Summary: Oro Valley Town Council Special Session – July 24, 2019 – Part 3. Arguments in support of closing the golf courses.

Losses are just shy of $9 million through May 2019
• I’ve read the 286 pages of letters submitted to the town by residents of the golf communities, primarily Canada Hills. Their unwavering opinion is that all 36 holes must be retained. In my observation, that’s not the opinion of thousands of other Oro Valley residents who find that unreasonable.

The Town’s original revenue projections indicated that the half-cent sales tax and the Community Center Fund would cover ALL expenses including capital improvements. Troon projected golf losses of $2M through FY 2017/18 with a slightly positive return starting in FY 2018/19. Instead, the losses are just shy of $9M through May 2019. Yet now we’re supposed to believe that golf will only require $1M in annual sales tax support if the Town retains 36 holes and if they spend almost $4M to replace the irrigation system and refurbish holes as part of the $6M bond package?

Two key points in the National Golf Foundation Study were quite clear:

(1) The financial condition of Oro Valley’s golf operation is considerably worse than most public sector golf operations in the U.S. where 67% of municipal golf course operations are able to cover their expenses.

(2) There are far fewer permanent households and resident golfers in the greater Tucson markets to support each 18 holes of golf in the area.

While I understand the concerns of those that paid premium prices for golf course views, there are many others in town who also paid higher premiums and lost their views due to the rampant development in town.

Golf is in decline, water is a precious resource, and real estate law does not guarantee property values
• I play golf but I cannot afford to live in a golf community. The Town of Oro Valley purchased the golf courses despite a large segment of the community voicing dissent. The face of our Town government has changed in large part due to that decision. The revenue and expense projections have proven to be faulty and continued support of the golf properties are a drain on the town budget with taxpayer money that would be better spent on services enjoyed by the entire community…Golf is in decline, water is a precious resource, and real estate law does not guarantee property values…There are many other golf options available. I use them. Those who want to play golf can use those options just like I do.

Troon's forecasts are not accurate and are not to be relied upon
• The purpose of a forecast is to as accurately as possible, project the future both in revenues and in costs so that when management makes a strategic decision, they have the best basis for doing so. In witnessing the Town’s forecast for the 36-hole option, I don't believe it does that. The town implies that the 36-hole option will cost only $11M in the future 10-year period. It understates the cost and misrepresents the losses that the town will incur.

In December 2014, the same forecasters, Troon and the town, said that we would lose $2M before turning golf profitable this year. Through May of this year, we have lost over $8.8M in golf and restaurant operations and are budgeted to lose more than $1.8M this year. That will be $10.5M in operating losses in 5 years.

The Town forecast conveniently picks a period of time 3 years in the future. This occurs after repairs costing us another $4M are completed and provides a best case hypothetical of what the 36 holes could look like if everything went right. And that hypothetical said that we will still lose $1M a year…I find that very unlikely.

The forecast conveniently ignores over $5M in losses for the next 3 years - the $1.8M this year and the several millions that we will lose while we’re restructuring the courses. The town says that since the irrigation repairs will be so disruptive, the losses can’t be estimated. Troon’s wage and benefit inflation increased $100,000 over the past year. A first look by the Budget & Finance Commission showed that the 36-hole option might cost $30M over the same period.

The Town’s projection indicates that the 36-hole option is probably the best, and in my opinion, it’s the worst. For the council to decide on what makes the best decision, the financial basis of that must be based on accurate forecasts, and the town and Troon have shown in the past that their forecasts are not accurate and are not to be relied on.

I know that decision-making can be difficult, especially for complex and controversial issues like this. For 6 years before I retired, I was the Director of Planning for the largest park and recreation district in (it sounded like he said Oregon)… It was generally recognized that almost all facilities and programs required some level of subsidy. So it’s not surprising to me that golf courses would have to be subsidized for the long-term.

The question is, how much subsidy should they receive from the town relative to other recreational facilities and programs that the town provides? It seems to me that subsidies should be highest for facilities and activities that are used by the greatest number of town residents such as parks, ball fields, and multi-use paths.

A Flash-Vote survey by the town earlier this year showed that multi-use paths were the recreational facilities most used by the town residents. Although I’m not a golfer, I’m not against subsidies for a golf operation, I just don’t think that golf should be subsidized to the detriment of other parks and recreation facilities and programs.

Of the options under consideration, I think retaining an 18-hole public golf course with conversion of the other 18 holes to well-manicured park space and pathways would be your best choice unless other parties, such as the HOAs, are also willing to participate in subsidizing a 36-hole operation.

Listen to Anna Clark’s speech below. A partial transcript appears below the video.

One percent of the population is utilizing 75% of the Parks and Rec Budget
• Golf alone consumes about 75% of the Parks and Recreation budget. What about the rest of us who don’t golf? I have 4 sons who play field sports. Oro Valley desperately needs more soccer and baseball fields to accommodate the many other families with children who play sports….At Naranja Park, because of the lack of field space for kids, soccer players of all ages are forced to practice on the same field at the same time. This is a recipe for disaster…What about the kids who want to play basketball? The Town only has one basketball court.

All of us are paying an extra half-cent tax on everything we buy in Oro Valley, but what is our money getting us? Why are we subsidizing an under-used Town golf course for less than 1% of Oro Valley residents? We need to reduce the number of golf holes to match the demand for golf and make it pay its own way. Imagine what Parks and Rec could offer our residents if it was no longer shackled with millions of dollars in golf losses.

Part 4 will be published on Monday and will include closing comments from Mayor Winfield and Vice-Mayor Barrett.

Summary: Oro Valley Town Council Special Session – July 24, 2019 – Part 2. Arguments in support of retaining the golf courses.

Public Comment for Retaining the Golf Courses
Below are highlights from the speeches given by residents during the 4-hour long Town Council Special Session on Golf Options. For those who prefer to watch the video, a link is provided at the end of this article.

Some audience members were very disrespectful
Despite Mayor Winfield asking the audience to be respectful and civil (including no applause and no jeering), the audience members who supported keeping 36 holes of golf refused to comply. Councilmember Rodman also applauded after two teenagers spoke in favor of keeping the courses. There were other times when there was disrespectful laughter or grumblings in the audience when residents spoke in support of closing the courses.

There were others who used their 3 minutes to attack the mayor rather than simply stating their position on the golf courses and presenting facts to substantiate their claims.

Arguments for retaining all 36 holes
Highlights from some of the speeches are below. The common theme in the speeches (and in multiple letters submitted to the Town) was fear of a decline in home values for the homes with golf course views, loss of their social life, and threats of litigation against the Town. Our editor’s responses are in purple.

• I paid $30,000 extra for a home with a golf course view. The house next door paid $35,000. The house next door to that paid $40,000 extra. That’s what you’ll find for the 550 homes that are along the 36 holes of golf.

(Many people paid premiums for custom homes on large lots with sprawling desert and mountain views only to have that land later rezoned down to 7000 square foot lots with 2-story tract homes during the Hiremath years. They also complained about the loss of their views and reduction in property values and they were ignored.)

• Grass is environmentally advantageous. It removes pollutants including dust, dirt, CO2, and returns oxygen. Grass also lowers the air temperature.

(When other Oro Valley residents have objected to mass graded developments adjacent to their homes and the resultant loss of desert vegetation that cleans the air and lowers the air temperature, their pleas were ignored and the mass graded developments were approved.  Why should clean air be a consideration for those living along the golf courses but not for anyone else?)

• Hundreds of non-golfers use the courses every day after golfing hours for walking and playing sports.

(People can still use it for walking if it’s turned into walking trails and they can still play sports if it’s turned into a park.)

• We chose our home in Oro Valley to be less and ¼ mile away from two golf courses, a bunch of tennis courts, a swimming pool, and a recreation center. We have 3 grown children who live in Seattle and need a place to come and play golf and tennis in Jan-Feb-Mar-April.

(Your grown children can still come here to play golf. There are plenty of other golf courses in the area).

• Repurposing will increase allergies with the different types of plants that would grow there. I’ve had two dogs with Valley Fever since we moved here. You’re going to start stirring up the ground and more Valley Fever is going to happen to the people and their pets.

(Yes, some people have allergies to desert plants…but some people have allergies to grass! We agree about Valley Fever, but again, thousands of Oro Valley residents have been subjected to “stirring up the ground” around their homes in order to accommodate new residential developments plus the road widening of La Canada and La Cholla. Why should Valley Fever be a consideration for people living along the golf courses but not for anyone else?)

• Two teenagers discussed “all that my sister and I have accomplished in the golf world.” They discussed golf tournaments in which they won or placed second. Closing the golf courses will take away our training facility and decrease property values. What will become of our backyard? Living on the golf course is the number one reason why our parents purchased a home here.

• One woman talked about elderly residents and residents with medical problems who like to sit on their patios and watch the golfers and wave to them. “He would sorely miss not watching the golfers.”

(There are thousands of residents – including elderly and those with medical problems - who sorely miss their desert views, their tranquility, and all the wildlife that once frequented their neighborhoods.)

• The decision is tainted because “the newly elected council primarily ran on an issue platform of one single item, and that was closing the golf course.”

(That is false. They ran on multiple issues, including wanting to take a breather on the over-development of the town, advocating for playgrounds which was the Number 1 request of citizens in the 2014 Parks and Rec Survey, and putting an end to the uncivil treatment of the citizens by the former mayor.  The decisions of former Mayor Hiremath and his Majority-4 council regarding golf were tainted because they didn't want to admit that they had made a mistake in purchasing the golf courses.)

The next speaker was very rude to the mayor and did not follow the “instructions to speakers” which state that you “must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.” You can watch her 3-minute speech in the video below.


(Responding to Ms. Davies comments: The Hiremath council won the 2015 recall election by the skin of their teeth with just 51% of the vote vs. the Winfield council winning the 2018 election with almost a 60/40 split. If you have a bias for green grass, perhaps you shouldn’t live in the desert. Many of us moved here because we wanted to live in a town with sweeping desert and mountain views. Our views have changed dramatically over the past 10 years with the desert scraped and the mountain views blocked by multi-story buildings. Natural settings should have a higher priority than man-made views.

She accused the mayor of speaking out of both sides of his mouth (which we’ve never personally observed). This is a laughable accusation when you consider that one of the arguments for keeping the golf courses is that they’re worried about a drop in the Town’s finances from a possible loss of revenue, while on the other hand, they have threatened to sue the town if the golf courses are closed. We call that, “speaking out of both sides of your mouth.”)

• It’s critical to our happiness to find a way to connect with people. For us, that avenue was golf and the community center. Our days are filled with activities at El Con Golf and Tennis. We were willing to pay more for our home because of it’s unique location. All of our friends are golfers because golf provided the vehicle to meet people.

(Taxpayers are now being asked to subsidize other people’s property values AND their social lives. Can we all get in on this taxpayer subsidy?)

• I bought a home here with plans to retire on the golf course. I don't go to the library, but yet I still support it. I don’t swim at the aquatic center, but I still support it. I don’t have children in school, but I still support the schools.

(There is a big difference between tax dollars being utilized for a public library, public schools, or public parks and the aquatic center vs. tax dollars being utilized to maintain property values for a select group of individuals in town.)

• We should look at who can provide additional funds, the HOA’s and individuals who live on the golf course should help to subsidize the golf courses and I would be happy to help subsidize it so that my property value and the home that I just renovated will continue to hold value.

• When I purchased my home two years ago, I had no idea this was even on the table or we would have made a different choice.

(The seller should have disclosed that information. This is a problem between her and the seller, not her and the town).

• If you’re going to change this from a golf course, you’re going to have to rezone the property. It’s zoned for golf not open space. If you want to create a park, you’re going to have to go through a General Plan Amendment and a bunch of other stuff.

(According to the Town’s Power Point presentation in 2014, besides a golf course and clubhouse, the current entitlements along the golf courses also allow for residential - commercial offices - public offices – retail - religious institutions – restaurants - recreational facilities - social center buildings – hotel - equestrian facilities. Current permitted appurtenant uses include small retail shops - cocktail lounges with live music - day nursery satellite receiving station - equestrian exhibition arena.

Would they prefer one of the above entitlements over returning to natural desert, open space, and walking trails?)

• ARS 12-1134 clearly states that if the action of a municipality diminishes our property values, we get to ask you to pay for it. The PAD has, by definition, legal standing. It defines the golf courses to our advantage. You take that away, someone has to pay for it, and it shouldn't be us.

You can read the statute HERE

(Our take on the statute: It discusses citizen recourse when, “the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced.” A change in the status or use of public property that abuts private property does not in any way affect the right of the private property owner to do whatever is currently permitted on their property.)

You can watch the entire Special Session HERE  Public comments begin at the 38:00 mark on the video.

Part 3, public comments for closing the golf courses, will be published on Friday.