1997-07-17
CITY OF ENCINITAS
ENCINITAS RANCH GOLF AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997 at 3:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chairman Kaiser called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
Members present: Directors Ed Kaiser, Kathy Riggins, Lauren Wasserman, Alan
Archibald and David Wigginton.
Also present: Chris Calkins and John White of Carltas Company; General
Counsel Roger Krauel, Manager Jim Benson, Recording Secretary
Pat Drew, ERGA Finance staff Nancy Sullivan and Leslie Suelter
(finance portion of meeting only), Scott Bentley and John Mason of .
J.C. Resorts, golf course operator
Public present: Art Beardsley and John Guidera of Encinitas Golf Association, Peter
Andrew representing Web Unlimited, Niels Norby representing
the Encinitas Chamber of Commerce, Peter Lawton
ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Andrew said he was representing his own company Web Unlimited. He had recently
moved to Encinitas from Wisconsin. Requests the Board to consider the possibility of
registering to play golf paying with credit cards, through the Internet, as the main source
of registration with a secondary source, perhaps, of the mail. Doesn't believe telephones
are a good way to register and used Torrey Pines as an example. Secondly, would like
to work with a member of the Board and to initially volunteer his time, to put together a
web site, show possibilities, do some research and show key people how this could be
made a unique "first" in the world.
Director Wasserman suggested that Mr. Andrew be referred to Manager Benson. City's
MIS manager, Bill Tiller, and Scott Bentley of J.C. Resorts. . Mr. Andrew said that he
would like to work with the City and all he would be asking initially is $100 to reserve a
web domain name for two years.
REGULAR AGENDA
Note: At the Direction of the Board members, the minutes of this particular
meeting will be more detailed than usual - i.e. rather than action minutes.
1. Approve Minutes of Special Meeting of June 26, 1997
Director Archibald moved approval of the minutes, Director Wasserman seconded.
Approval unanimous. 5-0
2.
Review Proposed Logo for Final Decision.
(Scott Bentley)
Mr. Bentley handed out some sample logos for consideration. Board agreed on the warm
red poinsettia and type style design and asked if the ocean could be incorporated in the
scene in some way. Bring back to next meeting.
3.
Report from Task Force on Grand Opening/Dedication.
(Kathy Riggins)
Director Riggins said the Task Force had met with City Community Services staff member
Carrie Stone who has joined the group to assist in coordinating the dedication ceremony.
Their recommendation is to ask charitable groups to be involved but not for kick-backs -
i.e. this is a fundraising event for the enhancement of the golf course and all funds should
go back to the golf course. All directors agreed on this issue.
The Task Force is considering having a tournament in five-somes which would allow 180
players. They have been assured by the professionals that this would work within the
allotted six hour playing time. Recommend doing in a "scramble" format with trophies for
winners, and letting Encinitas residents/workers have first opportunity for sign-ups with a
deadline before opening up to the rest of the interested participants.
Director Riggins said they are requesting that a committee be formed, maybe from the
Task Force, to recruit new members to help in getting raffle prizes, auction items and
such things to help in raising more money.
Reviewed proposed budget which still needs a little refining. No conceptual problems.
Looking at a net of $15,560 to go towards enhancement of the golf course.
Will bring back to Board.
4.
Status Report on Hole Sponsorship.
(Kathy Riggins/Scott Bentley)
Item to be brought back to August meeting.
5. Proposed Amendment Number 1 to Memorandum of Understanding between
ERGA and Carltas regarding additional costs. (Chris Calkins/Jim Benson)
Manager Benson introduced the draft Amendment to the MOU and indicated that the
implications of the amendment are a lot more complicated than originally thought
because of the way the revenue bonds work. He stated that the MOU was done initially
because there was nothing officially documenting the relationship between Carltas and
ERGA. In looking at the cost growth and cost enhancements on the golf course that the
Board is being asked to review and approve, and in the context of looking at implications
2
when looking at the proposed rate schedule, it was concluded that we ought to document,
both for purposes today and also in the future, hence the draft amendment. Manager
Benson said he recommended discussing the amendment to the MOU but not to take
action on it until the Board is able to look at the implications.
Mr. Calkins said that when he was reviewing in his mind a question that had been asked
at last month's board meeting, he realized that maybe his response had not been
articulated adequately, therefore he is proposing this modification to the MOU. When
.going forward in the process of accommodating changes that were required for the golf
course, it was done with the expectation that it was within an economic framework that
had already been set up by the forecast on the bonds and a rate schedule that had been
based on that. It was not their intention to be creating a basis for an increased rate. It
was to fit within what was otherwise a mix of costs which will go to cover things such as
the CFD and the sales tax repayment. In one way or another, this is to the benefit of
Carltas since the Owners, Carltas, otherwise would cover whatever is not covered. The
purpose of the amendment is an acknowledgment on Carltas' part and assurance that
this is the basis upon which the Board will be approving costs and not going into approval
of any additional costs with the notion that fees have to be raised above the level which
was expected at the outset. The fact is, as Manager Benson will outline, unless the
course performs better than expected ultimately there is an economic cost that is going to
be borne by Carltas, the Owners, because they won't get full recovery of these things.
However, their expectation is that the course will do better without higher rates, and on
that basis there is a chance they will get full recovery.
A question was asked relative to item number 3, who specifically are the Owners.
Manager Benson responded that "Owners" are defined in the Development Agreement
and are basically those people who are the signatories to the Development Agreement,
and Carltas Company is specifically designated by the Owners to be their representative.
Mr. Calkins explained that "Owners" does not refer to "homeowners" - they are the
residual landowners. This really falls under sales tax repayment and the risk of that falls
to one group of people who previously owned the land included in the golf course.
Manager Benson handed out a spread sheet and reviewed the cost growth impact
analysis in order to show why the implications had become more complex than originally
thought. The numbers having to do with revenue and operational expenses basically
come out of the expenses as documented in the Official Statement (OS), page 40. The
numbers were taken directly out of the Economic Research Association's (ERA) pro
forma. Also included was capital outlay in excess of the bonds. This demonstrates what
would happen if cost growth/course enhancement in the $1.2 million range occurs, and
then what happens when bond payments begin. The Community Facilities District (CFD)
and the addendum to the Development Agreement basically say that if there is not
enough excess income from the golf course operation to make CFD payments, Carltas
has five years to receive make up payments. If not, it is projected that Carltas is going to
be absorbing a cumulative amount of $349,000. The City is not hurt in any way. At this
point the course is paid off, Carltas has caught up with all that it is eligible for under the
bonds, and there is $366,000 which just about offsets their cumulative amount. As of
year 2011 when the City and Carltas start sharing surplus net revenue on a 50/50 basis,
there is an entire year and a half of cushion, where even if the golf course doesn't perform
3
as well as it should, the money will be available for the City to get its 50% of the surplus
net revenue.
Mr. Calkins said that they are aware that if the course under-performs by 10%, the
amount Carltas fails to get reimbursed is increased. In this case there is a potential of
$3 million which all flows down to Carltas. As Manager Benson emphasized, the impact
of the cost growth for enhancement of the course basically falls back to Carltas. It is
hoped that because the right kind of enhancements have been done to the course there
will be reduced operational costs.
7.
Review of Change Orders.
(Jim Benson/Alan Archibald)
Taken out of order because of tie-in to item 5.
Director Archibald reviewed the spread sheet of soft costs and construction costs,
showing items that are still under discussion related to merits of the cost, with an asterisk.
He recommended that the Board look at those portions of the change orders on the
spread sheet that are justifiable additions to the golf course and should be approved as
change orders that are then potentially reimbursable from golf course revenue. He
noted that of the $10.76 million that were in the bond sale, only $7,928,000 is actually
eligible for construction. However, because the money hasn't been spent quickly, it is
estimated that by the time the course is completed there will be around $300,000 in
interest income. This amounts to $8.2 million available from the bonds and interest to
construct the golf course. The initial budget called for $8.117 million. This leaves
about $112,000 that can be allocated towards cost overruns. Of the $310,000 worth of
change orders to date, about $242,000 of those are uncontested or subject to audit and
verification of the units and unit prices. Of the soft costs there are $787,000 and about
$450,000 can be clearly justified. The rest is in a gray area at this time that is subject to
discussion. In addition there are about $150,000 of costs associated with the club
house, maintenance yard and some of the things that were not in the original bid but will
be coming up. This totals up to about $842,000. There is about $112,000 available for
funding which leaves about $730,000, to date, of expenses that would come out of future
revenues of the golf course. There are $842,000 of approvable cost overruns with
discussions to continue between the City Engineer and Carltas on the other $400,000+.
There are fifteen items to be negotiated and these will come back to the Board in the next
two or three months. Director Archibald said he thought that maybe an arbitrator could
be appointed to listen to both sides.
On question by Director Wasserman as to why this project is so different from a normal
City project which has relatively few overruns, Director/City Engineer Archibald explained
that the initial estimate was drawn up without approved plans and on approval there were
change orders from the unapproved plans to the approved plans for such items as
drainage, irrigation, landscaping, and the engineering done by Hunsaker to put everything
on Auto-cad and to balance the earthwork, which was not in the original budget. The
items that are considered approvable include the club house which had an allocation but
it did not include a fire sprinkler system; the cost to get the sewer line to the maintenance
building was considerably higher than was allocated; the allocations for the fuel tanks for
the maintenance yard were too low; the cart barn required changes to have additional
4
electrical stations. There were no plans when these items were originally budgeted.
Unless the golf course was under construction by a certain date it became entangled with
the commercial center and the releasing of $7 million in bond proceeds. Therefore, a
contract was being negotiated way before the plans were approved. John White
reminded the Board that in all other projects they have had there was a built in
contingency fund - they were not allowed to have one in this project. These change
orders would not have exceeded a normal contingency fund of 10%.
Mr. Calkins summarized that of the excess hard costs, $300,000 was spent to redesign
new improved play, safety and maintenance. This was a conscious decision because as
the plans moved to final design, or as they began field work, there were a whole series of
issues that, if addressed up front, would increase the safety of the course and reduce the
long term maintenance. Carltas' choice was to say no; you (City) can have a golf course
but you are going to have it like this. Or we could work with the City and find a way to
finance the cost to make it right. We agreed to make it right and that we would accept
changes as they came along. Many of these have occurred in the context of seeing what
field conditions looked like. For instance, the final design for the maintenance facility,
cart barn and club house, was $100,000. It could have been built for less than that but
the City doesn't want it that way. It would be a good golf course and still be acceptable,
but in the long term, as citizens in the community, we feel it is in the best interests to
accommodate changes to take it up one notch further, because the long-term value from
the revenues on the course is going to be stronger for the City and for Carltas; a third
issue is environmental mitigation - there were many problems requiring solutions that no
one had anticipated. The course could have been designed to avoid them, of course,
but would have run into some play issues, some length issues and some safety and
maintenance issues. All of those were taken out. Finally, the OMWD changed its
requirements by $150,000 on hard costs. In addition, there were nearly $100,000 in
additional public agency fees, plus legal services. With normal public works projects
changes are not made - just go in and do it with the money that is 'available, even though
maybe twenty years down the line will have to go in and rebuild the right way. They
made a conscious decision to work with the City to resolve the problems as they came
along. If there had been a contingency maybe it would have been possible to stay within
it. Also, we had the problem that the driving element for timing was assuming all issues
were solved in advance, or the funding for Leucadia Boulevard would have been lost.
Since the course straddled the Boulevard, the course would not have been able to be
built. Mr. Calkins said that as significant as the costs are in the budget, they are not
significant in terms of the product nor in terms of the long-term value in revenue which is
protected by having done the things that they did.
Director Wasserman said he understands that it was a case of pay me now or pay me
later. Chairman Kaiser asked for confirmation that Carltas had worked with the City
Engineer as the problems came up and was assured that City staff was providing input all
along as they worked through issues.
Director Archibald advised that when the original bids from Environmental Golf were
submitted back in May/June of 1996, they were talking about well in excess of $12 million.
City Engineering, together with Carltas, went in and value-engineered the project to save
about 600,000 yards of grading which saved the course about half a million dollars. The
5
cost to do the value-engineering was significant (not sure how much until we go through
all costs) but in the long run saved on the actual construction costs of the course far in
excess of what was spent redesigning and changing. Based on the original plans the
course could not have been built for $7 or 8 million, it would have cost a great deal more.
Director Wasserman said the problem he had with this was that costs for such things as
construction management, soil testing and surveying, are part of due diligence when
planning a project. Normally in housing projects or shopping centers, that is all built in,
whereas in our project they have come up as extras. It makes it difficult to explain why
they weren't included initially since these are things that would be included in any project.
Mr. Calkins reminded the Board that there was an allocation for some of the items but in
order to make changes work it was necessary to do more field work. Also, some things
have to be stretched out, particularly those where there are people out there working, no
matter what. Therefore, if the project stretches out in order to accommodate another
agency, such as a water agency, or someone else who has decided they will take longer,
we are going to get growing costs. None of this could be anticipated. It was anticipated,
however, that all agencies would be cooperative - they were not. City was cooperative
but this is a community that has four districts and five resource agencies. One of the
increased costs, $319,000 for golf course engineering, was incurred because the golf
course architect's engineer was removed from the project. Carltas hired an engineer that
they were using on the residential engineering. This, of course, would have been
covered if there had been a contingency in the project.
John White stated that the project would never have been completed in the time frame
given without the flexibility developed between Carltas, the ERGAlCity representative,
and the Contractor. It could have taken ten years if we had waited to start construction of
the golf course until we had a complete set of plans, it was totally engineered and all the
bugs worked out. This is what Carlsbad is going through and they will be five years
behind us and at a cost of $15-20 million (including land costs).
Director Wasserman said that while we had learned from this, the penalty was that
deadlines and financial commitments rushed us faster than anyone wished; however,
the improvements made will save money later. Mr. Calkins reminded the board that
none of the costs come out of the City's General Fund; that none of the City's assets are
at risk, no taxes are going to go unpaid, no revenue is going to have to be raised from
increased course fees in excess of what would be paid on the market. The only one at
risk is Carltas. Nothing is coming out of the City, yet things are being done and in a
timely manner. The City is getting so much effort out of this project in terms of
roadways, this golf course, and everything is happening so that people can take
advantage of it now, not five years down the road. Mr. Calkins reminded the Board that if
the General Fund had been at risk this could never have happened. Carltas recognized
that they were the only ones taking a risk and that was at the heart of the deal.
Therefore, now asking ERGA Board to proceed in good faith on that same basis.
Director Archibald said that, as an example, in response to an earlier question from
Director Wasserman, the first change order is in the order of magnitude of $200,000, all
for things that were discovered in the earthwork period when grading holes 6 and 7, and
14 and 15, where the bid was based upon not compacting the dirt in the canyons. In
6
discussions with Chris Calkins at the time, they agreed that it was a case of pay me now
or pay me later because the cart paths are going to break up and need replacing, the
irrigation system will be jeopardized by the continued settling of the course, and this is the
time to do it right rather than having a long-term on-going maintenance problem. Carltas
agreed to bite the bullet and do the work then rather than paying for it later.
On a question from Director Wigginton concerning potential for City to not receive the
SO/50 proceeds on schedule, Manager Benson responded that the golf course would
have to be significantly underproducing from year 2005 on out - underproducing in the
first five years definitely falls into the CFD payments not accruing to Carltas. The only
way there would be insufficient excess revenues for the City is if the course
underproduces during the years 2006 - 2010.
Chairman Kaiser asked a question about golf course superintendent Mike Yukon and why
Environmental Golf was not supervising. Mr. Calkins responded that during the process
they decided that they would engage a person to act as inspector to represent both
Carltas and the City. He is not directing construction; he walks around making sure
everything is going into the ground etc. His expertise is in golf course construction but he
is strictly inspecting. The obligation for construction management, for the actual field
superintendent, is Environmental Golf. Per the contract their obligation is to deliver a
finished course, playable on March 1, 1998. All problems that have been observed by
either our inspector, Mike Yukon, or City Engineer Archibald, have been brought to their
attention in detailed written reports. They are responding on a weekly basis in meetings
with Mike Yukon.
Manager Benson stated that, for the records, in no way is ERGA taking responsibility for
what ultimately is Environmental Golfs responsibility, even though we are giving lots of
input. We have asked for their acknowledgment of this, and they are signing off on a
letter to that effect, that even though we are giving them our expertise, Mr. Yukon's and
Jesse Tench's from Community Services, in particular, this in no way affects their
responsibility for producing the course. All we are doing is giving them our input as things
appear to be incorrect, whether it be some irrigation lines sinking, or cart paths that don't
look right, or grass growing in, and whatever else. As would be expected on such a large
project, there is an extensive list of things that are being fed back to Environmental Golf
on what we expect them to bring in come March. It is in our best interests to have
someone skilled in golf course management to represent us.
Mr. Calkins read from a letter just signed by Environmental Golf regarding their
responsibility: "No recommendations, advise or commentary from our Inspector will in
any way relieve you (Environmental Golf/Hazard) of exercising your judgment, nor will
performing in accordance with such recommendations relieve you of responsibility for any
failure, including a failure directly resulting from following such recommendations." They
have signed and agreed to this.
Director Wasserman said he appreciated having this in-depth discussion and having it for
the record. Probably would have done things differently if starting today with all the
things that have been learned.
7
Director Wigginton moved approval of the Change Orders representing $842,000
contingent upon it having no affect on the chronological time for the amount of
revenue the City is to receive relative to the splitting of net golf course revenues, as
,defined in the Development Agreement and any other supportive data that is
affiliated to the SO/50 split of the surplus net revenues.
Seconded by Director Archibald.
Mr. Calkins explained that he' would probably find this acceptable however, it would
change his view of how the operator manages the course and what he does, if it is going
to be tightened that hard on Carltas in terms of chronological time on the splits. There
could be some effect in the manner in which the operator runs the course and the way in
which the fees are imposed. That will create a problem for him. The reason he phrased
the limitations in the MOU as he did is that it basically accomplishes the same result by
leaving the discretion with ERGA to run the course the way they see fit. Ultimately Carltas
absorbs the whole $1.2 million. The reason it might get extended out is the way in which
the course is operated - if the operating costs suddenly go up it might get stretched out.
Carltas shouldn't have an arbitrary limitation occur because of that.
Director Wigginton said that he saw his motion as being the insurance that whatever is
going on with the construction of the golf course is not affecting any future City revenue.
Chairman Kaiser said he had a problem with the motion because the Development
Agreement and the MOU and all other documents, cover everything that has taken place
today. This Board agreed that there would be cost overruns and that as long as Carltas
would work with the City Engineer on them we would support changes. That would be
our method for having changes streamlined. It was just too cumbersome to have every
change brought individually to the Board.
/j
Mr. Calkins asked a rhetorical question: what say the course doesn't perform at the level
expected. Actually, operating costs will be lower because of the amount in the
construction change orders. So, assuming that the $500 or $600,000 that went into the
change orders (cost overruns) saved us $20 or $30,000, or even $100,000+ a year - we
would only need EI Nino and one of the drainage situations to go wrong to wipe out
everything - so all of that has been saved and, in addition, we have improved
performance.
Manager Benson said that the funds allocated in the City's Capital Replacement account
is for replacement when the golf course wears out, not for the issues under discussion. In
his reading of the Development Agreement there was no guarantee that the City or
Carltas was going to get any surplus net revenues. It was a projection. There are times
when Carltas gets it all; or we share it; then at year 2016 it all flows to the City. But there
was and is no guarantee of the numbers, they were projections based on estimates of
how many rounds can be expected to be generated, what rate people are going to be
willing to pay to play golf, and that the operating expenses don't grow faster than the
willingness of people to play golf. Also, a great deal depends on how many other
courses are built around here. If six more organizations convince the lenders to loan
money and build more golf courses, we could, in theory, have competitors such that there
8
are not as many rounds generated. This would have nothing to do with the cost growth
on the course.
Director Wasserman asked General Counsel if there is a problem with imposing
conditions and if there would be legal impacts on the proposed promotions. Would there
be a problem. Mr. Krauel responded that he believes the concern about the timing for
split of revenues is very significant at this point. Doesn't believe that it is a good idea to
try to combine those concerns by imposing conditions with what the issue is today. The
issue today is that the Board is faced with a claim for compensation for extra work beyond
the contract. The first level of analysis is, is it work that makes sense in terms of what
kind of project we are putting down and want to see accomplished; was it appropriate;
and, was it something that we would authorize if we had seen it at the beginning and seen
a need for it. If that is all true, then the claim for compensation should be acknowledged
and the extra should be paid. To approve the work as extra and being within fhe scope
of what we wanted to accomplish, the value being there, we are going to pay you but we
are going to condition that upon the revenues being split at the right time, there being
revenues - as Manager Benson pointed out - that is going to be hard to determine. There
are already obligations in the Development Agreement that address that. Counsel's
recommenqation is that if the Board feels the claim for reimbursement for extras is for
work that is consistent with the concept of what we are trying to do, is not beyond what is
reasonable, and the price looks like what we should have been paying, if we had thought
about it, then approve the claim for extras. Director Wigginton stated that based on the
counsel received, he wished to withdraw his motion. Director Archibald withdrew his
second.
/
Director Riggins moved, Director Kaiser seconded, approval of $842,000 as an
extra, subject to a reduction in accordance with the City Engineer's decision based
upon review of the components. Approved 4-1 (Wigginton)
5. (Continued from earlier discussion) MOU - Proposed Amendment.
Manager Benson reintroduced item 5 in response to a suggestion for clarification of
implications of cost growth or the enhancement of the course, recognizing that we are not
going to turn around and increase greens fees an additional amount in order to cover that
cost growth. That, in fact, we will rely on the improved performance of the course, either
in terms of the number of rounds or the reduction in projected operating costs, to cover
the cost growth/course enhancement costs that have been incurred.
Mr. Calkins asked that the Board adopt the amendment presented. At a minimum he
wanted to be sure this is what is understood, that there is not a greater expectation of
higher rates. Didn't want there to be any implication that the cost growth would lead to
higher rates. Under the Articles in which the Board is organized, the Board always has
authority to set fees any way it wants. Although there is a good faith issue, the Board
can do whatever it wishes. He is prepared to discuss further to see if there is a way to
add another supplement to address the concern raised by Director Wigginton. Pointed
out that the real risk of there not being surplus net revenues at year 2010 falls on Carltas,
because their half goes to repay a sales tax advance and if it isn't repaid five years later,
they lose any right to revenues from the golf course in the long term. That five year
9
period wipes out any of the make-ups for any of the remaining CFD. At the end of that
five year period there is no condition on the City - the City gets 100% regardless of how it
is performing. Therefore, by that period of time, the concern that was raised is irrelevant.
The question is, is there some language that would help to further clarify from years 2010
to 2015. Would request that Board go ahead and adopt the proposed amendment and
bring back a supplement to either the August or September meeting.
Following discussion it was agreed to delete sub-section 3.b.
On motion by Director Wasse'rman, seconded by Director Kaiser, Amendment
Number 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding was approved in concept, with the
understanding that item No. 2 may need to be amended if and when the two are
merged into one document at a future date. Approved 5-0
6.
Preliminary Discussion of Proposed Rate Schedule
(Scott Bentley)
Mr. Bentley said he had some preliminary material which he would hand out for
discussion purposes. One was a study of golf course charges in 1995 for County golf
courses. When they did their survey they talked to most of the managers across the
County and got info on what they will be charging in 1998, since that is when our course
will be open and wanted to be able to compare. He also reviewed a draft of their
proposed pricing schedule for Encinitas Ranch Golf Course together with a comparison
showing percentage increase from the 1995 charges. Also included guidelines for
proposed policy and schedule for golf cart rates and reservation policies. Their initial pro
formas would show that the rates would meet the debt service for the golf course and all
the expenses. They are still examining and refining the pro formas. They do know that
for somewhere around the proposed pricing structure they would be able to meet the
financial goals. Will not decide to do anything relative to different rates until pro forma
brought back to the Board.
Mr. Benson said that when the MOU was approved by Council recently, the
Councilmembers raised two or three significant issues: 1) why isn't there a Council
member on the ERGA Board; and 2) concern on what rates are going to be, and
specifically raised issue of having a residential rate; 3) requested a general report back
on the status of the course and the cost growth. At the end of their discussion
Councilmember DuVivier reminded Council that it was by design in the Development
Agreement at Carltas' insistence that there be something other than a City Council
structure where City Council is susceptible to what is going on, as in Coronado and
Oceanside and most other municipal courses, where they set rates that don't meet
financial obligations. Recommend not going back to the Council with a discussion on
the rate structure until ERGA board is comfortable with the numbers - probably
September or October Council meeting. Mr. Bentley said he anticipates coming back
with some more pro formas at the August meeting for further discussion.
8. Letter from Southern California Public Links Golf Association (info) (Jim Benson)
Manager Benson said he had included the letter for informational purposes.
10
9. Directors and/or Manager Reports
Manager Benson said he neglected to advise the Board during discussion of the
Dedication, that he had had a call from Mike Andreen reporting that at the Encinitas
Chamber's Board meeting all 22 members acknowledged that they are each going to
make some kind of a contribution towards improving the landscaping. Chairman Kaiser
indicated that he understands the Y's Men's Club is going to make a contribution of
$1000.
Director Archibald said that as he was walking the south nine holes he realized they
should not plant too many more trees on the course. Want to keep the view corridors
open to the ocean. A lot of t~ees were planted on the La Jolla Country Club course which
grew and blocked the ocean view. They had to remove 400 of the trees. It would be a
lot more difficult to remove trees on a municipal course, therefore should consider this
aspect in the beginning. There are opportunities to plant additional trees in areas that
don't affect views and areas such as screening the maintenance yards.
On a question of how to recognize significant contributions, Director Riggins said they will
cover that ~s part of the Dedication/Grand Opening considerations.
Manager Benson suggested that on future agendas an item be added immediately before
Directors and Managers report that will permit discussion of potential course
enhancements. Agreed by Board.
/
Director Archibald reported that on their walk of the south nine they found that seven of
the holes had made substantial improvements to the overall condition of the course. The
course looks significantly better. Some of the greens need the algae treatment and
reseeding but overall it was obvious Environmental Golf had put tremendous effort into
bringing it up to a much better level of condition than it was two weeks previously.
10. Next Meeting - Thursday, August 21, 1997 at 3:00 p.m.
11. Adjournment
Chairman Kaiser adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
Resn~ctfully submitted,
t::.",)-
/
\(/'- ""'t'\'
,o>'~. . \.
':-':"'~'~---' ,.-_. '. - ...-"
. (~ \""' /"
J o...).C~C/'LO'- c.b.} .t'Vv
Patricia Drew
Recording Secretary
{?/huIc;4.- ·
I -
Edward Kaiser
Chairman
11