SDMGA letter to City Attorney Mike Aguirre regarding municipal golfer's issues with the City's 5 year plan which we will bring to the table at the Wednesday March 1 Forum.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre has decided to hold a forum on a few of the issues in the 5 year business plan, such as fees and construction of a new clubhouse. The date, time and place for the meeting are:
Wednesday, March 1, 2006 from 4:00 to 7:00 pm
City Council Chambers
202 C. Street.
San Diego, CA
Map of 202 C St - City Council Chamber
San Diego, CA 92101-4806The San Diego Municipal Golfer's Alliance (SDMGA) has put together a letter discussing some important issues regarding the city's 5 year plan which our membership feels are critical to the survival of municipal golf for the citizens of San Diego. The letter is presented here for your information. Please attend the forum if you can.
________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Aguirre:
Thank you for attending the Golf Advisory Committee on Tuesday. We thought you asked three especially important and probing questions: (1) whether the rates proposed by City Staff for residents were benchmarked to “for profit” courses (the answer is yes); (2) whether there is any evidence that the golfing public wanted revenues spent on a clubhouse (the answer is no); and (3) whether residents would prefer to allocate revenues raised from non-resident fees to reduced greens fees or to construct a new clubhouse (residents want increased non-resident rates to be used for our benefit and to be applied to the costs necessary to run the golf course. Since we do not consider the new clubhouse at Torrey necessary, we want no part of revenues spent on a new club house).
At the hearing we were very concerned that you were asking those questions to the wrong people (City Staff) when you had 160 people committed enough to come to a GAC meeting (we are told this is a record crowd) and we were in that audience with a petition signed by at that time over 600 people which was direct and objective of the public’s sentiments. We were concerned that the Director of Golf Operations’ answers were less than direct and forthright and frustrated that you did not put those questions to those in the audience who could have responded. We were, however, relieved after reading in Tod Leonard’s column that you had indicated that it was clear that “we’re not listening enough to the public.” To be clear, all of the 675 signatures we have now gathered and all but one of the people in the room that night oppose as unnecessary and imprudent the construction of the new clubhouse and would prefer to spend the revenues generated from out-of-town fees on maintenance and upgrading of Balboa before any consideration is ever given to a clubhouse at Torrey.
Shannon Thomas has informed us that you plan to hold a Golf Forum on Wednesday, March 1, from 4:00 pm until 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers. The SDMGA is pleased to hear that you plan a forum on the Proposed Five Year Plan and given the 675 signatures we have gathered so far (and still counting), we request that SDMGA be given a participatory role in your hearings and be allowed to make a presentation. We would like to be as helpful as possible and are ready willing and able to interact with other participants in any way that meets your purposes. As part of our proposed participation we offer the following comments on the GAC actions and propose some questions that could be addressed
I. We believe that the GAC’s actions on February 21 affirmed or reaffirmed the following principles:
A. The Enterprise Fund concept requires a pay-as-you-go approach. The target for revenue raised each year should be the annual cost budget which would consist of the actual costs of running golf operations plus a reserve for capital expenditures necessary to maintain the course into the future.
B. Non-resident rates should be set at market rates which appear to be at least $185 plus cart at Torrey (or $217 total) for a weekday round.
C. Resident rates should be set as low as possible and should set at a level that equals the net annual cost budget. That is to say; the resident rates as defined in Item A above would then equal the annual cost budget minus revenues generated from non-resident fees as defined in Item B.
D. The proposed Clubhouse at Torrey is not wanted by the public. There is no prudent mechanism in place for funding it and it should not be a part of any capital expenditures
E. Resident golfers want all the municipal courses maintained at a higher level and that should be the goal of Enterprise funds.
F. The City should retain the economic benefit of all non-resident rounds played at Torrey and should not issue bargain rate tee times for any non-resident rounds, including rounds brokered by the hotels or the pro shop.
G. The 70-30 ratio of resident to non-resident tee times must be strictly enforced throughout the day so that residents have their fair share of prime tee off times (tee times which offer golfers a reasonable expectation of finishing 18 holes)
H. The City needs to develop a method of transparent monitoring of the 70-30 ratio so that all can have confidence that it is being honestly administered and the ratio is being maintained as specified.
I. The plan’s proposal to raise junior rates places an unfair burden on a very large number of disadvantaged youth undermining the equality that presently exists and is at odds with the mission of developing golf for the future.
J. The raising of rates on seniors produces extreme hardship on those with a fixed budget, particularly at the Balboa nine, but generally.
II. The GAC meeting left a number of questions unaddressed and they might be addressed at your hearing:
A. Questions Needing Legal Advice and/or Law Enforcement Expertise
1. Should the agreements between the USGA, the City and the Friends be scrutinized to see whether the city has been deprived of millions of dollars of revenues that properly belong to the Enterprise Fund? The SDMGA has heard that $4,000,000 was paid to Bethpage as a fee when the U.S. Open was there. San Diego’s agreement with the USGA lists a payment of $500,000. Where did the other $3.5 million go? We suspect that it has been pocketed by the Friends of Torrey Pines and/or the Century Club in an off-the-books repayment of the costs of the original South renovation. Was such an off-the-books repayment legal? Does it deprive the Enterprise Fund of funding that should properly be used to upgrade course maintenance as was done at Bethpage?
2. Are the leases with the Lodge and the Hilton legal? Do they violate the Pueblo Lands Act and the City Charter by being in excess of 15 years? Is the lease with the Lodge at Torrey Pines legal and serving the City’s interests? Does the lease violate the The SDMGA believes that Bill Evans and Evans Management exerted undue and possibly illegal influence to obtain its lease and to obtain its original tee times. On our website http://www.sdmga.org/ (click on “News” and scroll down to City Council Meeting video) we show an unsavory looking unanimous vote for the lease without a single hard question being asked. We have heard that the lease proposal had been previously turned down by the GAC and the NR & C. How did a unanimous vote in favor result? We understand that Bill Evans was a major campaign contributor to Mayor Golding both for Mayor and for her subsequent Senate bid; was there any quid pro quo in obtaining the lease? The tee times were added to the deal (as shown on the video) at the City Council meeting without having been proposed at the GAC or the NR & C, without staff notice or approval and without notice to the public. Was this legal? Was undue influence or bribery involved with George Stevens who proposed the tee times as shown on the video was reading from a script and later is reported to have bragged that he had his rooms set at the Lodge for the Open? Should the lease be voided or renegotiated in light of the answers to these questions?
3. The process of renovating the South, getting the Open, attempting to renovate the North by calling the renovation a “maintenance” project, of attempting to ram through the original version of the new Business Plan on two days’ notice have all been plagued by procedural irregularities which follow a consistent pattern – attempts to deprive the public of meaningful input into any of these decisions. (See http://www.sdmga.org/ click on “Editorials” for a listing of all these events). Although thanks to alert members of the GAC and Donna Frye, the latest attempt was thwarted, does the overall pattern indicate an agreement between City staff alone or with the backers of these changes to deprive the public of the their statutory rights to open meetings and input and their constitutional rights to petition their government for redress of grievances? Is such an agreement a civil or criminal conspiracy for the purpose of depriving the public of these rights?
4. The GAC as constituted is rife with conflicts of interest. The recusals at the recent GAC meeting hardly remedied the situation since the committee is composed of stakeholders who have strong interests not just about tee times offered to their group but at the whole structure of rates and ratios and capital expenditures. How can GAC’s role be restructured so that the public interest is better protected?
5. The Century Club has done some excellent work for the community but it repeatedly makes claims of contributions to charities that are not substantiated. We have heard that substantial donations have been churned through the Century Club fund (made by donors who were already committed to donations to other organizations which were given through the Century Club to make it appear that the money was raised by the Buick Invitational when it had not in fact been). Should the City Attorney investigate Century Club finances and other dealings with the City to determine whether they are accurately presented and transparent? The SDMGA believes that this investigation should take place.
6. Is there adequate justification for giving the Century Club private park land for the ostensible purpose of being better able to administer the Buick Invitational? What is the rationale for the Century Club being the middleman between the City and the PGA to run the Buick? The SDMGA believes that to give the Century Club a permanent presence at the Torrey Pines Golf Complex when its activities are so concentrated on a one-week Buick and the Junior World stands priorities on its head. Additional office space and other facilities may be desirable, but they should not be ceded to the Century Club. The City should retain control of any facilities built or renovated and the Century Club should have access to such facilities for administration of these events, but should they not have a year round presence.
7. What is the rationale for the rental payments from the Enterprise fund to the City? Does any other City park function pay rent to the City? Is it consistent with the law regarding Enterprise Funds and its purpose to siphon money out of the fund to the general fund in this manner?
B. Questions Related to Policy
8. What are the actual audited costs of running the golf operations?
9. Are the cost per round figures in the revised Plan consistent with the audited costs? Why does Coronado maintain its course so much more cheaply than we do?
10. Is a differential resident rate for Torrey North and South justified? The renovation of the South has already cost local golfers 19,600 rounds (the 28,000 fewer rounds projected to be played on the South multiplied by our 70% ratio). Is it fair to pile on and charge us even more for that course when we have already contributed 19,600 rounds to the mission?
11. Are monitoring systems in place which assure that costs expended are necessary and wise? For example, staffing costs have risen dramatically; is this justified?
12. What mechanism will best assure the 70-30 ratio? The SDMGA proposes that the times allocated to residents and those to non-residents be blocked on the tee sheet separately and that 70% of all times throughout every hour of the day be blocked for a telephone lottery available only to residents with cards.
13. Is there a feasible method for doing this? One method for accomplishing this might be a system in which a preferential signup could be available eight days in advance of the date of play. Once the initial resident phone lottery takes place, others could then book a tee time by phone during the following days up to the date of play. There are other ways to accomplish this but the resident golfer must get the preference of signup for 70% of the prime time spots during any given day. We want to make sure not only that times not booked in the initial lottery remain open in order to maximize revenues but also that on any given day there will always be 70% of the prime times available for residents. The key here is to distribute the times 70-30% proportionately throughout the “prime times”.
14. How will outside tournaments and advanced bookings proposed in the plan impact the 70-30 ratio? We believe that to maintain the 70-30 ratio, 70% of the “prime time” tee times throughout the day must be in the resident’s phone lottery; any booking of a block of outside tournament times must be compensated for by a reduction of other non-resident tee times (by the day, week or month, as appropriate).
15. How will Men’s and Women’s club tournaments be counted toward the 70-30 ratio? The membership of the Men’s and Women’s golf clubs are made up of primarily San Diego residents with a smattering of county residents. Arguably Men’s and Women’s Club tee times should count against times allocated to residents on the days they play, though further checking should be done.
16. Are preferential tee times to the Pro shop voted by the GAC and those in the Lodge lease (disapproved by the GAC) consistent with the policy of opening up tee times and avoiding preferences? Should either group be allowed to broker their tee times – resell them at a profit? The SDMGA does not believe this is consistent with opening up tee times or the new anti-brokering policy.
17. Should a county rate be established? The SDMGA believes so. A very large number of county residents work in the city, shop in the city, dine in the city, recreate in the city and support the city in numerous other ways. The county folks contribute greatly to the economy of the city 365 days a year and should not be put in the same category as a destination golfer or tourist.
18. Does the public support moving the 18th North green to make way for any new facilities? The SDMGA submits that the answer is a resounding “No” and that any additional facilities that are put in be done in a way that does not alter our historic treasure, the North Course
We look forward to participating in the forum. We hope that the hearings could address many of the questions listed above, particularly those requiring legal or law enforcement expertise. We will do our best to provide input on any issues you deem pertinent. It would be most helpful if you could let us know the agenda for the meeting and any specific items you would like us to address.
Respectfully yours,
The San Diego Municipal Golfer’s Alliance
By: Paul Spiegelman, co-founder (also Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Skills Training, Thomas Jefferson School of Law)
John Beaver, co-founder (also trustee of the La Jolla Town Council)
Joe Burwell, co-founder (also private citizen)