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.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.
(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.
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.
