Report of Meeting concerning the
Sligo Golf Course Proposal

by Ross Campbell

On Saturday the 27th, I attended a public meeting about the proposed golf course reconfiguration. Keith Miller of the Revenue Authority held the meeting in the clubhouse at the golf course.

He said that the purpose of the meeting was to hear from golfers. As such, the meeting was advertised only at the course. He acknowledged that anyone was welcome.

As it turned out, most of the approximately 25 people that attended were not regular golfers, but were from the neighborhood. However, there were 6-10 attendees who identified themselves as regular players. (Some are also neighbors.)

Significantly, no one who attended was in favor of the proposal.

The neighbors forcefully made the point that the changes would add to traffic, noise, and light disturbance. It would also diminish wildlife habitat and water quality in the watershed.

The regular golfers were just as adamant in their opposition as the neighbors. Many said that if the course were changed they would not continue to play at Sligo. The primary reason is that the course would become a "pitch and putt" layout; not a real golf course.

Mr. Miller made the following statements (to the best of my recollection):

  1. He conceded that outreach to the community could have been improved.

  2. Studies are underway on environmental and traffic impacts. Those studies are due in December. (Several members of the public said that the county should have save its money and not contracted for the studies.)

  3. The Revenue Authority will return to the Park and Planning Commission after those studies are complete.

  4. He does not have an alternative plan for Sligo GC

  5. The objective of the Revenue Authority is to operate its totality of facilities (the golf courses, the airpark, a housing development) in a self-supporting manner. He stressed that they do not need to make a profit in total. However, because some facilities may lose money, others will have to make money to create a break even bottom line for all of the facilities.

  6. He said that the Sligo course has increased the number of rounds played and revenues generated in the last year since improvements at the course were made. However, he said that the bottom line for the course had not yet improved as a result. It ran a deficit of about $100,000 (maybe it was $170,000) in the last fiscal year.

  7. He said that he is exploring other ways to raise revenues at other facilities. He did not give specific details.

We still need to get better information from the Authority on what their goals are with respect to generating revenue from Sligo. We need to see what assumptions they are using in making their estimates for how much revenue can be generated. For example, if they expect to get more customers for a driving range and miniature golf, are they taking into account the loss of regular golfers that appears to be likely? It may be that the basic objective (make more money) won't be met by the proposal.

There was a strong push from some of the public to put a 1-year hold on the proposal in order to see whether general improvements at the course could improve the bottom line. Mr. Miller seemed a bit receptive to that idea. But, the public said that they were not going to be in favor of the proposal a year from now either.

I believe that the Revenue Authority is in a tough position of having to break even on facilities that, at least lately, do not have a track record of breaking even. I think that our real argument is with the County Council for having transferred the golf course to the Authority.

Mr. Miller is not an elected official. His job is to improve the business model of the collection of facilities. His job is in danger if he does not succeed.

The Council, on the other hand, is elected. Their jobs are in danger if the public is not served. Therefore, I think that is where the pressure should be placed.