New Look at Concession Bids Urged

Two Los Angeles City Council committees voted Monday to re-evaluate bidding for the miniature golf and amusements concession in the Sepulveda Basin, a multimillion-dollar money machine that has become entangled in commercial rivalry and government indecision.

Some members said they were troubled and confused by the history of the bidding, which led another city panel to recommend scrapping the previous process entirely and starting over.

The concession, which includes three 18-hole miniature golf courses and more than 140 video and other arcade games, brings in $3 million a year to the existing franchise holder.

Bidders to take it over have promised the city--which administers much of the federally owned basin as a city park--from $600,000 a year to $1 million in fees.

After five hours of debate in a joint session, the council’s Arts, Health and Humanities Committee and the Budget and Finance Committee each voted 2 to 1 to recommend re-evaluation of the present bidders.

The committee votes--if adopted by the full council Wednesday--would overturn a Dec. 8 decision by the city’s Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners, a five-member body appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley. The board voted to reopen the entire bidding process to permit the previous five bidders to submit new bids, as well as to allow other firms to compete.

But majorities on both council committees concluded that soliciting new bids would needlessly delay a contract with a new franchise holder, costing the city as much as $500,000 in lost revenues.

The panels asked that the Recreation and Parks Department review the existing bids again.

“It’s clear we needed more analysis,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, chairman of the arts committee and a member of the budget committee.

During the hearing, Wachs repeatedly complained that the parks department and budget office staff had been too gullible in accepting the bidders’ own projections of how much they would pay the city if they were awarded the concession. Wachs indicated that he thought the bidders were overstating the income they would receive.

Although the bidders were required to guarantee the city only $400,000 a year, the top two bidders offered $1 million.

“We don’t know if these are good numbers or pie-in-the-sky numbers,” Wachs said.