pages: CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |