Special Meeting for Residents living along the golf coursesThis meeting was a “Special Meeting” for residents living along the golf courses to allow them “an opportunity to ask questions and share their thoughts” on the recommendations presented in the Golf Consultant’s report. A letter sent to these residents via their HOA’s stated, “Your feedback is an important part of developing the final recommendation that will be presented to Mayor and Council in January 2018.”
Meeting closed to the general public
I emailed the Town to inquire if this meeting would be opened to the public and was told that it was “not open to the general public” and “is for residents near the Town’s golf courses.” I sent a follow-up email asking how the Town planned to prevent the public from attending when the invitation didn’t state that you must bring the invitation with you in order to get into the meeting. There was no response.
The lack of a response indicated that the Town had no plan in place to keep the general public from attending this meeting and, as such, I was able to attend without any fanfare.
Introduction
The room was packed. Town Manager, Mary Jacobs opened the meeting by informing the audience that the Community Center and Golf Courses are a “settled policy” and we now need a sustainable plan. She said that she held this meeting to obtain feedback from those living along the golf courses in order to develop recommendations to present to the Council.
Ms. Jacobs was very personable and was good at leading the meeting. This was a welcome change from our former Town Manager, Greg Caton, whom many viewed as very unpleasant and controlling.
The meeting was divided into four sections. (1) Welcome and Introduction. (2) Brief review of the consultant’s report. (3) Listening Session. (4) Wrap up.
As previously reported on LOVE, the options presented by the golf consultants were as follows:
Option A: 36 holes…..$5,115,775 investment…..21.2 acres alternate use…..20% savings
This includes two 18-hole courses, a reconfiguration with six new greens, one expanded green, and new paths.
Option B: 27 holes…..$4,639,115 investment…..32 acres alternate use*…..35% savings
A reconfiguration of the Conquistador and Canada Courses, retaining three 9-hole loops. This includes three new greens and one expanded green and new paths.
Option C: 18 holes…..$4,200,795 investment…..83.2 acres alternate use*…..45% savings
An 18-hole reconfiguration of the Conquistador and Canada Courses, retaining one 9-hole regulation length course. The reconfiguration requires one new green and new paths. Turf reduction is significant by reconfiguring several holes and making some of the parcels available for non-golf uses. These include 83 acres of Town-owned land and 29 acres that would revert to HOA-owned.
*Town owned property only. Does not include HOA-owned parcels.
Basic Options to be considered
1. Outright closure of one or both Town golf facilities. Further study on this is recommended as property values, tax base, and resort relations have to be considered.
2. Repurpose portions of golf course property that may become available due to proposed changes in size and space of golf facilities. Remove 32 acres at El Con Golf and 15 acres at Pusch Ridge Golf. Use this as natural space, passive recreation, intense recreation, or repurposing/ development.
3. Continue “as-is” with no major changes but only repairs and minor improvements. However, the result will be ever larger losses on operations in the coming years as expense inflation out-paces revenue increases.
Ms. Jacobs asked audience members to answer three questions. Those questions and responses are below:
1. Which of the consultant’s recommendations do you feel would be most beneficial to the Oro Valley Community and why?
The following responses were given, but no one elaborated as to why their idea “would be most beneficial to the Oro Valley community.”
Shut them all down…keep 18 holes only…keep all 36 holes…27 holes…27 holes with three 9-hole courses…two 18-hole courses…I support 36 holes…bring golf courses back up to specs…spend money on promotion and upgrades…keep 36 holes and do a better job of marketing…keep 36 holes, I play on them.
2. As a nearby resident, are there any recommendations that concern you and why?
Let’s be honest. None of the contingency plans cover solvency. Holes should be planned around the revenue they’re generating. There are no funds budgeted for conversion of the holes at LaCanada. This has Class Action lawsuit potential. If you abandon that land, don’t think that you are just going to walk away from it.
3. Are there any other comments/concerns regarding the golf course that you would like to share with the Town Manager?
General Comments:
What will you do with the holes that you plan to shut down? (Jacobs said she didn’t know at this time.)
What was the purpose of commissioning the golf study? To stop the hemorrhaging? To further pander to the limited number of golfers that the rest of us are paying for? (Jacobs responded that it was an analysis for the long-term use of the golf courses, for it to pay its own way, and be solvent in the future.)
Did you get 2-3 bids or just one opinion from one company? An individual or a company can be biased.
Is your intent to eventually not have any sales tax money used to cover this?
If you live on a golf course, there’s a lot to be said in making Oro Valley a golf community. You can bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue through golf tourism.
Comments regarding property values:
I’m worried about views near my house. If we close the courses, will they be replaced by a 4-story building or an auto repair shop?
I live on Hole #13. What will it do to our property value if you close that hole? It could be a disaster for us when we try to sell our house.
I’m worried about my property values.
This isn’t just about golfers vs. non-golfers. It’s also about homeowners living along the courses.
As you can see, there was a lot of “What’s best for ME” as opposed to “What’s best for the COMMUNITY.”
Ideas that would be “most beneficial to the community” or that offered reasonable compromise were booed.
The audience was very respectful of opposing views up until this point. Then…
One man (who lives along the golf course) said that he thought 18 holes was the best compromise and that the remainder should be turned into a linear park (that everyone could enjoy). This comment was met with loud booing!
A woman (who lives along the golf course) mentioned the multitude of nearby golf courses as the reason that we probably cannot support even 36 holes. She thought that 27 holes was a good compromise. She then stated, “I’m not a golfer” which was met with a disapproving “Ohhhhhhhh!” from many in the audience.
Wow! How dare these two people who live along the golf course offer their opinions at a meeting specifically held to get feedback from people who live along the golf courses. It was not a meeting to get feedback from golfers! (A special meeting to get feedback from golfers was held the following afternoon at the Community Center.)
My take-away from this meeting was that apparently, we the taxpayers, are expected to cater to the golfers and prop up other people’s property values, but heaven forbid we consider a compromise or alternative that would actually be most beneficial to THE COMMUNITY as a whole…you know, since the entire community is being forced to subsidize it.
(I left one hour into the Listening Session when the comments became repetitive and it was clear that many in attendance were there for selfish reasons…I play golf…protect my property values.)
Part 2. Golf Consultant’s recommendations and audience feedback regarding the Pusch Ridge course will be published tomorrow.
. . . . . . . . . .
Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated a controversial 200-acre development project. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.
