pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 11 | is only one of thirteen municipalities around the country that operates a 45-hole golf course; that she wants to ensure that juniors and seniors have a place to play, but also wants to ensure that golf in Alameda is saved for decades to come; inquired how the rest of the golf course would be impacted, to which Mr. Sams responded competition might occur. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has two championship 18-hole courses; the Mif Albright course is a place for beginners, seniors, and people with disabilities to play; two different populations are being served; inquired what the statistics noted on Page 4 would mean to the rest of the golf course. Mr. Sams responded the National Golf Foundation report indicates that there is too much golf in Alameda; stated one proposal is to build a new Mif Albright course at Jack Clark golf course site, 9 holes would be lost, but everyone would be served on 36 holes. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a profit could be turned for the other 18 hole courses if the Mif Albright course is removed [operated by a non-profit]. Mr. Sams responded the City actually has 36 holes; stated the north and south course players probably would not play the Mif Albright course; the courses would not be in direct competition; that he is not sure whether 36 holes can continue to operate at a profit. Councilmember Gilmore stated revenues have declined; assuming the Mif Albright course is breaking even, the City still needs to ensure that the rest of the golf course will not be in trouble. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the north and south course revenues are needed to subsidize the Mif Albright course to smooth out the peaks and valleys. The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a blended statement is provided for the whole complex; the courses were not run as separate programs; the $800,000 in cost allocations, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and Return on Investment charges are not allocated by course. Vice Mayor deHaan stated some of the revenue generated for the City is from surcharges, which is predicated on rounds played. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Van Winkle responded there are primary points relative to the operation; starter operations take in money; tee times would be needed if the course is really busy; the logical place [for said operations] would be the pro shop; that he has discussed the issue with Kemper Sports; Alameda Junior Golf would love to work with Kemper Sports or the company selected; a lot of economy of scales could be had; other options are available too. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Junior Golf would hope to work with the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |