News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« on: March 14, 2007, 01:26:01 PM »
Pacifica debates bid for S.F.- owned golf course

Pacifica city manager not really sold on taking over money-losing venture
By Julia Scott, STAFF WRITER



FOR nearly 80 years, golfers from throughout the Bay Area have teed off at Pacifica's Sharp Park Golf Course — a championship-quality, verdant, oceanside landscape, owned and maintained by the city of San Francisco.

Sometime in the near future, all 140 acres may belong to Pacifica.

Financial troubles have forced San Francisco to consider selling off or leasing its six golf courses to other parties. Earlier this month, two Pacifica City Council members attended a public hearing of the San Francisco Park Recreation Open Space Advisory Committee to find out whether their loss could someday be Pacifica's gain.

"We've always drooled over the golf course and wished it was ours. ... It seems like a win-win for us," said Councilwoman Sue Digre.

Although San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department is still at a preliminary stage with the issue, the Pacifica City Council is taking action — it voted Tuesday night to ask its staff members to follow up with San Francisco officials and find out more about the operation and financing of the Sharp Park Golf Course.

Dawn Kamalanaphan, Planning Director for San Francisco's Recreation and Parks Department, said she was "cautiously intrigued" byPacifica's interest in acquiring the golf course, which Pacifica Councilwoman Julie Lancelle first shared with the Open Space Advisory Committee on March 6.

 The topic of how to manage San Francisco's money-losing golf courses has provencontroversial. Officials are mulling over a report by the National Golf Foundation that came out in late February. It recommended three possible solutions: a nonprofit management model, in which a group not affiliated with the city would manage contracts for maintenance and vendors; a staffing increase to provide a higher level of service, which would be more expensive; or closing some or all of the golf courses.

Selling or leasing Sharp Park to Pacifica is a possibility San Francisco never considered, said Kamalanaphan, adding her department would meet with Pacifica officials soon to talk about it.

"It introduces a new twist to the conversation," she said.

Pacifica City Manager Bill Norton said his city would have good reason to want to preserve the 18-hole golf course in its midst, as well as the adjacent park and archery range, which San Francisco also owns. But he questioned the wisdom of stepping into a financial quagmire that has been decades in the making.

"One thing I would be concerned about is, do we want to take over something that is losing money? This community has enough of a struggle without taking on a losing operation," said Norton.

Sharp Park Golf Course has been profitable since the late 1980s, according to San Francisco officials. But the profits are thin: The golf course made a total of $35,374 in 2005-2006 compared to $1,155,126 in expenses, according to the golf program's 2005-2006 interim golf revenue and expenditure report.

The entire golf program generated a total of $11 million in the last fiscal year from concessions, rounds and tournament play, according to city spokeswoman Rose Marie Dennis.

The golf program has seen budget cuts over the past few years to make up for the expense of renovating two of the city's golf courses in 2002-2003 and the Recreation and Parks Department had to ask the Board of Supervisors for

$1.4 million to make up for a budget deficit.

Sharp Park hasn't had any new maintenance equipment in the last five years and its entire maintenance staff consists of a grounds superintendent, a teamster and five gardeners for a seven-day-a-week operation.

"I'm not fully staffed at Sharp Park. If I was, I'd probably be in the red," said Sean Sweeney, golf program director for San Francisco. "We should have nine green keepers on hand, but we only have five on the books. It's a salary savings to help balance the budget."

The golf course, which wraps around Laguna Salada, also has had to contend with escalating flooding problems over the years. The waterway is the main drainage area for the northern end of Pacifica and in heavy rains, the water floods the golf course and imperils some of the apartment buildings next door. The golf course was closed for three months last winter due to flooding, said Public Works Director Scott Holmes.

The lake has silted up over time and needs to be dredged, but doing so would harm a number of endangered species that use it for habitat, including the San Francisco garter snake and the California red-legged frog.

If the city were to take over maintenance of the golf course, Holmes said his solution would be to manage the water level by removing underground culverts that connect two existing creeks to the lake and reroute the water to create a larger area designed not to be impacted by habitat concerns.


Sharp Park Article
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Bob_Gold

Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2007, 02:39:30 PM »
Urghhh.

Is anyone (everyone) else getting sick and tired of the tale of woe being told by the city about the sorry financial state of the city's muni courses?

I've been a resident card holder for about 10 years and I play all of the city courses regularly.  On weekends all of these courses are packed. Very difficult to get a tee time at Harding on weekends even though the resident rate is $60! (including a ridiculous telephone tee time booking fee. I know I know it has nothing to do with that and it's all about the expensive redesign of Harding and the city contracts with gardeners but Enough is enough.

I don't pretend to know how to solve all of the problems involving the city's golf courses but to me things are messed up in a big way.

I'm not sure how this sorry situation is going to pan out but I don't have high hopes. There's just too many dirty deals around here.

Are other cities as bad as SF at managing things like this? i hope not.

SB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2007, 07:35:32 PM »
I didn't know "teamster" was a job description at a golf course.   ::)

Bob, sorry, yours seems to be the worst.

Scott Stearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2007, 10:33:03 PM »
Every time i read one of these stories i am thankful for Bernadette Castro and Dave Catalano--the NY Parks commissioner and director of Bethpage, respectively.  They get it right.  The park generates positive cash flow, and Ms Castro has fought hard to allow more of that cash flow go back into making the place better.  



Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2007, 11:08:28 PM »
For the City of San Francisco to get rid of Sharp Park can only be positive.  There is no way anyone can manage or screw up a golf course worse than the current management.

The key is does Pacifica have a business plan and the resources to execute a plan to restore the course to make it a major player in the public golf course arena?  It does suffer from a fairly bad location and a major restoration probably would cost a few million.  

I would support anyone who can get control away from the city.  Good luck.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2007, 01:51:11 AM »
This must be a definition of "losing money" with which I'm not familiar.  They say it has been profitable since the 1980s and made $35,000 last year.  That's not a great return, but a golf course isn't an investment for the city and shouldn't be evaluated as such.

It sounds like they are unhappy it isn't making lots of money they can redirect into the city coffers for other stuff, so the idea of selling 140 acres of prime real estate is appealing to them.

I'll bet Central Park in NYC is quite a bit more unprofitable than this course, maybe they should consider selling it to Trump to build skyscrapers on!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2007, 01:18:27 PM »
If the city were to take over maintenance of the golf course, Holmes said his solution would be to manage the water level by removing underground culverts that connect two existing creeks to the lake and reroute the water to create a larger area designed not to be impacted by habitat concerns. [/i]

Sharp Park Article

I don't understand this at all, can someone explain?

Sean_Tully

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2007, 07:57:25 PM »
Regarding Laguna Salada on the old front nine...

it was originally open to the Pacific and was refreshed by storms etc.

it was made into a fresh water lake by John McClaren as it was originally planned to be a true park and he is famous for his work at Golden Gate Park.

looking at the aerials from the 1940's to today it is much smaller and as mentioned in the article it is rapidly silting up.

Joel-  My guess is that the runoff that is being directed to the lake would be diverted to another source. The lake would only be able to handle a reduced amount of water as it has silted up over the years. I am sure Pacifica gets alot of rain and due to the decrease of water holding capacity the water has to go somewhere.


It sounds like from the article at least, that some people in Pacifica are giving this more thought than the ones in SF!?!?

I just want to see the course regain some of its former glory!

Tully

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2007, 12:32:41 AM »
Gib?  Forrest?  You guys gonna chime in here?

With how things run in SF, there's a good chance it will take quite some time to turn over Sharp Park ... even if it makes sense.

Politics as usual will drag this thing out.

Just a real shame common sense hasn't prevailed thus far.

I'd love to see the course reasonably restored / rebuilt.  It's doable and wouldn't cost an arm and a leg like Harding did.

“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2008, 03:20:24 PM »
Now it is frogs and snakes, not on a plane but ...


SFGate

Rare frog, snake at center of golf dispute

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 24, 2008



An environmental group is accusing the city of San Francisco of illegally killing two federally protected animals that live at a publicly owned golf course, and is threatening to sue if city officials refuse to close the golf course and restore the coastal wetlands.

The potential legal challenge over Sharp Park Golf Course - a city-owned, beachside course built around a lagoon in Pacifica - is the latest salvo in a continuing battle over the future of the city's five public courses. The announcement was made just days before a public meeting on the issue.

The Center for Biological Diversity plans to file a claim today in an attempt to protect the endangered San Francisco garter snake and the threatened red-legged frog, which are native to the area. The claim accuses the Recreation and Park Department, which owns the 77-year-old golf course, of killing both animals through regular maintenance activities, including lawn mowing, the use of chemicals, the draining of water from the area and alteration of the habitat in other ways.

Neither a spokesman for the department or the city attorney's office responded to requests seeking comment. But several golfers said the city and golfers have worked hard to coexist with the creatures.

The course is situated just north of Mori Point, a 110-acre stretch of headlands where the National Park Service is working to save both species. The links were designed by famed architect Alister MacKenzie and landscaped by John McLaren, although some of the holes were moved east over the years as the city grappled with flooding from the adjacent lagoon and ocean.

The timing of the legal claim is tied to a continuing debate over the future of the city's golf courses, said Brent Plater, a conservationist who is working with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Plater is also a member of a city task force formed to study the courses and whether any should be closed, leased out to private operators or changed in any other way. The task force will meet Monday to discuss a controversial report from a city-paid consultant who recommended leasing out all of the courses, and restoring Sharp Park to its original design.

"As far as we know this is the last opportunity to shape public opinion before the Rec and Park Department goes behind the scenes to cook up some plan," Plater said. "The absurdity of (the consultant's recommendations) indicate there's a disconnect between the realities on the ground and the vision some people must have for that site."

The city got in trouble three years ago for pumping water off of the golf course during winter flooding, a move that left frog eggs and tadpoles out to dry. Now, environmentalists say they have proof that frog eggs and tadpoles again were killed this year and that the garter snake is continually being harmed by maintenance activity, including being run over by lawnmowers when it attempts to sun itself.

The snake, which has striking bright markings, was one of the first species to be designated as federally endangered. Its fate is linked to the threatened frog, one of the snakes' main food sources.

Jeff Miller, a spokesman for the environmental group, said they view Sharp Park as one of the region's great restoration opportunities. He and Plater argue that the continuing drainage problems at the course cost the city tens of thousands of dollars a year, and that those issues are only going to get worse as sea levels rise. Miller also said that the closure of the course would allow for numerous recreational opportunities.

But Rich Harris, another task force member who represents the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance, insisted that golf courses can coexist with protected animals. He pointed to the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary program for golf, which helps courses to protect the environment.

Another task force member, Dave Diller, said the city and golfers have worked hard over the years to protect the environment. Diller noted that the county of San Mateo and city of Pacifica have passed resolutions in support of keeping the golf course.

Harris said the closure of Sharp Park would be a huge loss for golfers, because of its location and fame as a Mackenzie-designed course. And the green fees there never exceed $38 - a bargain compared to Harding Park course near Lake Merced where fees can be as high as $155 on weekends.

"Everyone started going there after Harding prices shot up. It's very heavily used," he said. "The thing that makes Sharp Park unique is it's a (public course) and it has a low green fee, so Joe Six-Pack can play."
Get involved

Attend the Golf Task Force meeting to weigh in on the city's golf courses. It will take place at 6 p.m. Monday at San Francisco City Hall, Room 278.

"... and I liked the guy ..."

TX Golf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2008, 03:26:58 PM »
Only in San Francisco. What a shame. Hopefully it will all work out.

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2008, 03:52:21 PM »
That's why SF is also known as Nutville...

Thanks for sharing Mike.
“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sharp Park Losing Money - SF to Sell or Lease?
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2008, 06:53:34 PM »
While the politics of San Francisco make a pretty easy target for ridicule at times, it should be noted that this species of garter snake is protected by a Federal law.