Guest View: Diane Peters ~ The Royalty vs. the Peasants. Part 1.

I never thought the day would come when I would be speaking about a group of Oro Valley residents the way that I am about to speak about them. But if they are going to engage in behavior that is rude, entitled, disrespectful, and uncivil, they shouldn’t be surprised when they are called out for doing so. I’m talking about the pro-golf crowd.

Multiple town meetings including private meetings and still they demand more
Despite the fact that this crowd (golf members and residents living along the golf courses) have had multiple opportunities to voice their opinions regarding the golf courses, with some of those opportunities being PRIVATE town meetings held just for them, they still feel that they should be given even more time to state their case and repeat the same talking points over and over and over again. In doing so, they are barely allowing anyone else a chance to speak, thereby giving the false impression that the majority of people in town want to keep the golf courses open despite millions of dollars in losses. If this were true, then Hiremath and his majority council would not have been thrown out of office last year.

Matching Outfits, Rude Behavior, and Threats
They are now packing council chambers at every meeting, banding together in their “Green Shirts,” repeatedly being rude to the mayor and certain council members when speaking at the Call to Audience or during the Public Hearings AND being rude and disrespectful to anyone who dares speak at the podium in favor of closing one or all of the golf courses. They have threatened a recall if they don’t get their way. They have threatened a lawsuit against the Town if they don’t get their way. They act like they are the only people in town, or the only ones that matter.

Forked Tongue
It’s very telling that the people who are claiming to be worried about the Town losing revenue if the courses are closed are the same people who are threatening a lawsuit against the Town. Think about that. In essence, this is what they’re saying:

“We’re so worried that the Town will lose millions of dollars in bed tax, sales tax, and property tax revenue if you close the courses that we’re going to sue the Town for millions of dollars if we don’t get our way.”

And that’s how you know that their real issue and their only issue is their views and their property values. Tossing in the “town revenues” argument is just their way of trying to appear unselfish.

No more sympathy
I initially felt for these people because I certainly know what it’s like to have your views and property values lowered due to Town Council decisions that alter the land use adjacent to your property. There are thousands of other Oro Valley residents (myself included) who have lost their once beautiful views, peaceful surroundings, and property values due to the rampant and incompatible rezonings approved during the Hiremath years. Yet, we did not show up in “matching outfits” taking over the council chambers week after week attempting to intimidate anyone who disagreed with us or threatening a recall or a lawsuit if our current views were altered. We did not snicker at or boo speakers who disagreed with us. The “Green Shirts” tactics are ill-mannered and this is why the pro-golf crowd has lost my sympathy.

(I do have sympathy for those who live along the golf courses who have been civil and who are in the unfortunate position of being "represented" by the Green Shirts.)

Below are the three special and private meetings that were held just for golf members and residents living along the golf courses:

May 4, 2017. PRIVATE Q&A Session/Workshop for residents living along the golf courses.
Held at the Gaslight Theatre and facilitated by The National Golf Foundation, Forrest Richardson & Associates (golf course architects), and the WLB Group (local engineering and development firm), all hired by the Town to address the Community Center/Golf Course issues.

December 12, 2017. Another PRIVATE Special meeting for residents living along the golf courses.
Hosted by Town Manager, Mary Jacobs and held in Town Council Chambers. The purpose was to discuss the options presented in the golf consultant’s report and allow golf course area residents to ask questions and share their thoughts on the options.

December 13, 2017. PRIVATE Special meeting for golf members.
Hosted by Town Manager, Mary Jacobs and held in the Sunset Room of the Community Center. The purpose was to discuss the options presented in the golf consultant’s report and allow golf members to ask questions and share their thoughts on the options.

Below are the meetings that Mayor Winfield has held for all residents to speak on the golf issue:

February 20, 2019. Town Council Listening Session (Public Hearing)
This allowed all members of the community to speak about the golf courses. Twenty-nine people spoke.

July 24, 2019. Town Council - Public Hearing
Held at The Church of the Nazarene, this meeting allowed all members of the community to speak about the golf courses. Approximately 700 people showed up. The meeting lasted 4 hours and 50 people spoke.

I submitted a Blue Card to speak but left the meeting after 1.5 hours when my name still had not been called and I was developing back pain from the uncomfortable chairs. No problem, or so I thought, I’ll give my speech during the Call to Audience at the council meeting the following week -- but I was thwarted again. See below.

July 31, 2019. Town Council – Public Hearing
A Public Hearing was added to this meeting to accommodate those who didn’t get to speak at the meeting on July 24th. So once again, the room was packed and 33 people spoke, taking up one hour and 40 minutes of the Public Hearing.

I didn’t have the option of speaking at the Call to Audience because you cannot speak at the CTA about an item that’s listed for a Public Hearing. Me and my aching back were unable to sit there for an hour or more waiting my turn to speak for 3 minutes.

Sept. 4, 2019. Town Council – Another Public Hearing on Golf
With another Public Hearing, I knew that “The Green Shirts” would pack the room again, which they did, so I didn’t bother attending. I watched the video from home, listened to just two of the 11 speakers, both of whom were very rude, at which point I turned off the video.

Sept. 18, 2019. Town Council Meeting
At long last, golf was not on the agenda, meaning that people could speak on golf during the Call to Audience. I arrived at 5:45, planning to speak at the CTA, but walked in again to find a room packed with “The Green Shirts.” It was standing room only.

I asked the Town Clerk how many Blue Cards had been submitted so that I could determine how long it would be before my name was called. The list appeared to have about 20 names on it. Quick math…20 speakers at 3 minutes each means I’ll be waiting an hour for my name to be called. Back pain…uncomfortable chairs…nope…I wasn’t going to put myself through that again. So once again I was thwarted from speaking. I walked out and went home. Another person who had also been waiting weeks for the chance to speak about golf during the CTA also walked out without speaking.

When is it our turn to speak?
This is the THIRD time that I have tried to speak on golf in recent weeks and have been thwarted by “the mob” every single time. They are monopolizing the meetings leading some who are there to speak in favor of closing one or both of the courses to walk out before ever getting their chance to speak.

Totaling up the number of speakers from the above meetings in 2019:

• 29 speakers on February 20th
• 50 speakers on July 24th
• 33 speakers on July 31st
• 11 speakers on September 4th
• 17 speakers on September 18th

That’s a total of 140 speeches, but not 140 residents because many of them spoke multiple times.

We heard you the first time
Now realize that some of those 140 speakers were against continuing golf. And then there were those who spoke multiple times in favor of continuing golf. Those speakers are listed below:

• Jeff Weir spoke six times --  (Feb. 20, July 24, July 31, Sept. 18, and twice on Sept. 4).
• Greg Kishi spoke five times --  (Feb. 20, July 17, July 24, July 31, Sept. 4).
• Fred Swiderski spoke four times -- (Feb. 20, July 24, July 31, Sept. 18).
• Steve Jones spoke four times -- (Feb. 20, June 5, July 24, July 31).
• Rob Wanczyk spoke four times --  (Feb. 20, July 24, July 31, Sept. 4).

There were also 5 residents who spoke three times and 9 residents who spoke twice.

With that many repeat speakers, you can see that the actual number of people who spoke in favor of keeping all 36 holes of golf was actually much less than 140 – out of a population of 43,000. Their numbers are not as strong as they would like us to believe.
---
Editor’s Note: The meetings on this subject have been disproportionate in reflecting how the community feels as a whole. The Town Council needs to hear from the other 43,000 people who live in this community! Please email them at council@orovalleyaz.gov. If you prefer to email individual council members, their email addresses are as follows:

jwinfield@orovalleyaz.gov
mbarrett@orovalleyaz.gov
jjones-ivey@orovalleyaz.gov
jnicolson@orovalleyaz.gov
rpina@orovalleyaz.gov
brodman@orovalleyaz.gov
ssolomon@orovalleyaz.gov

Part 2, the speech that Ms. Peters has been attempting to give for weeks will be published tomorrow.

The Watchdog Report: Save the Community Center by Eliminating El Con Golf Operations

I suspect that the town officials who needed to read the contracted report on the golf operations probably put little effort into doing so. The mayor once said, "I don't need to know the Codes, that is why I have staff." Following the same logic, one might assume that, “We don't need to read the report, the contractor will advise us what to do.”

Below are direct quotes from the report:

Pages 1-4 discuss the current financial condition and the necessary upgrades/improvements.
"As a whole, the El Conquistador Golf and Tennis (ECGT) and Pusch Ridge golf facilities combined to produce total top-line revenue of just over $2.9 million in 2016, the vast majority of which comes from golf fees, member dues and Food and Beverage (F&B) sales. The on-site operating expenses at the facility totaled around $5.2 million resulting in a roughly (-$2.3 million) loss on operations (excluding other necessary costs such as capital upgrades and new investment in infrastructure).”

“The current financial condition is worse than most public sector golf operations in the U.S. where 67% of municipal golf course operations are able to cover on-site expenses, but not able to cover both onsite expenses and capital improvement costs (only about 33% can cover both)."

"Factors such as the recent recession, the declining interest in golf, growth in the number of competing golf courses and even ECGT conditions have all contributed to the recent decline."

"The National Golf Foundation (NGF) has estimated a total of $5.1 million in required repairs over the next few years, in addition to the $6.0 million estimated by the Town for clubhouse and community center improvements. This investment also includes upwards of $170,000+/- in annual recurring items."

"While losses on operations are common in municipal golf, the depth of this loss is less common."

"The overall demand/supply balance for golf in the greater Tucson market is very unfavorable to golf courses."

Page 6 summarizes the cost to implement each of the options presented.

Option A - Stay with 36 holes - Total investment = $5,115,775
Option B - Reduce to 27 holes - Total investment = $4,639,115
Option C - Reduce to 18 holes - Total investment = $4,200,795

Additional to all above options is to convert the Pusch Ridge course from a 9-hole course to a 12-hole, Par 3 course called The Dirty Dozen. Total investment = $3,013,120

The consultants recommended Option B. To go with Option B and the Pusch Ridge conversion will take an additional investment of $7,652,235.

Page 7 mentions outright closure of all golf courses.
"Outright closure, although perhaps the most economically beneficial decision, is not necessarily a “cheap” option, as there are costs to prepare the property appropriately and there may be additional contemporaneous impacts that have to be considered (property values, tax base, resort relations, etc.). Further study is recommended."

Pages 67-68 summarize closing all golf operations.
"Full closure of the El Conquistador 36-hole operation would involve significant costs to remove managed turf areas and, at minimum, plant and establish revegetation desert varieties to the areas removed from turf.”

“Based on 146± acres of existing managed turf, we estimate approximately $2.5 million for turf conversion and establishment at El Conquistador using a per-acre cost of $17,000 (slightly less per acre than shown for specific options A, B and C; based on volume). Added to this cost would be approximately 20% for soft costs (design, engineering, etc.) and a reasonable contingency. Our opinion of probable cost is approximately $3 million.”

Page 68 discusses closing the Pusch Ridge course.
"In order to fully close the Pusch Ridge facility, we estimate that an average cost of $20,000 per acre be applied to calculate removal of existing managed turf with re-establishment to native desert vegetation. This slightly higher amount per acre is recommended due to significant slopes involved in the Pusch Ridge terrain combined with more intricate access than at El Conquistador.”

“Based on a total turf footprint of 40± acres, we estimate full conversion of existing turf areas to be approximately $800,000 plus soft costs and contingency of about 20%, rendering an estimated probable cost of near $1.0 million. Additional costs to fully close the Pusch Ridge facility would need to account for razing the existing (old, now abandoned) maintenance facility (estimated at $40,000) and disposition of the existing irrigation storage pond, which has not been estimated."

As I understand it, it would cost $1,040,000 to close Pusch Ridge, and $3 million to close the remaining 36 holes.

Going back to Page 7, the NGF states:
"Continued operation with rounds at or near current levels (under 50,000 total) will not lead to profitability for ECGT, and severe losses will continue, but become more manageable for the Town under any of the renovation options presented."

The most cost-effective option.
The report states that no matter what option the Town Council chooses, golf will continue to lose money. It doesn’t take a CPA to see that investing $4 million to repurpose 45 holes and END GOLF is a more cost-effective option than spending $7.6 million in upgrades to continue golf despite no guarantees of breaking even in another 5 years.

Guest View: Jeff Jones ~ Connecting the Dots from the Community Center to the Naranja Park Bond

I’d like to weigh in on the boondoggle known as the Town of Oro Valley Golf Courses (aka El Conquistador Golf Club) and the options offered by the National Golf Foundation Consultants who were hired by the Town Council to help them figure a way out of the mess they made.

What have we learned from the $50,000 Consultant’s Report?
All the options suggested by the consultants will cost millions of dollars to implement. In other words, let’s throw good money after bad.

Public golf is losing money nationwide but our Community Center Golf Courses are losing more than the national average.

They believe that our losses will be reduced by 10.5% if all of their projections come true.

The projections
A 4% increase in golf fees (even though these have been trending downwards)
A 17% increase in Member Golf Fees (even though membership is declining)
A 4.6% increase in Food & Beverage (even though F&B has never met the budget even once)
A 10% Reduction in Food & Beverage Cost

Why should we believe those projections?
Not one of the projections (revenue or costs) from Day One relative to the El Conquistador purchase have come anywhere near close to being accurate. Not a single one…Membership – Capital Improvements – Costs – Revenue. Not a single one!

When the Majority-4 on the 2014 Town Council (Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters) “sold us” the El Conquistador purchase, their projections were that we would “break even” by Fiscal Year 3 (FY 2017-18) and that it would turn a profit beginning in Year 5. However, the FY 2017-18 budget continues to project a net loss of $1.8 million. This is breaking even?

What’s more, Mayor Hiremath recently backtracked on his original 5-year plan, claiming that it was always a 6-year plan to begin making a profit. (Public records reveal otherwise.) Now, the Golf Consultant’s report states that even with the proposed millions of dollars in changes, they still can’t guarantee that we will turn a profit for another 5 years after the implementation of the changes!

It’s a matter of trust
How can we trust the same fools, and their three new cohorts, to properly handle the development of Naranja Park? If they can’t make good decisions on a $1 million purchase, why should we trust them with a $17 million dollar purchase?

Don’t let them fool you into believing that the property tax will expire in 20 years. Have you ever seen a tax expire? I predict that when the $17 million bond is paid off (at a cost of $28 million with interest), that the Town Council will then state that they need to renew the property tax because the now 20-year old facility is in need of updating and refurbishing.

I urge you to vote NO on the Naranja Park Bond/Secondary Property Tax. Do not trust them with any more of our tax dollars.

Summary of the 170-page National Golf Foundation Study of Community Center Golf and Restaurant Operations. Part 2.

This is the second part of a 2-part article. Part 1 was published yesterday.

- - - - - - - - - -

Summary Conclusion

“This facility is aging and has seen declines in activity and is now operating at a deficit, up to $2.1 million+. The loss on operations is a result of several influences…a recent recession, increasing competition, declining physical condition, and declining interest in golf.”

“The local golf market has changed dramatically in the last decade and as we look to the future of golf in Oro Valley, there is genuine concern that the full 45-hole allotment may not be a good match for the current state of golf demand. The cost to properly maintain a complement of 45 holes is large and growing. The National Golf Study (NGF) review in 2017 shows that the cost to maintain El Con Golf is much higher than any standard, mostly a result of high utilities expense that is caused, in part, by an antiquated irrigation system.”

“The current financial condition [of El Con Golf] is worse than most public sector golf operations in the U.S. where 67% of municipal golf course operations are able to cover on-site expenses.

“Given this and the change in demand, the NGF sees a 27-hole facility at El Con Golf and a modified par-3 golf course (possibly 12 holes) at Pusch Ridge as a much better option for Oro Valley to provide a more sustainable golf facility for the longer term going forward.”

Given the above noted findings, it is clear that the Town will not be able to continue the operation “as-is” and changes will be required.

The most important and actionable recommendations made by the National Golf Foundation are listed below, noted in priority order:

1. Improve the physical condition of El Con Golf, including clubhouse enhancements.
2. Take action to reduce the amount of irrigated turf on all golf courses.
3. Upgrade the irrigation system to include new controls and in-ground piping.
4. Reduce to 27 holes at El Con Golf, with three 9-hole courses of equal quality and appeal.
5. Lease out (or concession) the Food & Beverage operation to a third party.
6. Implement the plan to renovate Pusch Ridge into a “Dirty Dozen” concept.
7. Enhance marketing and implement new activities that appeal to less traditional golfer segments, especially female golfers.

Golfers within a 10 mile radius
In its 2009 publication, “The Future of Public Golf in America,” the National Golf Foundation hypothesized that the best predictor of a public golf course’s success was the number of golfers per 18 holes within a 10-mile radius, with 4,000 identified as the key number for projected financial stability. The NGF has estimated that there are only about 1,400 golfers per 18-hole course in the Oro Valley Community Center market, thus lowering chances for successful golf operations.

Site Negatives
The location of both facilities suggests to the public that the facilities may be private. The location within a large residential community conveys a private club operation. The Pusch Ridge course proximity to the Hilton Resort leads most to believe the course is only available for use by hotel guests.

The configuration of the property is wide and physically diverse, leading to challenges in managing the full 36-hole property. There are four separate parcels separated by major roadways and require golf cart crossings at several points. Thus it will always require a larger-than-standard operating staff.

It is expected that there will always be a higher-than-standard maintenance expense at El Con Golf and Pusch Ridge, even if the total irrigated acreage can be reduced.

Numerous changes to land ownership, development plans, and golf corridors contributed to the awkward routing of the courses. In several locations, the distance between holes is significant and it is often difficult for players to know where to go next. Further, this awkward routing mandates cart use and contributes to extra management and maintenance challenges.

Irrigation remains the greatest area of maintenance concern and has shown considerable decline since the original development. The aging system is a mismatch of controls, heads, and inefficient pipe sizes that have been patched together over the years…and is costing the Town considerably in terms of inefficient irrigation.

The conclusion of the team is that a major investment in irrigation replacement must be made regardless of how the courses are to be reconfigured.

Closure of all 36 holes of golf
Probable cost is approximately $3 million and includes removing managed turf areas, revegetation of desert varieties, reshaping to allow for natural surface drainage, applying a hydroseed mix of native desert seed and a bonding agent that will help prevent erosion and allow the seeds to germinate. Twenty percent of the cost ($600,000) would be for design and engineering.

Summary of the 170-page National Golf Foundation Study of Community Center Golf and Restaurant Operations. Part 1.

On July 12, the Oro Valley Town Council met in special session to review and discuss a consultants report of their analysis of selected usage alternatives regarding the Oro Valley golf courses and restaurant facility. You can watch this discussion.

According to a statement by Mayor Hiremath at the special meeting, this investment in these golf courses  has lost $1.1 million in two years, but "is trending upward." This loss is after consideration of the increased sales tax we now pay to subsidize it.

We present a summary of the consultant's report in this first of a 2-part offering, We will post Part 2 tomorrow. These postings are submitted as a summary only without comment or opinion.  An opinion piece will be published on Wednesday.

The study is a limited-scope study, limited to analysis of specific options as noted in "Basic Options" later in this posting. Multiple paragraphs in the report indicate that the consultants are recommending "Option B."

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.

Pusch Ridge: 12 holes…..$3,013,120 investment…..14.9 acres alternate use…..70% savings
Three options: 1. Close the facility and repurpose the land into non-golf uses. 2. Renovate the facility bringing all golf features and areas back to an acceptable condition. 3. Transform the facility into a 12-hole, 3-par course to be called “The Dirty Dozen”. This reduces maintained turf to 11.9 acres and frees up 15 acres for potential repurposing. Cost: $3 million.

*Town owned property only. Does not include HOA-owned parcels.

The 36-hole option is still providing too much golf and higher maintenance costs. The 18-hole option will likely chase away all but the most die-hard members with private carts, resulting in revenue that is much lower than the savings achieved from lowered maintenance expenses.

Pusch Ridge Problems
Low activity, low revenue, difficult layout, lack of walkability, declining maintenance, low interest in 9-hole golf.

Even with modest rounds of activity (7,500) this course could cover all its expenses. “If the Town and Troon were to significantly enhance the marketing and promotion of the facility, and gain full buy-in from the adjacent resort (possibly through pre-purchase of rounds), the Dirty Dozen course could add as much as $112,000 in profit to the system.”

“It is always an option for public-sector owners of golf facilities to close or reduce golf courses and consider alternate uses of golf course property.”

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.

4. Completion of golf course renovation resulting in retention of 36 holes (Option A)

5. Renovation resulting in 27 holes (Option B)

6. Renovation resulting in 18 holes at El Con Golf and Tennis (Option C)

Converting the land for other uses

Naturalized Open Space
Cost is relatively low and renders the land back to its familiar desert terrain and landscape.

Passive Recreation
More costs due to development of trails, ADA access, restrooms, security, lighting, etc.

Intense Recreation Uses
This would involve the highest cost to the Town due to building new recreation structures, infrastructure, parking, etc., involving not only upfront costs, but also ongoing maintenance costs.

Development Uses
Only prudent for the Town if a lease or sale of certain lands could be structured to provide the Town with a revenue source.

Financial Projections
All of the options will improve the economic position of El Con Golf, largely through reduced maintenance expenses (fewer maintained acres) and by shifting Food and Beverage (F&B) operations to a third-party vendor. Even with these recommendations, they still expect financial challenges for the next five years.

Continued operation with rounds at or near current levels will not lead to profitability and severe losses will continue but will become more manageable under any of the renovation options presented.

If the Town reduces maintained acreage, provides a new and modern irrigation system, and a modernized clubhouse, the facility would see improvement in economic performance regardless of the number of holes.

The 27-hole option (Option B) will most likely result in the strongest net performance for the Town due to retaining a strong share of members, comparable amount of daily fee play, and flexibility to allow for “member blocks” of tee times.

If the club is upgraded and reduced to 27 holes, the net income will improve because the revenue drivers will still be present but the maintenance expense with only 27 holes would help close the gap on operations expenses, although they still expect a loss on operations.

If they contract a third-party vendor to operate and absorb the risk of F&B, the economic performance should improve with immediate elimination of the large loss on F&B operations.
---
Part 2 of this article will be published tomorrow.

Editorial: When are golf course renovations worthwhile?

Richard Singer, Director of Consulting Services for the National Golf Foundation, is one of the consultants the Town has hired to help them decide what course of action to take with the golf courses and restaurant at the Oro Valley Community Center.

Mr. Singer authors a blog called “Golf Operations Guru” for which he wrote the following article that appeared in March 2014. We quote directly from his posting entitled:

“Municipal Golf Course Renovations – Often Worthwhile, but be Careful”

Singer lists seven conditions that lead to successful municipal golf course renovation:

• Broadens the appeal of the golf course
• Is supported by existing regular players
• Does not lead to drastic fee increases
• Includes re-branding when there is a major upgrade
• Includes appropriate clubhouse amenities to match the golf experience
• Is a strong fit with the surrounding neighborhood
• Includes expanded and upgraded practice amenities (range, chipping, putting)

Singer lists six conditions that cause municipal golf course renovations to struggle:

• Leads to a high level of new debt or bond issue tied to the golf course
• Is opposed by existing regular players
• Leads to large fee increases
• Relies on outside, or infrequent golfers for support
• Changes the basic character of the property so it no longer reflects the neighborhood
• Goes too far with expanded clubhouse amenities (banquets, lockers, restaurant)

Mr. Singer offers the following conclusion:

“In short, I can say that there are many municipally-owned golf courses out there that would benefit from improvements to facilities; both golf course and clubhouse. Thus, I think my message here is to be careful and have a good plan upfront. Upgrades can benefit the golf course and the municipality, but should not be completed 'at any cost' and there should be an established ceiling to the proposed investment.”

You can read more articles on Mr. Singer’s blog by CLICKING HERE.

The question for Oro Valley
Is our Community Center golf course a municipal golf course or a private golf course? A municipal golf course does not have a free driving range. A municipal golf course does not give discounts to members. If the Community Center golf course is a municipal golf course, then the Oro Valley golf model must change. The current model did not work during the Sheraton-owned years or the Hilton-owned years any more than it’s working now.

As a full-service community, we cannot continue to have this drain on our resources.

Without this financial drain, we would have had the money for the Naranja Park ball fields without the need for a secondary property tax. If this financial drain continues, the money currently spent on pavement preservation, public safety, employee raises and benefits, etc. will have to be modified…or your taxes will have to be raised again.