CCMIN040103 - Laserfiche WebLink

This is a list of projects that the City has already incurred expenses for and this resolution is necessary in order to go back and reimburse ourselves. Staff looked at current projects and there is a timing issue and these are the ones that made the most sense. The public hearing was opened. Jerry Wagner, 6344 Alisal Street, stated his personal opinion that anything related to the golf course should be put on hold, especially anything to do with financing. The golf course may not be built. We will not know until after the late May court date at the earliest. The staff has again put loop holes in this agreement concerning the use of the money should the golf course not be built. There will, however, be additional costs to redirect or cancel the COP. This additional cost could be saved by waiting until at least until after the late May court date to make a decision on financing. It looks to be totally out of line to expect the golf course to mn negative for at least five years. Would any intelligent person open a business expecting it to nm negative for at least five years? He does not think so. This project looks like pure, unadulterated stupidity. Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, asked that in the unlikely event the golf course and open space project is delayed or cannot continue and there seems to be plan for where the money would go, is there anything in this that in the event that you cannot continue with the project to replace or repair the land now being graded to its original state? Is this going to be the property owners responsibility? Are the owners going to have to look at scarred pieces of property? The five years of operating in a negative, what happens if year sixth, year seventh, year eighth comes and this is still operating in the negative? Do you close up shop? Does the land become surplus and sold to the lowest bidder? The highest bidder? Do we see rampant development in this area? There is no safe guards for the unknowns? Ms. McKeehan said the City has many parks in Pleasanton, as an example, that do not make revenue. They may have some fees that are attached to them from sports groups operating on the fields. That money goes back in to maintain them. In the event that the City ultimately does not make money, it would be a subsidy from the General Fund to provide open space and to provide a recreational opportunity for those members of the community who chose to take advantage of it. Many, many activities that Pleasanton provides to the community at large are subsidized to some degree from the rest of the community. Mr. Iremonger said the five years being discussed does not mean the golf course is not operating in the positive. There will be net operating revenue to pay the bonds the City is selling. It will not be sufficient, we are projecting, in the first five years to pay back any of the General Fund loans being discussed. Ms. McKeehan said the negative position because of the great deal of discussion that this project would make lots of money. Staff has never envisioned the project would make lots of money. We would be very happy if it is able to cover its expenses over time and ultimately pay the General Fund back, if it is able to do that, for the Pleasanton City Council 24 Minutes 04/01/03