Loading...
2010-01-06 Special CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- - JANUARY 6. 2010- -7:01 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:24 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson — 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (10 -004) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the EDC's Subcommittee report [paragraph number 10 -015] would be continued to a future date. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS (10 -005) Proclamation Declaring January as National Blood Donor Month. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Lisa Eversole, Red Cross Donor Recruitment Account Manager. Ms. Eversole thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Alameda has been very generous in donating blood to the Red Cross. (10 -006) Presentation by Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) on the 1 -880 Operational and Safety Improvements at 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue Overcrossings. The Public Works Director gave a brief introduction. Matt Todd, CMA Project Manager, gave a Power Point presentation. Garret Gritz, RBF Consulting Project Manager, continued the Power Point presentation. The Supervising Civil Engineer continued the Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired why a resolution cannot be reached on the matter. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded CalTrans has rigid standards; stated ramps are not meeting standards; space is limited; staff has spent many hours trying to find options and alternatives. Mayor Johnson stated one problem is that ramps are being combined. Mr. Todd stated combining two ramps into one is causing a delay; an auxiliary lane Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 January 6, 2010 between 23rd Avenue and Oak Street overcrossing would meet CalTrans standards; however; State funding needs to be invested right away. Mayor Johnson stated the Fruitvale Bridge is underutilized; diverting traffic from the Fruitvale Bridge is not good for Alameda; encouraged CMA to figure out solutions to the problems. Councilmember Matarrese stated clearances need to be addressed; having a cue going across the bridge is not acceptable; utilization of the Fruitvale Bridge crossing needs to be revisited. Councilmember Gilmore stated sometimes Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) have impacts that cannot be mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations needs to be adopted; inquired what entity would adopt the statement of overriding considerations. Mr. Todd responded an Environmental Assessment Initial Study (EAIS) is being performed, not an EIR; stated CalTrans would be the final signatory. Councilmember Matarrese questioned whether CalTrans could impose things on Alameda unilaterally. Mr. Gritz stated typically, CalTrans does not force things onto local agencies; the issue would need to be revisited if the unmitigated impact would delay the project. Mayor Johnson stated CMA needs to go back and figure something out. Mr. Gritz stated CMA has reviewed a tremendous amount of options; CMA wants to utilize the Fruitvale Bridge rather than impact Park Street; the cue back up along the 23rd Avenue /Park Street corridor is attributed to development forecasted to occur in Oakland and Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated the current design makes diverting traffic back to the Fruitvale Bridge from the freeway very difficult; a huge obstacle would be created. Councilmember Matarrese stated cars have already exceeded capacity on 1 -880; something different needs to be considered; that he is not sure the problem has an engineering solution. The Public Works Director stated that staff thought that an agreement was reached with CMA and would be included in the environmental documents, but it was not; the purpose of the presentation is to receive feedback from Council and the community to see if proposed mitigations seem acceptable; staff is concerned that future studies never get built. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the southbound area of the corridor is the most dangerous and is not being addressed; the Miller Sweeney [ Fruitvale] Bridge is another concern; Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 January 6, 2010 sound goes directly into Alameda when a sound wall is put up on the north side of 1 -880 without another one on the other side. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe to spend the $74 million to build the project. Mr. Todd responded the timeframe is tight; stated all corridor projects have to have environmental clearance by April; stated CMA did not submit a project for the southbound corridor. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether CMA has conceptual plans for the area. Mr. Todd responded in the affirmative; stated an analysis was performed from 1 -980 to 1- 238; taking care of overpasses covers a large portion of future costs. The Supervising Civil Engineer stated staff has asked CMA to look at the southbound auxiliary lane between the 29th Avenue onramp and Fruitvale Avenue offramp; moving the column would help add more space to the shoulder. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether or not the northbound portion has an alternative, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded traffic could go to 12th Street. Mayor Johnson stated people would not go to 12th Street. Councilmember Gilmore stated CalTrans does not impose will on local agencies; the project needs to be shovel ready in order not to lose funding; CMA should be encouraged to work with staff on mitigation issues so that Alameda does not become a sticking point. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda has a good relationship with Oakland; the area is in Councilmember De La Fuente's district; Alameda does not want to jeopardize the funding; Alameda and the CMA have to work together to figure out a way to resolve the issue; the project needs to go forward; CMA would risk losing money to the region if the problem is not solved. Councilmember Matarrese stated the problem is trying to squeeze too many cars onto 1- 880; the freeway does not have shoulders and never will; reducing the number of cars on I -880 is important; the High Street northbound onramp is dangerous; projecting today's traffic patterns and habits into 2035 is a big problem. Mr. Todd stated that CMA has a meeting scheduled with City staff for Monday. Mayor Johnson stated the region cannot lose the money; the project is important to the Jingletown neighborhood. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council looks forward to seeing mitigations soon. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 January 6, 2010 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolutions Approving Amendment to the MOU and Amending Salary Schedules [paragraph nos. 10 -012 and 10- 012A] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *10 -007) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting held on December 15, Approved. ( *10 -008) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,712,971.89. ( *10 -009) Recommendation to Adopt the Legislative Program for 2010. Accepted. ( *10 -010) Resolution No. 14409, "In Support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010. " Adopted. ( *10 -011) Resolution No. 14410, "Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 1, 2009 and Ending December 18, 2010. " Adopted. (10 -012) Resolution No. 14411, "Approving Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 1, 2005, and Ending December 20, 2008, and Extended through December 12, 2009." Adopted; and (10 -012A) Resolution No. 14412, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for the Position of Controller." Adopted. The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation. Speaker: Bob Haun, MCEA. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5. ( *10 -013) Ordinance No. 3015, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 January 6, 2010 Subsection 8 -7.8 (Leaving Vehicle on Street in Excess of Seventy -Two Hours); Amending Subsection 8 -7.9 (Heavy Commercial Vehicles); Amending Subsection 8- 7.10 (Overnight Parking of Large Vehicles); and Adding Subsection 8 -7.11 (Recreational Vehicles, Trailers, and Boat Trailers Prohibited) Prohibiting the Parking of Recreational Vehicles and Trailer Coaches on City Streets." Finally passed. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (10 -014) Public Hearing to Consider the Housing and Community Development Needs for the Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five -Year Plans. The Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: Cynthia Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board ( SSHRB) President; Tina Fleeton, Bananas Inc.; and Doug Biggs, SSHRB Member and Alameda Point Collaborative. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following Ms. Wasko's comments, Councilmember Tam inquired whether the SSHRB anticipates changes after the new census. Ms. Wasko responded the map will change; stated the President is talking about changing the funding formula. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether ten percent of the families in the Alameda Unified School District are in a housing transition. Ms. Wasko responded in the affirmative; stated families are either living with relatives, couch surfing, or staying in shelters. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the housing issue is where people get stuck. Ms. Wasko responded the first step is to provide housing; stated the next step is working on job stability; families are living in cars. Councilmember Matarrese stated having ten percent of School District families' homeless is astounding. Special Meeting Alameda City Council cJ January 6, 2010 Councilmember Gilmore inquired how often Housing Urban Development (HUD) updates income limits, to which the Community Development Program Manager responded annually. (10 -015) Recommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development Commission's Business Attraction Subcommittee. Continued. (10 -016) Recommendation to Approve Directing the Interim City Manager to Close the Mif Albright Course Effective January 31, 2010 and to Relocate the Course to the Front Nine Holes of the South Course as a Pilot Program. The Interim City Manager and John Vest, Kemper Sports, gave a brief presentation. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded play has dropped three percent regionally. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how data is gathered, to which Mr. Vest responded the National Golf Foundation (NGF). In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Vest responded that tees would be created off the side [of the south course] for nine holes. The Recreation and Park Director stated that Exhibit 2 of the staff report shows rounds are up in opening months over the year before; rounds start to drop off in succeeding months. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the decline in rounds is consistent with other courses. Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated there is a 16% decline from last year. Councilmember Tam inquired why the water bill went up during the rainy season. Mr. Vest responded a lot of water was needed to rejuvenate the course; stated the overall number reflects an annual picture of water costs; watering is minimal now. Councilmember Tam inquired whether water expenses reflect a separately metered charge, to which Mr. Vest responded the property receives a bill for two months. The Recreation and Park Director stated in 2008, water consumption was $35,000 for the entire year; most of the use is front end loaded; typically, irrigation is shut off somewhere between October or November and stays off until the end of April or May. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the water bill is anticipated to be less, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 6 January 6, 2010 In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding the minimal maintenance cost in closed condition, Mr. Vest stated labor costs would go down; water costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month. Councilmember Tam inquired what would be the minimum cost to maintain the property without a golf course; further inquired how the cost would compare against opening the Golf Course during the active session. Mr. Vest responded costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000 per month if the property were closed; stated reopening the golf course during busy months would have some start up costs. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Kemper management costs are strictly allocation costs, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether water costs are billed amounts, to which Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how having two styles of play on the south course has worked. Mr. Vest responded the situation was tough in the beginning; stated players were not educated; marshals had a hard time getting players in position. Vice Mayor deHaan stated increasing fees has been discussed; people would still have to walk the whole course. Mr. Vest stated some type of discounted cart fee would be given to those who could not walk the course; accommodating players who just want to play the shorter course on Saturday or Sunday mornings will be impossible sometimes. Mayor Johnson stated the plan is a proposed interim plan; inquired how long the selected plan would be in place. The Recreation and Park Director responded three to six months; stated Exhibit 4 takes into consideration loss in rounds. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether $7,500 could be lost. The Recreation and Park Director responded $15,000 could be lost; stated the profit would be $7,500. Councilmember Matarrese stated the $21,059 loss includes the $19,000 cost allocation for Kemper management and administration; the same people would be managing between February and July 2010; inquired whether the money is not really a loss because people would collect the same salary. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 January 6, 2010 Mr. Vest responded in the negative; stated Kemper Sports was originally under contract for a 36 -hole complex; the management fee would have to be for a 45 -hole course as well as the people on the property. Councilmember Gilmore stated a certain amount of money would be needed for maintenance if the Mif Albright Course was closed; water costs would be approximately $1,500 to $2,000; Exhibit 1 shows a $21,059 loss during the peak period; $30,000 would be needed for the whole year to break even; the Golf Commission has gone around and around regarding raising fees; requested clarification on the issue of raising fees. The Recreation and Park Director stated fees were cut before the first closure in an attempt to increase the number of rounds but it did not work. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether raising fees is not the solution, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what efforts have been made regarding a non - profit association. The Recreation and Park Director responded the matter has been explored; stated no one has been identified. Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff was given direction to look into the matter. The Interim City Manager stated the matter was discussed, but Council did not give direction to evaluate a non - profit; inquired what year fees were increased, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded September 2008. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Commission has considered raising fees. Ms. Sullwold responded the Golf Commission determined that Mif Albright Course fees were already at the maximum for the condition of the course. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ms. Sullwold feels the same way now. Ms. Sullwold responded in the affirmative; stated no capital improvements have been made. Councilmember Gilmore stated cutting costs appears to be the only way to break even. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would make the Golf Course better and what would be the cost. Mr. Vest responded that he does not have exact costs; stated six out of the nine greens Special Meeting Alameda City Council 8 January 6, 2010 have to be rebuilt; sand is needed for some of the bunkers; fairways are cracked. Mayor Johnson inquired how the rest of the golf course is doing. Mr. Vest responded rounds and revenues are declining for the Jack Clark Course; stated tournament play helps. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what are the costs for maintaining an inactive park, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $25,000 annually. Opponents (Not in Favor of Staff Recommendation): Grace Na, Alameda High Girls Golf Team; Samantha Essugerra, Alameda High Girls Golf Team; Glenn Van Winkle, Alameda; Eric Van Winkle, Alameda; David Hamilton, Alameda Commuters Committee; Mark Merrigan, Alameda Commuters; Steve Taddi, Alameda Commuters and Alameda Golf Club; Al Wagner, Alameda Golf Club; Dorothy Moody, Alameda; Bobbie Hoepmer, Alameda; Connie Wendling, Junior Golf, Norma Arnerich, Junior Golf; Lola Brown, Alameda; Frank Reed, Alameda; Carol Albright Davis, Lincoln; Betsy Gammell, Golf Commission; Joe Williams, Alameda; Svend Svendsen, Alameda; Felice Zensius, Alameda; Lester Cabral, Alameda; Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Robert Brown, Alameda; Craig Bevan, Alameda; Alex Stevens, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda; Chris Van Winkle; Fred Framsted; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Joseph Watson, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Bob Blanchard, Alameda; Susan Higbee, Alameda Niners; James Leach, Alameda; Ray Gaul, Alameda; Keith Gleason, Alameda (read letter of Debbie Opperud); Bill Schmitz, Golf Commission and Commuters Committee; Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Gary Walters, Alameda; Former Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Ed Downing, Alameda Golf Club and Commuters Committee; Cheryl Saxon, Alameda; and Robb Ratto. Following Jane Sullwold's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson inquired whether doing nothing at the Golf Course is a viable option. The Interim City Manager responded the Golf Course could continue as is but the question is should it; stated the fund balance will continue to be drawn down; the Golf Course is getting older and tougher; the question is where to get money to invest in improvements; there is no capital; the whole complex requires a draw down; a business decision needs to be made at some point; the only way to make the Golf Course work is not to charge a dime from the General Fund; cost allocations were not raised for the Golf enterprise fund, but that means the General Fund loses a minimum of $275,000 plus another $200,000 from the Return on Investment (ROI); the General Fund cannot absorb a $475,000 cut without cutting staff or services; one of the courses has a bad sprinkler system and the replacement cost is approximately $1.5 million. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 9 January 6, 2010 Councilmember Matarrese stated that he hears that there is the need for a short course and for eighteen holes for regular players; the Golf Course is a business, not a park; the City will need to bite the cost allocation bullet at some point; the question is how much money will be saved if the Mif Albright Course closes tomorrow through long -term operator selection; that he cannot say whether or not to close the Mif Albright Course because the savings is unknown; the City cannot afford to run forty -five holes because rounds are down; meeting the needs of a short course and regular play on less number of holes is necessary; everything comes down to money. Mayor Johnson stated the choices are to generate more income or cut expenses. (10 -017) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money would be saved if the Mif Albright closed today. The Interim City Manager responded operating expenses would still exist if the Course is kept open during the RFP process; stated the Course would still not pencil out on a positive basis if operating expenses were cut in half; the only way is to take the Kemper management fee out and have the other courses absorb the cost, which defeats the purpose. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the cost for a round of golf. The Recreation and Park Director responded the original NGF Operation Report noted the cost is between $25 and $27. Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of golfers play on a monthly, junior, or senior discount pass. Mr. Vest responded most players have senior monthly passes; stated juniors play in the summertime and afternoons. Vice Mayor deHaan stated numbers should be understood on a monthly basis; $30,000 was spent for renovations to reopen the Course; no effort has been made to explore non - profit options; the $450,000 loss [to the General Fund] would be for the entire Golf Complex; questioned why a decision needs to be made tonight if operator selection is a month away; stated the community needs to be brought together to figure out how to make things work. Mayor Johnson stated Kemper has been at the Golf Course for over a year; inquired Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 January 6, 2010 what is the assessment of capital needs. Mr. Vest responded the south property has a lot of capital needs, such as irrigation and the pump station; stated 80% of the greens need to be redone; the driving range needs to be re- covered; tree work is needed. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the condition [of the Course] when Kemper took over. Mr. Vest responded the course was rough; stated the greens had bare spots and were diseased; the course has drainage issues; irrigation lines break daily. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Golf Course was considered to be in acceptable condition when Kemper took over, to which Mr. Vest responded in the negative. In response to Mayor's Johnson inquiry regarding capital projects, Mr. Vest stated the sprinkler system and pump station are in dire need of repair. Mayor Johnson inquired what the costs would be, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the sprinkler system would be approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Vest stated the pump station would cost approximately $140,000. Vice Mayor deHaan stated said information will be provided at the time of the [operator] selection process. The Interim City Manager stated staff worked very hard to get all reports done for tonight's agenda; going through supplemental information provided by vendors responding to the RFP while preparing for tonight's agenda was not humanly possible because of the short holiday week and extra meeting; hopes are to have a recommendation come to Council the first meeting in February. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the RFP has five different operational configurations; that he does not know what the best set up would be; the RFP should have been revisited since little interest was generated; the Golf Course will be closed forever once it is closed and will not be replicated anywhere; every golf course is having problems; the community has prided itself to reach out to every individual sport; moth balling the Course as a passive park would cost $30,000 per year. Mayor Johnson requested clarification on how much the City has made in cuts over the last two years. The Interim City Manager stated that she cut 10% of City staff in her first thirty days; cash funds have gone down by more than $20 million in the last fifteen months; the situation at the Golf Course is a factual reality of what is happening everywhere. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 11 January 6, 2010 Mayor Johnson stated deferred maintenance and capital projects are not included in the golf budget; the Golf Course is rotting away; the Golf Course is going to be so far gone in five years that no one will touch it; long -term financial viability needs to be considered. Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; the Golf Course is more than just a golf course operation for the City; one of the speakers stated that a nine -hole course does not make money but takes juniors and seniors off the main course; inquired whether liability issues would occur with the south course pilot program. Mr. Vest responded in the affirmative; stated liability is always possible. Councilmember Tam inquired whether regulation player's want to just use the north course, to which Mr. Vest responded regulation players want options. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what method would be used to handle potential liabilities. Mr. Vest responded efforts would be made to position players in a way to ensure that everyone is safe and out of harms way. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is being done regarding people cheating [on the type of round played]. Mr. Vest responded people are caught on a daily basis; stated different programs are being used to address the problem. Councilmember Tam stated that she is persuaded that waiting for a long -term operator to help with an evaluation makes sense; having a discussion in a fuller context is appropriate. Councilmember Tam moved approval of waiting [to decide whether or not to close the Mif Albright Course] for a long -term operator to provide a fuller evaluation. Councilmember Gilmore stated the RFP selection is coming to Council in the first meeting in February; inquired how long negotiations would take, to which the Interim City Manager responded 90 to 120 days, which would be May. Councilmember Gilmore stated an operator would be in place by May; inquired whether the operator would then start the process of figuring out long -term configuration. The Interim City Manager responded staff would provide Council with details of what has been negotiated with the long -term operator at the end of the 90 to 120 days; hypothesizing what will happen to the Mif Albright Course is difficult. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 12 January 6, 2010 Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many RFP's have been received. The Interim City Manager responded five or six firms were present for the pre -bid; stated two firms responded at the time of submittal; of the firms that did not submit a proposal, one was cutting staff and the other could not borrow any money to invest in capital. Councilmember Matarrese stated the situation sounds like the telecom situation; that he understands there is a need for a short course; inquired whether a short course is part of the RFP, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated someone is going to have to give something up because the Golf Course has been running at a deficit as long as he has been on the Council; having two 18 -hole courses and one 9 -hole course is not possible. Mayor Johnson stated the fund balance was at $5 million two or three years ago; spending $20,000 to $25,000 at this point is reasonable. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City might as well take the hit to the General Fund now because golf revenue will not go to the General Fund in the future; the reality is that the City is only paying to keep the course up and playable. The Interim City Manager stated firms that did not respond to the RFP could not invest capital based upon the condition of the Course and the RFP requirements; investing capital will be harder because the quality of the Course will worsen; the City of Los Angeles had twenty -four courses bundled for an RFP; no responses were received because the courses were run down; privatizing will be too late at some point; having cities operate as in the past is not today's government reality; the General Fund cannot subsidize non - General Fund services. Councilmember Gilmore stated approximately $20,000 or less is needed to keep the Mif Albright Course open between now and the end of May; $20,000 is not going to break the City; the bigger point is that something needs to be given up; having a place to nurture children is important. Councilmember Tam restated her motion to approve waiting until the end of May in order to have a fuller discussion with a long -term operator to provide an evaluation of how the Mif Albright Course fits into the long -term plan of two 18 -hole courses with the full understanding that there could be up to a potential $20,000 hit that will be derived from the $1.1 million remaining reserve fund. Vice Mayor deHaan requested the motion be amended to include exploring other options to operate the Mif Albright Course separately. Councilmember Tam agreed to the amended motion. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 13 January 6, 2010 Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a timeframe would be established so that everything culminates in May. Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore stated time is running out. Mayor Johnson inquired whether cost allocation would take place if long -term leasing moves forward. The Interim City Manager responded the structure would be different; stated the goal would be to figure out an optimum arrangement because both sides have to profit from the negotiations; the City would be paid a percentage of gross from the vendor to the General Fund. Councilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund would take a hit. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be prepared for the hit. Mayor Johnson stated people also need to understand that the City would not be paying for capital; maintenance has been deferred for years; systematic methods have never been established for ensuring that capital projects are funded; the Golf Course fund has been depleted for unintended uses. Councilmember Gilmore stated the General Fund pays for public safety, parks, libraries, and tennis court lighting; the hit to the General Fund will not be pretty. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the amended motion. Former Councilmember "Lil" Arnerich stated all operating costs should be known; the operator at the Alameda County Fairgrounds knows the cost for each expenditure; staff needs to contact outside sources for help. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the contract would be for thirty years. The Interim City Manager responded the term is subject to negotiations; stated no one will be interested unless amortization can be done for over thirty years. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the motion includes looking at a non - profit operator and separating out the Mif Albright Course; inquired how the group would be formed. Mayor Johnson stated the motion was not to direct staff to bring back a proposal. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not clear on the motion; inquired whether Council would wait to make a decision until responses are received and whether the amended motion includes looking at another option, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 14 January 6, 2010 Councilmember Gilmore stated the timeline would be May. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (10 -018) Gloria Guerra, Alameda, discussed homelessness. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Guerra has contacted staff regarding the issue. Ms. Guerra responded that she would discuss the matter with the Economic Development Director. COUNCIL REFERRALS •0 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 12:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 15 January 6, 2010