Letter the head of the MC Revenue Authority

Letter from Bruce Sidwell, President of Friends of Sligo Creek to Keith Miller, head of Montgomery County Revenue Authority, January 23, 2008

Dear Mr. Miller,
In response to the January 9th Community Meeting on the Sligo Creek Golf Course, I want to capture in written form my current impressions, lessons, and questions I have about the material offered by the Montgomery County Revenue Authority (MCRA) in support of the "concept". I hope it will be another step in our dialogue about the possibility of changes to the present golf course site.

Since March of last year, the Friends of Sligo Creek with the rest of the community near Sligo Creek golf course, have been concerned that the proposed changes to the site were out of character for what is primarily a natural park and for the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, that the changes would significantly increase traffic; and other pollution from lights, trash, water, air and noise; and that the changes would degrade wildlife habitat and the mature urban forest existing at the golf course site. Many neighbors were also concerned that the project was unnecessary to fulfill the mandate of the MCRA contract "to establish one self-supporting golf system". These concerns were clearly communicated to you last summer, and you signalled on a number of occasions that MCRA would undertake to adequately address community concerns and work with the community to adjust the concept as necessary.

I understood the January meeting was to be a significant step by MCRA to share the results of recent studies and analysis of neighborhood concerns. I must say I am disappointed in the quality, breadth, and integrity of the information provided and presented by MCRA at the meeting. Many concerns including trash, noise, air pollution, and impacts on wildlife habitat were not addressed at all. Others including stormwater, impact on trees, traffic, and light pollution were addressed only superficially.

Nevertheless, I am glad that this first step has been made to examine the costs, benefits, and risks of the venture. Actions like this are absolutely necessary if MCRA and the community are to be educated about the ramifications of the golf concept. And should the proposal be moved to decision-makers, we could hope they would have the benefit of the data-gathering and analysis done. Since so much more information and thought needs to be put into this process, MCRA and the community must begin now to digest what was learned at the meeting and dig deeper and think harder.

Below are a number of specific questions I have related to what MCRA and it's consultants presented at the meeting from the Sligo Creek Golf Course Master Plan Project Summary:

  • Can the public expect to see specific data, projections, and impacts on destruction of trees: noise and trash pollution: impacts on wildlife from destruction of habitat, lights and noise?
  • An estimate derived from projected usage figures provided by MCRA indicates that once fully operational, driving range noise will come from ten million balls being dispensed, whacked, collected, and loaded into the ball despenser. This noise will be likely be incessant during evening hours. Since even now ball strikes from the current course are audible in the neighborhood, is MCRA working on ways to mitigate the racket?
  • MCRA asserts that "contrary to early beliefs, in total the concept will improve the environmental viability of the golf course", please explain your reasoning and support for that statement.
  • MCRA asserts that the concept will not result in any reforestation requirements, but there will be an afforestation requirement, please elaborate. [this is also mentioned on p.2 of the Greenhorne &O'Mara (G&O) report.]
  • What was the MCRA or (G&O) findings about the impact of the concept on the recent $300K renovation of the golf course stream? Since trees are being removed to make way for it, how much will drainage from the driving range be increased and need to be mitigated?
  • G&O state (bottom p.1 of their report)
    "The site includes a fair amount of tree cover lining the fairways, tees and greens throughout the course. Many of the trees are of significant size and varied in species, which include a large percentage of aging White Pines. The White Pines are declining in health and should be removed as a preventative measure to ensure the safety of those using the facility."
    Is this the opinion of a trained arborist? How old are these pines and how big, what diseases are they suffering from? Since these large trees cannot be replaced and are providing benefits as habitat, in intercepting stormwater, in cleansing and cooling the air, and in shielding the neighborhood from noise and light towers, what can we expect MCRA's policy to be towards removal of these trees?
  • Since the location of the proposed driving range has been clearly defined for some time, have the potentially affected trees been counted and characterized?
  • Please elaborate on the list of options for stormwater management listed on page 2 of the G&O report; especially what is the quantitative need for mitigation and the capacity these measures will provide?
  • Please explain in detail why savings suggested in the North Hills proposal for a green course "will not be substantial enough to offset the annual deficits".
  • The traffic study provided does not include underlying data or assumptions that can be used to check figures. Are these available? The business study conducted by Kennady Consulting anticipates on pages 31-32 and 38 that once stabilized the concept will generate about two thousand additional rounds of golf, 118.8 thousand rounds of driving range use, and 52.5 thousand rounds of miniature golf per year. Were these figures used to estimate traffic? Were trips by new employees, service trucks, and First Tee officials and students considered? Kennady quotes a driving range manager as saying that most weekday users come after 4pm; was this factored in?
  • ow important will the suggested bus stop, bike locker, bike path, and sidewalk be in mitigating traffic problems generated by the concept?
  • Was increased traffic from expansion of Holy Cross Hospital considered?
  • Why was the intersection of Forest Glen and Georgia not considered?
  • Is data available to substantiate the assertions made in the Musco Lighting proposal that the "pole design" using seven 70 ft light towers "will not create any light spillage onto any adjacent properties without taking any of the existing mature trees which line the golf course" ?
  • Will MCRA consider the likely deleterious impact of lighting on wildlife?
  • Please explain why the revenue/loss figures presented by MCRA in the "Financial Information" section seem at odds with those of Kennady Consulting (see sec. 8 for MCRA & p.8 for Kennaday)? In '04, MCRA notes a loss of $75k; but Kennady shows a profit of $27K. In 05, MCRA notes a loss of $123k; but Kennady shows a loss of $23K. In 06, MCRA notes a loss of $100K; Kennady shows a loss of $7.5.)
  • Is loss due to depreciation for a non-private golf course a useful concept in calculating profitability?
  • What are the increased costs to running the course that have over-whelmed the recent 19% increase in rounds and 28% increase in revenue?
  • Does MCRA believe the Sligo Creek Course has to show a profit every year? Why?
  • Kennady estimates (p.40) payroll and benefits of $45k for the miniature golf staff (includes a golf manager and 3-4 part time positions); payroll and benefits of $100k for the range manager and 3-4 staff; and assumes the driving range will operate 364 days per year. Does MCRA consider these estimates realistic?
  • Has the Kennady assessment been peer-reviewed by anyone? Have any of the other studies been peer-reviewed?

Looking forward, I have a few questions about your suggestion to recruit a citizen's committee to review the concept. Naturally, it is important that the committee be balanced, have what they need to do useful work, and be timely. My questions include:

  1. How will the committee be balanced to reflect the community?
  2. How will it operate to ensure all issues are thoroughly explored and necessary information found and brought to bear?
  3. Are there any County rules governing such a committee?
  4. How will meetings be run to ensure transparency and full representation (e.g., what will be a quorum? will there be transcripts? will observers be allowed?, will information be accepted from "outsiders"?)
  5. How will committee findings be shared with the community, e.g., will a full report with supporting documents be available in a timely way, followed by an open community meeting?
  6. What is the anticipated schedule of meetings?

Regards,

Bruce Sidwell, President
Friends of Sligo Creek