Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Assets Golf Course topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents deliver petition opposing $1-per-year sale of municipal golf course and Caddyshack lease
Summary
Residents presented a 442-signature petition and urged the Sebring City Council not to approve a $1-per-year transfer or lease of the municipal golf course and Caddyshack restaurant without stronger guarantees of continued public access.
Residents brought petitions and public comment to the council on June 17 to object to a proposed $1-per-year arrangement for the municipal golf course and the Caddyshack restaurant.
Stephanie Wirtz said she submitted a petition containing 442 signatures and urged the council to provide more detail about any sale or long-term lease. "It concerns me that this $1 a year deal... Do we have guarantees?" Wirtz asked. "Are there stipulations?" She added that the golf course and restaurant serve as community gathering places for events including birthdays, weddings and senior programs.
Deborah McNall, who described herself as a longtime member of the Sebring Golf Course and past instructor, urged the council to consider alternate operators and called for more transparency. "I know for a fact there's at least 1, if not 2, other golf course owners in the county that would give you the same deal... and those people would allow it and guarantee it would stay a public course," McNall said, adding that management changes and investments could preserve public access.
Council staff and the city manager later said there would be follow-up discussions about capital improvements and next steps; council members indicated they would confer with staff and bring any formal proposals back to a public meeting. There was no formal vote recorded on the dais related to a sale or lease during the meeting.
Why it matters: The municipal golf course and the Caddyshack restaurant are used for community events and recreational programming; residents worry a nominal transfer or long-term lease might reduce public access, alter management practices or shift long-standing community uses. Petition signers asked the city to consider other operators willing to keep the property publicly accessible.
What’s next: Council staff said they will continue internal work on capital improvements and management options; residents asked for more transparency and for the council to consider alternatives that guarantee continued public access.
