Golf Course Plans Questioned

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:49 AM

In a letter to City Council, City resident Tom Whyte says he cannot see the logic in the Prince George Golf and Curling Club selling 140 acres for $107,000 per acre when adjacent property has sold for more than twice that amount.

Whyte, in a letter to Council says the ball diamonds sold for $482,000 per acre, The Wood Wheaton property sold for $325,000 per acre and the 16 acres taken up by the Casino sold for $312,000 per acre.

The matter drew the attention of Councilor Don Zurowski at this weeks meeting of Prince George City Council who addressed Whyte's letter and the questions it raised about the Club's plans to rebuild a new site at a cost of about $12 million.

"My large concern is, have they budgeted the right amount of money?" asked Zurowski. "I wonder if they have a contingency plan because in my view, based on what we see with community construction projects, certainly the Nechako ball diamonds which had a fair bit of earth work with much less building type infrastructure, it was in the millions and this is a much larger project and I believe they are budgeting $12 million dollars. I only put forward the fact I am concerned for them and I hope they have done their homework and look at the current costs. "

Zurowski added he isn't likely to support any bail out dollars from theCity "I know a group like that (the Golf Club) operates its own facilities, but often when there's challenges, they end up back in Council chambers and I don't see a solution to that if they are way over budget."

Whyte, who is a former building contractor, says the course and club house cannot be duplicated for the money they will receive. Here is the text of his letter:

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 03:49 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Gofaster on July 12 2006 6:50 AM

Or did some consideration cross someones palm????

Posted by: Longnecks on July 12 2006 7:17 AM

Way to go Tom. There's not many in this town that will stand up to the....BIG Shots...at the club. I for one fully agree with you. Have been a member of club for many years....and now have given membership up a few years ago when I could see that this club was running itself into the ground. When service dropped off, and prices kept climbing...When events went down and not attended to very well....Was tired of listening to all the complaints and no one doing anything. I don't believe anyone was very happy excpet for a few choice members....That seem to feel that the club was there private little afair and the rest of us could pay for it. Have kown a few of the resturant and bar managers that have quit out of frustration...or forced out cause someone didn't like their idea's to make changes to attract more basic public.
Now they sell out cheap and will just add the cost over runs to members....Glad I'm not one...

Posted by: camoose on July 12 2006 10:16 AM

As a city taxpayer I don't want any of my tax dollars used to subsidized an elite club or organization. No tax write-offs, no subsidies, no loan gaurentees and no gifts of land. Let them stand or fall on the services they provide for their members. Keeping in mind that some of the land they are now selling was a donation from the city and taxed at a lower rate for them. Run it like any other sucessful business or fold it up.

Posted by: owl on July 12 2006 10:26 AM

The $500,000 spent on kitchen facility upgrading is shocking.

The link below is to a good analysis of golf club operations by a company which acts as receivers.

specific to food operatis it states:

Few golf courses make money on dining room facilities. The rare exceptions are those golf courses that specialize in corporate tournaments. The main reason for this is that generally, golf course operators are not expert food and beverage operators. There is usually improper pricing of food items, poor menu selection (costly and less profitable items), food wastage and lack of portion control. These areas are as critical for the maintenance of profitability in the golf course revenue base as are green fee revenue and golf course maintenance costs.

http://www.grantthornton.ca/mgt_papers/MIP_template.asp?MIPID=41

As far as the sale price per acre goes, one really cannot expect a large tract of vitually undeveloped land to sell for anywhere near the price of small parcels of land immediately adjacent to road and utility infrastructure. In order to develop the land, depending how it will be used, substantial amount of money will have to be invested in road and utility infrastructure improvements before buildings can be constructed. Mr. Whyte is comparing apples to oranges in that case.

http://www.golfgvi.com/construction_article.htm

Posted by: trusted on July 12 2006 2:09 PM

Look at those figures again owl, and then pass that "apples to oranges" comparable by us one more time.
I personally think the property is being undersold, and I would not want that club coming before council and wanting any form of a "hand out" for survival at a later date.
The proposed location for a new golf club is ridiculous. 3 weeks to a month longer before spring arrives. That area is a snow belt. It is further for the golfers to go, but I suppose the truly dedicated will make their way that distance, but not so for the occasional golfer.
They certainly will not require such an extravagant area to produce and serve food, as I am sure they will not have the customers. There is no accommodation close by, so not too many
strangers will avail themselves of the course.
If this golf club had any mark of success after all the years of being in operation they would not have such a huge debt to service.
If it were actually run like a business-they may have been placed in a position to declare bankruptcy, or possibly they are in that position now-therefore selling for that reduced value looks appealing.
Is it a sale or a "bail out?"

Posted by: Chadermando on July 13 2006 12:53 AM

IMO all non-profit groups have a big potential to fall victim to a few who try to take control and run it like it is their own personal business for personal gain. It could be ego, financial, or prestege.

Member based societies and associations can easily get a biased board of directors that work towards their own goals or gains at the expense of the organization and will often protect a management that aligns itself with this motivation.

IMO the golf course is being sold below par value considering the strategic location and size of this package of land.

I never did think it was appropriate for the golf course board of directors to decide what kind of trade can be made for this land. I think it is a city matter for council to decide the lands value and its future land use planning to maximize the vitality and services to Prince George first and foremost, facilitate the investors secondary, and behind that assisting with construction of a new golf course capped at the funding level approved by city council and the citizens of Prince George through a referrendum in the next civic election.

Posted by: Palopu on July 14 2006 10:53 AM

Prior to the offer from the Pomeroy Group the golf course had a plan to rehabilatate the golf course. The plan was I beleive over 3/5 years at a cost of 3.5 Million which would have had to be paid by members, however the plan was in place and the Architechs drawings were posted on the bulletin board. As soon as the offer came from Pomeroy this option was thrown out the window and they went for the bucks.

Part of the problem with the PG Golf Course is that the average age of members is 55., and their membership is down by approx 200 people. In addition they cannot seem to attract enough younger members so this problem will continue.

This golf course survived in the old days by people who made big bucks, had expense accounts, and the in thing was to be a member. These days are gone in this town and you would be hard pressed to get someone who is earning 10 dollars per hour, 20 hours per week, to join a golf course. Times change.

If the Pomeroy group keeps a nine hole golf course on the property it will become just that much harder for the new course to be successful.

Common sense says they should stay where they are, but what is the chance of that happening.

I suspect the City will make some kind of a deal with them that will allow them to get cheap land, and they will maybe build a 9 hole par 3 course along with the new course, and the City can then sell of the Pine Valley Golf Course to Big Box retailers for big bucks.