{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOITY (ARRA),\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 25, 2011-6:00 - P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners Bonta,\ndeHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-038 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code Section 54956.9(b); Number of cases: Two\n(11-039 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of\ncase: United States V. City of Alameda et al, case no. C 09-05684Rs\n(11-040 CC/11-007 ARRA/11-003 CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing\nLitigation (54956.9); Name of case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC V. City of Alameda et al,\ncase no. CV 10-5178 CRB\n(11-041 CC) Liability Claims (54956.95) - Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant:\nJohn Cayanne; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Gilmore\nannounced regarding Anticipated Litigation, legal counsel discussed possible claims\nand received legal advice; no action was taken; regarding United States V. City of\nAlameda, the Acting City Attorney provided explanation of the status of the lawsuit and\na stipulated order; Council provided direction; regarding SCC Alameda Point, LLC V.\nCity of Alameda, the Council/Board/Commission, approved retaining separate counsel\nfor defendant Gallant for reasons of conflict of interest; Workers' Compensation Claim,\nthe claim was discussed with counsel and staff; Council provided direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:26\np.m.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community Improvement\nCommission, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 2, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community Improvement\nCommission, and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 25, 2011--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(11-042) Recommendation to Receive a Presentation by Kemper Sports Management\non the Chuck Corica Golf Complex and Provide Direction to the Acting City Manager to\nContinue Negotiations, Develop Deal Points for the Preferred Option, and Return to the\nCity Council with a Long-Team Lease Agreement.\nThe Acting City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nBen Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the cost going from $400,000 for 36\nholes down to $100,000 for 27 holes, Mr. Blake stated the budget for a 36-hole golf\ncourse and facility is around $1.4 million; the cost is about $300,000 per 9 holes; taking\n9 holes out of play in terms of water, labor, mowing, fertilizer, and overall equipment,\nsaves $300,000.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether 2.5% growth is predicted for the current year,\nto which Mr. Blake responded the growth would be after improvements are completed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated numbers provided for other courses in the area show a\ndecrease in rounds for 2010; Alameda had an 8.7% decrease in 2010, a 3%decrease in\n2009 and an over 9% decrease in 2008, which is significant.\nMr. Blake stated this season has been one of the rainiest in years, which has had an\nimpact on the whole market; the National Golf Foundation (NGF) has access to many\ngolf courses and is showing an 8.7% drop.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the trend is nationwide, to which Mr. Blake\nresponded in the affirmative; stated NGF provides a monthly report, which he could\nshare with the Council.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about how essential the 2.5%\nincrease in play is, Mr. Blake stated Kemper is willing to take the risks and believes the\ngolf course and facility have the potential; if improvements are made and good\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 4, "text": "conditions are consistently kept, Kemper believes play can come back; clearly, the golf\nindustry is not well.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated things are not going well in the economy; 2.5% growth\nmight be aggressive; inquired what would happen if the increase is not met.\nMr. Blake responded Kemper is taking the operating risk; stated location tends to be a\nbig driver; the location is good; Kemper has to get the golf course in top condition and\nmake improvements to compete in the market place.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated increases in green fees should not be relied upon.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Kemper is proposing $5 million in capital improvements\nfor 27 holes and $8 million for 36 holes; stated the amounts do not equate and he has\nproblems with them.\nMr. Blake stated the $8 million was from the NGF study and included major renovations\nof changing holes and building new greens.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what the real capital improvement would be for 36\nholes, to which Mr. Blake responded Kemper does not believe that 36 holes work\nbecause there is not enough demand; Kemper can only afford to spend around $5\nmillion based on the number of rounds and revenues to make economics work.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry whether the contract would be for 30\nyears, Mr. Blake stated the deal would be for 20 to 30 years; the number of years has\nnot been negotiated.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper would invest the $5 million upfront, to\nwhich Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how long improvements would take, to which Mr.\nBlake responded hopefully, two years, but possibly 3 years.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper would spend $5 million for 36 holes,\nto which Mr. Blake responded Kemper does not believe 36 holes is an option and does\nnot have an interest in doing 36 holes; stated Kemper has an interest in spending $5\nmillion to renovate 27 holes because Kemper believes the course would be better off\nwith 27 good holes; Kemper does not believe $5 million can be spent on 36 holes; the\ndemand for 36 holes is not there; the issue is as much supply and demand as anything\nelse.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has an analysis of the spreadsheets\nKemper provided, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated Kemper\nprepared 6 scenarios and there were numerous meetings [with City staff] on the\nscenarios.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Kemper does not see 36 holes as feasible\nand is not interested in going in that direction, to which Mr. Blake responded that is\ncorrect in terms of Kemper investing the money.\nCouncilmember Tam stated 108 new holes have been added to the region over the last\n10 years; inquired whether there was an expectation that golf would be growing when\nthe new courses were built.\nMr. Blake responded real estate developers bought large amounts of land, needed open\nspace and elected to build golf courses, which raises property values; building the\ncourses had nothing to do with the economics of golf itself; 3,000 to 4,000 courses\ncould closed [nationwide] to get the equilibrium back.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether demand would increase enough to make having\n36 holes during the 20 to 30 year period [of the lease].\nMr. Blake responded Kemper does not believe play will get back to peak levels for\nmany, many years, if ever; stated the industry thought the baby boomers were going to\nplay more golf; with the economy, people working more, and people having different\ninterests, statistics show baby boomers are not playing as much as was anticipated;\nthere are many issues, one of which is people think golf takes too much time and does\nnot fit in the active, shorter segment lifestyle.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether Kemper believes the 2.5% growth\nassumption is realistic, Mr. Blake stated the location and product could drive that kind of\ngrowth with marketing.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the risk is on Kemper, to which Mr. Blake\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated when the lease with Kemper started in March, the City no\nlonger collected the Return on Investment (ROI) and the reserve was a little more than\n$612,000; inquired whether depletion [of the reserve] has been due to decline [in play]\nand maintenance work.\nThe Acting City Manager responded the City is still collecting the cost allocation,\nPayment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) and payment surcharge; stated the ROI was\ndiscontinued this fiscal year; the amounts in the current budget are $319,640 for cost\nallocation, $202,220 for PILOT, and $171,960 for the payment surcharge.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the fund balance varies widely due to the\nseasonal nature of the game; the amount is higher in spring than in winter, especially\ndue to all the rain this winter; work had to be done on the cart chargers, the driving\nrange fencing, and the retaining wall on Island Drive.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated that she would like to better understand the rate of\ndepletion of the fund balance; further stated the staff report recognizes that the fund\nbalance would be depleted over time because of the decline in revenues.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the amount would probably last 18 months as\nlong as there are no serious maintenance issues.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the fund still continues to go down in spite of the\nrate at which the fund is depleted decreasing when Kemper started, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated the [depletion]\namount was $700,000 when the City was operating the course and is $350,000 under\nKemper; Kemper has cut the amount in half.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether spending $5 million on 36 holes would not\nallow Kemper to improve the course to the extent needed to increase the level of play to\ngenerate more revenue, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the estimate to upgrade the Mif was $500,000; inquired\nwhether the amount is similar to Kemper's estimate, to which Mr. Blake responded that\nhe would have to review the estimate; stated Kemper's budget is very specific about the\nwhat needs to be done.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there are other 36-hole courses and whether having\n36 or 27 holes is more common.\nCity Consultant David Sams responded there are a few 36 hole courses in the East Bay\narea; stated the courses were probably built over 30 or 40 years ago; in the last 20\nyears, 2 notable courses that have been built, Cinnabar Hills and Poppy Ridge, have 27\nholes; both could have constructed 36 holes and after extensive study, determined 27\nholes would return a better profit; the trend now is to build 27 or 18 holes.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry how the 27 hole golf courses are doing\nfinancially, Mr. Sams responded the courses are doing better than they would be doing\nwith 36 holes.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether one option is for Kemper to continue to manage the\ncurrent course under a management agreement without a long-term lease, to which Mr.\nBlake responded in the affirmative; stated the presentation was on Kemper's proposal\nto invest $5 million; if the City opts to keep 36 holes, Kemper would love to continue to\nmanage the property; 36 holes on the investment side does not work for Kemper.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there would be capital investment under the 36-hole\nscenario, to which Mr. Blake responded in the negative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about what Kemper anticipates would happen\nunder said scenario, Mr. Blake stated the course needs capital improvements to be\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 7, "text": "competitive; that he would expect the number of rounds and revenue to continue to\ndecline if improvements are not made; the market is competitive and rates have been\nlowered; golfers are sophisticated and can compare pricing on line; a good product is\nneeded to compete.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the reserve would continue to be tapped under a\nmanagement agreement for 36 holes, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired the amount of lease payments that would be made to the\nCity under the 27-hole scenario.\nMr. Blake responded modeling has been done showing rounds, revenues and\nexpenses; stated the negotiations with the City regarding the length of the lease and\nother factors would determine how the profit would be divvied up.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the amount, which would return for Council approval,\nwould not be collected for several years until capital improvements are finished; the\namount has not been negotiated.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there are similar leases, to which Mr. Blake\nresponded Mr. Sams could get said information for the City.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated Mr. Blake indicated the City would continue to receive lease\npayments even if Kemper's projections were not realized; inquired whether there is\npotential for profit sharing if growth projections are exceeded.\nMr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated the matter is negotiable; Kemper would\nevaluate its risk; the deal has to be good for both parties or it will not work; there will be\na finite amount of money and the City and Kemper have to figure out what is fair.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper believes the course could be viable\nfor the next 40 years without City subsidy, to which Mr. Blake responded capital\nimprovements have not been made for a number of years and the useful life of items\nhave been exceeded.\nIn\nresponse to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry whether the course would see a\ngreater decline in rounds due to the declining condition of the course, Mr. Blake stated\nthe City has to consider said risk; the rate is consistent with other courses; as better\ncourses lower rates, players can trade up.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Alameda residents have told her that they play other\ncourses for $25, including a cart, which would cost $38 in Alameda.\nMr. Blake stated golfers like variety; course conditions tend to be the number one driver\nin repeat play; courses not in good condition have a hard time competing.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper believes its proposal could keep the\ncourse competitive for the next 40 years, to which Mr. Blake responded in the\naffirmative.\nSpeakers: Grace Na, Alameda High Ladies Golf Team; Sharon Nam, Alameda High\nLadies Golf Team; Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda; Paul\nWeir, Alameda Golf Club; John Curliano, Alameda; Bill Weir, Alameda Junior Golf\nAssociation; Bill Schmitz, Golf Commission and Commuters Committee; Robert\nSullwold, Alameda; Bob Blanchard, Alameda Commuters Golf Club; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda; Jim Strehlow, Alameda; Tony Corica, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda; Karen\nBey, Alameda; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Bob Bloomberg, Alameda;\nWilliam Moore; and Steven Slauson, Alameda.\nThe following people submitted speaker slips, but did not speak: Tom Medaglia,\nAlameda Golf Club Commuters; Emish Radloff, Alameda Golf Club; Dave Bratzler,\nAlameda; Dennis Knights, Alameda Golf Club; Jon Hasegawa, Alameda Junior Golf\nAssociation/Alameda Golf Club; Betsy Gammell, Golf Commission/Junior Golf\nBoard/Alameda Women's Golf Club; Tim Scates, Alameda; Alexander Stevens,\nAlameda; Pam Curtis, Alameda; George Gammell, Alameda Men's Golf Club; Mike\nSchmitz, Alameda Men's Golf Club; Howard Brizending, Alameda Men's Golf Club; Bill\nGibbs, Alameda Men's Golf Club; and Ron Taylor, Alameda Men's Golf Club.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has questions about the capacity to hold tournaments,\nsuch as Commuters and East Bay Junior Golf; inquired what would happen with the 27-\nhole configuration and how both tournament players and members of the public would\nbe accommodated.\nJohn Vest, Kemper Sports, responded the East Bay Juniors and Commuters events are\nvery important to Kemper and have a lot of history; stated Kemper wants to continue to\nhave said events; the East Bay Juniors event involves over 200 players on a Tuesday\nand Wednesday; the players would take up the majority of the 27 holes, which would\nimpact open play during parts of the day; a special could be run to accommodate open\nplayers in the afternoon; Kemper's priority would be to accommodate tournament\nplayers.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether non-tournament players are impacted with the current\n36-hole configuration, to which Mr. Vest responded not as much; stated Kemper gets\ncreative and puts players on the opposite 9 holes.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether renovations would require the course to be shut down\nor whether certain parts would just be shut down.\nMr. Blake responded Kemper would keep 18 holes open at a minimum; stated the goal\nis to close as little as possible and get the work done as quickly as possible.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether both 27 and 36 holes can accommodate the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 9, "text": "tournaments, however 27 holes would cause an impact on open players, to which Mr.\nVest responded in the affirmative; stated players just dropping by might have to wait.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Commuters and East Bay Juniors tournaments\ncould be run as successfully as in the past [with 27 holes], to which Mr. Vest responded\nin the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about how the tournament works with 27 holes,\nMr. Vest stated there would be two waves of tee times: one in the morning and one in\nthe afternoon.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether both waves would be able to finish play before dark\nand whether the next phase of the tournament would be done the next day, to which Mr.\nVest responded in the affirmative; stated players teeing off in the afternoon the first day,\nwould tee off earlier the next day; players would not be affected the second weekend\nbecause only 18 holes are played.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry whether differentiating costs relative to the\nrenovation of 36 holes versus 27 holes is possible, Mr. Blake stated 36 holes of\nirrigation has a higher cost than 27 holes; the goal is to have three very nice 9 holes;\nspreading the money over 36 holes could dilute underground and visual repairs to not\nhave the same impact as 27 holes; Kemper wants 27 high quality holes and there is not\nenough money to do that for 36 holes.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there is preference for the north course over the south\ncourse; inquired how the three 9 holes would work together and how people would not\nmind playing 9 holes of the south course.\nMr. Blake responded the existing 18 holes on the north would be cleaned up and\ninfrastructure would be improved; stated visual improvements would be directed to the\nthird 9 holes [on the south course] to have it match the two 9 holes on the north course;\nthere are enough trees [on the 9 holes at the south course that would be renovated] to\ngive it a similar feel; the fourth 9 holes [on the south course] are much more open, have\nless trees, and he is not sure a match could be accomplished on said holes.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Kemper's vision is to operate the course like\nPoppy Ridge, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative; stated there would be\nthree starting tees and the three nines would be rotated.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the south course has more land; the north course is\nmore traditional for an average player; there is a demand for longer courses; there is\nability to have two tournaments right now; 27 holes would push out regular players\nwhen there are tournaments; 27 holes might be done when building a new course\nbecause of capital outlay; Alameda is blessed with very low debt service; other courses\nhave to make lots of money just to cover debt service; inquired how many acres there\nwould be from closing down 9 holes, to which the Recreation and Parks Director\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 10, "text": "responded 40 acres.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a certain amount maintenance would be required for the\n40 acres, which would be a cost to the City; parks cost $300,000 to $500,000 to\noperate; said burden would be pushed back onto the City; the drainage systems feed\neach other; there are problems with the canal service, which receives runoff from\nHarbor Bay Business Park; better management allowed the course to open after rain\ndays ahead of other courses, which is commendable; that he has not had the\nopportunity to see [Kemper's] data; the Council needs to understand what is on the\ntable; he raised the golf funding issue 6 years ago; the golf course has to make money;\ngood logical decisions have to be made; the process has taken a year; that he has not\nreceived the information, which should be put on the table and brought to the Council,\npublic and Golf Commission; transparency is important; Kemper has done a great job;\nchanging course mid stream would be a travesty; that he wishes Kemper would be open\nto 36 holes.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether closing 9 holes and allowing the acreage to go fallow\nwould cause a drainage problem, to which the Recreation and Parks Director\nresponded drainage would remain the same if the existing system were left as is.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about drainage and fallow acreage, the\nRecreation and Parks Director stated renovations to the drainage system for the rest of\nthe course would be designed knowing existing conditions, including water being\nreceived from the Business Park; costs would depend upon usage of the fallow\nacreage; passive uses, such as dog walking, would have minimal costs; the cheapest\nsolution would be to shut down the area and do weed abatement.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:58 p.m. and returned at 10:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated juniors have been able to play golf because it is\naffordable; most other cities do not allow junior residents to play for $1 and non-resident\njuniors to play for $10; keeping some parts of the fee schedule, especially monthly\npasses for residents, is important; the course is an asset and should be kept affordable\nfor Alameda residents; annual passes, junior rates and senior discounts should be kept;\ninquired whether Kemper intends to keep said rates.\nMr. Blake responded Kemper and the City would review the fee schedule together;\nstated the process would be transparent.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated including the rates in the final contract, which\nwould come back to Council, is common.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the high school golf teams use the courses; that she\nwould like said issues spelled out; right now, Alameda residents can play cheaper at\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 11, "text": "other courses due to special deals; keeping rates affordable for Alameda residents is\nimportant.\nMr. Blake stated Kemper now has the ability to run discounts.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated adoption of the Master Fee Resolution\nallowed Kemper to run promotions.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether rate issues were reviewed as part of the\neconomics and whether investing $5 million will work economically, to which Mr. Blake\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Council has been very clear how it feels about promoting\njunior golf, which is a priority going forward; the course has always been a value course;\nrenovations are needed; the course should not be priced out of the reach of residents.\nMr. Blake stated the market would dictate the issue; golfers would be lost if Kemper\ndoes not react to aggressive pricing.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she wants provisions in the lease to ensure\nresidents have lower rates.\nMr. Blake stated 35% of the play is residents; Kemper would want flexibility on non-\nresident play.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would like Ms. Sullwold and Mr. Van Winkle to address a\nhypothetical assuming Kemper is right regarding there being an over supply of golf in\nthe area, the number of rounds, and the amount of investment that can be made;\ninquired where compromises could be made between saving 36 holes and saving golf\nfor the future.\nMr. Van Winkle responded assuming Kemper is right on supply and demand and the $5\nmillion to renovate 27 holes, he would further assume renovating 36 holes would cost\n$5.9 million; that he expected Kemper to offer to fill the gap tonight with the $1 million\nset aside to build a new Mif; based on the assumptions, there is a capacity problem and\njuniors would be crowded out.\nMr. Sullwold reviewed figures; stated the amount to renovate 36 holes should be closer\nto the $6 million proposed by Bellows, rather than the $8 million from the NGF study;\nthat she is fighting the hypothetical because there should be an opportunity to ask\nKemper questions about the assumptions; following the assumptions, leads down the\npath that the City has to go with Kemper [recommendations]; however, said point has\nnot been reached; there should be a chance to ask questions.\nMr. Van Winkle stated there could be some synergy, such as shifting money saved from\nnot needing junior tees to improving 36 holes.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated staff indicated the golf reserve fund would be burned through in\n18 months at the current rate; it is agreed that capital investment is needed; questioned\nwhether the golf course should be bet against the City taking more time, deciding to\nkeep 36 holes, going out with another Request for Proposals (RFP), and negotiating a\ncontract before 18 months runs out; stated that she does not want to be in a situation\nwhere there is no money left in the golf fund balance and the City is looking to subsidize\nthe golf course from General Fund revenues; the City took money from the golf fund in\nthe past; the money is gone; that she would not take a decision between golf and other\nservices, such as police, fire and libraries, to the voters.\nMs. Sullwold questioned whether the City should be forced into making a decision for\nthe next 20 to 30 years because the City will not take the time to investigate the very\nsuperficial presentation made tonight.\nMayor Gilmore stated one knows there would be golf in Alameda for at least two\ngenerations [going with Kemper's recommendation].\nMr. Van Winkle stated going out with an RFP or Request For Inquiries (RFI) would be\nreasonable; companies that would not respond to the previous RFP have expressed\ninterest.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City talked to 65 firms and received two RFP\nresponses; requested a review of the process; inquired what was the ability for Bellows\nto issue debt.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the difference in the funding mechanism\nfor the capital is that Kemper's funding would come from a $7 million corporate bond\nthat Kemper would guarantee and the last discussions with Bellows in 2009, involved\nthe City issuing the bond and making a donation from the enterprise fund balance; the\nKemper offer poses less risk to the City.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Mr. Van Winkle has information on the other\ncompanies' ability to issue bonds, to which Mr. Van Winkle responded in the negative;\nstated when he called the other companies about operating the Mif, they offered the\ncomments; that he has not investigated the companies' bonding ability; all run lots of big\ngolf courses.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a new process should not be started; Kemper put\ntogether data; that he has not seen the data; he would not make a decision until he\nsees the data; Council should be given the opportunity to review the existing information\nand the analysis of 27 versus 36 holes; that he does not need to negotiate with another\nparty; he needs to understand the deal at this point.\nMr. Blake stated Kemper delivered the information to the previous Interim City Manager.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated the information should have been provided to the\nCouncil and Golf Commission.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired when the first RFP was issued; stated Kemper has\nbeen operating the golf course for over 2 years.\nThe Acting City Manager responded July 2008.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry when the golf study was done, the\nActing City Manager responded it was presented to Council in January 2008.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the issue has been ongoing for over 3 years; money\ncontinues to be spent down; cutting the transfer money requires Police and Fire\nservices to be cut; decisions are not easy; inquired how long completing the\nnegotiations would take.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded 60 to 90 days.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether staff cannot move forward until Council\nprovides direction on the configuration, to which the Recreation and Parks Director\nresponded in the affirmative; stated the Mif issue has been settled; the configuration is\nthe only other thing.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what the upcoming agendas look like, to which the Acting City\nManager responded there are a number of large items on February 1st. budget\nadjustments would be brought to Council on February 15th; both meetings are going to\nbe quite lengthy; redevelopment would be discussed on February 1st.\nMayor Gilmore stated if the matter is put off to a later date, she would not be inclined to\nsend it to the Golf Commission; she would be willing to have it come back to Council for\na drop dead vote, which would give an opportunity for the back up information to be\nreviewed and discussed; a decision needs to be made.\nMs. Sullwold stated if the Golf Commission receives the information, a meeting could be\nheld to allow the Commission to provide a written report to Council and e-mail questions\nto Mr. Blake.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she thinks the compromise seems good; that she\nwould like to see the plans Kemper submitted; the Council and Golf Commission should\nhave the opportunity to review the information; questioned whether the matter could be\nplaced on the meeting when redevelopment would be addressed.\nThe Acting City Manager responded the agenda for the February 1st meeting would be\ndistributed in two days.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the matter could be placed on February 15th, to\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 14, "text": "which the Acting City Manager responded the meeting would be very late.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about a date shortly thereafter, the Acting City\nManager responded March 1st is the next meeting.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter could be added to the March ARRA night, to\nwhich the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that she would\ncheck to see if Kemper is available.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a special meeting could be held, to which the Acting\nCity Manager responded Council could be polled.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether February 16th would work.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Clerk could poll for February 16th\nCouncilmembers indicated availability.\nMayor Gilmore stated the preferred date is February 16th; March 2nd would be the\nalternate date depending on Kemper's availability.\nMr. Van Winkle inquired whether Wadsworth's attendance could be considered since\nthe company is a critical member of moving forward.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding a reason to do so, Mr. Van Winkle\nstated Wadsworth is going to advise Junior Golf how it will work, including renovation;\nrenovation plans need to work together; waiting until March 2nd might allow Wadsworth\nto attend.\nMayor Gilmore stated Wadsworth could be invited either date.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested Mr. Van Winkle share the plans with Wadsworth.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Council direction is to bring the matter back on February 16th\nor March 2nd\nMs. Sullwold inquired whether she could request that information on the Kemper\nproposal be provided to the Golf Commission, to which Mayor Gilmore responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether more direction could be given on the\ninformation that would be provided back; that he is not sure everyone wants to go said\ndirection, but both options [27 and 36 holes] should be reviewed; data would be\nprovided to the Golf Commission; that he would like to understand what will happen to\nthe other 9 holes if the 27 hole option is chosen; he wants to know costs and needs to\nunderstand water runoff; he wants said feedback at the next meeting.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-01-25", "page": 15, "text": "Alameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 25, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf"}