Board authorizes negotiations with current Prado Golf operator after public objections; Supervisor Cook dissents on item 37

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on an item included in the consent calendar authorized staff to negotiate with the current operator of Prado Golf Course, prompting multiple public speakers to demand the county instead open the lease to competitive bidding.

Dozens of golfers, nonprofit organizers and residents urged the board to remove item 37 from the consent calendar and allow a competitive process. Several speakers warned a sole-source negotiation could harm junior golf programs and nonprofit fundraisers that have used Prado, and said the county’s lease with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires public-use protections and revenue sharing that a closed negotiation could jeopardize.

The public outcry culminated in a series of comments from frequent users and community organizers. Cole Fisk, who said he has played Prado since childhood, told the board, “Please remove item 37 from the consent calendar and let Prado's future be decided fairly and transparently.” Dave Kuman, who described a 10-month effort to get answers from county staff, told supervisors, “Remove item 37 from the consent calendar. It's the right thing to do.” Several other speakers made similar appeals, saying the current operator had not invested meaningfully in the course despite two years on site.

Board members described the item as an authorization to negotiate, not final contract approval. County CEO Luther explained that, if the board adopts the item, staff would attempt to negotiate a longer-term contract with the current operator and would return the proposed agreement to the board for approval; if no agreement is reached by April 29, staff will be directed to issue an open bid for the lease. Luther said this structure was intended to give a potential operator the certainty needed to make larger capital investments in the course.

Supervisor comments recognized public concern. Supervisor [last name as in transcript] said the board’s goal is a “top-rate golf course” and that the consent item would allow staff and real estate professionals to determine whether an invest-and-improve deal can be reached; if not, the county would pursue an open procurement. At the vote, the board approved the consent calendar; the clerk announced the consent calendar was approved, with Supervisor Cook recorded as voting no on item 37.

Speakers raised specific financial and contract concerns during public comment. Multiple speakers told the board the county-managed course currently produces roughly $25,000–$30,000 a month in revenue but that a proposed starting lease figure discussed in public comment was $5,000 per month. One tournament organizer said a recent nonprofit deposit requirement was $7,600 and nonrefundable, a change that has made running charity tournaments more difficult. Speakers also raised the Army Corps lease — which several said requires public use and periodic revenue accounting — and warned that bypassing a competitive process could expose the county to legal or financial risk.

The item will return to the board if staff and the operator reach agreement; otherwise staff will open the process to competitive proposals by the April 29 deadline described in the CEO’s office. The board’s approval of the consent calendar does not itself finalize any long-term lease.

Votes at a glance - Consent calendar (items 2–48, including item 37): approved; vote recorded with Supervisor Cook dissenting on item 37. The exact roll-call numbers announced by the clerk were: yes 4, no 1 (Cook). The negotiated agreement, if any, will come back to the board for final approval.

Community response and next steps Public commenters agreed to continue monitoring the process and to press for a competitive bid if staff cannot secure a satisfactory long-term deal with an operator. County staff said real estate professionals will negotiate terms that aim both to secure investment in course infrastructure and to maximize returns for county residents; any negotiated contract will be returned to the board for a public vote.