Oversight of the Fernandina Beach Golf Course? – An opinion

Submitted by Jim Powers
October 30, 2014 2:30 p.m.

FOpinions_ Smaller

There has been much conversation recently about the status and the future of our municipal golf course (the FBGC). Too much of the conversation has been based upon false or poorly understood information.

I am writing to shed as much light as I can on the different aspects of the subject from the vantage point of my having been a six year member of the Golf Course Advisory Board (2008-2014), and vice-chairman of the Golf Course Evaluation Committee (GCEC). The GCEC in 2010 was tasked with researching and recommending how the golf course should be operated and managed in the future.

My original idea was to submit two or three separate opinion pieces covering how we got to where we are now. For instance: what was the review process that led to the selection of Casper to be golf course manager? what kind of research did we do? what are the key Casper contract provisions? how did we decide on Casper’s performance evaluation criteria and procedures? where are the performance requirements outlined? did we consider leasing the property? did we consider course modifications -and future options? did we consider separating out food and beverage from the contract? did we consider a maintenance-only contract? what was the pre-Casper FBGC arrangement? should the golf course remain an enterprise fund? And what about putting the golf course under Parks and Recreation? retaining the 27 holes? the Par 3 option? — and what is the importance of our municipal golf course to our city?

I was preparing notes on the above — and then “Something” happened that led me to decide that I should start these articles sooner rather that later. That “Something” was how Commissioner Corbett responded to a citizen asking from the podium if the new golf committee had addressed the question of the revised golf course fees. Corbett stated that the new committee does not get involved in such matters. My immediate reaction while practically jumping out of my chair was “that is ridiculous.” The Golf Course Advisory Board (GCAB) I served on certainly did get “involved in such matters” and our Golf Course Evaluation Committee (GCEC) certainly envisioned that the City — and the GCAB — would be diligent in regard to all aspects of the contract, including the fee structure. In other words, the GCEC believed the City would provide strong oversight of Casper.

During the Request for Proposal (RFP) preparation, we spent many weeks deliberating what the requirements should be, and how they were to be monitored and how the performance would be evaluated. We outlined the requirements in the RFP and Casper knew what to expect when they received the contract.

So, after I digested Commissioner Corbett’s surprising words, I decided I should first direct my attention to the City’s oversight of the Casper contract.

PrintOversight of the contract is the City’s most important role regarding the golf course. I feel that we shouldn’t be considering selling the golf course, or turning it into parkland, or doing anything else with it when we have no clear picture of how the contract we currently have with Casper is being implemented. Or if Casper is utilizing the best possible financial practices. I feel that City oversight of this contract has been sorely lacking since City Manager Gerrity came on board in May of 2012.

As a new hire, Mr. Gerrity thought he could personally juggle being airport manager, and handling golf course oversight at the same time he was taking on and fulfilling his new full time responsibilities as the City Manager of Fernandina Beach. What was the Commission thinking when it endorsed Gerrity attempting to take on all these roles when they knew he had no prior experience serving as a City Manager?

From the time he was hired as City Manager, until the dismantlement of the Golf Course Advisory Board in January 2014, Mr. Gerrity never once attended a meeting of our board. Nor sought the advice of the board. The board chair only remembers Mr. Gerrity meeting with him twice in that 20 month period. In other words, Casper was put in the position of “overseeing” or supervising itself. Obviously not healthy.

It has evolved that Commissioner Corbett and the City Manager are currently the only two city officials involved in the performance management of the Casper contract.. I do not believe either one has the capability to do that job adequately. Neither do I believe any of the other City Commissioners do, either, but apparently the other commissioners are satisfied to depend upon Gerrity and Corbett to do whatever needs to be done. Not good. Not what the citizens should expect. Casper cannot provide oversight of itself . That oversight is inherently a government function. I believe it is unethical to ignore that reality.

How do I personally recommend the situation be corrected? By placing the golf course under the City’s Parks and Recreation Department — which is how/where most municipal golf courses are managed. Parks and Rec is where recreation professionals with well documented education and training credentials serve our city. That staff deals with kindred activities on a daily basis. Corbett and Gerrity do not.

I reviewed a lot of research before presenting my above recommendation. One particularly interesting and helpful source was an analysis of the 63 municipal golf courses in Massachusetts conducted by the the state’s inspector general. The IG issued an advisory to all communities. That study was hard- hitting when it came to identifying problems with municipal golf course contracting. Although Fernandina Beach would have done well overall when judged against the courses in Massachusetts, the glaring deficiency is in Fernandina’s lack of adequate qualified contractual oversight.

A few of the key points listed in the Massachusetts report under “Vendor Oversight by Municipalities” are:

1. Municipalities must ensure that vendors comply with all contract requirements.
2. They should not rely on vendor relationships in the belief that the weight of the contract itself will ensure compliance.
3. Municipal officials have a responsibility to protect a public asset– the golf course, ensure that contracts are adhered to, and ensure that taxpayers are receiving the goods and services they are paying for under the contract.

4. A responsible official would not knowingly pay for goods and services not received.

Massachusetts is not Northeast Florida, but golf course issues and concerns are not geographic specific. We cannot fix oversight problems in Massachusetts, but we certainly can fix them here in Fernandina Beach.

Jim PowersEditor’s Note: Before coming to Fernandina Beach, Jim co-managed the total renovation of a golf course in Virginia, and oversaw the management of the resulting course complex. He considered this experience plus his previous background in planning and managing highly complex technical programs within NASA as what he “brought to the table” when he served on the CGAB and CGEC.

4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
9 years ago

Jim, I look forward to the articles in the future. Oversight and proper management of a third party vendor is critical in any business relationship. In the banking world in which I work, responsibility for the due diligence of key third party vendors goes all the way up to the institution’s Board of Directors.
I think you suggested earlier an extended workshop on a weekend to address all the golf course issues and separate fact from assumption. Developing a long term plan for the golf course is critical. We all understand the constraint that the lack of capital funds imposes on such a plan, but you can’t even start on the journey until you have a clear vision of where you want to go to.

Robert Warner
Robert Warner (@guest_23197)
9 years ago

It’s all in the details, which no one wishes to know – except after the fact. Sell nothing now.

Tom Dolan
Tom Dolan (@guest_23277)
9 years ago

I do not understand why a town should operate a golf course. I am not anti golf but I do believe we are better off if we limit the scope of municipal responsibilities to the extent that we can. Municipalities do not produce GAAP financials with income statements and balance sheets so we can really understand the financial results. Over time the tax payer inevitably subsidizes the capital expense – be it for golfers or for the marina.

Lee W. Murray
Lee W. Murray (@guest_23916)
9 years ago

Jim: Excellent opinion piece. I am the tournament director for the Fernandina Beach Men’s Golf Association. I am one of many of my friends that play the city course three to five days a week and we thoroughly enjoy the experience. A group of 5-7 of my fellow golfing friends are having a 12:00 noon lunch together every Thursday. I would enjoy having you join us in the near future to discuss the golf course and all the factors involved with its future. I’m buying, so it isn’t always true that, “there s no such thing as a free lunch.”