Q's and A's about the Proposed Changes to Sligo Golf Course
These questions and answers will be updated as the scene changes. Notices of important meetings or other opportunities will generally be noted prominently elsewhere on the website. If you have comments on the Q&As, please send them to President of Friends of Sligo Creek .

Q1: Has the concept changed since first made public Feb '07?
According to a Feb 4, 2008 letter sent to the Montgomery County Council by MCRA, the concept is currently not being directly pursued by MCRA pending further study. The project would need to be approved by the County Executive and Council as a Capital Improvements Project (later the project would also need approval by the Park & Planning Board). The Revenue Authority removed it's request for $5.5M to work on the course beginning in 2009 and replaced it with a request for the Council to approve $100,000 for additional study of the project.

Q2: What impacts are of most concern to FOSC and the surrounding community?

  • Noise, lights, and netting from the driving range and mini-golf would disturb neighbors and wildlife.
  • More impervious surface, reconfiguring the site, and loss of numerous large trees would increase stormwater run-off and water pollution.
  • Removal of large trees would also reduce their benefits to wildlife, cooling by shade and transpiration,"fixing" carbon dioxide, and buffering noise and light pollution.
  • Increased traffic would pose problems for residents and wildlife, as well as increase air and noise pollution.
  • The expected seven fold increase in use of the site would drastically increase the amount of trash generated. Much could be expected to spill over into neighboring streets and parkland.
  • The new facilities would decrease the beauty and peace of the park.

Q3: What is the MCRA assessment of the impact of their proposal on noise, trash, and lights?
MCRA did not study the impact of either trash or the considerable noise associated with the driving range. The lighting company (Musco Lighting, LLC), that apparently may be used by MCRA, has developed a plan they say would produce "zero foot candles" in the the front yards of adjacent neighbors. MCRA has not studied or discussed the probable deleterious impact on wildlife of the lights, seven 70-ft. light-towers, and associated netting.

Q4: What is the MCRA assessment of the impact on wildlife habitat and trees?
MCRA has not commissioned a study of the impact on wildlife or trees. Although the site of the driving range has remained constant in it's plans, MCRA has not estimated the loss of trees or wildlife habitat pending the needs of a "final design". A study of the current state of wildlife habitat has also not been done. A MCRA consultant, Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., asserts in their "Assessment of the Development Opportunities and Constraints" that "the White Pines are declining in health and should be removed as a preventative measure to ensure the safety of those using the facility," and "that current government requirements may be satisfied by the planting of up to 190 new trees". No support is offered for these conclusions. Note that any replacement trees would be small and not individually match the benefits of a large tree.

Q5: What is the MCRA assessment of the impact on stormwater run-off and water quality?
MCRA has noted that "contrary to early beliefs, in total the concept will improve the environmental viability of the golf course." This conclusion seems to rest on a paragraph in the Greenhorne & O'Mara "Assessment" listing five options that can "improve the quality of the runoff as well as assist in controlling the quantity." No support is offered for these suggestions or for the MCRA conclusion.

Q6: Has MCRA done a study on the increase in traffic?
Only a "preliminary review" has been conducted by Street Traffic Studies, Ltd.. They concluded that the "concept" would generate 12 trips during the evening peak hour. Currently about 26 thousand visits are made to the course each year; the predicted increase is about 172 thousand more. No discussion from the consultant or MCRA has been made available on how the expected 172 thousand visits can result in such a small number of trips. Also not considered in the preliminary review are the impact on the intersection of Georgia Ave and Forest Glen, and the impact of an expanded Holy Cross Hospital.

Q7: North Hills of Sligo Creek Civic Association suggested making the current course "greener"; what is the MCRA reaction to that?
North HIlls argued that because a green course uses less energy, pesticides, fertilizer, and water it should save MCRA money. Although MCRA "agrees with the potential for savings we do not believe that these savings alone will be substantial enough to offset the annual deficits." MCRA has not offered any rationale for this statement.

Q8: What are the chances for the current course to be profitable?
The current course made money as recently as 2004, and under MCRA management, use and revenue has increased, but no study has been made of the possibility of making the current 9-hole course profitable (such as through more advertising or making it more energy-efficient). MCRA has said on a number of occasions that it cannot be done but has not provided supporting analysis.

Q9: Must the course be profitable?
MCRA has indicated on a number of occasions that it must, otherwise they will return management to Park & Planning, which might mean the course would be shut down. However, the interpretation of a number of other people who have looked at the course lease and the legislative history surrounding it's development, is that only the complete collection of public courses run by MCRA needs to show a profit. They currently do, and the Sligo Creek course is not the biggest loser of the group.

Q10: If MCRA returns the course to Park & Planning, what will happen to it?
There are several possibilities. A likely one is that it might continue operating, especially, if, as seems true, it appears not to significantly compete with other MCRA-run courses. The course could also be converted to park land, possibly with soccer fields. There seems no evidence that the site would be considered for development such as housing. The apparent sense of the County Council when the lease was being considered was that the land would not be removed from park status.

Q11: What are the likely next steps in the "concept" process?
The County Council must approve the proposed changes as Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). The process for that begins with a public hearing on February 4, with decisions expected in May. The Park & Planning Board must approve the MCRA Golf Course Master Plan. No date has been set for this. It is unclear if this must wait for the CIP approval. At the Jan 9 community meeting, Keith Miller of MCRA said he was hoping to set up a committee of residents to help look at the "concept" for ways to improve it. Their work would presumably be this Spring. FOSC and the neighborhood associations are attempting to discover and understand other important possible steps (e.g., permits).

Q12: Whom should I contact to make my views known about the concept?

  • To the Montgomery County Council
    • 100 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850
    • Marc Elrich (At Large) 240-777-7966 E-mail
    • Michael J. Knapp, Council President, 240-777-7900 E-mail
    • Nancy Floreen (At Large) 240-777-7959 E-mail

  • To the Montgomery County Revenue Authority
    • 101 Monroe St., Suite 410, Rockville, MD 20850
    • Keith Miller (Revenue Authority) 301-762-9080 E-mail