HomeMy WebLinkAbout071723 City Council Business Meeting Packet- Added After MeetingI
vt
Statement to City Council for July 17' meeting
by Gabe Van Lelyveld
Thank you for taking on the complex and difficult task of determining the best possible course of
action for the property that is currently operated as the Port Townsend Golf Course. All figures quoted
in this statement will be supported by an info packet which I will distribute afterwards.
While serving on the Stakeholder's Committee I have come to appreciate that this decision is not being
made in a vacuum. Indeed, questions of financial sustainability, zoning, density, the housing crisis and
more—all of which I know the city is working diligently to address—are central to this discussion.
While I believe community feedback over the course of this entire process demonstrates a strong
appetite for change, I know that most but not all of our local golfing community feels passionately
about this course, and would be very upset if it were to close or be significantly reduced in size.
Having said that, there is a strong argument to be made in favor of the Central Park option either as
drawn or modified to include some golfing amenities, such as a driving range, mini golf, and a putting
green. In the first round of community feedback, golf ranked sixth' among preferred existing or
alternative amenities, capturing a mere 8% of total supporC. Many golfers seem to have interpreted that
as the community expressing a desire to squeeze alternative uses in amongst the existing course, but I
would argue that it actually meant we want to shift the majority of the property away from golf
altogether.
After Open House # 2, when participation was at it's peak, Central Park received 42% support,
Restored Golf 33%, Hybrid just 18%, and Space for Nature 7%3. This shows that at this point in time
more than twice the number of people who participated preferred the property to be a park only rather
than Hybrid. Lf
']'his is the point where l . exhaustion set in. In the third round of feedback participation dropped
by 57%1. Many who desire cl � age believed they had already weighed in got back to their busy lives.
The third survey yielded a a:3% lead for Hybrid over Central Parks, but it's obvious to me that had that
same pairing been made earlier in the process Central Park would have won handily,
Regarding cost, when you factor in state matching grants, for which both Central Park and Hybrid are
highly competitive, as well as projected operations and maintenance costs, Central Park is actually very
affordable given the much larger amount of land that it adds to our local park system compared to
Hybrid. In fact, compared to Hybrid, Central Park costs the city a mere additional $33K/yr over 100
years s
This decision will have ramifications in our town for many generations to come and we must take the
long view. We must ask ourselves, who deserves access to our public land, and who is denied? How
does that land, though small in the grand scheme of things, contribute to or help mitigate the existential
threat that is climate change? Despite the fact that we have multiple other courses within a short
1 '041823—gc_presentation_stakeholder mtg_8.pdf', p.10, Available at cityofpt.us/envision
2 'GC Results Survey + Open Houses + Youth Input' in Supporting Materials below
3 'golf_counrse_stakeholder_mtg_9_presentation_reduced.pdf', p.5, Available at cityofpt us/envision
4 `Participation calcs over time' in Supporting Materials below
5 7/6/23 Stakeholder Meeting video recording, 10:13, Available at cityofpt.us/envision
6 `Hybrid vs Central Park Cost Table' in Supporting Materials below
distance, many golfers are focused only on what they stand to lose, but I would ask them, you, and
everyone to focus instead on what we stand to gain.
Our town is changing rapidly. Golf here may have made sense in the past, but it doesn't anymore. It's
not what most people want. We want a land that supports the health and wellbeing of all, that is
environmentally sustainable and resilient instead of toxic with chemicals, lacking in biodiversity and
requiring massive inputs of water. The Hybrid option is an improvement over the status quo, but for a
little extra investment we have so much more to gain by choosing Central Park.
Thank you!
Supporting Materials
2) GC Results Survey + Open Houses + Youth Input
!Results from Jan 2023 Online Survey and Open Houses + Youth input
Golf Course Site -- Communitv Priorities
"!Uses
Rank #
_
% of total
alkin Biking "Trails
1
718
16.71%
Habitat Restoration
2
525
12.22%
Wetland Boardwalk
3
368
8.57%
Nature Play
4
367
8.54%
,Renovated Pool Facility
5
337
7.84%
,Golf Course
6
303
7.05%
'Community Garden
7
299
6.96%
Affordable Housing
8
291
6.77%
Event/Performance Space
9
284
6.61%
Picnic areas
10
225
5.24%
;Mini Golf/Putt Putt
11
211
4.91%
Education Center
12
197
4.59%
Climbin Wall
13
171
3.98%
Total
4296
100.00%
4) Public engagement calculations over time
Open House # In-person Online Survey
Total
% compared to Open House 1 % drop from Open House 2
1 291 83
1091 1465
100% 8%
2 207 23
1359 1589
108% 0%
3 109 38
608 755
52% 57%
Ir
6) Hybrid vs Central Park Cost Table
Port Townsend Golf Course Site Options Cost Coniparison
Estimate
Restored GC
velopment......rarit ....��.��..� �.�.�o�..�.....�o.o��o�........��.......................�._.,..,_�._.
juests
velopment: City
penditure $1,358,000
iration (yrs) 10
•ations &
itenance (est.) $159000
'AL/yr (after 22
3) $76,727
ifference/yr from
-.stored GC (over 100
;ars)
ifference/yr from
ybrid (over 100 years)
-$46
$13
$46,820
Central Park
$5,250,000
$1,837,500
21
$90,000
$173,523
$79,795
$32,975
Additional Info
The following table shows the average # of rounds played at the PT golf course (2021-2022)
M
The following shows the cost to the city to allow the property to be operated as a golf course from the
years 2018-2022
Golf Course Financial Analysis
Contractor
Expenses Revenue Net
2022 $76,300.00 $124,422.00 $48,122.00
2021 $92,225.00 $125,513.00 $33,288.00
2020 $57,696.00, $102,650.00 $44,954.00
2019 $72,942.00 $130,177.00 $57,235.00
2018 $95,404.00 $130,132.00 $34,728.00
Water Usage
Labor -City Staff
Capital
Repairs/Maintenance/Professional
Services
Total $
City
9 hole sales
18 hole sales
Annual
_.,$17,739
"total senior rate
_.,,,_....... ._............._....,.......w
_. ..µ,.,......,_.... X021
............... _.. Z-860._
,._......... ,798.,
$ (31,567.96)
�9,398
2022
$54,387'
$4,480
$14,980
$73,817
ASC, 2lµ 2
" 2
$50 8 4
$4638
$7 6,348
$71808
2021 Nov vs ec...........,...
w.amm...�....._......_.
..... .....
o
(as )
171"
2022 Dec
projection
$994
$111
$0
The following shows the cost to the city to allow the property to be operated as a golf course from the
years 2018-2022
Golf Course Financial Analysis
Contractor
Expenses Revenue Net
2022 $76,300.00 $124,422.00 $48,122.00
2021 $92,225.00 $125,513.00 $33,288.00
2020 $57,696.00, $102,650.00 $44,954.00
2019 $72,942.00 $130,177.00 $57,235.00
2018 $95,404.00 $130,132.00 $34,728.00
Water Usage
Labor -City Staff
Capital
Repairs/Maintenance/Professional
Services
Total $
City
$ 30,423.12
$ 28,913.92
Expenses
Revuenue
Net
$ 41,567,96
10000
$ (31,567.96)
$ 51,014.23
8164
$ (42,850.23)
$ 43,368.41
8000
$ (35,368.41);
$ 58,312.03
8485
$ *(49,827.03)
$58,183.38
8490
$ (49,693,38)
__. ......_.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$ 31,963.68
$ 30,423.12
$ 28,913.92
$ 38,811.92 $ 29,842.96
$ 3,003.59
$ 3,607.00
$ 1,551.57
$ 3,072.00
$ 23,216.11 $ 24,281.91 $ 12,902.92 $ 9,130.31 $ 11,725.00
$ 58,183.38 $ 58,312.03 $ 43,368.41 $ 51,014.23 $ 41,567.96
Average cost to city (2018-2022) = $41,861