{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING\nTHURSDAY- -MAY 19, 2011 - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:09 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, L. Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore; Board Members McMahon,\nSherratt, Spencer and President Mooney - 9.\n[Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:10 p.m. and left at 6:46 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nBoard Member N. Tam - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(11-268) Discussion of Pools\nThe School District Chief Business Officer Robert Shemwell gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding costs incurred to bring the\npools back on line, Mr. Shemwell responded $12,000 was spent on consultant fees;\nstated Aquatic Design completed a needs assessment and reached a solution with the\nCounty; $18,000 was spent on plumbing repairs; additional funds were spent on\nequipment, such as covers and lane markers.\nThe Acting City Manager stated about $80,000 was spent; the City paid the full bill; the\nDistrict reimbursing the City for a portion is under discussion.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about Emma Hood estimates, Mr. Shemwell\nstated the amount is for pool replacement only.\nFollowing School Board discussion, Mayor Gilmore stated a capital infusion would have\nto be addressed as part of the City's budget discussions; guidance cannot be given at\nthis point; the City does not have funds in the event of a problem, such as a filter failure.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the County would come back to check the facilities;\ninquired whether the cost to bring the pools into compliance is known.\nMr. Shemwell responded slide 4 reflects the minimum upgrades [Emma Hood:\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n1\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "$1,091,000; Encinal: $1,433,000].\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the County has identified items that need to\nbe fixed, to which Mr. Shemwell responded the County has not come out and identified\nitems to be repaired; stated the County could come out at any time and direct that any\noutstanding compliance issues have to be repaired.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the School District bond measure included\nany operational or capital funding for pools, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated liability has been discussed; inquired whether both\nparties are comfortable regarding liability issues, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in\nthe affirmative around the particular drain issues.\nFollowing School Board discussion, Councilmember Tam questioned whether slide 3\namounts on operation and maintenance for both swim centers show payments are\ncloser to a 50-50 split, rather than the agreed upon 60-40 split.\nMr. Shemwell responded the agreement expired in 2000; stated the pools have been\noperating on a handshake agreement to continue the 60-40 split; the School District has\ntaken on utility costs and has been billed for 60% of the City expenses.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the District has paid 47% and the City has paid\n53% since the Agreement expired, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in the negative;\nstated the School District took on the utilities and has been billed for operational costs in\nthe last two or three years.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the 60-40 split was occurring for both\noperations and utilities until two years ago when the District staff could not determine\nwhether the meters were separate and agreed to discontinue billing the City for utilities\nuntil the matter could be resolved.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the division of use from 3:00\np.m. to 10:00 p.m., the Recreation and Park Director stated figures are based on the\ntotal hours of operations; during the summer, pools are used from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00\np.m.; use is: 25% for School District programs, such as swimming and water polo, 25%\nfor City programs, such as Swim to Live, and 50% for a variety of non-profits, including\nchildren swim teams and adult masters swim.\nThe Acting City Manager noted the City sponsored programs are during the summer\nand on Saturdays.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated since the City and School District both have 25% of the use\nand the remaining 50% is the community, one fair suggestion would be splitting the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n2\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 3, "text": "community use down the middle between the City and School District, so that the City\nand School District each pays 50%; the fee structure could also be reviewed to get\nmore help from the community while keeping the cost reasonable.\nBoard Member McMahon stated that he supports the suggestion as long as the School\nDistrict shares in the revenue.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether said money goes into the pools, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded the revenue offsets expenses.\nFollowing School Board discussion, Mayor Gilmore requested confirmation that roughly\n$350,000 is needed to operate the pools for one year, which does not include any\ncapital.\nThe Recreation and Park Director confirmed Mayor Gilmore is correct.\nMayor Gilmore stated a short-term agreement would only address operating money and\nsplitting operation costs; neither agency has funds for capital expenditures.\nBoard Member Sherratt requested information be provided on current fees paid.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether reserves have ever been set up, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded in the negative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about how emergencies have been\nhandled in the past, the Recreation and Park Director stated costs were absorbed into\nthe operating budget for the year.\nThe Acting City Manager stated funds for the repairs last fall came out of the City\nManager contingency budget.\nMr. Shemwell noted the same is true for the School District.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the School District wants pools to continue serving\nschools and the City wants to continue servicing recreation; a 50-50 split is more than\nadequate.\nPresident Mooney stated capital is being excluded; that he does not have a problem\nwith a 50-50 split.\nMayor Gilmore concurred; stated the Council and School Board Subcommittee\ndiscussed asking user groups to pay more; raising fees should come back.\nIn response to the Acting City Manager's request, the Recreation and Park Director\nstated groups pay about $14 per hour; private colleges charge over $100 per hour and\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n3\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 4, "text": "completely recover costs.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how the $14 per hour fee was established, to which the\nRecreation and Park Director responded the amount is up from $3 per hour.\nBoard Member Spencer inquired whether school hours are included in the District's\n25%, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative.\nBoard Member Spencer questioned why the School District should pay for community\ngroups.\nMayor Gilmore stated the swim teams are for Alameda school students not old enough\nto join high school teams and adults who pay taxes; further stated the City has specific\nprograms during the summer, which makes up the City's 25% use; other than\nscheduling, the City is not involved with the other groups.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the community should continue to be served when the\npools are not in use; letting the asset go dormant would cost the same.\nMayor Gilmore concurred; stated costs do not go down if the pools are not used [by\ncommunity groups].\nBoard Member McMahon agreed with the 50-50 split.\nCouncilmember deHaan suggested some funds be put into a contingency.\nMayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be addressed in budget discussions; the\nCity should not make promises it cannot keep.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred; stated that he does not get overly concerned about\n$20,000.\nPresident Mooney summarized the Board direction.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that she has heard consensus that the Council is\ninterested in a 50-50 split; the capital issue would be addressed as part of the budget;\nthe unresolved issue is what to do in the event of a catastrophe and the tolerance level;\nthe Mayor suggested the matter be addressed as part of the budget; the question\ncannot be answered tonight.\nPresident Mooney stated the same is true of the School District.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the contingency exposure could be nailed down\nprior to budget meetings.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n4\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 5, "text": "The Acting City Manager responded that she does not know if the amount can be\ndetermined.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the amount to do a complete upgrade was provided; that\nshe would like to nail down the amount that might be needed for a catastrophe.\nMr. Shemwell stated that he does not have an answer; a filter replacement that might\ncost $60,000 could end up being a $350,000 project to bring the system into\ncompliance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated hoping nothing bad happens poses a difficulty when trying\nto budget.\nMayor Gilmore stated neither body knows whether funding would be available.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Councilmember deHaan is suggesting setting aside funds.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that his contingency suggestion could be withdrawn.\nSpeakers: Mike Janvier, AMA; Don Krause, Alameda Island Aquatics; Ash Jones,\nAlameda; and Robert Rodd, Alameda.\nRobert Ploss, Alameda Aquatics Task Force, gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry whether the County has mandated any\nrepairs, Mr. Shemwell stated all items under compliance issues in the study should be\nconsidered a priority; there is not a County Health injunction directing a particular item\nbe fixed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Aquatics Task Force would be interested\nin forming a fundraising foundation; stated the Boys & Girls Club has completed a $9\nmillion project.\nMr. Ploss responded the Task Force would love to entertain the idea and has prepared\na drawing reflecting the size of the pool desired.\nFollowing School Board questions, Councilmember deHaan noted having a 50-meter\npool makes sense.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the community supports closing one swim center, to\nwhich Mr. Ploss responded the subject is touchy, would have impacts and would require\nother off site locations.\nPresident Mooney noted if there were going to be any closures, the School Board would\nhold public meetings to address the matter.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n5\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 6, "text": "(11-269) Discussion of Joint Lease Agreement of Fields\nPresident Mooney inquired about the availability of City funds discussed when the\nCouncil and Board last met in September 2010.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the discussion was that the City would put forward\nseveral million dollars to help with facilities; $2 million was supposed to come from a\nGeneral Fund loan to Alameda Municipal Power (AMP), which cannot be repaid until\ntelecom litigation is complete; there is a $6 million funding deficit in the budget next year\nand for the following two to three years; funds returned from AMP would be needed for\nCity services; $1 million was to come from a tax on utility meters, which requires a vote\nof the people and does not seem feasible.\n(11-270) Discussion of Joint Advisory Community for Recreational Facilities\nPresident Mooney made brief introductory comments.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the joint committee would be set up to deal with only\nthe pool issue; stated the City has the Recreation and Park Commission to deal with\nfields and facilities; Alameda citizens are on the Commission, which has regular\nmeetings; there is not an entity which deals with the pools because the pools are on\nschool property; establishing a committee to come up with a long term solution for pools\nis a great idea; expanding into fields and facilities would be more difficult.\nPresident Mooney clarified the committee would just address pools right now.\nFollowing Board discussion, Mayor Gilmore stated it [forming a committee] is a good\nidea; the Aquatics Task Force is a logical place to start, as well as the School District\nforms that are available to allow other individuals to help out; having the group is\nattractive because getting the Board of Education and City Council together is difficult;\nthe group could meet more frequently, be more nimble, and ideas would come out\nfaster and be brought back and discussed to make progress on the long term plan.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated it [the committee] is a good idea and should be a joint School\nand City project and committee; the Aquatics Task Force should be the starting point;\ncommunity volunteers showing energy is excellent and they should be the voices in the\nroom; the work group could meet more often to address the issue.\nMayor Gilmore stated the group should report back to the School Board and Council\nSubcommittee, which could provide more expedited feedback.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n6\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 7, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n7\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}