Posted by Caddyshack, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 10:39 am
It's not operated out of the North Bayshore fund. It's operated out of the general fund because in the good old days they were able to pull profits from the golf course into the rest of the city (rather than having to spend them in North Bayshore as they'd do if it were in that fund).
Posted by Realist, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 11:34 am
Then close it down. Its already a tremendous waste of land when only 4 people can use hundreds of yards of bay front land at a time for a price.
Its simple economics: Raise the price the golfers have to pay to cover the costs. If not enough people are willing to pay to support it, then
its only logical to close it down. Rip it all up and revert it back to burrowing owl habitat that many more users besides only golfers can enjoy. Why have this if nobody is using it and its loosing money?
Posted by David, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I used to play there 25 times/year (over $1000 revenue) but stopped in 2009 because the greens were getting worse and worse and Sunnyvale hired a new person to run their grounds and he's done a terrific job improving the greens. I also hate all the bird poop everywhere. But for me, the lousy greens and degrading fairways are the key issue.
I'd come back to play the course if the quality improves again -- and the birds go away. The coots should all be killed; I love birds but those birds wouldn't even exist if the golf course weren't there. They just sit there and eat and poop until they die.
Posted by Bill Crawford, a resident of another community, on Jun 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Much mention has been made about the financial issues with Shoreline Golf Course. Much has also been said about the goose poop which from my own observation is really a problem.
I've heard from two different sources that the City is (or has)commissioned an artist to create a bronze figure of TWO GEESE to set upon the flag pole of the new Fire Station #5 (adjacent to the golf course) ....at a cost of about $55 THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Posted by Bob Trygg, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Having played Shoreline since before it opened to the public, I'd say it's in as a good of condition now as I've ever experienced it. The bird problems are nothing compared to the past, and the overall condition of the greens and fairways is as good as I remember it ever being.
In case people haven't noticed, all businesses are feeling the effects of the current economy, not just golf courses. I thought that is what reserves were intended for - unforeseen circumstances.
Tearing up the course, or outsourcing it and letting the condition degrade, is a knee-jerk reaction that many will regret down the road.
Don't forget that during better times the golf course made a positive contribution to the city coffers. Let's not turn our back on it during these tough times.
Increased and improved marketing could do a lot to increase revenues, and if fee hikes are needed, so be it, but let's not ruin what so many people obviously enjoy.
Posted by Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm
It seems there are a lot of nearby Golf Courses so we really don't need one in Mountain View. I would like to see this green area used for everyone and not just a few golfers. The green area in Shoreline Park is very small and using most of the current golf course for other uses similar to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco would be great. How to pay for this maybe consider asking local companies to construct and name recreation features.
By the way there is no bird problem at Michael's restaurant.
Posted by Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 6:56 pm
I'm not a golfer, but see no reason to close the course. I agree with Bob Trygg: "Increased and improved marketing could do a lot to increase revenues, and if fee hikes are needed, so be it, but let's not ruin what so many people obviously enjoy."
Posted by Angela Hey, a resident of another community, on Jun 29, 2010 at 11:23 pm
1. Does the city get revenue from Michaels for events - it's quite a good small meeting environment - maybe that could be leveraged - especially in off-hours when a business may need an offsite meeting and there aren't so many golfers around.
2. How about making a 9-hole putting green and an 18-hole crazy golf course (miniature golf with interesting features like tunnels) - for families.
3. Can you make money off golf contests with entry fees?
4. Is there an opportunity for corporate golf - a couple of hours for a 9-hole game with many people in a company league playing individually for a fee - you could have a quarterly league fee for up to 20 people in a company to play one after the other at a set time - say 3:30 to 5:30.
5. Many high tech people don't play golf - so how about having company team bonding days where you train first timers for a corporate fee - we once did one in Hawaii where a company paid for 3 lessons in the morning - driving range, putting and chipping out of bunkers, then in the afternoon everyone played a full round. In between people can have training seminars in Michaels.
6. Advertise the driving range and have contests, gift vouchers and special lessons (like 5 days a week lunch hour lessons) on it - its quicker to play the driving range than to have a full game and that might atract more people with limited time.
Posted by jane, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I can imagine the congestion and parking problems if the golf course was converted to miniature golf or some another use than ias a gold course. I am not a golfer, but the points about waiting for the economy to pick up make good sense. The traffic flow in and out of the boat launch area, the lakeside cafe, and the golf course in managable now. Increase usability = widen the roads, more parking etc. etc. Makes no sense. Leave it as is!!!
Posted by Angela Hey, a resident of another community, on Jul 1, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the current golf course - just leveraging the sport and making golf accessible for all ages and budgets and branding it as a golf center.
If parking is a problem then charge - Mountain View residents and workers could have free permits.
After all there is a gatehouse that seems to watch for dogs and windsurfing boards and is hardly ever staffed. One could use that to good effect to issue parking permits and day passes per car for non-residents and let those who come on bikes, roller blades and on foot go free.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 1, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Salaries have increase from $46,000 to $87,000 over 9 years is a healthy increase for union employees, especially if that doesn't take into account the health benefits and pensions City employees also receive.
Couple that with the fact the course currently operates at 77% capacity suggests a problem with the balance sheet.
Outsourcing would help, but if your fixed costs are high, then you need to increase earnings too. Multi use areas might help.
The times I've gone to the course, the bird poop problem was really evident, enough for me not to stay. If the City is looking to increase golfing or any family related activities there, the poop problem needs to be addressed.
Posted by How about, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jul 2, 2010 at 2:00 am
The employee cost is not the issue. That is what the cities up and down the state are saying in attempts to find reasons to cut any penny they can from their employees that work hard to keep them looking good. In this case maybe the city should stop spending money on projects that are not needed or land it can not develop. BMH oh my, moffett blvd land and lets not forget a church for a future youth center that benefits maybe a handful. Like in the movie "Dave" when his friend says, "Who does your accounting around here."
Posted by Sean, a resident of the Willowgate neighborhood, on Jul 2, 2010 at 7:14 am
No kidding. The City puts a Senior Center, a Child Care Center, and now wants a Youth Center right in the middle of the ghetto and in an area where the crime rate is the highest. If's all part of the city's socialist agenda--one where golf has no place!
Posted by David, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jul 2, 2010 at 10:03 am
Did you read the entire article? The entire "loss" of $800k is due to water ( which is provided at no charge by other cities to their courses) and this phantom "admin charge" ($350k) to run the city -- which has nothing to do with the golf course and is still there even if you tear the golf course up.
In other words, killing the golf course guarantees a $350k loss every year forever. Meanwhile, leaving it there breaks even now and returns to making money as the economy improves.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm
"Did you read the entire article? The entire "loss" of $800k is due to water ( which is provided at no charge by other cities to their courses) and this phantom "admin charge" ($350k) to run the city -- which has nothing to do with the golf course and is still there even if you tear the golf course up.
In other words, killing the golf course guarantees a $350k loss every year forever. Meanwhile, leaving it there breaks even now and returns to making money as the economy improves."
Yes, I read the entire article. However, considering your comments, I question whether you did.
1. The expenditure for water is $431k, as opposed to the "$800k" figure you stated.
2. The administrative overhead is a charge cities and other large parent companies will place on satellite businesses to cover costs for purchasing, payroll, and maintenance done by the parent company. As the employees are City workers, and the land is City owned, its completely reasonable to have overhead costs associated with it. Also, it is not accurate to assume that this cost is fixed, regardless of how the land is used, as it depends on the services provided by the parent company, in this case, the City.
3. Contrary to your statement that the course currently breaks even, it has been steadily losing money since 2005, and assuming it will make money in the future is just that, an assumption.
The last thing I'll point out is that its reasonable for the City to pass on water costs to the course if is to be expected to run as a bonifide business concern. That water isn't free. If the course doesn't pay for it, then the City will, which means the City's budget now gets hit with this cost and consequently existing City services will have to cut even more to balance the budget. Also, the annual cost in water of $431k, is less than the $450k cost SAVINGS received from outsourcing the work. In other words, according to the article, outsourcing alone would more than pay for the water used.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2010 at 2:25 pm
"The employee cost is not the issue. That is what the cities up and down the state are saying in attempts to find reasons to cut any penny they can from their employees that work hard to keep them looking good. In this case maybe the city should stop spending money on projects that are not needed or land it can not develop. BMH oh my, moffett blvd land and lets not forget a church for a future youth center that benefits maybe a handful. Like in the movie "Dave" when his friend says, "Who does your accounting around here."
Especially for union workers that have guaranteed increases and ever increasing benefits, how is employee cost NOT an issue? Labor makes up a huge chunk of any operating budget, especially for those organizations that are service related. The 2nd most expensive cost for the golf course is water at $430k, but bear in mind that the SAVINGS from outsourcing the staff alone, exceed this amount.
Assuming that City workers are hard working and effective is just as narrow-minded and delusional as assuming they are lazy and slow. The fact remains that since 2005, the course has lost money. At 77% capacity, there isn't a lot of room to grow the business, without raising fees. With employee costs continuing to rise, profit growth will need to be maintained consistently to keep up.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Just like the rest of Shoreline, there is old landfill under the golf course. If it is not maintained as a golf course, it needs to be maintained FOREVER as something else. We don't charge for use of the rest of Shoreline Park, except for the concert venue, but we could, like Palo Alto has considered for Foothill.
Golfers seem to be of two unlike minds: Some want to play cheaply, regardless of conditions, while others prefer to play less, pay more, and have a better experience. I'm the latter. I'd rather drive to Monterey or Rohnert Park than play Shoreline (ten minutes away). The water based course design and setting within the regional park has encouraged runaway wildlife population growth (so that the birds and critters are effectively no longer wild). Whatever land use survives on top of the landfill, better wildlife management will be needed at significant cost.
By the way, "Just a Mom" since the City does not fund schools, what kind of redistribution would you propose, whether or not the golf course survives?
Posted by Phil, a resident of another community, on Jul 27, 2010 at 5:11 pm
What has the City done to promote the golf course?
Decisions seem to be made by individuals who have no business background.
A potential premier golf course in the middle of money rich Silicon Valley and you can't make money???
Sounds like a lack of business acumen.
Filling in the lakes, sounds like a great idea to get rid of the current water fowl population and speed up the pace of play. The goose poop and high number of mudhens is what keeps people from playing this course. Get rid of the birds/poop and golfers will flock back to this wonderful course.
"Golfing is down nationwide..." So is housing, but not in Silicon Valley! There is plenty of money waiting to be spent on golf at this perfectly placed golf course.
"Google" "Shoreline golf"...you get a golf course somewhere in Iowa!!!! Some tiny little place in Iowa has a website and a course right in the middle of Silicon Valley doesn't???!!!! Want to tell me who is running the golf course????
Seems like you don't need a management company, you need new management!!
Fill in the lakes, this will clean up the golf course. It will allow the maintenance staff to get back to maintaining the course rather than cleaning up crap.
Fill in the lake in front of Michaels Restaurant (or part of it) and create a lighted miniature golf course and maybe a self-contained batting cage. This will bring young kids, families, teens looking for a hangout at night, more business to Michaels, more new customers to discover Shoreline Golf.
Expand the driving range. Make it more interesting! Some fun targets, for kids to try and hit. Remember the old carnival shooting gallery. Golf doesn't always have to be serious. Pipe some music to the driving range in the evening.
Promote the golf course to local businesses. Have a Google sponsored golf tournament.
Do something other than put a golf course there and wait for people to find it.
How is the city going to feel when a management company comes in and starts making money hand over fist and the city is left with its small portion of the pie?
The City of Mountain View has a major opportunity if they just worked a little harder.
Let's just keep outsourcing the entire country!
What department is next to get outsourced??? The Finance department?? Downtown Theater?
How about rolling up your sleeves and getting busy.
Outsourcing is waving a white flag at the problem. What else will you be waving the white flag at??
Don't take the easy way out! How about a little good old fashioned American no how? How about a little creative thinking?