body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOITY (ARRA),
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--JANUARY 25, 2011-6:00 - P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners Bonta,
deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(11-038 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant
exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9(b); Number of cases: Two
(11-039 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of
case: United States V. City of Alameda et al, case no. C 09-05684Rs
(11-040 CC/11-007 ARRA/11-003 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC V. City of Alameda et al,
case no. CV 10-5178 CRB
(11-041 CC) Liability Claims (54956.95) - Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant:
John Cayanne; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Gilmore
announced regarding Anticipated Litigation, legal counsel discussed possible claims
and received legal advice; no action was taken; regarding United States V. City of
Alameda, the Acting City Attorney provided explanation of the status of the lawsuit and
a stipulated order; Council provided direction; regarding SCC Alameda Point, LLC V.
City of Alameda, the Council/Board/Commission, approved retaining separate counsel
for defendant Gallant for reasons of conflict of interest; Workers' Compensation Claim,
the claim was discussed with counsel and staff; Council provided direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:26
p.m.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community Improvement
Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,2,"Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community Improvement
Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 25, 2011--7:00 - P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(11-042) Recommendation to Receive a Presentation by Kemper Sports Management
on the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and Provide Direction to the Acting City Manager to
Continue Negotiations, Develop Deal Points for the Preferred Option, and Return to the
City Council with a Long-Team Lease Agreement.
The Acting City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Ben Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the cost going from $400,000 for 36
holes down to $100,000 for 27 holes, Mr. Blake stated the budget for a 36-hole golf
course and facility is around $1.4 million; the cost is about $300,000 per 9 holes; taking
9 holes out of play in terms of water, labor, mowing, fertilizer, and overall equipment,
saves $300,000.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether 2.5% growth is predicted for the current year,
to which Mr. Blake responded the growth would be after improvements are completed.
Councilmember Johnson stated numbers provided for other courses in the area show a
decrease in rounds for 2010; Alameda had an 8.7% decrease in 2010, a 3%decrease in
2009 and an over 9% decrease in 2008, which is significant.
Mr. Blake stated this season has been one of the rainiest in years, which has had an
impact on the whole market; the National Golf Foundation (NGF) has access to many
golf courses and is showing an 8.7% drop.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the trend is nationwide, to which Mr. Blake
responded in the affirmative; stated NGF provides a monthly report, which he could
share with the Council.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about how essential the 2.5%
increase in play is, Mr. Blake stated Kemper is willing to take the risks and believes the
golf course and facility have the potential; if improvements are made and good
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,4,"conditions are consistently kept, Kemper believes play can come back; clearly, the golf
industry is not well.
Councilmember Johnson stated things are not going well in the economy; 2.5% growth
might be aggressive; inquired what would happen if the increase is not met.
Mr. Blake responded Kemper is taking the operating risk; stated location tends to be a
big driver; the location is good; Kemper has to get the golf course in top condition and
make improvements to compete in the market place.
Councilmember Johnson stated increases in green fees should not be relied upon.
Councilmember deHaan stated Kemper is proposing $5 million in capital improvements
for 27 holes and $8 million for 36 holes; stated the amounts do not equate and he has
problems with them.
Mr. Blake stated the $8 million was from the NGF study and included major renovations
of changing holes and building new greens.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the real capital improvement would be for 36
holes, to which Mr. Blake responded Kemper does not believe that 36 holes work
because there is not enough demand; Kemper can only afford to spend around $5
million based on the number of rounds and revenues to make economics work.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry whether the contract would be for 30
years, Mr. Blake stated the deal would be for 20 to 30 years; the number of years has
not been negotiated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper would invest the $5 million upfront, to
which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long improvements would take, to which Mr.
Blake responded hopefully, two years, but possibly 3 years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper would spend $5 million for 36 holes,
to which Mr. Blake responded Kemper does not believe 36 holes is an option and does
not have an interest in doing 36 holes; stated Kemper has an interest in spending $5
million to renovate 27 holes because Kemper believes the course would be better off
with 27 good holes; Kemper does not believe $5 million can be spent on 36 holes; the
demand for 36 holes is not there; the issue is as much supply and demand as anything
else.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has an analysis of the spreadsheets
Kemper provided, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated Kemper
prepared 6 scenarios and there were numerous meetings [with City staff] on the
scenarios.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper does not see 36 holes as feasible
and is not interested in going in that direction, to which Mr. Blake responded that is
correct in terms of Kemper investing the money.
Councilmember Tam stated 108 new holes have been added to the region over the last
10 years; inquired whether there was an expectation that golf would be growing when
the new courses were built.
Mr. Blake responded real estate developers bought large amounts of land, needed open
space and elected to build golf courses, which raises property values; building the
courses had nothing to do with the economics of golf itself; 3,000 to 4,000 courses
could closed [nationwide] to get the equilibrium back.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether demand would increase enough to make having
36 holes during the 20 to 30 year period [of the lease].
Mr. Blake responded Kemper does not believe play will get back to peak levels for
many, many years, if ever; stated the industry thought the baby boomers were going to
play more golf; with the economy, people working more, and people having different
interests, statistics show baby boomers are not playing as much as was anticipated;
there are many issues, one of which is people think golf takes too much time and does
not fit in the active, shorter segment lifestyle.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether Kemper believes the 2.5% growth
assumption is realistic, Mr. Blake stated the location and product could drive that kind of
growth with marketing.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the risk is on Kemper, to which Mr. Blake
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam stated when the lease with Kemper started in March, the City no
longer collected the Return on Investment (ROI) and the reserve was a little more than
$612,000; inquired whether depletion [of the reserve] has been due to decline [in play]
and maintenance work.
The Acting City Manager responded the City is still collecting the cost allocation,
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) and payment surcharge; stated the ROI was
discontinued this fiscal year; the amounts in the current budget are $319,640 for cost
allocation, $202,220 for PILOT, and $171,960 for the payment surcharge.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the fund balance varies widely due to the
seasonal nature of the game; the amount is higher in spring than in winter, especially
due to all the rain this winter; work had to be done on the cart chargers, the driving
range fencing, and the retaining wall on Island Drive.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,6,"Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to better understand the rate of
depletion of the fund balance; further stated the staff report recognizes that the fund
balance would be depleted over time because of the decline in revenues.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the amount would probably last 18 months as
long as there are no serious maintenance issues.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the fund still continues to go down in spite of the
rate at which the fund is depleted decreasing when Kemper started, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the [depletion]
amount was $700,000 when the City was operating the course and is $350,000 under
Kemper; Kemper has cut the amount in half.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether spending $5 million on 36 holes would not
allow Kemper to improve the course to the extent needed to increase the level of play to
generate more revenue, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the estimate to upgrade the Mif was $500,000; inquired
whether the amount is similar to Kemper's estimate, to which Mr. Blake responded that
he would have to review the estimate; stated Kemper's budget is very specific about the
what needs to be done.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there are other 36-hole courses and whether having
36 or 27 holes is more common.
City Consultant David Sams responded there are a few 36 hole courses in the East Bay
area; stated the courses were probably built over 30 or 40 years ago; in the last 20
years, 2 notable courses that have been built, Cinnabar Hills and Poppy Ridge, have 27
holes; both could have constructed 36 holes and after extensive study, determined 27
holes would return a better profit; the trend now is to build 27 or 18 holes.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry how the 27 hole golf courses are doing
financially, Mr. Sams responded the courses are doing better than they would be doing
with 36 holes.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether one option is for Kemper to continue to manage the
current course under a management agreement without a long-term lease, to which Mr.
Blake responded in the affirmative; stated the presentation was on Kemper's proposal
to invest $5 million; if the City opts to keep 36 holes, Kemper would love to continue to
manage the property; 36 holes on the investment side does not work for Kemper.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there would be capital investment under the 36-hole
scenario, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.
In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about what Kemper anticipates would happen
under said scenario, Mr. Blake stated the course needs capital improvements to be
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,7,"competitive; that he would expect the number of rounds and revenue to continue to
decline if improvements are not made; the market is competitive and rates have been
lowered; golfers are sophisticated and can compare pricing on line; a good product is
needed to compete.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the reserve would continue to be tapped under a
management agreement for 36 holes, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired the amount of lease payments that would be made to the
City under the 27-hole scenario.
Mr. Blake responded modeling has been done showing rounds, revenues and
expenses; stated the negotiations with the City regarding the length of the lease and
other factors would determine how the profit would be divvied up.
The Acting City Manager stated the amount, which would return for Council approval,
would not be collected for several years until capital improvements are finished; the
amount has not been negotiated.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there are similar leases, to which Mr. Blake
responded Mr. Sams could get said information for the City.
Vice Mayor Bonta stated Mr. Blake indicated the City would continue to receive lease
payments even if Kemper's projections were not realized; inquired whether there is
potential for profit sharing if growth projections are exceeded.
Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated the matter is negotiable; Kemper would
evaluate its risk; the deal has to be good for both parties or it will not work; there will be
a finite amount of money and the City and Kemper have to figure out what is fair.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper believes the course could be viable
for the next 40 years without City subsidy, to which Mr. Blake responded capital
improvements have not been made for a number of years and the useful life of items
have been exceeded.
In
response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry whether the course would see a
greater decline in rounds due to the declining condition of the course, Mr. Blake stated
the City has to consider said risk; the rate is consistent with other courses; as better
courses lower rates, players can trade up.
Councilmember Johnson stated Alameda residents have told her that they play other
courses for $25, including a cart, which would cost $38 in Alameda.
Mr. Blake stated golfers like variety; course conditions tend to be the number one driver
in repeat play; courses not in good condition have a hard time competing.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,8,"Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper believes its proposal could keep the
course competitive for the next 40 years, to which Mr. Blake responded in the
affirmative.
Speakers: Grace Na, Alameda High Ladies Golf Team; Sharon Nam, Alameda High
Ladies Golf Team; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda; Paul
Weir, Alameda Golf Club; John Curliano, Alameda; Bill Weir, Alameda Junior Golf
Association; Bill Schmitz, Golf Commission and Commuters Committee; Robert
Sullwold, Alameda; Bob Blanchard, Alameda Commuters Golf Club; Jon Spangler,
Alameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Karen
Bey, Alameda; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Bob Bloomberg, Alameda;
William Moore; and Steven Slauson, Alameda.
The following people submitted speaker slips, but did not speak: Tom Medaglia,
Alameda Golf Club Commuters; Emish Radloff, Alameda Golf Club; Dave Bratzler,
Alameda; Dennis Knights, Alameda Golf Club; Jon Hasegawa, Alameda Junior Golf
Association/Alameda Golf Club; Betsy Gammell, Golf Commission/Junior Golf
Board/Alameda Women's Golf Club; Tim Scates, Alameda; Alexander Stevens,
Alameda; Pam Curtis, Alameda; George Gammell, Alameda Men's Golf Club; Mike
Schmitz, Alameda Men's Golf Club; Howard Brizending, Alameda Men's Golf Club; Bill
Gibbs, Alameda Men's Golf Club; and Ron Taylor, Alameda Men's Golf Club.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she has questions about the capacity to hold tournaments,
such as Commuters and East Bay Junior Golf; inquired what would happen with the 27-
hole configuration and how both tournament players and members of the public would
be accommodated.
John Vest, Kemper Sports, responded the East Bay Juniors and Commuters events are
very important to Kemper and have a lot of history; stated Kemper wants to continue to
have said events; the East Bay Juniors event involves over 200 players on a Tuesday
and Wednesday; the players would take up the majority of the 27 holes, which would
impact open play during parts of the day; a special could be run to accommodate open
players in the afternoon; Kemper's priority would be to accommodate tournament
players.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether non-tournament players are impacted with the current
36-hole configuration, to which Mr. Vest responded not as much; stated Kemper gets
creative and puts players on the opposite 9 holes.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether renovations would require the course to be shut down
or whether certain parts would just be shut down.
Mr. Blake responded Kemper would keep 18 holes open at a minimum; stated the goal
is to close as little as possible and get the work done as quickly as possible.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether both 27 and 36 holes can accommodate the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,9,"tournaments, however 27 holes would cause an impact on open players, to which Mr.
Vest responded in the affirmative; stated players just dropping by might have to wait.
Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Commuters and East Bay Juniors tournaments
could be run as successfully as in the past [with 27 holes], to which Mr. Vest responded
in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about how the tournament works with 27 holes,
Mr. Vest stated there would be two waves of tee times: one in the morning and one in
the afternoon.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether both waves would be able to finish play before dark
and whether the next phase of the tournament would be done the next day, to which Mr.
Vest responded in the affirmative; stated players teeing off in the afternoon the first day,
would tee off earlier the next day; players would not be affected the second weekend
because only 18 holes are played.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether differentiating costs relative to the
renovation of 36 holes versus 27 holes is possible, Mr. Blake stated 36 holes of
irrigation has a higher cost than 27 holes; the goal is to have three very nice 9 holes;
spreading the money over 36 holes could dilute underground and visual repairs to not
have the same impact as 27 holes; Kemper wants 27 high quality holes and there is not
enough money to do that for 36 holes.
Councilmember Johnson stated there is preference for the north course over the south
course; inquired how the three 9 holes would work together and how people would not
mind playing 9 holes of the south course.
Mr. Blake responded the existing 18 holes on the north would be cleaned up and
infrastructure would be improved; stated visual improvements would be directed to the
third 9 holes [on the south course] to have it match the two 9 holes on the north course;
there are enough trees [on the 9 holes at the south course that would be renovated] to
give it a similar feel; the fourth 9 holes [on the south course] are much more open, have
less trees, and he is not sure a match could be accomplished on said holes.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper's vision is to operate the course like
Poppy Ridge, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated there would be
three starting tees and the three nines would be rotated.
Councilmember deHaan stated the south course has more land; the north course is
more traditional for an average player; there is a demand for longer courses; there is
ability to have two tournaments right now; 27 holes would push out regular players
when there are tournaments; 27 holes might be done when building a new course
because of capital outlay; Alameda is blessed with very low debt service; other courses
have to make lots of money just to cover debt service; inquired how many acres there
would be from closing down 9 holes, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,10,"responded 40 acres.
Councilmember deHaan stated a certain amount maintenance would be required for the
40 acres, which would be a cost to the City; parks cost $300,000 to $500,000 to
operate; said burden would be pushed back onto the City; the drainage systems feed
each other; there are problems with the canal service, which receives runoff from
Harbor Bay Business Park; better management allowed the course to open after rain
days ahead of other courses, which is commendable; that he has not had the
opportunity to see [Kemper's] data; the Council needs to understand what is on the
table; he raised the golf funding issue 6 years ago; the golf course has to make money;
good logical decisions have to be made; the process has taken a year; that he has not
received the information, which should be put on the table and brought to the Council,
public and Golf Commission; transparency is important; Kemper has done a great job;
changing course mid stream would be a travesty; that he wishes Kemper would be open
to 36 holes.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether closing 9 holes and allowing the acreage to go fallow
would cause a drainage problem, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
responded drainage would remain the same if the existing system were left as is.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about drainage and fallow acreage, the
Recreation and Parks Director stated renovations to the drainage system for the rest of
the course would be designed knowing existing conditions, including water being
received from the Business Park; costs would depend upon usage of the fallow
acreage; passive uses, such as dog walking, would have minimal costs; the cheapest
solution would be to shut down the area and do weed abatement.
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:58 p.m. and returned at 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Johnson stated juniors have been able to play golf because it is
affordable; most other cities do not allow junior residents to play for $1 and non-resident
juniors to play for $10; keeping some parts of the fee schedule, especially monthly
passes for residents, is important; the course is an asset and should be kept affordable
for Alameda residents; annual passes, junior rates and senior discounts should be kept;
inquired whether Kemper intends to keep said rates.
Mr. Blake responded Kemper and the City would review the fee schedule together;
stated the process would be transparent.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated including the rates in the final contract, which
would come back to Council, is common.
Councilmember Johnson stated the high school golf teams use the courses; that she
would like said issues spelled out; right now, Alameda residents can play cheaper at
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,11,"other courses due to special deals; keeping rates affordable for Alameda residents is
important.
Mr. Blake stated Kemper now has the ability to run discounts.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated adoption of the Master Fee Resolution
allowed Kemper to run promotions.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether rate issues were reviewed as part of the
economics and whether investing $5 million will work economically, to which Mr. Blake
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council has been very clear how it feels about promoting
junior golf, which is a priority going forward; the course has always been a value course;
renovations are needed; the course should not be priced out of the reach of residents.
Mr. Blake stated the market would dictate the issue; golfers would be lost if Kemper
does not react to aggressive pricing.
Councilmember Johnson stated that she wants provisions in the lease to ensure
residents have lower rates.
Mr. Blake stated 35% of the play is residents; Kemper would want flexibility on non-
resident play.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Ms. Sullwold and Mr. Van Winkle to address a
hypothetical assuming Kemper is right regarding there being an over supply of golf in
the area, the number of rounds, and the amount of investment that can be made;
inquired where compromises could be made between saving 36 holes and saving golf
for the future.
Mr. Van Winkle responded assuming Kemper is right on supply and demand and the $5
million to renovate 27 holes, he would further assume renovating 36 holes would cost
$5.9 million; that he expected Kemper to offer to fill the gap tonight with the $1 million
set aside to build a new Mif; based on the assumptions, there is a capacity problem and
juniors would be crowded out.
Mr. Sullwold reviewed figures; stated the amount to renovate 36 holes should be closer
to the $6 million proposed by Bellows, rather than the $8 million from the NGF study;
that she is fighting the hypothetical because there should be an opportunity to ask
Kemper questions about the assumptions; following the assumptions, leads down the
path that the City has to go with Kemper [recommendations]; however, said point has
not been reached; there should be a chance to ask questions.
Mr. Van Winkle stated there could be some synergy, such as shifting money saved from
not needing junior tees to improving 36 holes.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,12,"Mayor Gilmore stated staff indicated the golf reserve fund would be burned through in
18 months at the current rate; it is agreed that capital investment is needed; questioned
whether the golf course should be bet against the City taking more time, deciding to
keep 36 holes, going out with another Request for Proposals (RFP), and negotiating a
contract before 18 months runs out; stated that she does not want to be in a situation
where there is no money left in the golf fund balance and the City is looking to subsidize
the golf course from General Fund revenues; the City took money from the golf fund in
the past; the money is gone; that she would not take a decision between golf and other
services, such as police, fire and libraries, to the voters.
Ms. Sullwold questioned whether the City should be forced into making a decision for
the next 20 to 30 years because the City will not take the time to investigate the very
superficial presentation made tonight.
Mayor Gilmore stated one knows there would be golf in Alameda for at least two
generations [going with Kemper's recommendation].
Mr. Van Winkle stated going out with an RFP or Request For Inquiries (RFI) would be
reasonable; companies that would not respond to the previous RFP have expressed
interest.
Councilmember Tam stated the City talked to 65 firms and received two RFP
responses; requested a review of the process; inquired what was the ability for Bellows
to issue debt.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the difference in the funding mechanism
for the capital is that Kemper's funding would come from a $7 million corporate bond
that Kemper would guarantee and the last discussions with Bellows in 2009, involved
the City issuing the bond and making a donation from the enterprise fund balance; the
Kemper offer poses less risk to the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether Mr. Van Winkle has information on the other
companies' ability to issue bonds, to which Mr. Van Winkle responded in the negative;
stated when he called the other companies about operating the Mif, they offered the
comments; that he has not investigated the companies' bonding ability; all run lots of big
golf courses.
Councilmember deHaan stated a new process should not be started; Kemper put
together data; that he has not seen the data; he would not make a decision until he
sees the data; Council should be given the opportunity to review the existing information
and the analysis of 27 versus 36 holes; that he does not need to negotiate with another
party; he needs to understand the deal at this point.
Mr. Blake stated Kemper delivered the information to the previous Interim City Manager.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,13,"Councilmember deHaan stated the information should have been provided to the
Council and Golf Commission.
Councilmember Johnson inquired when the first RFP was issued; stated Kemper has
been operating the golf course for over 2 years.
The Acting City Manager responded July 2008.
In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry when the golf study was done, the
Acting City Manager responded it was presented to Council in January 2008.
Councilmember Johnson stated the issue has been ongoing for over 3 years; money
continues to be spent down; cutting the transfer money requires Police and Fire
services to be cut; decisions are not easy; inquired how long completing the
negotiations would take.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded 60 to 90 days.
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether staff cannot move forward until Council
provides direction on the configuration, to which the Recreation and Parks Director
responded in the affirmative; stated the Mif issue has been settled; the configuration is
the only other thing.
Mayor Gilmore inquired what the upcoming agendas look like, to which the Acting City
Manager responded there are a number of large items on February 1st. budget
adjustments would be brought to Council on February 15th; both meetings are going to
be quite lengthy; redevelopment would be discussed on February 1st.
Mayor Gilmore stated if the matter is put off to a later date, she would not be inclined to
send it to the Golf Commission; she would be willing to have it come back to Council for
a drop dead vote, which would give an opportunity for the back up information to be
reviewed and discussed; a decision needs to be made.
Ms. Sullwold stated if the Golf Commission receives the information, a meeting could be
held to allow the Commission to provide a written report to Council and e-mail questions
to Mr. Blake.
Councilmember Tam stated that she thinks the compromise seems good; that she
would like to see the plans Kemper submitted; the Council and Golf Commission should
have the opportunity to review the information; questioned whether the matter could be
placed on the meeting when redevelopment would be addressed.
The Acting City Manager responded the agenda for the February 1st meeting would be
distributed in two days.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the matter could be placed on February 15th, to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,14,"which the Acting City Manager responded the meeting would be very late.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about a date shortly thereafter, the Acting City
Manager responded March 1st is the next meeting.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter could be added to the March ARRA night, to
which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that she would
check to see if Kemper is available.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a special meeting could be held, to which the Acting
City Manager responded Council could be polled.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether February 16th would work.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Clerk could poll for February 16th
Councilmembers indicated availability.
Mayor Gilmore stated the preferred date is February 16th; March 2nd would be the
alternate date depending on Kemper's availability.
Mr. Van Winkle inquired whether Wadsworth's attendance could be considered since
the company is a critical member of moving forward.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding a reason to do so, Mr. Van Winkle
stated Wadsworth is going to advise Junior Golf how it will work, including renovation;
renovation plans need to work together; waiting until March 2nd might allow Wadsworth
to attend.
Mayor Gilmore stated Wadsworth could be invited either date.
Councilmember Tam suggested Mr. Van Winkle share the plans with Wadsworth.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council direction is to bring the matter back on February 16th
or March 2nd
Ms. Sullwold inquired whether she could request that information on the Kemper
proposal be provided to the Golf Commission, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether more direction could be given on the
information that would be provided back; that he is not sure everyone wants to go said
direction, but both options [27 and 36 holes] should be reviewed; data would be
provided to the Golf Commission; that he would like to understand what will happen to
the other 9 holes if the 27 hole option is chosen; he wants to know costs and needs to
understand water runoff; he wants said feedback at the next meeting.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf
CityCouncil,2011-01-25,15,"Alameda City Council
13
January 25, 2011",CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf