pages: CityCouncil/2011-01-25.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |