pages: CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2011-12-20 | 4 | Assistant City Manager responded 1993. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated Council has taken a number of steps to change the surcharge over time; cost allocation was reset in 2004; the Return on Investment was eliminated a couple of years ago. Councilmember Johnson stated the Golf Course is different from other recreational facilities because most recreation facilities are available to the entire public; inquired whether the City could expect a PILOT or similar payment from a lessee under a long- term lease. The City Manager responded that he does not know if the market would support the idea at this time; questioned whether a PILOT would be required if the City built a swim center. Councilmember Johnson stated that she would not want to set a precedent requiring a PILOT for any facility with a lock. Councilmember deHaan stated the Golf Course is an integral part of Alameda. Mayor Gilmore suggested that bring back a discussion on the PILOT for the Golf Course and other Enterprise Funds; inquired whether there is a deadline for a decision on the PILOT, to which the City Manager responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Bonta stated there is some logic in having consistency for all Enterprise Funds; however, Council is not locked into treating all Enterprise Funds the same; making a decision on the PILOT should wait until March; direction should be provided on Councilmember Tam's suggestion [to look at implications on other Enterprise Funds and consider delaying the PILOT exemption until Golf is no longer an Enterprise Fund]. Councilmember Tam stated the issue is not one of form over function but is an equity issue in dealing with all Enterprise Funds and opportunity costs; possibly, the PILOT could be directed to a reserve or capital fund for Golf; the funds have a fundamental use beyond consistency. The City Manager stated the Golf Course is the only facility being charged property tax; a PILOT is not being charged to the senior facility; that he does not understand the AMP health benefit issue noted by Councilmember Tam. Councilmember Tam stated funds have an end use; AMP might be able to pay for employee's increased health benefits if an exemption to the PILOT was given. Mayor Gilmore stated the issue should be part of a longer discussion to review all of the Enterprise Funds. The City Manager stated there is a $6 million capital need at the Golf Course; the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 December 20, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf |