 9, "text": "Lisa Goldman: \"We had several meetings with the representatives for the Mif, Joe\nVanWinkle, Tony Corica, Bill Wehr and Jane was at one, we were discussing\nvarious items on their term sheet, we had little monkey wrench thrown into it all,\nbecause some of what they would like to happen are subject to who the ultimate\noperator is. So, we haven't met since the meeting that Jane you were at. l'd like to\nsee what's going to happen with Kemper, because that really does inform how\nthings progress with the Mif. You all heard it on December 7, the Council said yes,\ngo forth, we want the Mif to be successful with a non profit operator, we'll give you\n$100,000, they have not changed direction on that, they want it to work. There's\ngoing to be some issues to be ironed out, some things they want that we're not able\nto provide and visa versa. That's going to be subject to negotiations, but it's still\nmoving forward to the extent it can not knowing who's going to occupy the rest of the\nproperty.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"The Mayor was quoted in the Island today telling the Chamber of\nCommerce that the Mif lease to the non profit was a done deal. Is that wrong?\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"I think she meant it was a done deal that we're moving forward with the\nMif, we haven't actually signed anything, but the Council's opinion is that this is\ngoing to happen, so in that sense I think that's what she meant. It's going to\nhappen.'\nBob Sullwold: \"Joe VanWinkle will tell you that he believes that, in June of last year,\nthe term sheet had been presented and all outstanding issues had been addressed.\nWhat issues have come up since then?\" Lisa Goldman: \"Well, nothing was ever\nsigned, so until you actually have a signed document, I don't think you can say that\neverything was agreed to. I imagine Ann Marie looked at the term sheet and said\nOK, but not I'm signing this. Again, I did not sit in on those meetings, so I can't say\nexactly what happened. But, until we have a signed document, and we've\nnegotiated an actual contract, there are issues. I know that the folks are interested\nin getting the cell tower lease, I'm not sure we're going to be able to provide that.\nThey are interested in getting use or ownership of the equipment, I'm not sure we're\ngoing to be able to do that. I'm not remembering everything that's on the term sheet.\nThere are things that we need to work out. I will tell you that I'm sure the Council is\nstill going to give the $100,000, I'm sure they're going to still make junior golf\naffordable. There would still be opportunities for the high school teams out here.\nWe are committed to making sure that the Mif property is still the Mif property for all\nthe junior and senior golfers out here. But, there are still going to be issues that we\nhave to discuss with them and figure out.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"Have you identified for Joe the issues that you discussed?\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"Yes, we discussed it at the last meeting.'\nCommissioner Gammell: \"We're keeping the Mif open?' Lisa Goldman: \"We're not\nplanning on closing anything. We're going to do our best to keep it open, to keep\noperating and to keep it successful.\n9\nGolf Commission Minutes -ll'ednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 10, "text": "Bob Sullwold: \"Who is negotiating in favor of the City, you or Mr. Lillard?\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"Probably our golf consultant.\" Bob Sullwold: \"That's Mr. Sams.\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"That's correct.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"Is Mr. Sams also participating in the Kemper negotiations?\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"He will, we haven't really gotten to the negotiations, because we have to\nfigure out if we have a plan to move forward.'\nBob Sullwold: \"Do you know to date how much the Golf Enterprise Fund has been\ncharged for his services?\" Mr. Lillard: \"I don't want to quote numbers, I want to\nremember it was locked into the entire length of the contract, including the reports he\ndid on the non profit; it was $10,000.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"In investigating some of the financial reports, as Bob will point out,\nKemper is far over their budget for this year, at this point, the budget that they set,\nsomewhat over it. In any event, Joe got some indication from papers, and I'm not\nsure where, Kemper has hired consultants to do various things in the last few\nmonths.\" Mr. Lillard: \"They did an environmental report of the property which was\napproved by the previous City Manager, because they needed to know if there were\nany environmental concerns before they moved forward through the negotiations.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"Who paid for that?\" Mr. Lillard: \"We did, we agreed to.\" Chair\nSullwold: \"From the Golf Enterprise Fund?\" Mr. Lillard: \"Correct.\" Bob Sullwold:\n\"Kemper needed to know this information because it affected the City?\" Mr. Lillard:\n\"Anybody we went to would want to have this information available before they came\nin and did renovations to make sure the foundation is sound.\" Lisa Goldman: \"Is\nthat a report that we own or Kemper owns.\" Mr. Lillard: \"We do.\" Chair Sullwold:\n\"Do you know how much it cost?\" Mr. Lillard: \"It went on for two or three months,\nI'm guessing right around that $10,000 figure, anytime you do an environmental\nthing like that, because it covered wildlife, it covered the sloughs, and it covered\nground contamination. I know some of the information that came out of it are there\nare certain months of the year that you can't do construction because there are rare\nbirds nesting in the trees on the South course between February and June, so\nconstruction would then have to go into the summer. That would effect any\nconstruction whether it's the City or Kemper or another private vendor.' Chair\nSullwold: \"Dale, are you aware of any other consultants who have been hired and\npaid for by the golf course?\" Mr. Lillard: \"No.\" Lisa Goldman: \"But, it's now a report\nthat the City owns and will be made available to Kemper or anybody else that bids.\nIt's information that we need to have.' Chair Sullwold: \"It might be something to\nconsider if you continue negotiations with Kemper to get it paid back.\" Lisa\nGoldman: \"It's something that we could discuss.\"\n5-B Update on Golf Complex Finances\nChair Sullwold: \"Bob was not able to do a report for us last month, but, I think you\nguys all have copies of his report for this month.' Bob Sullwold: \"The numbers are\nthere, I would like to highlight them. January was a good month because it wasn't\nraining. Month to month this period against last period are good. The year to date\n10\nGolf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 11, "text": "numbers still show a decline over last period. City financial reports show good\nnumbers but because of the way the City makes its cash and accrual accounting, in\na way that I don't understand, I didn't pay much attention to that. Looking at the year\nto date numbers, operating income is at $264,000, cash flow from operations at\n$390,000, transfer to City $447,000, and the draw from the Enterprise Fund, the\ncash balance is shown at $674,000, and this time, for the first time, there's another\nline item called available cash balance which is $524,000. When Jane inquired\nabout this, Ms. Goldman explained that the available cash balance deducted from\nthe cash balance funds that have been committed for payments to vendors and\nfuture redemption of previously issued gift certificates. While I'm sure that's right, it's\na little unusual that this is a balance sheet item.\nBut, one issue that I did want to talk about, and Joe is focused on this, is the\nbudgetary comparisons, and especially the infamous services category. As I have\npreviously discussed at these meetings, the City divides expenses into five\ncategories, one of which is called services, and for months, if not years, I have been\ntrying to find out exactly what expenses are in that category. When Ms. Gallant was\nhere, six months or so ago, she said that was the payment to Kemper. If that's right,\nwe have an issue, because if you look at the seven month financials, comparing\nactual to budget, you see that the services category exceeds budget by $220,000,\n14% over seven months. How come, if Ms. Gallant could be believed, that would\nsuggest Kemper is over-running the budgeted expenses by $220,000. And if that's\nso, I think we are entitled to ask Kemper, how come you're spending more money\nthan you said you were going to spend? But, I'm not sure that is so. I'm not sure\nI\ncan credit what Ms. Gallant said, because if you look, for example, at Kemper\nreports that you're now getting every month, and they do it on a calendar year, not a\nfiscal year basis, they say that their operating expenses were lower than their budget\nfor the last calendar year. It shows they're doing better than budget. So, how come\nthe services number is $220,000 higher than budget? If it's not Kemper spending\nmore money, who else could be spending that money? It would have to be the City.\nAnd, what's the City spending that money on, and for what? I would recommend\nthat you seek an explanation from both Kemper and the Recreation and Park\nDirector as to why that line item is $220,000 greater than the budget. If it's Kemper,\nhave them tell us what other expenses they've incurred, if the City, have Mr. Lillard\ntell us what other expenses the City has incurred. If you look at the bottom line\nnumbers, you talk about a net income through seven months of $264,000. If you're\nover budget by $220,000, and you add that back in, your net income is almost\ndouble what it is. I think this demands an explanation. Now, fortunately, I'm\ninformed that Mr. VanWinkle has noted the same discrepancy, and has asked for\nand been granted a meeting with Ms. Goldman and her Chief Accountant to go over\nthese issues. Maybe it will all be resolved there, hopefully it will be. In any event it\nshould be, because in order for the Golf Commission to continue to exist, it's still\nresponsible for oversight of these matters. If you're over running your budget by this\namount, and decreasing your income by half as a result of this over run, I think it\nwould be the Golf Commission's job to find out why to suggest things that could be\ndone to correct the situation. \"\n11\nGolf Commission Minutes - Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 12, "text": "Chair Sullwold: \"Off the top of your head, Dale, do you have an idea why services\nare exceeded by over $220,000?\" Mr. Lillard: \"Part of it is expenses that we\nincurred to repair the retaining wall that runs along Island Drive between Bay\nFairway and down the second fairway. That was directed from the Risk Manager as\na hazard, and the City Manager approved repairing that. The new cart batteries\nwere in there as an expenditure that wasn't accounted for so the carts could be run\ntwice a day instead of once a day. There was some work on one of the big pumps\non the south side that was about $20,000. There was some repairs on the driving\nrange fence that the City Manager asked to be done. There was the cart barn\nupgrade and the alarm system also. The cart barn alone was about $25,000 to\n$30,000, which included the alarm system, upgrading the chargers and bought\nbatteries. I know the pump was a huge item, but if you don't have irrigation, you're\nnot going to have a golf course. All of them were approved by the City.\"\nCommissioner Gaul: \"Dale, the damage to the wall, wasn't that a vehicle that hit that\nwall?\" Mr. Lillard: \"There had been two different instances that cars did it and we\ndid collect insurance money from them. That wasn't this portion. The longest\nportion was about halfway down the second fairway, all the way to Bay Fairway,\nwhere it was actually leaning onto the sidewalk.\nChair Sullwold: \"One more question. As you know, Dale, three years ago the City\nbooked the entire four year lease expense for the golf carts and pulled it out, that\nwas an extraordinary expense, the year that we entered into a new lease on July 1,\n2007. Do you know if payments, monthly payments to EZ-Go have been made from\nwhatever fund that was created by pulling that money out of the Enterprise Fund?\"\nMr. Lillard: \"I'm not sure that will show up on the report, it should have because it\nwas a GASB calculation for government accounting. To my knowledge it has, but I\ncan't report that it did happen that way.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"The issue is that it appears they accrued the expense three years\nago and they're still expensing it. But, maybe they're not.\" Chair Sullwold: \"That's\nthe concern. It's not clear from the records it's being paid out of that fund or it's\nbeing currently charged again.\" Lisa Goldman: \"I don't have the answer and I'm not\nsure our Controller will have that answer at the meeting. Whatever we don't have at\nour fingertips, we will make up and follow up with what we've been doing.\"\nChair Sullwold: \"Did the budget make any provisions for these kinds of expenses\nthat you've just listed?\" Mr. Lillard: \"The budget was just rolled over from the year\nbefore.\" Chair Sullwold: \"So, it didn't have any category for these kinds -- it sounds\nlike it's not anything really extraordinary.\" Mr. Lillard: \"Those particular expenses\nwere not included in this budget.\" Chair Sullwold: \"I'm not saying that they were not\nneeded or something that we did not need to pay, but it also seems that they're not\ntruly extraordinary. They're truly the kinds of things that a going enterprise has\nthese occasional needs to repair things, and that wasn't ever budgeted.' Mr. Lillard:\n\"That's correct, that was never budgeted for, it was just a rollover from the year\nbefore, so you have the same level of maintenance and then you have these extra\nthings. So, if you add one year to the next, and you're mowing so many times and\n12\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 13, "text": "you're fertilizing so many times, you would be able to do that from one year to the\nnext, but when a $25,000 pump breaks down and you add $20,000 to the cart barn,\nso you have over $100,000 with no money budgeted to do that, it's just more\ndeferred maintenance is what it is.\" Lisa Goldman: \"The cart barn allows you to\nmake more in revenue, right?\" Mr. Lillard: \"Right, because you can send the carts\nout twice.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"In evaluating getting into a 30-year lease with Kemper, there are\nresponsiblities here. Number one, why is there this over budget number? The other\npossibility is they are not operating as efficiently as they promised they would. The\nexpenses are higher because they're doing a bad job managing the enterprise. You\nneed to know the answer to that before you decide to do business with that\nenterprise.\"\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department\nshowing a surcharge payment for January 2011 of $5,749. The year-to-date total to\nthe General Fund is $58,562 for FY 2010/2011.\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nStatus Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf\nCommission recommendations, if any\nUpdate on Golf Complex Finances\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\n13\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 14, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission Minutes\nFebruary 23, 2011\nKathy Moehring called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:31 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nThe roll was called and the following was recorded:\nMembers Present:\nPhilip Tribuzio\nThomas G. Bertken\nJesus Vargas\nKathy Moehring\nKirsten Zazo- absent\nStaff Present:\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nDaraja Wagner, Administrative Assistant\n2.\nMinutes\nCommissioner Moehring moved approval of the minutes for the January 26, 2011\nmeeting. Commissioner Bertken seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n3.\nOral Communications - Non-Agenda\nNone.\n4.\nNew Business\n4A.\nAlameda Employee Survey Results\nStaff Payne summarized the staff report.\nOpen public hearing.\nCommissioner Moehring asked Staff Payne out of the surveys that were sent out, how\nmany responses were received and also if she was satisfied with the results of the survey.\nMoehring also expressed her concern about if the respondents really represented enough\ncommuter employees.\nPage 1 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 2, "text": "Staff Payne responded that she was satisfied with the results of the survey. Payne stated\nthat according to Dowling Associates, who are the experts in surveying, the results were\ngood and just about met their target of 1,000 responses.\nStaff Khan responded that it was not a scientific survey, but it did capture the different\nwork locations of main employment areas around the city like Towne Centre and Harbor\nBay.\nStaff Payne stated that she did have that information and invited people to come to the\nstakeholder meeting on March 10, 2011 for more information.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if there would be any benefit to finding out what the youth\nthought. He stated that if youth were walking or taking the bus then they would have less\nof a dependency on their parents.\nStaff Payne responded that they did capture some youth responses yet the focus was on\nemployees, which tend to have an age cluster corresponding with the baby boomers.\nCommissioner Bertken asked what the total employment in Alameda is. Bertken stated\nthat he wanted to make sure that the survey got answers from the appropriate employees\naccording to geographic area.\nStaff Payne responded that the next step will be to look at the answers from the specific\nareas to see how the people responded and see what will best meet their needs. Payne\nstated that she would follow up with this topic at the next meeting.\nCommissioner Bertken asked how the plan ultimately would be used. What will it\naddress?\nStaff Khan responded that the plan will be used to reduce single driver vehicles and also\nwill create a list of strategies to help reduce traffic.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that people who have cars available to drive are not going\nto want to stop using their cars especially since 95 percent of the people who work in\nAlameda receive free parking.\nStaff Khan responded that a better alternative must be provided and that people must be\nable to see the advantages of it.\nCommissioner Tribuzio asked if there was anything that asked people who commuted on\nbikes how often they commuted that way. Tribuzio stated that eventually people would\nreturn to their cars.\nPage 2 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 3, "text": "Staff Payne answered yes, that there was a question asking if they biked more than once a\nweek.\nCommissioner Vargas asked if Staff Payne could elaborate on why there were 29\ncomments under bike related to the Posey Tube.\nStaff Payne responded that these comments were from bicyclists traveling between\nOakland and Alameda on the west end of the city. The Posey Tube has a narrow path\nand buses only have two slots for bikes on the racks. The City will begin a shuttle\nbetween the College of Alameda and Laney College to address this issue starting this\nsummer.\nClose public hearing.\nNo action was taken.\n4B.\n\"Going Forward\" Community Planning Strategy for Alameda Point\nStaff Khan explained the \"Going Forward\" effort and assisted the Commission members\nin completing the transportation and access section of the workbook.\nOpen public hearing.\nCommissioner Tribuzio stated that bicyclists want a bridge across the estuary and it\nwould be very important for future planning. Due to the future building on Alameda\nPoint, there will be more traffic. However, the bridge is a conflict with the relocation of\nthe Coast Guard.\nJon Spangler - as a charter Transportation Member - stated that he has a problem with\nthe zero sum ranking order. It is clear that if all ten elements with high density housing\nunits are implemented then it will have a significant impact on traffic; however, if one is\nmissing then the whole thing will go up in smoke. However, all ten elements can reduce\nAlameda's carbon emissions. All the elements are critical. He also stated that he hoped\nthat it would not exclude development to Alameda Point.\nJim Straelo stated that he valued the \"additional comments\" section the most. He liked\nthat he could add additional comments. He found fault that it was not possible to rank\nothers additional comments. He wants everyone to come up with comments that are\noutside the box like:\nCirculator Systems that would allow buses to go around Alameda Point and bring\nthem to the buses on Webster Street\nMore pedestrian walkways through the tubes\nInstead of one central hub, he liked the idea of having several neighborhood hubs\nspread throughout the city to match the housing that will be there\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 4, "text": "He also thought that it was not smart to not have parking for townhomes. Even if\nresidents did not need it, their guests might. Jim restated to not just limit ideas to the\nworkbook.\nCommissioner Tribuzio responded that the design is to get people out of their cars.\nBuilding townhomes where people cannot park does not make sense due to the high\nprices for the homes and the fact that people have cars and will drive them. Tribuzio also\nstated that the ranking order did not make sense.\nStaff Khan responded that he just wanted to encourage the community participation to see\nwhere priorities lie. Khan reassured them that all written comments will be taken in\nconsideration and will not be ignored.\nCommissioner Bertken agreed with Spangler that it is not consistent, and it is not good to\nhave trade offs.\nCommissioner Vargas asked that the youth be considered and wanted to make sure to\naccommodate skateboarders. Since the average age is growing higher, it is important to\nhave ADA standards.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that the intention is not to pick one and solve the\nproblem, but to create alternatives.\nCommissioner Bertken asked how will the trade offs be done.\nStaff Khan gave an example that the BRT forum thought it was a good idea for the BRT\nto\ngo\nto 12th Street BART but BRT to Fruitvale BART did not come up as a higher\npriority.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that the City cannot develop it all at once. It is a matter\nof gauging the impact and figuring out where to start. Moehring stated that it all had to\nbe done at some point.\nClose public hearing.\n5.\nStaff Communications\nRequest to Start Transportation Commission Meetings at 7:00 PM\nCommissioner Vargas moved to recommend that the meetings begin at 7:00 p.m.\nCommissioner Tribuzio seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.\n511 SchoolPool RideMatch (https://www.schoolpool.511.org\nStaff Payne explained the new program.\nPage 4 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 5, "text": "Future Meeting Agenda Items\nStaff Payne stated that future meeting agenda items for the March meeting look to be as\nfollows:\nCountywide Transportation Plan/Transportation Expenditure Plan\nQuarterly Report\nTSM/TDM Plan - Preliminary Alternative Strategies\n6.\nAnnouncements\nJon Spangler stated that $5,000 was in the budget for new bicycle parking. It would be\nan excellent use to install new bike racks. Spangler suggested that the staff and\ncommunity take it into consideration.\nCommissioner Moehring stated that Webster Street has more bike racks. With more\nawareness, more will come.\nJim Straehlo stated that some bike racks are preferred over other types depending on how\nmany can be parked at a time.\n7.\nAdjournment\n8:45 PM\nPage 5 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}