Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Share Article
Twitter
Pinterest
Google+1
google
redditA proposal to privatize all or parts of the Santa Barbara Municipal Golf Course was dealt a resounding setback Tuesday night in the face of passionate and articulate opposition from about 40 die-hard golfers who packed City Council chambers. The council opted instead to punt on the chronic financial shortfalls that have dogged the course since the recession. What plan of attack the council will embrace to bridge these shortfalls — in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year — remains to be seen.
But at least for this holiday season, no councilmember felt any urgency to act on the voluminous and exhaustive proposal prepared by Parks and Recreation czar Nancy Rapp to privatize the links, which now require 12 full-time city employees. Rapp estimated the course — which is a stand-alone, self-sustaining enterprise fund — could save hundreds of thousands a year by contracting out work now done by City Hall employees. Rapp explained in great detail how golf’s popularity among paying customers had waned — rounds played have plunged from 100,000 a year in the early ’90s to 62,000 last year. Accordingly, revenues at the Muni course have been dropping, and managers have had to dip into cash reserves to cover costs. This trend, Rapp insisted, is not sustainable.
Paul Wellman (file)
Nancy Rapp, Parks and Recreation director.
The council needs to bite the bullet and either fund the operation out of the general fund or outsource to a private management company. Rapp pointed out that the pro shop and restaurant were already run by private operators. With both those contracts expiring soon, she suggested City Hall might well solicit a lucrative unified bid for all three. City Hall, she insisted, would still maintain management oversight.
Rapp encountered stiff resistance from golfers, who argued that the course’s financial problems paled in comparison to its value as a unique community asset. “A jewel,” said many. Members of the Golf Advisory Committee urged the council to reject privatization, one calling it “an abomination.” With 12 city positions on the chopping block, the Service Employees International Union has also opposed the move. (Rapp insisted city employees would not lose their jobs; they would be reassigned, and their positions would be lost through attrition.) Likewise the police and firefighters unions have been lobbying behind the scenes to scuttle the deal; both unions have faced privatization scares of their own, which helped prompt this unusual display of common interest among city employee unions.
Siding with the unions were councilmembers Cathy Murillo and Gregg Hart. Murillo was outspoken in her opposition to what she termed “the race to the bottom.” She added, “I don’t see how replacing a decent-paying job with a good retirement plan with a poorer-paying job with at best a 401(k) can be considered progress.” She and Hart suggested that course operations be subsumed into the general fund like the city’s tennis courts and Los Baños pool. Councilmember Bendy White, who initially supported privatization, said he’d partially reconsidered. He didn’t want to see the links competing for limited general fund dollars with summer sports programs for low-income kids, pressing infrastructure needs, or, for that matter, the course’s 25,000 mature city trees that need care and attention.
Lurking in the minds of some councilmembers was the dismal failure — at least from a public-relations standpoint — of the decision two years ago to hand over the public tennis courts at Elings Park to a private contractor. If current trends continue, Rapp argued, the number of golf rounds will continue to drop, and the problem will deepen. Many of the golfers argued that the number of rounds played has plateaud and would pick up with the financial recovery. They said programs to recruit new and younger golfers are succeeding, as are efforts to induce more women to golf.
Comments
The grass on the course is spectacularly green. No drought at Muni. Kind of weird, really.
loganwc (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2014 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you look at the hills anywhere there is some spectacular new green growth, which is the result of the recent rains. Expect even more after this next rainfall. Nature has her way with us on her own terms.
Why did you immediately bash Muni? Take a hike, literally. Or even view the hills around the County Bowl if you want something closer to town.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2014 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a "die hard" golfer I hope the city wakes up and outsources the management of Muni to a company that actually knows how to run a golf course. The current state of the course is sad at best. It has so much potential but is run not by professionals, but by nepotism and inept management. One needs not look past the terrible driving range and pro shop, or read a few online reviews to understand how this current team has failed at nearly 3 times the cost of other options.
The fact that it costs 3 times as much to have the city workers manage the course is reason enough but throw in the fact that the facility is a mess and is incredibly badly managed and you have all the reasons in the world to shift away from city park management to a private company whose sole focus is golf course management.
Why on earth is it remotely OK to pay a city worker twice what they're worth in the private market? The only reason I can see is nepotism and favoritism... with our money!
This is a no brainer even for our moronic city counsel. Outsource the maintenance and management and you'll not only save money, you'll improve a hidden gem and bring the course back to its previous splendor.
Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2014 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bringing both personnel numbers and costs in to better alignment with equivalent communities is a critical task to be undertaken by our new City Administrator. City councils needs to give this new administrator this as task number one.
However the amount of land devoted to city tennis courts and golf course needs to be re-evaluated for the best cost-benefit ratio. Along with city parks that are primarily used as bum sleeping quarters and no longer of any appeal to residents and their families.
Many urban parks in Europe are gated for the exclusive benefit of surrounding neighbors. Something to consider - subscriptions for use of public parks.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2014 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I am not mistaken the muni course is watered with reclaimed water. There is a pipe and pump system that leads from the El Estero sanitation facility on East Yanonali Street over to muni.
LasBrisas (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2014 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see: a $100,000 annual shortfall divided by 40 diehard golfers is $2,500 a year. Time to pay up for your "membership" to keep this going.
fredb93117 (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2014 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What obligation does the city have to keep sinking money into this golf course to serve fewer and fewer residents who have alternative choices for other golf courses?
We need more sports fields with ample parking and a restaurant.
Gee, where could that be?????
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2014 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good question. Same question. What obligation does the city have to support and even encourage at least 2000 vagrants who come to this city because of its reputation for public largesse.
You are asking the right questions. Make sure you apply this question across the board.
There will be city council elections this coming year including a new mayor. There will be a brand new city administrator. This city has the opportunity to turn itself around.
Pay attention to who is running for city council and select a majority team who will not conduct city business in the same self-defeating way it has been conducted for far too long in the past.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2014 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nancy Rapp has the right proposal.
It is crazy to think the tax payers should be funding maintenance employees at 2x the cost of bringing in a private company. There is no need to privatize the golf course, just outsource the maintenance.
The idea that some of the city council would even consider using general fund dollars to subsidize the golf course shows just how inept they are. The city council needs to run the city not grow a bureaucracy!
loneranger (anonymous profile)
December 12, 2014 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LoneRanger, you've got it right. However in today's snack-able media world, people read the headline and make a conclusion. In this case, they see privatize the golf course and they think that the land will be sold off to the highest bidder. They read deficit and assume that its large and a result of lack of revenue, not over spending.
Murillo is a problem. Any person who puts the welfare of a few individuals over the financial welfare of the whole, needs to be removed from public office.
She is working in direct opposition of her sworn duties. The city is not a jobs program for a few overpaid and frankly, lucky individuals. Its a city, its a corporation and its welfare is her number one priority. Not the retirement of a few cousins and uncles...
Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When you keep electing candidates endorsed and funded by city employee union members you get exactly more of the same.
Ironically Murillo was not endorsed by the city employee unions but as soon as she got elected, those same unions hosted a fund-raising party for her to buy her loyalty before she was even sworn in.
She coulda, shoulda, said no thank you, I was elected to be an independent voice on city council. But she didn't, and she isn't.
What did she need the post-election fund-raising for so early in her city council career anyway. Did she arrive carrying massive campaign debt showing poor fiscal skills or was she already building a war chest for re-election four years hence.
Or did she choose to compromise herself on the alter of special interest campaign donations taking these donations the very people she would soon be negotiating on the other side of the bargaining table?
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
December 14, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"We need more sports fields with ample parking and a restaurant.
Gee, where could that be?????"
More importantly, who would pay for it??
This was discussed on the last article about this topic.. The golfers are already generating a lot of revenue, so to turn it into an 'open park' or sports field would reduce that revenue significantly and thus not solve the problem.
Others have suggested that reducing expenses for the course, namely employee expenses would help to solve the problem. Others have suggested alternative price structures, either lowering the green fees to attract more customers when the course is generally empty and/or raising fees when it is busier.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
December 15, 2014 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)