Submitted by Carl Galpin
July 15, 2014 4:025 p.m.
Unfortunately I voted for Fernandina Beach Commissioner Johnny Miller, who suggests that we don’t need the city owned golf course. I love it when people voice opinions on something they don’t participate in.
I work in the golf shop at the City course. It is my retirement job. I also live in the City and my taxes help support the Marina and City Park, neither of which I use. But I gladly support them because they have value. They help make Amelia Island a great place to visit and a wonderful place to live. I feel the same way about the golf course. It is one of the reasons my wife and I chose Amelia Island as our retirement home. We thought having a 27 hole public golf course nearby was fantastic.
It is true that the golf course loses money, due to old debt (club house and irrigation system). Without it the golf course would break even. It’s also true that the golf course made significant profits for a number of years, which went directly to the City, and was subsequently spent, not reinvested in the golf course. As a result the golf course deteriorated to the point where it was no longer competitive.
Despite many challenges, bumps in the road, and a limited budget, the golf course has significantly improved under Billy Casper management, compared to it’s condition just prior. It is now very playable and can compete once again in the marketplace. Bad press in newspapers kept some people away, and those that have tried us anyway are pleasantly surprised. The Fernandina High School golf teams practice and play some of their matches at the City course. Junior camps are also hosted during the summer months. We are a perfect course for families, providing an affordable and playable golf course.
The course has 340 members and hosts numerous winter visitors, some of which have been golfing at the City course for 25 years. Groups of winter visitors, some as large as 40, play the course nearly every day for the 3 or 4 months they are here. They not only spend money at the golf course, they rent condos, eat out at our restaurants, and support many of our local businesses. Would they visit the Island without the City golf course? Perhaps. But, without competition, the rates at the other public golf course would most likely increase, potentially forcing some winter visitors to look elsewhere for a winter vacation spot.
Sending vacationers to other cities for golf, doesn’t seem to support our goal of increasing profits for our local businesses. When tourists come in after a round of golf and ask for recommendations for where to eat and shop, I send them to one of our many wonderful local businesses. I don’t believe that one of the off-island courses would send them back here…do you? This could potentially cost our businesses a lot of revenue.
The other golf courses on the island are associated with the Omni Amelia Island Plantation or are semi-private, private, and expensive. We frequently have guests staying at the Ritz Carlton or Omni playing golf at the City course. The other 2 courses in Yulee are either too difficult, expensive, or both.
Although the golf course loses money, I believe it can be profitable again. The South course 9 holes is receiving new greens, and will reopen Aug 1.. The plan is to redo the West and North course greens next. This will substantially make the golf course more competitive, and I think some of the golfers who left due to poor conditions will return. And the improvements will increase our ability to draw new golfers who were not willing to try us before.
Keep the City golf course. It is an under-appreciated gem!
Editor’s Note: For four years, Carl Galpin has lived in Fernandina Beach. He now works at the Fernandina Beach Golf course. Prior to Carl’s retirement, he spent 32 years working for Ford Motor Company in various IT positions.
I have around to Carl’s point of view on the golf course. The golf course is part of a larger package of amenities that contribute to our quality of life. It should be self-supporting, but if we need to put in a limited amount of tax dollars to keep it fully functional then so be it. Just so long as we not subsidizing golf for non-city residents.
The idea that a City Commissioner, any City Commissioner, should not voice his or her opinion on matters they do not participate in is, at best, counter productive to good City Government. Not sure how many of the Commissioners own a boat, but they have to make decisions about the marina. I doubt if any of them fly a plane, but they must make decisions about the airport. Or how many of them actually are members of the golf course, but they have to get into the decision making process of what effects these areas. If you don’t like Johnny Millers ideas I would encourage you not to support him next election. This is true of any elected official who you feel is not doing his or her job. That is what elections are for. The idea of any City Commissioner not voicing their opinion on any matter concerning the City, it’s functions, it’s budget, or what recreational venues we as a City offer would be negligent of doing what we elected them for no matter how popular or unpopular their view is. This is not meant as an opinion for or against the golf course. It is my opinion that this is the reason we elected our Commissioners and we should encourage each of them to voice their opinion on all ideas that effect the betterment of the City.
Carl makes a number of good points about the issues surrounding the financial stability of the golf course, but I also think that Johnny certainly has the right (and obligation) to raise the question about the role of the golf course. As my recent article in the News-Leader suggested, I favor retention of the golf course by the City as an asset for residents and visitors. There needs to be thorough evaluation of the golf course and the property to determine if there is a “fix” for some of its issues. The golf course fund purchased a good bit of land on the south side of the intersection of Buccaneer Trail and AIParkway that remains undeveloped. Either sell this land to pay off debt of golf course or consider its usage in reworking the design of the overall course. Jim Powers, when he was on the golf course advisory committee, had a friend who was a specialized golf course architect visit a number of years ago and did a pro bono assessment of the condition of the course and its design. He seemed to have a lot of great suggestions of which a number did not entail a lot of capital expense, but there was never any follow-up of which I am aware other than discussion at the advisory committee.
From what I understand trying to fit in the number of rounds that are played on our existing 27-hole course onto an 18 hole course (as some have suggested) would be impossible to do without incurring a jam-pack course and tremendous wear and tear on an already fragile turf condition. There is no easy solution and there needs to be a group of golfers, representatives of BCGM, a golf course design firm and non-golfing financial people provide a thorough evaluation and recommendation as to the best course of action. It may be that the course continues to limp along as a second tier course (along with its second tier pricing which many are happy to see compared to the fees at some of the other courses) or there might be a longer term solution that will result in better playability of the course with the resulting increased revenue.
Unlike Mr. Galpin I didn’t vote for Mr. Miller but now think that perhaps I was mistaken. He is spot on in raising the issue of ending the endless subsidy of a sport for a limited number of residents (none of them poor) and in particular non-residents. We need to hear from more non-golfers as Mr. Lott suggests … this is primarily a business/financial issue … they need to be in the forefront with the golfers/golfing “industry” offering input from the back seat. Up until now it seems the golfers have been driving the argument by themselves … with unconditional support from the City’s bank account … which is why it has gone off the cliff. Yes, we all get to offer an opinion on the golf course whether we play or not because we ARE participating in it whether we like it or not. WE ARE PAYING FOR IT.
Mr. Spino states that he doesn’t have a problem if a “limited amount” of tax dollars are used to keep the course fully functional “so long as we are not subsidizing golf for non-city residents”. Unfortunately the amount of tax dollars being spent on the course is not “limited” but is a significant drain on the City … and non-residents are clearly being subsidized in spite of paying modestly higher fees.
The City’s golf course already has a huge advantage that commercial golf courses don’t have … it pays no property taxes or fees to lease the land. So in effect even if it broke even it is still subsidized by the City. But despite this advantage … it can’t pay for itself. And from the analysis I’ve heard from various City officials … it won’t be self-supporting for many years … if even then.
I’m baffled as to why the golf course supporters always like to break out the debt service costs of the golf course … “without the loan costs the course could be self-supporting” they like to tell us. First of all, that is currently not true. The course can’t even cover its current operating costs. Second, the interest payments are for debt incurred FOR THE GOLF COURSE. As a golf course expense it is no different than paying someone’s salary or paying the light bill. It’s pretty obvious that some commissioners are focusing on the fact that one day the debt will be paid off (actually it seems by the City, not the golf course). Will this solve the problem? Hardly. What about the next major capital expenditure needed? There is no money set aside by the golf course to buy anything. The financial statements I see presented don’t show any depreciation or contribution to a reserve account. The course’s assets (and by that I include the clubhouse, it is one operation) is not getting any “fresher” … it is depreciating. So one debt appears … and then a new one pops up. Or two (the City’s financial people alluded to that in Tuesday’s meeting). An endless cycle of the golf course borrowing money … and the City gets left holding the golf bag.
And finally, take a look at the last several years of budgets presented for the golf course and then compare with reality. Every year a rosy outlook is presented … and every year the actual results are significantly different (much much worse). It’s some kind of game. Someone has no idea how to present a realistic budget. Every year at year end we hear what this year’s list of excuses are … bad weather, bad economy, bad turf conditions, dog ate my homework … Again, this is not one year … it’s EVERY year.
The city golf course is the reason we have been coming to the island every winter from Canada, take part in volunteer work on the island and now own a condo and contribute to the financial well-being of Fernandina Beach through property taxes and support of local businesses.
We discovered the island some twelve years ago while slowly driving north from St. Augustine along A1A trying to wait out a storm north of Virginia. When my husband spotted the golf course sign and the notice that it was open to the public, we decided to make the island our stop-over for a night. The next year we stayed a month, then two months, then ….
The gracious people, the awe-inspiring beaches, the quirky shops, the community spirit of course kept us returning and will for years to come. Were it not for the golf course, we likely would have driven on and never known the island. Both the course and the island are treasures. Please don’t destroy it.
Just raise the greens fees and see what happens!!
I walk 18 holes 2 or 3 times a week during the winter months for $20 a round. CHEAP. I play Fernandina because it is the only place my buddies and I can walk.
An increase to $30 would not deter me. Poor course conditions would cause me to leave.
I also voted for Johnny Miller, as stated he has a right for expressing his concerns. Maybe by doing so, the rest of the citizens can help solve the problem. I haven’t played golf in several years, before 2 or 3 times every so often. I still believe that this course makes it possible for all to play the game for the least of bucks. It is the cheapest one around, and the problems can and will be solved given a chance. What is necessary? The prime concern is to take care of one problem – fix if needed. I have an opinion of someone on the Commissioner’s that set himself up and thinks he is the king – he replaced the advisory board by a decision he made, and replaced them without notice until it was done. As a citizen, I dislike what was done to promote his friends and voters to head when it wasn’t necessary. Commissioner need to know they are answerable to us. The course is a vital asset to this community and needs to have more of us using the facilities and quit gripping about this and that. The public is partly to blame. they failed to keep coming and playing. It is now the major task to regain those of the local golfing group, and the visitors to play there. We, who are citizens and still fans of the sport need to be more supportive.
Mr.Galpin,
I certainly appreciate the implied vote of confidence.
Thanks.
Andrew J.Curtin