2001-04-26
.
.
8
CITY OF ENCI N IT AS
ENCINITAS RANCH GOLF AUTHORITY
MINUTES of REGULAR MEETING
Carnation Room, Civic Center
505 South Vulcan Avenue
THURSDAY. APRIL 26, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chairman Kaiser called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.
DIRECTORS PRESENT:
Ed Kaiser, Susan Lamson, Kerry Miller, and Alan Archibald
DIRECTOR ABSENT:
David Wigginton
ALSO PRESENT:
John White and Ardyce Jarvis of Carltas Co.; Rod Linville, John
McNair and Mark Warren of JC Resorts; Tom Johnson of
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates; Bill Huck of Stone &
Youngberg; Burt Swaim, Golfer/Resident; Leslie Suelter,
City Finance Manager, Nancy Sullivan, ERGA Accounting Staff-
person; Pat Drew, Board Secretary.
ORAL COMMUNICATION [3 minutes for each speaker. Maximum 15 minutes for
oral communication.]
Burt Swaim, City Resident and Golfer, said he spoke to the Board on November 9 about
some of his concerns. He noted that the minutes did not reflect his recommendation for
using the back nine (i.e. play nine holes) for seniors, or others, in the early morning. In his
review of the minutes from past meetings he did not see any serious reviews of senior rates
with respect to the discrepancy between senior and junior rates, which is enormous. He also
had not seen the article that was discussed at an earlier meeting and which had been
planned to be written for the City's IN ENCINITAS newsletter to give residents a clearer view
of the rates and how they were put together. What he is really asking of the board is to
seriously consider the back nine in the morning for seniors, (believes there is a lot of
additional income to be had) and the huge discrepancy between the junior and senior rates.
.
.
.
AGENDIZED BUSINESS ITEMS
1.
Approve Minutes of Special Meeting of March 6, 2001.
Director Miller moved approval of the March 6, 2001 minutes, seconded by
Director Kaiser. Approved 4-0-1 (Wigginton absent)
2.
Presentation on Refinancing Bonds for Quail Gardens Drive Bridge and
Restrooms. (Tom Johnson of Fieldman, Rolapp and Bill Huck of Stone &
Youngberg; Staff Leslie Suelter and Nancy Sullivan)
Ms. Suelter said that Tom Johnson and Bill Huck were at the meeting to give the
Board a presentation on the refinancing, or refunding, of the 1996 golf course
bonds. At this time there is an opportunity that would be financially favorable for
the ERGA Golf Course and which they thought should be presented to the full
Board. She introduced Mr. Tom Johnson of Fieldman, Rolapp, who were the
financial advisors on the original bond, and Mr. Bill Huck from Stone & Youngberg
who were the underwriters on the 1996 bonds. They had prepared a presentation
and were prepared to walk through the refinancing options with the Board and
explain how it would work and the potential benefits. Ms. Suelter explained that it
would possibly allow ERGA the opportunity to pay itself back for any improvements
that it may wish to finance out of the savings from the bonds. She also
commented that if the Board feels inclined to go forward with the proposal, she
would recommend that the Board stay with the original group of consultants who
worked on the 1996 bonds. They are totally familiar with the bonds, which is why
she has presumed to bring Fieldman, Rolapp and Stone & Youngberg to the table.
In addition there would also be a bond counsel and a disclosure counsel.
Mr. Johnson started with page three of the booklet, which reviewed ERGA's
outstanding bonds issued on September 24, 1996 in the amount of $10,760,000.
Terms for the bonds are 7.75% Due in 2026 with Optional Call in 2006 at 102%.
The security on the bonds is the golf course revenue, and the sole investor was
and still is, Alliance Capital. He reminded the Board that while the golf course is
wonderful and very beautiful today, at the time of the offering it was basically raw
~and so it was very much a risk for the purchaser of the bonds. Mr. Johnson said
that to his knowledge only one other golf course bond has been issued and
successfully transacted in California since the ERGA 1996 bond offering. It was a
team accomplishment to get the bonds issued and to get the money to build the
original golf course. At the time they started the transaction the basic tenet was
that there was not going to be a general fund pledge. The golf course had to carry
its own weight. This was a goal that they were able to achieve after a great many
meetings. He said the good news is that we all know that at this point in time we
have a beautiful, successful golf course. From day one it has exceeded its
financial pro forma. This is one reason why about 18 months ago some of them
started to think about the possibility of refinancing the 1996 bonds to take
advantage of the lower interest rate. He said the perfect analogy is in refinancing
ones house. One can take advantage of the lower rates even though there are
2
.
He said the perfect analogy is in refinancing ones house. One can take advantage of
the lower rates even though there are fixed costs to pay. The debt service (monthly
payment) is lowered. With bond refinancing it is slightly more complicated but that's
what they are proposing here. He believes that given the interest rate environment at
this time the interest rate could be substantially lowered. The basic reason to pursue
refinancing is to realize aggregate debt service savings. To lower the monthly
payment makes money available to do other things. At this time they would like to
capture the lower interest rate environment, take advantage of the fact that we have a
successful golf course that is now more than raw dirt and a set of plans and one that
has a couple of years of tremendous operating history. There were some covenants in
the original bond issue that, because they were dealing with unknowns, were put in
place by a number of entities, including Alliance the original purchaser of the bonds.
Some of those covenants could be removed to make it more flexible for ERGA. He
feels that overall this is an opportunity to signal to the market that the Encinitas Ranch
Coif Course has been successful, that it has achieved its goals and would like to be
able to take advantage of lower interest rates.
.
Bill Huck picked up the presentation at this point by reviewing the refinancing
structure on page 6 of the brochure. He pointed out that there are differences
between refinancing bonds like these and refinancing a home mortgage. One would
be that current market conditions would not result in significant savings unless they
were able to change the call or redemption provisions on the bonds. When
municipal bonds are sold it is difficult to provide a period of time in which the bond
issuers can say to the bond investors that they will not redeem them, or call them
back for at least ten years. Investors care about that especially on a project like this,
where there are very few golf course bonds sold in California, because from the
investor's perspective there is a risk. They want to be sure of getting their 7.75% for at
least ten years. One difference between refinancing a home mortgage and refinancing
bonds is that with a period of call protection the bonds are not immediately refunded
and do not immediately go away. It's called an advance refunding where the
refunding bond issue like this goes into an escrow made up of treasury securities etc.
The interest earned off the escrow is what goes to the old bondholders; the new
municipal bond holders are paid by golf course revenue. This means that when the
refunding escrow is established by US Treasury securities, they are triple rated, as
good as gold, and all of a sudden the old bonds go from a non-rated investment to a
Triple A rated investment. Good news for the investor. However, if the bonds were
to be called away from him tomorrow those Triple A rated bonds would be worth less
because the investment would go away. With the ERGA bonds we have provided
that we will not call in the bonds until 2006.
.
Mr. Huck said they have made an initial call to Alliance Capital, the owner of the
bonds, and asked them if they would be willing to consider reducing the period of
call protection by two or three years in order to enable ERGA to sell refunding bonds,
a win-win situation. The win for Alliance would be that for a period of, say, five years
they would have Triple A rated bonds and those bonds would increase in value. The
3
.
win for ERGA would be that the period of call protection would be reduced and the
bottom line is that there would be savings. This would require the consent of Alliance,
the bond investor, as well as ERGA. It's a win-win for both of them. Alliance has said
they would be willing to do this in consideration of ERGA giving them the first right of
refusal on the new bonds. If ERGA wants to sell bonds to lower their interest rate to
save them some money then they, Alliance, would be willing to change the call
provisions so long as they get a shot at buying the new bonds at the market price. The
bond counsel, Bill Madison of Jones, Hall of San Francisco, said he is okay with this.
Mr. Johnson said that he wanted to point out that the rating agencies and insurance
companies have been contacted and while they concur there is a good operating
history, they just don't feel it has a ratable or insurable credit.
.
Mr. Huck referred the board members to the option scenario on page 7 of the
presentation, and said that they assumed the bonds callable at 2004. They have not
discussed this with Alliance since they felt to do so before talking to the board would
be premature. ERGA's interest would be in having the bonds called sooner rather
than later. He reviewed the three different scenarios for new bonds: 1) No new
Money and 2026 maturity; 2) $500K New Money and 2026 Maturity; 3) $500K
New Money with a 2031 Maturity. Right now the debt service on the bonds is
$953,168 per year. In today's market, the annual savings on taking no new money
would be $65,567; on $500K in new money with 2026 maturity annual savings
would be $24,043; and on $500K new money and a 2031 maturity, savings would be
$88,887 per year, with gross savings of $1,639,180, $601,080 and $2,222,170,
respectively.
Mr. Huck said he felt that it would be possible for ERGA to accomplish their goals by
raising new money to finance them, if that is the direction the Board decides to
pursue.
Director Archibald said that one of the things in the cash flow analysis of the golf
course is that after the bonds are paid off, Carltas Co. and the City of Encinitas share
the net revenue from the golf course, and twenty five years beyond that the City
receives 100% of the net revenue. He said he was not sure how Car/tas would feel
about pushing the term out an additional five years.
Mr. White responded by asking if refinancing would also create a lock-in for an
additional ten years? Mr. Huck responded yes, but there is no law that says that the
bonds have to have a ten-year call protection. However, anything less means the
interest rate on the bonds may be higher. However, it is negotiable, probably
somewhere between 5 and 10, but not fixed at 10.
.
Mr. Johnson explained that the one area where regulation does come into play related
to call protection is that only one advance refunding is allowed under federal tax law.
This would be that one advance refunding. This is defined as refunding that takes
4
~
.
place more than 90 days away from a call date. Obviously, with the call date
currently at September of 2006, we are more than 90 days from that. Refunding
possibilities do not go away but it is limited under advance refunding and interest
rates come into play in the ability to do a refinancing. If ERGA wished to build a
clubhouse at a later date they could sell additional bonds at any time. For the
additional bonds, if they were secured on a parity with these bonds, there is an
earnings test that says you would have to have revenues that are 140%, or some
multiple, and other requirements. ERGA could still raise money on a subordinate
basis or secured by some other revenue stream. So, it would not preclude ERGA from
raising funds to build a clubhouse. It would only preclude if the new money issue
were combined with the refunding.
Ms. Jarvis indicated that Carltas might have concern with some of the covenants in the
bond document that they would have to consider. They would probably have as
much concern with those obligations as with extending the term of the bond. I.e. To
make sure that the rights that were intended to be protected in the Development
Agreement, relative to sales tax advances, for instance, are protected under any new
plan.
1V\r. Johnson said that when they looked at refinancing they had looked at it with the
intent of keeping all of the existing agreements in place. They looked at it simply as
an opportunity to reduce the debt service, which would be a win-win for everybody
involved.
.
Ms. Suelter said that what they are seeking from the Board is some direction as to
whether the Board members are interested in refinancing. Regardless of what
ultimately would be done with the savings there are various things they need to start
working on. For example, they would need to go through the statistics and review all
the various cumbersome legal documents, and start preparing the financial data. All
kinds of statistical information would need to be gathered from the golf course, and
they would need to start preparing a market study. This would all take a significant
amount of time. In the meantime, they could also be doing the research in order to
come back to the Board to determine, before they proceeded any further, what is to
be done with the net savings, etc.
Director Archibald asked what rate was ERGA paying the City for loan of the moneys
for building the bridge. He was advised 7% over a three-year period. One of his
concerns is that he always anticipated that when ERGA refinanced there would be
funds for a clubhouse.
Ms. Suelter said that at this point she would like to move on to the resolution in item
number 3.
.
5
.
.
.
3.
Consider/Approve Resolution Number 01-01 Declaring Intention to Reimburse
Expenditures from the Proceeds of Obligations to be Issued by the Encinitas Ranch
Golf Authority. (Leslie Suelter, Nancy Sullivan)
Ms. Suelter explained what the resolution does and does not do. It would allow
ERGA to proceed with currently planned capital improvement projects and
retroactively reimburse itself from the bond proceeds for any construction projects
that might occur prior to the issuance of the bonds. The resolution does not obligate
the ERGA Board to fund any of the projects listed in Attachment A which is a list of
declared potential construction projects for possible reimbursement from the bonds.
The list may be adopted as presented or amended pursuant to Board discussion. Item
number 3 on the resolution, the maximum principal amount of the Obligations has
been left blank so discussion may take place on the final amount to be authorized for
reimbursement.
Chairman Kaiser moved that the resolution be adopted as written for a maximum
principal amount of the Obligation to be not in excess of $525,000.
Following discussion, Director Archibald summarized the intent of the resolution as
not obligating ERGA to refinance or to resell the bonds but to go forward with the
investigation, finding out what interest rates can be obtained, what Alliance is willing
to do as long as we reduce the repayment date, and the Board will look at all of that
and make a decision as to whether it wants to move on.
Mr. Johnson advised the resolution does not require ERGA to do anything. It just
gives the flexibility to reimburse itself on the Attachment Items if it so chooses. Or as
Director Miller remarked, it's like freezing this point in time.
Ms. Suelter said that they could have all the documents prepared and ready to go
forward and then if something happens to the market to cause them to withdraw the
offer, at that time no one gets paid. The bonds have to be issued before anyone gets
paid, so there is no risk in going forward and beginning the process. Mr. Johnson said
he believed there would need to be some type of study done that would be helpful in
marketing the bonds at a cost of $5,000-$10,000.
Director Miller said that he thought that what Director Archibald was alluding to
earlier in one of his questions was the fact that the savings appear to be rather large
and given the fact that maybe this is a one-time shot instead of coming up to a call
date, ERGA would be better served to wait and see what happens in the market. He
asked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Huck to discuss the pros and cons of doing this now.
Basically, what's the upside and what's the downside?
Mr. Johnson responded that basically if ERGA waits and the interest rates go down
they could save more money. However, on the flip side the interest rates could go up
and it would cost ERGA more money.
6
.
Director Miller said the bottom line looks like that with the current market conditions
ERGA can: 1) potentially refund; 2) not incur any greater debt service than it has right
now; 3) not extend the term of the debt any longer than it is now: 4) walk away with
about $800,000 that can be immediately applied to capital projects. It was agreed
this was a good summary.
Director Archibald said that he feels his concern about doing it now is that since
ERGA sold its 1996 bonds there have been two dips in the interest rates. He knows
interest rates go up and down and maybe if they are patient and interest rates go back
down closer to 2006 they could actually take more money out in potential capital
investments, including possibly a clubhouse. Patience may get ERGA a clubhouse
versus getting a bridge and a few other things.
.
Mr. Johnson indicated that one point to consider is the closer ERGA gets to 2006, on
the other side Alliance would have less interest in relaxing the call provision since it
would have less value to them. The longer these bonds are escrowed, the more
valuable they are to Alliance. If, for instance at 2005 the interest rates looked good,
Alliance is not going to be able to sell these same bonds at as high a price on the
market if it is only for one year. There's no way to predict where interest rates are
going to go. Part of the value of this opportunity is related to Alliance relaxing those
conditions. At some point in time Alliance is going to say it doesn't make sense for
them to relax the conditions. Mr. Johnson said that under the provisions described it
would net ERGA about $800,000 in real dollars at current interest rates, which would
allow some improvements and still have the same debt service. However, one factor
is that it is a little more complicated because of the Development Agreement and
Carltas' position.
Mr. White said that he thinks they/Carltas need to take a look at the loan agreement as
it affects their ability to get the sales tax repaid and doesn't extend the terms.
Probably don't know the answers right now. So long as there isn't any significant
downside to refinancing why not do it. However, he feels it is going to take a lot of
investigation on their part to determine how it would affect Carltas.
Director Miller asked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Huck to run a scenario of 2006. If at the
call date ERGA decided to refund at that time, assume a comparable interest rate
environment and, without extending the term beyond 2026, what would ERGA be
facing at that point.
Ms. Suelter stated that she didn't want to give Carltas the impression that we don't
recognize the obligations that we have to meet with regards to payback. We do have
a fiduciary responsibility.
.
Ms. Jarvis said that one thing she would like to clarify with regard to Carltas, is the
golf course CFD payments. Other people have been paying those assessments for the
past four years; a really small part belongs to Carltas and other fami Iy members, so
7
.
there is a fiduciary responsibility to all those other people. Just below that is the sales
tax agreement with the City, which is directly related. Ms. Jarvis agreed that she
could supply some estimates and projections for Mr. Johnson relative to the
obligations.
Director Miller said that assuming the resolution is basically moving the Board into
the next stage of due diligence, and doesn't commit the Agency to actually do the
refunding, this then gives the green light to do some computations with Alliance, do
some additional runs, look at the Development Agreement. With that understanding
he would offer a second to the Chairman's motion with the amount of $525,000
inserted into item 3. The resolution being:
Chairman Kaiser moved, Director Miller seconded, that the resolution be adopted
as written for a maximum principal amount of the Obligation to be not in excess of
$525,000. Approved 4-0-1 (Wigginton absent)
Chairman Kaiser moved that a 2006 analysis and comparison be brought back to the
Board at the May Board meeting, seconded by Director Archibald. Approved 4-0-1
(Wigginton absent)
.
Director Archibald said that before making a decision on the bonds he would like to
see a 2006 analysis at the current market interest ratelconditions. Ms. Suelter
recommended that the Board delay a decision until they can come back with an
analysis at the next board meeting, or if necessary, call a special meeting before May
24.
Director Miller agreed and said that he felt it would have the effect of telling the
Board what the affect of waiting would have. It may in fact demonstrate that with
s,imilar market conditions we would be better off striking early than waiting another 5-
6 years. Also, in 2006 ERGA will have less debt.
4.
Review Summary of February and March 2001 Revenues and Expenditures/Financial
Statements. (Rod Linville/John McNair)
Mr. Linville reviewed the February and March financial statements and noted that the
revenue and total rounds were down due to rain, cold and aeration. The Pro Shop
continues to do very well.
.
For the month of February revenues were $267,997 compared to budgeted amount of
$315,899 or 85% of budget. Expenditures were $197,563 compared to the budgeted
amount of $213,188 or 93 %of budget. Total rounds were 4,025 compared to 5385
or 75% of budget. Year to date revenues were $2,886.296 or 105% of budget;
expenditures were $~/~"4 compared to budgeted amount of $1,812,714 or 99%
of budget; Total net income was $1,060,295 compared to budgeted amount of
[,/ j)-¡!( ~ # ¡ , g,) Jh C 1. f
/ \~ .
8
.
.
8
$908,912 or 117% of budget. Year to date total rounds were 44,977 compared to the
budgeted number of 46,335 or 97% of budget.
5.
Review and Approve Hazard Construction Company's letter of March 6, 2001,
modifying their proposal and contract dated December 1, 1999 for the Quail Garden
Drive Cart Bridge, as revised by Project Manager John Nabors. (Alan Archibald)
Director Archibald moved that the Board move forward with the wood bridge
project based on the budget of $322,100 from Hazard, as itemized in their letter of
March 6, 2001, and as signed off by Chris Calkins and john Nabors. Director
Lamson seconded the motion. Approved 4-0-1 (Wigginton)
6.
Discussion of Southern California Card (Frequency Program)
(John McNair)
Mr. McNair reviewed the topic of the Southern California Card discussed at the April
board meeting, together with the rules as outlined in his Policy and Procedures dated
April 26, 2001. The reason why they want to proceed with this program is because
the golf business in general, particularly in Southern California, is declining. Every
course he has talked to has had fewer rounds than the year before. Up to 5000 fewer
rounds has been reported. This program is to help in getting the names and addresses
of all players for use in future marketing programs. They have never been able to get
this information for players 2, 3 and 4. Anyone living out of State would have to pay
an additional $5. To enable them to get the SCC rate they would be required to give
their name and address. The program is easily revoked if it doesn't succeed.
Director Archibald moved that jC Resorts go forward with the program, seconded
by Director Lamson. Approved 4-0-1 (Wigginton)
7.
Review Budget proposal for FY 2001-2002.
(John McNair/Rod Linville)
Mr. Linville reviewed the copies of the budget drafts numbers 1 through 8, the
accompanying summary, and the survey of the competition green fees of local area
courses. The budget drafts give the different scenarios as follows:
Draft 1 would increase the public rates by $3 and JC by $2.
Draft 2 would increase public by $5 and JC by $2.
Draft 3 would increase public by $5, JC by $2 and increase Tournament rates by $2.
Draft 4 would increase public by $5, JC by $2 and Twilight rate by $1.
Draft 5 would increase public by $5, JC by $2, Tournament by $2, and Twilight by
$1.
Draft 6 would increase public by $5, resident by $2, JC by $4 and Twilight by $1.
Draft 7 would increase public by $10, SCC would be current public rate plus $5, and
JC plus $2.
9
.
Draft 8 would increase public by $9 weekdays, plus $8 on Fridays and plus $10 on
weekends. SCC would be current public rate plus $4 on weekdays, $3 on Friday and
$5 on Weekends; JC rates would increase $2, and Twilight plus $1.
Mr. McNair said that if they are looking at selling some form of the California Card
then, with the Board's approval, they would be looking at a type of green fee structure
that involves drafts 7 and 8.
The current fiscal year will end June 30 and the draft rates are based on current rates
through June 30. This is what they should do this year for projected 2000-01
revenues. Basically what is being done is that they are adding a non-resident rate but
will not call it as such. Projected revenues are based on no changes to what they
have right now and using about the same number of rounds.
The difference between drafts 7 and 8 is that 7 is more of a flat fee whereas 8 has
some variation. On draft 7, if they went to a Southern California Card with just the $5
iincrease, at today's public rate it would take the fee to $61. If raised by $4 would
take it to a round number of $60. That's about the only difference.
.
Director Miller said that in light of the earlier comments from the member of the
public, why aren't we making adjustments to the junior rate, what's the rationale?
Mr. Linville advised that last year they made an adjustment to the junior rate - for
fiscal 2000-2001 they adjusted the weekday rate. The rationale is that they try to
keep the junior rates standard at all five of the JC courses and at this time they are not
projecting any junior rate increases. They feel that the juniors are the future golfers of
their business. For a golf course to be successful they have to have golfers and want
to build the loyalty of juniors growing up playing a certain course. They are more
likely to play what has become their home course as they become adults. Therefore,
they want to get the numbers of juniors in Southern California to increase.
Mr. McNair said that while the junior rates are the same at all their courses, if the
Board wants to change them at Encinitas then that is not a problem.
Mr. Burt Swaim said that he still doesn't hear any mention of the seniors, it's like
denying that they exist. He was assured that senior rates have been discussed many
times.
Mr. McNair said that the timing for approving the budget is the May meeting so that
JC Resorts can advertise the new rates so players will know there will be changes on
July 1st. Chairman Kaiser suggested that Mr. McNair and Mr. Linville get input from
each of the directors before bringing back to the May board meeting.
8
Dlirector Archibald made a comment that one of the things he had found when
putting together his report to the City Council, was that the Board had agreed that it
would keep the rates competitive but would not exceed the pro forma which is listed
10
.
in the Official Statement. He would like to be able to compare the proposed rates
with the pro forma. What he had learned in his research was that the rates wouldn't
exceed the pro forma and that the excess revenues would be made up by extra
rounds.
Director Miller said that in light of the previous discussion his feeling would be that
he would like to see an adjustment made to the junior rate, say $15 across the board.
Chairman Kaiser asked that Mr. McNair and Mr. Linville take that number and work
the numbers for the next meeting.
Mr. Linville said he didn't think this would affect total revenues too much; however, if
they adjusted for a senior rate this would have a much bigger impact on the total
revenues. A lot of their players are seniors whereas only a small number are juniors.
When they did their survey sometime ago it showed that at weekends seniors totaled
about 18-20% but weekdays they ran about 28-30%, depending on the day of the
week.
Director Miller asked if there was something that could be done to recognize seniors
where it wouldn't have such a fiscal impact. Maybe like certain days, or maybe a free
round. Mr. White asked what was the rationale for considering this since it's not an
issue of affordability for seniors. Most them around here can well afford to play golf.
.
Director Archibald suggested that maybe there could be a $5 discount for senior
residents during the week.
In response to Mr. White's request for a recommendation, Mr. McNair said he would
not recommend doing a senior rate at this time. He asked, rhetorically, if the board
wanted to jeopardize the revenue stream and the percentile going down particularly
at a time when considering the bond refinancing.
Chairman Kaiser told Mr. Swaim he had one more chance for his input on subject of
senior rates. Mr. Swaim said there are many courses with senior rates. If the Board
proposes increasing the junior rates to $15 during the week and $20 at the weekend,
those increases would compensate for the lower rate for seniors. His thought would
be to maybe give them special rates on certain days when there are flat times. Mr.
McNair said they would look at this and possibly look at discounts and/or what they
do with the juniors - i.e. no tee time but on availability and standby.
There appeared to be general consensus that a $5 discount on a standby basis would
be worth considering. JC Resorts was asked to run the scenario for the board and
bring back to the May meeting.
.
11
.
.
.
-
9.
10.
8.
Incidents and Accidents.
(Rod Linville)
Mr. Linville reported on another accident on Leucadia Boulevard where a golf ball
went through a car's windshield. They were unable to identify the golfer who hit the
shot. The lady was driving west on Leucadia Boulevard and was quite shaken when
she had her windshield shattered. He explained that what they try to do is to get the
golfer responsible for damages for any errant tee shot that goes off the golf course. If
not they try to get the individuals to have their car insurance or homeowners
insurance pay for it. The problem with the current incident was that the lady said she
had to pay the deductible out of her pocket. Mr. Linville said he had put in a claim
for the golf course to pay, and he actually has a budget to cover such incidences. He
would like to get the Board's opinion on whether he should continue to go ahead and
try to get the individuals to have their own carriers take care of it, or does the golf
course want to be the nice neighbor and say submit the bill and we will reimburse
you? This is about the third incident in the last couple of years. Chairman Kaiser said
he felt that Mr. Linville should continue to handle it the way he has been doing, offer
to pay for the deductible and if all else fails offer to pay for the windshield.
They had one other incident where a gentleman on number 1 hole hit a Dramm and
Echter pick up truck. He left a business card but it turned out to be a place he
formerly worked at and there was no forwarding phone number. They were
successful in tracking him down but he didn't feel he should be considered
responsible because he couldn't see the pickup truck behind the bushes. He did get
the gentleman in touch with Dramm and Echter but he gave them a false address.
Obviously he does not intend paying so Mr. Linville has flagged his file.
Report of any Complaints from Citizens/Players.
(John McNair)
None.
Potential Course Enhancements.
Mark Warren reviewed landscape tree planting plans prepared by Landscape
Architects Gillespie Design with the purpose of screening the maintenance building
with trees. They are proposing to modify the east side of the maintenance facility
parking to screen it from future homes on the South Mesa. Mr. Warren said there is
some justification for it but recommended that they hold off until after he has finished
with the yard and the cool-covers and determines how they are going to store the
equipment.
Mr. White said the developers, Cornerstone, are going to start building their models in
the next couple of months. The tree screening will be part of their marketing plan.
Mr. Warren said that the landscapers are willing and prepared to proceed as soon as
the Board has approved their proposal. However, they are also aware that once they
put the trees in the ground there will be substantially more costs involved including
12
.
.
.
--
14.
15.
installing irrigation, removing and replacing other trees etc., in addition to funds
required to take care of the trees.
Following discussion Mr. Warren said he would go back to Cornerstone with the
input he has received from the Board members and bring the issue back to the next
meeting.
Mr. Warren said he had received a call from Nextel and would like to put this issue
on the May agenda.
11.
Mr. McNair said he had also received a call from Sprint. They are apparently willing
to pay an "obscene" amount to install on the ranch property. Director Miller said if
Sprint was serious and willing to explore further it would probably not hurt for them
to have a meeting with some key people within the City to at least discuss how their
proposal might fit with some of the cell tower regulations that the City is looking at.
Info: Newspaper Article re II Panel backs plan to drive greens fees higher).
(Alan Archibald)
Info item only.
12.
Discussion/Direction Concerning Course Operations, Conditions Needing Change.
i'Jone.
13.
Directors and/or Manager Reports
[For reported topics not described on this agenda, State law prohibits Board
discussion, responses, and action. A Boardmember may ask questions, but only to
clarify what the speaker is reporting.]
Director Archibald reported that the Planning Commission had approved the plans for
the Cornerstone monuments at the Golf Course.
Next Meeting - Thursday, May 24, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.
Note: Because of conflicts the June 28 meeting will start at 4:00 p.m.
Adjournment.
Chairman Kaiser adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Resp...")tfuIlY SUbmit
(~l~
Patricia Drew, Board Secretary
ii, ;/." / r~
e:~ . '. ""',
Edward Kaiser, Chairman
13