Board discusses short course and driving-range overhaul; no final vote

Board members spent an extended portion of the meeting refining priorities for capital improvements to the driving range, a proposed short course (between 3 and 8 holes in different plans) and improvements near holes 11–14. No formal vote was taken; members asked staff and city engineering to return with concrete site options and cost estimates for budget planning.

Why it matters: board members said a short course and a redesigned practice area would relieve pressure on the full 18-hole course, provide a practice-oriented facility for youth and beginners, and create an additional revenue stream if incorporated into memberships or a small short-course fee.

Discussion highlights: staff reported that the short-course footprint originally planned near the driving-range tee could instead be sited closer to the clubhouse and the old driving range area (near the bowling-green/topo area), which may reduce earth-moving needs. Members prioritized a compact, visible location within view of the clubhouse for oversight. Suggested features for the range and short course included larger, sloped practice targets, a practice bunker adjacent to a practice green, resurfaced tee boxes (possibly artificial turf for shoulder seasons), and improved target visibility (pins centered and visible). The group debated whether the short course should be treated as a practice facility (included in memberships/range passes) or as a fee-based short course with its own endorsement; several members favored including short-course access with membership but agreed to present fee options for public play at council.

Costs and schedule: staff said the original phase-3 estimate of $2.79 million (from prior planning) is likely higher now; one board member estimated the updated range could be $5.5 million (rough, to be refined by city engineering). Board members said staff had increased past phase estimates by roughly 30% as a planning margin and asked for refreshed numbers and phasing to present to city council in budget season. Kevin Norby (engineering) will help reallocate and update the phase sheets and provide clearer estimates.

Next steps: staff to provide site plans and cost options (e.g., 5-hole vs. 8-hole short course; range improvements alone vs. combined approach) for the next council packet. The board indicated a preference to pursue the short course and range improvements as top priorities and to pursue both concurrently if feasible.