According to reports (I haven’t watched yet) about Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, the whole discussion around the Chuck Corica Golf Course was a mess. Essentially Kemper Sports — without allowing anyone to view their proposal ahead of time — announced that there were two options and only one of the two involved them actually putting up any of their capital to help improve the Golf Course.
The two options were — as mentioned before — that they would cut the existing 36 holes to 27 holes and take the whole long term lease option. They would then spend $5 million to reconfigure the site which would then be three nine-hole courses.
If the City Council insisted that Chuck Corica remain the 36 holes, well then Kemper has said that they would then only be interested in managing the golf course, like they are currently doing.
And essentially this is the problem with the open ended RFP that was issued back when the City Council was looking for someone to take over the golf course. Here’s where the City Council should have set some clear policy guidelines for staff. If the City Council values keeping Chuck Corica as is, they should have set that out in the RFP instead of asking respondents for varying different options of what the respondents wanted to do. If they don’t care and just want Golf Course off the City’s books, then they need to go with what the selected operator has determined is in their best interest financially.
If the City Council is finally going to make a strong policy recommendation regarding the Chuck Corica course, perhaps they also need to determine at that time what classification they want to give the golf course. Is it a recreation asset like Krusi or Washington Park? Or is it a money making operation like Alameda Municipal Power? If it is the former, then perhaps there should be a reexamination of some of the additional fees that are levied against the Golf Course that diminishes the amount of money that goes into the Golf Course reserves to help pay for maintenance costs. With the exception of the Golf Course, no other recreation facility is expected to contribute money above and beyond maintenance and staffing fees to the City’s General fund. If it is the latter, then the same deal that is offered a for-profit operator like Kemper should be considered for a City-run or non-profit run Chuck Corica Golf course.
Surprisingly — or maybe unsurprisingly – Kemper let the Council and community know Tuesday night that they had submitted financials to back up their proposal last summer to Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant who had not shared that information with the Golf Commission or even the City Council. Also in more airing of dirty laundry, according to ARPD director Dale Lillard it was also Ann Marie Gallant who told ARPD that they no longer needed to attend Golf Commission meeting and made the unilateral decision that Kemper employees didn’t need to be present at Golf Commission meetings either starting in December.
At this point, it sounds like the people who will be affected by this decision, the golfers, don’t like the idea of a 27 hole golf course. It may be time, as suggested by Joe Van Winkle, one of the primary community members behind the non-profit group that is seeking to take over management of the Mif Albright, that the City seek a new long term operator, clearly defining the terms of what the City’s expectations are around the physical structure of the golf course.
But in a sign of the changing times, the council asked for information, set dates for when it needed to come back by and requested that the public become involved in the discussion and be provided the reports, and information, in time to offer informed comment to the council.
This was after it was discovered that Kemper had submitted their proposal 6-8 months earlier and that only ICM Gallant had seen it, apparently filing it her Top Secret pile, where no one else knew it existed.
Comment by John Knox White — January 27, 2011 @ 6:47 am
Well that’s what you get when you here a mediocre former school teacher to be your ICM.
Comment by Drudge — January 27, 2011 @ 8:37 am
Looking back, it looks as though we have trying to solve this issue for sometime now. I think it was in 2007/2008 that an RFP went out to hire an outside operator to take over managing the course. We continue to kick the can down the road about the golf course, and I’m concerned about the golf course fund that according to Kemper – will be depleted in 18 months
While it’s unfortunate the details of the Kemper deal are just now coming out, let’s not blame Kemper who on all accounts seem to be doing a great job managing the course.
There is a lot of history and connection we all have towards our golf course – but we need to keep in mind that it is a business and it needs to turn a profit.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 27, 2011 @ 9:10 am
Unless, of course, it is decided that it isn’t a business, but a non-profit, or just another city park with a designated use.
Sounds like the council wants our opinion about it, so where do we go to cast our votes? Seems like they could easily set up an online ballot: Are you a golfer? Profit? Non-profit? Park? Your city thanks you, good bye.
Comment by Li_ — January 27, 2011 @ 9:48 am
#2 Drudge, first of all, LOVIN’ the comment. Second, people will see that the ICM was a paranoid dictator and didn’t let anyone move or know a thing except Highsmith and BevJo. We see what a ridiculous ledge Highsmith has gotten herself off on and oh, poor, poor BevJo can’t even win a precinct in the City she’s a native daughter in. We probably have no idea all the bad things that have to be unwound now. Kudos to Acting CM Lisa Goldman for quietly, diligently, professionally AND COLLABORATIVELY getting things in order. She has shown her worth in the past 30 days!!
Comment by Margaret Lu — January 27, 2011 @ 10:54 am
#4
Interesting thought, but in light of the city’s budget situation, I’m not sure the city can afford to take on more park maintenance costs. I like the idea of keeping the golf complex as a “profit center”, but working with Kemper or another management company to add value and increase profits.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 27, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
Thank you Lauren for shining light on this story. Perhaps with a little more “sunshine” we can get to a good outcome for golf in Alameda.
The Alameda City Charter, Section 22.12, states “… ‘Public parks also includes the Alameda Golf Complex.”
Comment by Joe VanWinkle — January 27, 2011 @ 6:09 pm
I am so happy we are done with the secret arrangements constantly cooked up by our soon to be former ICM.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 27, 2011 @ 7:39 pm
3, 6:
Indeed, Karen: this process has dragged on far too long, and it is becoming obvious that the soon-to-be-former ICM was responsible for a great deal of the foot-dragging.
Based on the apparently deliberate foot dragging by the ICM, I personally suspect that she was trying to steer the discussion and the choice towards a 27-hole course plus a 9-hole Mif Albright. I am thrilled that the sunshine of public disclosure is about to finally illumine this discussion, even after such a long delay and/or deliberate obfuscation.
It is not, IMHO, too late to “reboot” the process of seeking other vendors and options for keeping and revitalizing all 36 holes (both historic 18-hole courses). I hope the City Council will not feel pushed into making a rushed decision now that vital information is about to be made public.
And the $1 million gap in Kemper’s math offers the possibility that Kemper may come up with a “revised” option for renovating all 36 holes in a way that they believe is financially feasible….
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 28, 2011 @ 12:05 am