Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 26, 2010

Don’t turn around, look look

Tonight the City Council will be getting reviews of all these financial documents tonight which will be deadly boring, but I’m sure someone will find them newsworthy.

One of the documents is a ten year history of lease revenues for the ARRA (Alameda Point).   An interesting number is the spike in FY 07-08 in the Fund Balance of almost $1.8 million.  Because it appears that expenditures had gone up, the collected lease revenues looked pretty flat, so in looking for where the extra money came from, it looked like a category called “Charges for current services” gave a substantial bump to that year.  To compare, the “Charges for current services” has only been collected three out of the ten years tracked here, in FY 06-07 only $44K was collected and in FY 08-08 only $107K was collected.

The bulk of that money which made up the largest portion of the fund balance was from, wait for it…wait for it…


To pay for predevelopment costs.

But, the less boring of the financial reports is that for the golf complex which has not been doing well at all according to these reports.    The golf complex has consistently lost money year after year, but less last year when the private operator took over.

But the big to-do over the whole golf complex issue is, from what I understand, at the last Golf Commission there was a bit of a scene made.   Apparently, the Commission was none too happy with the private operator and they made it known, um, verbally.   So verbally that the staff the private operator sent to the Commission meeting were extremely upset afterward.

Also, word has it that someone on the Golf Commission also stated that s/he intended to share the results of the RFP responses which would probably be a breach of the Brown Act   Of course, we still don’t know what was the result of the hastily called “Special Meeting” of the Golf Commission.


  1. Where did this post disappear (or what that the working title?) 🙂

    Comment by alameda — January 26, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

  2. That was a draft in progress, it went live accidentally.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 26, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

  3. This blog entry regarding the golf complex is out of context.

    The complex has never “lost” money, what it has failed to do is contribute the desired amount to the city’s coffers. Unlike other recreational venues, the golf complex is expected to be a for profit business for the city. Check out the detail in the section labeled “Transfers to Other Funds,” particularly the PILOT and Non-resident surcharge lines.

    Golf play has decreased nationally and the Alameda courses are no exception, but still remain some of the most heavily played courses in the bay area, if not the most.

    The real question is whether it is enough to provide a recreational experience for the public as do tennis courts, parks and other city owned facilities or whether golf will continue to be required to make a sizable contribution to the general fund to be considered worth having and to be considered “profitable.” This is a double standard.

    This aforementioned contribution to the city has also over the long haul prevented the normal recapitalization of the facility, leaving its condition and amenities short of those of surrounding courses. The city has robbed the future to fund the present. Sound familiar?

    The golf complex is and can remain a self sustaining recreational facility, what other city run recreational activities can say the same?

    Comment by Gary — January 27, 2010 @ 7:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: