SDMGA letter to San Diego City Council Natural Resources and Cultural Committee - March 8, 2006 no vote meeting.
The San Diego City Council Natural Resources and Culture Committee is holding a meeting to have in depth public discussions of the City's 5 year Plan including such issues as fees and construction of a new clubhouse and other important golf issues. There will be no vote at this time. The date, time and place for the meeting are:
Wednesday, March 8, 2006 2:00 pm
City Council Chambers
202 C. Street.
San Diego, CA
Map of 202 C St - City Council Chamber
San Diego, CA 92101-4806
The San Diego Municipal Golfer's Alliance (SDMGA) has put together a letter discussing important issues regarding the city's 5 year plan and the recent (March 7) surprise issuance of its 162 page Operational Review and Recommendations for City of San Diego Golf Operations document 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 meeting if you can.
_______________________________________________________________________
San Diego Municipal Golfer’s Alliance
P.O. Box 22575
San Diego, California 92192-2575
March 8, 2006
San Diego City Council,
Natural Resources and Culture Committee
Donna Frye, Chair
Tony Atkins, Member
Kevin Falconer, Member
Benjamin Hueso, Member
Dear Committee Members:
Today’s forum is the City Council’s first official look at the Golf Operations Staff’s Five Year Plan. Since it was promulgated on January 10, the Plan has been the subject of controversy. It embodies a radical shift in approach to the City’s golf courses, favoring special interests over San Diego residents, favoring unnecessary construction on City parkland, and imposing unprecedented fee increases (362% for Juniors, 222% for seniors on the Balboa nine hole course, 186% for Seniors on Torrey Pines North, 175% for Residents on weekends at Torrey Pines South). The need for fee increases is driven by a 13 million dollar plan to build a new clubhouse and parking facilities at Torrey Pines, which residents neither asked for, nor want.
The City Staff initially had sought approval by the Golf Advisory Council (GAC) of its radical 78-page plan on two days’ notice. Responding to the requests of public members of the GAC, the chair of this committee acted, insisting that the Plan not be voted on with such short notice. Had it not been for her forceful actions, the City Staff would have attempted to steamroller the Plan through the GAC at the January meeting. At the GAC meeting in January before an overflow crowd in Balboa Park, every citizen who spoke to the Council opposed the plan! The provisions of the plan were so objectionable to the three undersigned golfers at Torrey Pines that we announced the formation of San Diego Municipal Golfer’s Alliance (SDMGA) to help bring a voice to San Diego golfers outraged by the city’s radical plan. The public response has been truly remarkable. Operating on a shoestring, our grassroots organization has gathered almost 1100 signatures on a petition opposed to the City’s plan. We have provided oral and written input to the GAC, to the City Attorney, the Mayor and now this Committee. All of our written communications to official bodies and all of the news articles written on this controversy are collected at our website, http://www.sdmga.org/news.htm and can be read there; we will not repeat those communications here.
In part because of our efforts, a record crowd of 160 attended the second GAC meeting on the Plan. Every speaker at that hearing spoke against the Plan! As accurately reported in the Voice of San Diego, none of the 160 citizens at the GAC meeting supported the new clubhouse:
“One query by Del Mar Heights resident Lola Feitelberg during the meeting's public comment portion was particularly telling.
‘Who wants the clubhouse?’ she said
If there were crickets in the room, you probably could have heard them.
Everyone else was silent.”
See Evan McLaughlin’s Voice of San Diego article: Residents: Golf Fee Hike a Hazard.
The GAC vote rejecting the plan was instructive. All eight members of the GAC who represented golfers voted against the plan. The only supporters were those with a financial interest: representatives of the Lodge at Torrey Pines, the Century Club, and the PGA. Their plan to have local golfers subsidize construction of projects designed to promote their special interests at the expense of ordinary citizens was roundly rejected.
The scene then shifted to a forum held by City Attorney Aguirre. At that forum, the City Attorney revealed that the North Course had been pledged to pay for bonds on projects which had nothing to do with Torrey or even golf and that $1.7 million was being siphoned out of the Golf Enterprise Funds to pay for the debt service. Added to that in a subsequent release, the City Attorney noted that both Torrey courses and Balboa had been pledged as collateral to bond issues, some of which come due as early as 2009 and that the courses were at risk of foreclosure, given the City’s financial condition. At the Aguirre forum, there was overwhelming opposition to the Plan; as before the only people who spoke for it were representatives of those who had a financial interest in the plan: representatives of the Century Club, a broker who bought and sold golf courses, a former consultant who had devised a plan to raise fees at Torrey. At that forum, Mayor Sanders announced that he was pulling the Plan from the City Council calendar and from this Committee. Thus, today’s forum is informational and no vote will be taken.
The breadth of public opposition to the Plan is illustrated by the lead editorial in Sunday, February 26 Union Tribune which called on the Golf Operations to draft a new plan without the clubhouse (UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL - Third draft, please). Even though the City Golf Operations manager had stated that he had heard the opposition to the Plan, the City made only minor adjustments prior to the GAC meeting and none since the Plan was rejected by the GAC. The City has not proposed any alternative plan since and has not heeded the call for the City to propose a revised plan that eliminates the universally opposed clubhouse. Instead, on the eve of this forum, the City posted a 162-page study which we have only been able to scan and not study because it was posted one day before this forum. The study, an Operational Review by a paid consultant, contains some helpful data on the number of rounds played, projected revenues, and un-audited costs in broad categories. But the Operational Review is largely an advocacy document which justifies the City’s original plans and fails to propose or consider alternatives to the original plan or even analyze the costs of those alternatives.
It is thus with substantial frustration that the golfing public comes to this hearing. The feet of the City staff are stuck in cement. In the face of overwhelming objections from the community, rejection by the GAC, criticism by the City Attorney and the press, withdrawal by the Mayor, they stick to their radical plan to raise fees to pay for the clubhouse that no one wants.
Though this Committee will not vote today, we hope that its members can provide some guidance to the City Staff to respond to the concerns of the citizens who are speaking out in unprecedented numbers. Two steps would be especially helpful: (1) to ask the City staff to prepare an alternative plan without the clubhouse so that the City Council will have it available rather than have to redraft the Plan itself; (2) to ask the City staff to prepare the approach to the Enterprise Fund which best represents the purpose of the a municipal golf course – to provide affordable golf to its residents.
Set forth below are SDMGA’s comments on the specific items on the Agenda today. Also set forth as appendices are the principles which SDMGA submits resulted in the rejection of the Plan by the GAC (Appendix A) and 18 questions not addressed by the Plan which SDMGA believes must be addressed before the Council can make an informed decision on the Plan.
1. The Enterprise Fund
SDMGA submits that the purpose of the Golf Enterprise Fund is to support operations so that the City does not expend general fund resources on maintaining municipal golf courses. As such, it is a “pay as you go” operation and was never intended or allowed to generate profits to be placed in the general fund. As such, 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. 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. Resident rates should be set as low as possible and should be set at a level that equals the net annual cost budget; total costs minus revenues raised from non-resident fees and any other revenue sources. Such a system puts priorities where they belong – on assuring affordable golf for the resident golfer.
2. Principles
SDMGA agrees with the four principles that the Golf Staff has defined: customer service; financial stability; public access; and effective operations. However, one of the principles is paramount: the principle of public access: “the primary users of at all of the golf complexes are intended to be San Diego residents and public access should be maximized.” The other three principles serve that paramount purpose. The purpose of having municipal golf courses is to provide affordable, accessible golf to residents. From that premise all else follows. For example the primary reason for allowing non-residents to use the golf course is to make golf affordable for residents. Other communities which do not need non-residents to pay the bill for their golf course do not allow non-residents to play on their golf courses unless they are playing with a resident and unless they pay a guest fee (e.g. Lake Success, New York). Thus, the goal of the system should be to charge market rates for non-residents and make those revenues available to defray golf course expenses. We agree totally with Golf Staff that every user of the golf course is entitled to respect and good service; non-resident play not only serves the golf enterprise fund, but also promotes tourism which in turn provides revenues to the City. We want visitors to our golf courses to enjoy their experience and have a positive view of San Diego.
That said; the amount of non-resident play should be restricted to the level necessary to sustain affordable fees for residents and fully pay for golf operations plus a prudent reserve for capital expenditures and depreciation of facilities. It needs to be recognized that non-residents have no inherent right to be on the golf courses and that their presence on the golf courses must serve the goal of resident access. Right now, the City policy is to strike this balance by limiting access of city residents to 70% of play and non-residents to 30%. Up to this point, there has been no agreed-upon definition of what 70% or 30% of play means and no reliable way of counting what rounds are being played by residents and non-residents. All of this needs to be studied before the ratios are locked into stone in a five-year plan.
3. Stakeholders
SDMGA believes that the use of the term “stakeholder” to describe the interests of resident San Diego golfers improperly diminishes our primary role as the reason the golf courses were built. We are not staking a claim to the golf courses, our place on the golf courses is their primary purpose. To equate us with businesses seeking to profit from the golf course, the Century Club which seeks to use the golf courses to promote its charitable purposes or even non-residents who wish to pay for the privilege of using our facility is not an appropriate way to look at the things. SDMGA submits that the fact that Torrey Pines and Balboa are dedicated parkland set aside by the voters as golf courses to serve San Diego residents has already resolved our “claim” to the facilities as their primary purpose. The claims of the other stakeholders are by definition subordinate to the primary purpose of the golf courses to provide access to affordable golf to San Diego residents. And any concessions made to these claimants must be justified in terms of the degree to which it serves the primary purpose.
4. Capital Improvement Projects
SDMGA generally favors prudent capital expenditures to assure both that the quality of the golf courses does not depreciate over time and to improve the quality of the golf experience. Resident golfers want their golf courses to be in excellent condition. We are pleased with improvements at Torrey Pines, particularly since last July when a new team took over although there is still much room for improvement (every hole should have a bench and ball washer at its tee). We are dismayed by deterioration at Balboa. The general sense of the San Diego resident golfer is that condition of the golf courses is the highest priority and that buildings are low on our list of needs or desires. We do want adequate restroom facilities and a workable method of paying our fees and getting to the golf course. Other than that structures are not a high priority. The existing structures at Torrey Pines our adequate for our needs; Balboa clubhouse needs some work.
No issue has galvanized resident concern than the proposed new clubhouse at Torrey Pines. Residents have been unanimous in their opposition to the proposed new Clubhouse. SDMGA’s primary approach to San Diego golfers to get them energized to join our group has been their opposition to the clubhouse. All we have to say is them is “do you know the City is planning to build a 13 million dollar clubhouse and to raise your greens fees to pay for it.” The response is almost instantaneous: “where do I sign.” This is the most unpopular project we can remember. It is the Clubhouse that no one in the public wants. The Century Club is pushing the project, but it is unclear why. It has been claimed that a clubhouse is necessary for the U.S. Open or to have another U.S. Open ; Tod Leonard’s column in the Union Tribune on Tuesday, March 7 “Clubhouse no must to stage U.S. Open” effectively disposes of that argument.
Why do resident golfers oppose the clubhouse? It is too expensive, would saddle the Enterprise with $1.2 million yearly of debt service, would give priority to a building over much needed golf course improvements, would advance the march toward making Torrey Pines appear more like a country club than a municipal golf course, and would require moving the 18th green on the North course and other alterations of the North course (e.g. moving the tee back, different interface with the 10th fairway). Moreover, recent revelations that the land on which the clubhouse is to be built is encumbered as collateral for bonds due in 2009 make it financially imprudent to build on this site. What prudent lender would extend credit to build a facility on land so encumbered? The project just does not make economic sense and it is hugely unpopular with the very people from whom it would need support – local resident golfers.
5. Fee Structure
The most significant points here are that the GAC hearing demonstrated that the Plan’s approach to fees was flawed in a number of ways. Fundamentally, the plan stood priorities on their head by failing to adhere to the principle that the whole purpose of municipal golf is to make golf affordable for local residents. It sought to apply a market rate approach to resident golfers which would be the death knell of municipal golf at Torrey Pines – once resident fees are tied to market rates, the local resident would inevitably be priced out by tourists who could afford the high rates as part of their vacation budget which local residents who play year round could not.
The approach SDMGA has advocated is one consistent with the mission of the golf courses to keep rates affordable for residents. Such an approach would first calculate the costs of golf operations including the capital expenditures necessary to preserve and improve the courses into the future. Next it would gauge the market rate for Torrey Pines for non-residents; calculate the number of non-resident rounds to be played and multiply by the market rate to yield the total amount that needed to be raised with resident rates and divide by the number of resident rounds to arrive at the amount residents should be charged. The initial plan failed to even discuss the costs as part of its fee calculations. The second version calculated the cost per round and attempted to relate the resident rate to that cost, but did not calculate how much of total costs could be generated by non-resident fees and therefore was fundamentally flawed because it failed to adhere to the pay-as-you go principle which is at the heart of Enterprise Fund budgeting.
The new Operational Review just posted on the City Website on Tuesday, March 7, is a 162 page document that appears to suffer from the same flawed methodology as the five-year plan – it seeks to determine a market rate for residents and then determines the non-resident rate based on the resident rates. This approach favors the non-resident rate over the resident rate which is an absurdity. As noted above, setting the resident rate at a market rate makes absolutely no sense in terms of the mission of the golf course to produce affordable rounds for residents. Moreover, for all its charts and tables, the Operational Report completely ignores the fact that hotels and brokers are already charging $180 per round on Torrey Pines to non residents on weekdays on both courses. Any competent study can hardly ignore this fact.
The Operational Review does, for the first time, attempt to project revenues and compare them with costs. This data needs to be reviewed further. But the Operational Review fails to compare models of varying the fees charged residents. For example, the Operational Review heartlessly recommends that fees for the monthly junior ticket be more than tripled from $10.50 to $32. This thoughtless recommendation was made despite testimony at the GAC from a high school golf coach that such a raise would prevent schools from providing the monthly ticket to its team members and thereby price low income juniors off the golf teams. Assuming that as stated in the Operational Review there were 9,000 junior rounds played in 2005 and that this represented 900 junior monthly tickets, the yield from this rise in price to juniors is approximately $1,935 for the North Course; such a revenue could also be obtained by charging residents a nickel more a round for residents, but no attempt is made to compare the costs and benefits of any of these approaches. Such a failure to price alternative means of reaching revenue needs is endemic to the entire document. There is no analysis of revenue yield for increasing senior rates dramatically; no analysis of revenue yield for eliminating the resident rate on Fridays and no comparison of other ways to yield the same revenue. This Committee needs that kind of analysis so that it can make informed decisions on issues vital to San Diego Golfers. Instead of providing these informational alternatives and being an objective review of policy alternative, the Operational Review appears to be an advocacy document designed to justify pre-determined conclusions. We will review the document more carefully than was allowed by its late posting and provide further analysis to the NRC, with your permission. We note that the Operational review assumes continued payments to the General Fund which City Attorney Aguirre has questioned which does not meet the fundamental criteria of an Enterprise Fund and the $1.2 million in annual debt service to pay for a clubhouse that residents unanimously oppose.
Other flaws in the plan include the fact that there is no audited data showing the actual cost of the operations that is made available to the public for comparison. There is no cost benefit analysis of policy options. The new Operational Review provides some useful data, but still does not begin to do the job of giving the Council the data on which to judge differing policy options.
SDMGA firmly believes that a system which priced the non-resident round at market rates would obviate the need for any increases in resident rates, any need to eliminate weekday rates on Fridays and any need for the dramatic rises in senior rates.
6. Tee Times
SDMGA believes that a system of allocating 70% of all times throughout each hour of the day and 30% to non-residents could increase resident access and maximize marketing of non-resident rates. A recent study showed that only 40% of finishable rounds went to local residents under the lottery system. We propose upping that figure to the full 70% figure which the course has been using for the last five years. (From this amount would be subtracted the Men’s and Women’s Club rounds which are off lottery but available to any resident who chooses to join the clubs). This would leave 60% open to an all-resident lottery, dramatically increasing resident chances of obtaining a finishable round. In return, non-resident rounds would become available outside the lottery system for advance booking. This would allow the City itself or a marketing firm paid on commission, to aggressively market the non-resident rounds. We believe that the City could sell at least 40,000 non-resident rounds for an average of $200 per round or yield $8,000,000 from non-resident rounds alone. If no debt service were necessary for the clubhouse ($1.2 million of expenditures eliminated) and no payments were made to the general fund ($1.7 million eliminated) this would appear to cover virtually the entire operating budget for the golf enterprise fund without counting revenues from resident fees on Torrey at all! These options need to be examined and compared with the Plan and the Operational Review before any intelligent conclusion can be reached on tee time allocations or fees. In our opinion the concept of segregating the non-resident portion of the tee times from the lottery and marketing them separately while increasing resident tee times to a full 60% of the daily lottery is a much better alternative than the present system.
Conclusion
The Proposed Plan as modified by the Operational Review is problematic. It seeks to radically change the purpose of municipal golf fees from a “pay as you go” system designed to keep golf affordable to local residents to a “revenue driven” model which would price local residents out and privatize the Torrey Pines Golf Complex. This radical change in policy would damage and eventually destroy municipal golf in San Diego by driving fees so high local residents cannot afford them.
The Plan, even as modified by the Operational Review does not contain sufficient data by which to analyze policy choices. Cost statements are not audited or fully documented and it is off target in its view of the purposes of an Enterprise Fund and municipal golf. It fails to explain directly why raises in fees to residents are necessary. The hidden reason appears to be in the effort to make local resident pay for a clubhouse that is not designed for them, is unneeded, is unwanted and is unnecessary. Its price structure imposes heartless raises on seniors, juniors and county residents. The Plan does nothing to protect locals from the theft of our tee times and our golf courses by private interests.
We need to start anew with a process in which the public is represented at the outset. There is no emergency which requires the immediate adoption of any plan right now. There is time to do it right1. By advising city staff to prepare an alternative plan that eliminates the unnecessary clubhouse, prices non-resident rounds at their full market rate and gives residents their fair share of prime times in a residents-only lottery; the NRC can provide for itself and the full Council an alternative model that preserves municipal golf in San Diego, but is still a workable and balanced plan that allows non-resident golf but preserves the essential purpose of municipal golf – to provide access to all San Diego area citizens. Such a plan would include access for non-residents, the Buick, the U.S. Open and other legitimate uses of the golf course. Let’s work together and get it right this time!
SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL GOLFERS ALLIANCE:
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, La Jolla Town Council)
Joe Burwell, Co-founder (also private citizen).
_______________________________________________________________________
Appendix A: Principles Underlying Rejection of Plan by Golf Advisory Committee
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
Appendix B: Eighteen Questions Not Answered by the Plan
A. Questions Needing Legal Advice and/or Law Enforcement Expertise
1. Should the agreements between the USGA, the City and the Friends of Torrey Pines 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? 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
_______________________________________________________________________
1 The real reason for the rush is the desire to build the clubhouse for the U.S. Open. Because our position is that the clubhouse is unnecessary, we see no reason for it to drive policy. But we do think that advocates for a clubhouse are entitled to their shot before the City Council. If they produce a plan for private funding at no cost to the taxpayers or the public and if they produce a plan that is arrived at through public input and compensates the public adequately for the intrusion on public land, such an issue could be separated from the Five Year Plan and voted on separately.