Dr. Paige Van Wirt and Olga Negron are the only two Nos. "I feel a short term, structured lease with a well-vetted, proven operator is a much more financially responsible option than sinking more money into an operation that has run at a deficit for the last decade," said Dr. Van Wirt.
The City is also sinking $450,000 in grant money, some of which is from Northampton County, for the sport of rich people and those who pretend they are rich.
Dr. Van Wirt continues:
"Why is the city choosing to put even more money into the golf course? Is this reflective of the priorities of all the citizens of Bethlehem, when only 750 of Bethlehem’s 78,000 citizens even play golf on the municipal course? The feasibility study for the pedestrian bridge project costs $80,000. The merits of this project toward walkability and economic development for our city are clear. There are other priorities for this money as well, such as improving our dismal sidewalks, helping our business districts with grants for facade and streetscape improvements, giving away 2 hours free in the public parking garage to parkers to encourage more shoppers downtown- all much more effective economic development uses for this money than more equipment for the golf course. I’m sure there are many other good ideas out there and I would love to hear them."
Fore!
ReplyDeleteArts, Entertainment, Accommodation ($1.7 billion, +1.7 percent)
This is one way the increase the local GDP by 1.75million.
What I would do is check to see if there are restrictions on the Deed, if there are, I would argue they are no longer valid. Those are strictly construed, and the grantor is defunct. No court is going to require a city to go broke funding an activity no one cares about any more. After getting a court order, i’d Seek RFPs for this tract. Part might be kept as open space. Would also be a good location for a university or college.
ReplyDeleteIF (big if) the property is no longer to be used as a golf course or for recreation, the last thing it should become is another tax exempt property. Between churches, schools, hospitals and public housing, we have enough of that.
ReplyDeleteNow, as far as the course is concerned, I think at very least they should try something new - namely, let's have the course professionally managed. Practically everything that a municipality tries to manage gets screwed up. Bethlehem is notoriously mismanaged. The landfill is a prime example. How do you not make money operating a landfill?
The municipal services building on Stefko (belongs to the city) is falling apart. The swimming pools are falling apart. The parks are in poor condition, including the relatively new linear park known as the Greenway. Bethlehem's now fifty year old city center, city hall complex is an embarrassment.
The reasons are clear - there is really no plan to maintain and or improve through capital spending anything that the city owns. The golf course is a nine-month attraction and it can be marketed to the city and beyond. Modestly, 1,000 rounds a month generates between $25,000 and $40,000 per month revenue. A good manager will find a cost effective way to maintain the grass and trees and traps, while increasing this revenue through tournaments and advertising. Borrowed money can extend the cart paths and rebuild traps, tee boxes and greens. Done correctly, the course can and should be practically self-sustaining.
The only chance for this is for the city to get out of the golf business and bring in a proven, successful professional. If they don't, it'll be "par for the course".
VOR
There are really two issues at play here:
ReplyDelete1) We want everything and don't want to pay for it, and
2) Government inefficiency
On the first point, yeah it makes no sense to have government running a golf course, especially for the small portion of the population that uses it. But it also doesn't make much sense to build dog parks exclusively for the few of us who are dog owners (and live close enough to the dog park to use them) or skateboard parks for the few of us wanting a cool way to bust our noggins. But we find way to justify government involvement in such things, even though they make no financial sense, because we NEED those things and nobody in their right mind would build those things on their own.
The second point is government inefficiency, and the increased cost that government involvement brings. I understand the golf course hasn't made a profit in years, but for how many years did it shelter government employees for politicians who didn't want to make real decisions on personnel? It's great that the union is now willing to cut the staffing in half, but how much taxpayer money has been wasted over the years paying for more employees than needed?
It was noted that the course ran a profit in the past, but hasn't for many years. Besides the over-staffing, what happened to those past profits? Were they reinvested in the golf course or absorbed into the general fund? If the latter, some payback now might seem more reasonable.
Absent that, find a qualified, independent operator to run the course. Don't put any of the stupid government regulations (residency, wage requirements, etc.) on the operator that would limit the pool of applicants or kill any chance at the operator making a profit. At the end of the day, if someone else can run it and it doesn't cost the city anything, it's a win.
As an avid golfer who plays this course several dozen times per year, I’d like to make a few points.
ReplyDeleteFull-time union labor in the maintenance department was the main reason why this course could not turn a profit. A course like this only really needs a superintendent and maybe two full time maintenance people. Not a gaggle of full-time union employees with healthcare and pensions to ride mowers. The rest should be seasonal part timers with no benefits. Even with golf being in somewhat of a decline – some call it more of a reversion to the mean – this course gets a TON of play. I remember in the 1990s, if you didn’t have a buddy who was an insider working at the course or were some kind of Mr. Popular from Bethlehem Steel, no way in hell were you getting an early tee time. Those days are over, but weekend mornings are still packed with players, there are multiple evening leagues almost every weeknight, and there is a large retiree clientele during the weekdays. If any public golf course in the Lehigh Valley should be earning a profit based on level of play, it should be this one.
The bunkers are in horrible condition, probably the worst of any course in the Lehigh Valley. They all need to be completely redone with new drainage and sand. They are rock hard and many are unplayable during dry conditions, and after heavy rains they turn into ponds for days. I know this deters some people from playing the course. Many of the cartpaths are in awful condition. This likely deters nobody from playing the course, but likely increases maintenance expense somewhat as people will drive on the grass and wear that down instead of staying on the path and hitting bumps or giant puddles every 10 feet.
The restaurant lease that was in place until very recently had a ridiculously low rent amount that seemed to be based on a prediction that the restaurant wasn’t going to do much business. Instead, the opposite happened. That restaurant is packed all the time. The City left a huge amount of money literally on the table during the past few years until it was recently negotiated. Donnelly made it into a goldmine when he took it over from Rank/Starters.
Nobody from the city forestry bureau seems to have the golf course on their radar. There are many dead or near dead trees standing on the golf course that should be removed, for safety if anything. When they do replace a tree, it is usually in an illogical location for the way the golf hole is meant to be played once the tree gets big– in front of #17 tee for example. There are some nice specimen trees on the course that are being choked out by junky evergreens.
I could nit-pick the course for some minor customer policy-type things that frustrate golfers. Season passes not being valid during the winter, lack of pace of play enforcement, that sprinkler next to the forward tee on #2 that has been leaking since the dawn of time, etc.
The nine-hole course across the street is seriously underutilized but likely involves a very minimal maintenance expense. I don’t know what else you could do with it. Perhaps the revenue/profit/loss for that course should be evaluated on its own.
A private operator/lessee would be the right type of management to have for running the course on a day to day basis. However, I will be frank and predict that even if they let the place go in terms of maintenance, it will still draw a crowd if it is cheap enough to play, solely based upon the location. My understanding is that at least one local businessman, who impressed me as being very passionate about the game and concerned about the fate of the course, were completely interested in leasing the course until that whole option was scrapped by Council.
I want to add to my 3:17 comment that I am not opposed to union labor in general, but it just does not work when you are trying to compete with 10+ other golf courses that are not required to (and don't) use union labor and abide by various inflexible work rules pertaining to scheduling hours, who can do what type of work, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf it's such a waste of money how come Lamont and Northampton County are giving them money?
ReplyDelete@3:17
ReplyDeleteThough your expertise and opinion as an avid golfer may receive applause as you argue your belief among your golfing buddies, the rest of us non-golfing taxpayers don't give a rat's ass.
@3:22
Your disclosure of 10+ other golf courses is hardly a convincing argument that my money should be spent to save one, or that it can be saved even with another $1.75 million thrown at it.
Bull shit move by insiders. Waste of money. Why not put that money into a north-south pedestrian bridge connecting the city. With walkers and bikes that would really be great for all. Not just a privileged few. Rather than selling Nursing Homes you should sell this turd.
ReplyDeleteThere are no tax dollars allocated to the golf course or this loan. The golf course has its own budget, and is not part of the city's general fund. The course has managed to pay for itself, with the exception of a line item in the golf budget for a payment to the City's general fund, the last few years. The City guaranteed the debt, but did not allocate tax dollars for it. This is no different than a sewer or water loan, or the parking authority loan.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the City of Bethlehem wasting taxpayer dollars, Bethlehem Township has it's money pit in the Community Center and most recently threw away untold thousands of dollars on a Community Days event with the final day of Sunday, cancelled due to shitty weather. Borrow & Spend the government way!
ReplyDeleteSomehow I don't think putting the use of city money to a golf course is the same as sewer and water needs.lol. Good try though. Keep on swinging you old duffers!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSad to see the course sold. Center Valley Club closed and another nearby course may close too. Across the country, courses cannot sustain their expenses and yet on TV, continues to be number one Sunday viewing.
"Somehow I don't think putting the use of city money to a golf course is the same as sewer and water needs.lol. Good try though. Keep on swinging you old duffers!"
ReplyDeleteClearly you know nothing of how the city budget works. The golf, water and sewer are all separate budgets that rely on their own revenue stream from fees charged for the services. No tax dollars are allocated towards these budgets. Tax dollars are only spent in the City General Fund budget. However, the City gurantees the debts for loans taken by city entities. Golf fees will pay the debt service for the loan, not tax dollars.
A city quality of life is know by its amenities. A golf course is one way of attracting new residents qnd keeping the existing ones proud to live in Bethlehem. that being said, perhaps a professional management team is really needed. Fixing up the course should be a precursor to attracting a qualified operator with a much better lease for the city. It' like polishing a used car before trying to sell it. The restaurant must be included in the overall lease. Assuming the current "New Deal;" for the restaurant is long term, the new operator could continue it under a sub lease agreement and those profits would revert to the operator instead of the city. That way the city is made whole through the master lease. dog parks, walking trails and pedestrian bridges all face the same criticism. How many citizens of Bethlehem even know where they are and how many actually use them?
ReplyDeleteI am all for the City keeping & upgrading the Golf Course & spending the $1.75 million on upgrades. The City made a BAD mistake years ago selling off the landfill on Apple Butter Rd in my thoughts the city should of kept the landfill JOBS would of been retained for many city employees & it would be a major source of income for the city. Just like the City's Compost center for yard waist that place is a horrendous mess in there garbage recyclables are strewn about everywhere the Mulch is absolute GARBAGE & not worth the $10.00 FEE for them to load your truck or even the FREE Mulch in the bins is GARBAGE it looks like they are just grinding up everyone else's yard garbage. I heard the city SOLD that off too & is being run my a private company now but why are there City Trucks parked there & there is 2 pieces of equipment ( A TROMMEL & Some other equipment on TRACKS that sits way back in the back buy a rear gate ) both look like they have not been used in years it's a shame they just sit there doing nothing what a WAIST OF TAX PAYERS MONEY.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative that no money comes from the city budget is a false one since the city offloads labor costs onto the Golf course. In addition, I don’t believe the golf course pays a water bill for its irrigation water unlike that of a private operator.
ReplyDeleteThe city doesn’t belong in the golf course business but needs to insure that the property is maintained as an open space golf course by retaining the acreage. It remains to be seen if they can operate a competitive facility with their new lease on the clubhouse & with the improvements provided but hiring a private golf management operating company should be strongly considered now that they approved the capital improvements. Government has no business trying to manage an operation like this.
The gentleman that was interested in leasing the course has had several businesses in the city over the past 30+ years and has been very succesful, He also had the backing and financial status it would take...now ask Yourselves why would the city turn a man of this wealth away?????? The city is afraid to allow someone to profit from their mistake......The landfill all over again!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThat the golf course is self-supporting is a myth that Erik Evans and others on the council want people to believe. This claim is even made on the Bureau Description on page 266 of the budget. As Sara Satullo reports on Lehigh Valley Live on 10/10/17, “the Bethlehem Golf Course is supposed to be a self-sustaining operation. But since 2009 the course has lost almost $1 million due to external and internal factors.” Since the golf course hasn't Been able to reimburse the city’s general fund for the required amount to cover indirect costs, the taxpayers have indeed been effectively subsidizing the course. Sara confirms this in the article by quoting Evans, “The course has made up its budget shortfalls by not reimbursing the city for some of its medical, insurance, workman’s compensation and Social Security costs, Evan’s said.” This was not what Evans acknowledged on Tuesday when he schooled the public on how taxpayers have not been supporting the golf course.
ReplyDeleteBarb, I really appreciate your insight and your commitment to good government.
ReplyDelete