See what happens when you try to watch “Deal or No Deal” and the City Council meeting at the same time, you lose crucial parts of the discussion and particularly what was decided and why it was decided that way. Alameda Daily News “reported” yesterday in a breaking update at 12:33 p.m. that:
Convoluted “Decision” by Council on Private Lease for Golf Course
At last night’s meeting, the Alameda City Council considered the National Golf Foundation’s Operational Review of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The Council was also supposed to make a decision on a recommendation to authorize City staff to begin the process to secure a long-term operator for the golf complex. While the Council did make a decision to have “requests for proposals” prepared for private companies to make offers, it was wrapped with so many strings attached that, in essence, no real decision was made. The problem for a private company proposing a lease is that the Council waffled on whether they want the lease to include the entire complex or just a part or parts of it. Such decisions, which should have been made last night, will have to be brought back to the Council at a future date, with no assurance that the basic issue of leasing the entire golf complex will ever be made.
In actuality, several decisions were made and considering the strength of the Golf Commission’s alternative proposals, plus the entirely generous offer by Lil Arnerich to run the Golf Course for a year gratis, the Council made a wise decisions to weigh all their decisions, but yet set some longer term items into motion. From the Alameda Journal:
…In a unanimous vote, the council called for a “hybrid” private-public partnership that would manage the facility. The details will come back for discussion before an operator is sought.
Also on Wednesday night, the council unanimously voted to develop a community-based master plan for the complex. It’s estimated that a master plan process also would take at least nine months.
“I think we need a master plan regardless of which way we end up going,” said Councilwoman Marie Gilmore, referring to the possibility of leasing out the management of the facility.
…
As an alternative on Wednesday night, golf commission chair Jane Sullwold offered a list of about half a dozen improvements that could be done to the complex more inexpensively while improving the overall facility.
…
The council in its first motion voted to further examine the feasibility of the commission’s alternatives but in the meantime sought to reduce the amount of money the course has been losing…
So this is what the Council did in a simple numbered list, not in motioned order:
-
Agreed to have City Staff take a look at the Golf Commission’s recommendations from that night to see if the recommendations would be able to make the Golf Course appealing to more players, some of the recommendations included leasing out portions of unused land from the Golf Course in order to bring in additional revenue;
-
Have City Staff develop a community-based master plan for the Golf Course, it would be necessary even if the City decided to lease out the operations, but could provide good direction for the City if they decided to retain control of operations;
-
Have City Staff look into current operations at the Golf Course and start cutting the “bloated bureaucracy”;
-
Have City Staff begin drawing up a Request for Proposals for possible opertators, one of the reasons why the details will come back to the Council is because it would be a waste of time for the Council to sit up on the dias to hash out language for an RFP.
The sense that I got from watching, or rather listening, to the City Council discussion is that the majority (or even all of them, some council members kept their opinions pretty close to the vest) would rather see the alterative options work prior to leasing out operations to a private operator. It sounded as though any operater, according to the National Golf Foundation consultants, who would put in the sort of investment necessary to bring the Golf Course up to snuff would probably want a minimum lease agreement of 10 years. What I appreciated about the Golf Commission’s recommendations is that there was clearly a passion for keeping the golf operations within the City, but an acknowledgement that if their recommendations wouldn’t make significant difference, they understood that the private operator would be inevitable.
from 1. above …some of the recommendations included leasing out portions of unused land from the Golf Course in order to bring in additional revenue;
What would those leases entail? Some local development paranoids have expressed fear that private management will lead to condos, or Manhattanization of the golf course.
Comment by Mark I — January 4, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
http://tinyurl.com/2adfn4
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 4, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I watched some of the meeting but bogged down in the public comments section. It is not an easy decision to make as there are no certain outcomes no matter what road city council chooses to go. Retaining local control is obviously the golf community’s preference by a huge margin. My one criticism of the National Golf Foundation’s report was their failure to look at a greater range of options. One of the traps that professional consultants often fall into is only considering “conventional wisdom” for answers. Their thinking tends to run along these lines, “If a golf course lease worked in 50 other courses its got to be the best answer for this golf course.” The problem with that is that it tends to short circuit the community’s ability to engage in solving their own problems. So I actually am gratified that City Council did not go for the Golf Foundation’s recommendations. Whatever ends up happening at Chuck Corica golf course needs to be a result of lots of city and community discussion and analysis. If in the end the community decides that a commercial operator is the way to go it’ll be a locally made decision and not “conventional wisdom” from some outside source. And who knows, maybe we are smart enough as a community to figure out a third way that fits right for Alameda.
“Deal or No Deal”? Have we discovered one of Lauren Do’s guilty pleasures? Of course if there been a Warriors game on I would have been putting the channel return button to heavy use myself.
Comment by Roger — January 4, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
I hope the council listens to the input from the Golf Comm. I was very impressed with the Golf comm. Chair, she was very articulate and presented things really well. She representing the comm. made some very good points as to helping the golf course come around.
I believe the reason the 9 hole does so poorly is because they took out the first hole and tried to make it a practice green, then they cut the longest hole in half and put a hole in the ground and called it a green. This effectively destroyed the 9 hole course. It can be returned to its original design for almost no cost. As for the practice green they have other locations at the golf course that would work just fine.
I liked the idea of the remodel to the existing building that Bob Wood came up with, he’s a very good architect and it sounds like his idea might be a whole lot less money than the other proposals so far.
Anyway I think that we have good people on the golf comm. and the city council. I hope that they will work togehter for the good of the golf course and the city as it would be a shame to see such a valuable asset be lost. John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 4, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
#4
This valuable asset you’re talking about is only valuable to those who are golfers. Property that bleeds 42K a month ceases to be an asset and becomes a liability at some point.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 4, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Jack it seems a bit narrow minded to think that a golf course is only beneficial to golfers. Does this mean that a tennis court is only beneficial to tennis players, or that a baseball diamond is only beneficial to baseball players. This is a city owned golf course and is there to benefit the people that live in this city. Do you really believe that the tennis court or the baseball diamond are somehow free. I understand that at some point it could become such a drag on the city that we have to do something drastic about it.
There is a reason that we chose to live in a city like Alameda and I think that Parks, theaters, Community theaters, and Libraries are all part of the package whether we all use each one or not.
So this is a valuable asset to this city not just golfers. John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 4, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
What is more important, having the storm drains cleared or having a golf course? (Since my street flooded today, guess which is my priority.) Like a family budget, there is only so much money to go around, so how does it get spent? I would vote for government basics ahead of golf courses and movie theaters… but why not ask Alamedans about their priorities? Are libraries more important than golf courses? Are clear storm drains more important than movie theaters? Why not ask?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 4, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
While the future is uncertain, the golf course *has* been an asset to golfers and non-golfers. The complex has not been funded by the city, in fact, it pays money to the city. The recent bleeding is money that is coming out of reserves from the golf course.
You cannot compare the golf course to city services when course operations are not being subsidized by the city. If anything, you should be asking the city what it has done with the years of payments the course has made to it.
I agree that Alamedans should be asked about their priorities. It would have been great to have a say in whether or not we needed a year’s worth of “expert” consultation from the National Golf Foundation and/or how much money the city would pay for their services.
There are many unknowns at this point, and no guaranteed outcome of any of the proposed solutions. But you have to think, if there are 10 outside groups interested in managing the complex, someone thinks that the course can be profitable again.
Comment by BillBaffy — January 4, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
# 6
What is the benefit to the CITY the golf course serves? The city is made up of a hell of a lot more people who have never and will never set foot on a golf course than who have. Even if were made into a public park, it would be more of a benefit to the general population of the city than as a golf course. I’d love to spread a blanket and have a nice afternoon picnic on the grounds. I’d like to see a park there, like Parque del Retiro in Madrid with a bandstand and music on Sunday afternoons. That would be an asset. I wouldn’t mind losing money on an asset like that.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 4, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Jack we already have a park with a bandstand, Jackson Park but it would cost money to have bands play every Sunday. Who would pay for it??
Your question “what is the benefit to the city the golf course serves”.?? It has produced income for the city for probably over thirty years or more my guess is that those folks who never set foot on a golf course would appreciate the fact that it has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to our city treasury.
Post 8 BillBaffy thank you for reminding us that the golf course has still not cost the city one thin dime. It is losing revenue and depleting its own reserve fund.
This is the reason the council is trying to see that it can make it on its own down the road.
so Jack I guess you don’t play golf you should try it some time, you could be one of the people that help the course get back on its feet. John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 4, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
John, thank you for reiterating my point that the golf course benefits the city with income. I am not an accountant, but the numbers are here:
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/finance/pdf/cafr_2007.pdf
On page 70 (of the document, not pdf pages) it appears that a Golf Course Enterprise Fund has advanced the Alameda Ruse and Redevelopment Authority Special Revenue Fund $300,000 for a golf course at Alameda Point.
On page 71 of this same report, transfers are shown from the golf course fund to the general fund, non major government fund, and internal service fund totaling over $450,000.
It does look as though $32,000 was transferred back.
If you are looking for the city to privatize its operations based solely on the bottom line, compare the golf course to AP&T and the Ferry service as they apply to impact on the Alameda budget.
Comment by BillBaffy — January 4, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
no pun intended. “Ruse” was supposed to be “Reuse”
Comment by BillBaffy — January 4, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
I don’t golf. I love having the golf course here. It is beautiful and the open space welcome. We all need more recreation in our lives. Maybe one day I WILL golf.
Should the city cease to have public swimming pools, my form of recreation? I agree that the public amenities provided are part of the package of living here.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 5, 2008 @ 1:11 am
Why not a city-owned rifle and pistol range? There is no right to golf in the constitution, but there is a right to bear arms.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 5, 2008 @ 7:29 am
If the city had the space and there were enough people who would use a firing range that was properly operated I would not have a problem with that.
The constitution does not give people the right to have firing ranges any more than golf courses. John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 5, 2008 @ 9:27 am
# 10
Okay John, I’ll meet you half way. Let’s chop off the Earl Fry and make it into a multi-use facility park-like place that includes a city-owned rifle and pistol (AKA ANT #14) range. We can even include Mt. Trashmore as the pistol and rifle range aimed towards SL Bay (instead of my first thought of aiming at the golfers). No, like Kevis #13, I don’t golf but some of my best friends do. And, like Kevis, I love having the open space there. I just wish non-golfers could enjoy the space, as in physically BE there. And, since the golf course is making so much money, they can pay for the bands playing in the bandstand.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:05 am
The City of Alameda Democrat Club is meeting this coming Wednesday (the 9th) at 7PM at the Alameda Hosppital. New Hampshire and Iowa not withstanding, we are having representatives of 5 presidential candidates speak and answer questions. Ther is life beyond Alameda!!!!
Comment by Barbara Kahn — January 5, 2008 @ 10:22 am
And just what parties would those five representatives be representing, Barbara?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 5, 2008 @ 10:57 am
any reps from ron Paul?
Comment by jack b — January 5, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
after all, just how democratic are these democrats?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
It is a safe assummption that they would be Democrats–vast majority of Alamedans are Demcrats.
Comment by barbara kahn — January 5, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Jack How about a combination firing range and driving range,with alternate days. The golfers could hit balls one day and the rifleman could shoot at the balls the next day.
Also why not have mariachi bands strolling the golf course on Sundays, and picknickers in the center of the fairways listening to the music. I have rarely ever hit a ball down the center of the fairway so they would be safe. I should say I, like most golfers have a hard time with the center of the fairways. Just a thought John P.
Comment by john piziali — January 5, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Now we’re getting somewhere, John. Your shooting golf balls on alternate days idea is a good one. Especially since it doesn’t look like my senior goose shoot idea isn’t getting much traction. Maybe I should lower the age requirement. Most seniors probably didn’t get the goose shoot message since it was only advertised on this blog and a blog to most seniors is something a goose leaves on the putting green.
The strolling mariachi bands and fairway picnickers are some more good solid ideas. And maybe they could make those little holes they try to get the ball in a little larger. I used to shoot snooker but had to move over to regular pool table games because the snooker holes got smaller as I aged. Straight rail’s probably next.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 6, 2008 @ 10:39 am
# 21
Ah, that explains it.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 6, 2008 @ 10:41 am
#21/#24: As of 2006, they party breakdowns are here:
http://mikemcmahon.info/election06.htm#voter
Comment by Mike McMahon — January 6, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Alameda use to have a firing range at the end of Maitland on Bay Farm Island. It may have been an environmental nightmare. The city recently sold part of the land it sat on for about $15k / acre to Harbor Bay, in part because of the heavy metals. Lead can be deadly you know.
I don’t play golf either, but I agree with John and others that it is one of the amenities cherished by many of our citizens, and; all of the amenities together, and the small town feel, and the quality schools, are qualities that make Alameda so attractive for families like ours. So I support the golf course complex.
It is a shame that it seems through city management, the golf complex has lost its profitability. Did the Golf Commission Report cite personnel or management’s sense of entitlement as part of the problem? Is this the same sort of problems that led to the great deficits of AP&T? Are we suffering from big-city politics in a small town?
It is amazing how many management applicants feel they can run the golf complex profitably when our city government has failed to maintain the profit level.
It may not be a big deal – golf complex management may simply have made some poor choices coupled with a downturn in the local economy. It may be temporary problems that will self adjust. For example, I know a local service technician who is an avid golfer – In fact he carries his clubs in his work van. He used to golf frequently at Chuck Corica, but no longer does. He says that because he is not an Alameda resident, the process to get green times became too convoluted with the last set of changes in ‘Tee-time assignments’, and he would never know if he could or would get a tee-time that would work for him. He tried to explain it to me, but I didn’t follow him. Now, I credit the golf complex’s decision to change the way sign-ups for rounds were ‘redesigned’ to give Alameda citizens more favorable green times. They were putting our city citizens first which is commendable, but maybe that new system needs to be re-examined. Maybe our citizens alone cannot provide enough golf rounds for profitability, and we need to be equally inviting to golfer’s from outside Alameda to regain the higher level of profitability the golf complex once enjoyed. I really don’t know.
I do like the idea of public picnic areas on the course. Even for a fee. The lush greenery looks better maintained than our parks. Jogging on the cart paths or picnicking in the shade next to one of the large ponds looks more inviting than our recreational parks filled with soccer games or baseball players being allowed or encouraged to use foul language. The courses are beautiful and should not be developed with hotels, conference centers, or residences. Even when flooded by the rains of the past week the courses are a quiet splendor for the geese, ducks, egrets and herons who provide their own majestic beauty.
I of course, continue to be fearful of how our city and citizens will suffer from over development, increased traffic, and the future loss of our tax base because of the need to repay all the redevelopment bonds issued without voter approval. How many of our amenities be downgraded, will have to be sold off, or will we lose altogether? Why do we as a city employ so many in all the development and re-development departments and not have a preservation dept. It seems our city government has blindly jumped on the developer’s band wagon. Unfortunately the direction of the bandwagon seems destined for a lower quality of life for all, albeit for a greatly increased population on our island.
Comment by David Kirwin — January 6, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
There is too much of a snob factor in Alameda. Why a city-run golf course with an accompanying golf commission rather than a city-run bowling alley with its own commission? Charter schools with “facilitators” instead of teachers? What happened to plain old public schools with teachers who taught? How much money are we going to spend on opera when more Alamedans probably listen to country music? What is next, a Teddy Bear Tea Commission? Perhaps having a Peets Coffee went to our heads.
Worried about pollution from a rifle range…do you think that maintaining a golf course is pollution free? Do you think that more Alamedans own golf clubs or guns?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 6, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
# 25 Thanks Mike. Guess I won’t be running for anything.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 6, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
I would love to head up the Bluegrass and Folktronics commission…. how do I get appointed?
Also… I’ve been thinking about this… Alameda is pretty darned flat. Too flat for good mountain bike riding, that’s for sure. Can we install some single track trails with some elevation gain and weave it through the golf course! that’d be great. I’d head up that one too.
Comment by Jack B. — January 6, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Listen up Jack B. there is light at the end of the tube. Alameda ain’t all flat. We not only have Mound St. but we’ve got the famous mountain called Trashmore. You’re no doubt too young to realize the historical significance of our famous Mount Trashmore but this famous mountain holds in its belly a part of every domicile from the island. Yep, it’s not only eaten the remnants of the island’s most famous cuisine but is the final resting place for all that was consigned to the nadir of excess stuff. And, Jack B., if you listen carefully and are downwind you may be able to discern the historical essence of Alameda. An essence not equaled since the Point was blunt.
Back to your calling. You can forget the Bluegrass and Folktronics commission. You must think we’re hicks! However, since you have expressed an interest in the good things of life, it’s only fitting that you should carry on our great island tradition of volunteerism. Thusly, I hereby anoint you commissioner in charge of the elevation gain and weave study from Mt.Trashmore to and through the golf course. Single track trails with a little gain are important. Keep in mind,though, this position has no remunerative value butt and this is a big butt, it may lead to a shot at double or triple trails.
Oh, just for your near future’s sake, you may want to attend the Wednesday evening hospital meeting mentioned in # 17. They awaken the patients around 7PM in order to feed them more of the same.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 6, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
The KFC on Webster just closed! I went by today and the store is completely empty. The signature KFC logo and paint colors are gone! Where is the Mayor? Far many more Alamedans went in each day to order a bucket than played a round of golf. Where is our government when we need them?
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — January 6, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
#28: But at least you will have a lot of choices for your Libertarian candidate for President…….
http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2008/primary/president/index.html
Comment by Mike McMahon — January 7, 2008 @ 5:56 am
I find it very encouraging that citizens of Alameda are talking about the golf complex. However, this discussion completely misses the point. What does the golf complex give the city? About one million dollars a year. That affects every citizen, golfer or not. And the city keeps taking this money today. THAT is why the golf course is in financial straits. The simple solution is to let the city take whatever money it needs — AFTER expenses are paid. Today the city takes the money as an EXPENSE. And that is the argument that should be blogged: whether or not the city should do this kind of financial hijacking.
RS
Comment by Ron Salsig — February 5, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Mr. Salsig, my understanding is that the money that is transferred to the city as an expense is to cover administrative costs associated with the complex, not as profit that enters the general fund to be spent on streets and roads or parks.
I don’t claim to be even close to an authority on that issue, would you be able to address it in more detail? It’s one of the issues that has continued to confound me in the ongoing discussion.
Comment by John Knox White — February 5, 2008 @ 10:16 am