Seminole council begins process to re-solicit golf course lease as H Property Management declines extension

The council discussed next steps for the Jimmy Austin Golf Course after the current operator, H Property Management LLC, informed the city it will not seek an extension; the council directed staff to proceed with a request-for-proposals process and discussed how to protect volunteer and association involvement.

City Manager Steve Saxon told council members H Property Management’s contract ends June 30, 2025, and the company has given notice it will not seek an extension. Staff said they have issued a request for proposals and set a proposals due date of Feb. 27; staff will score proposals individually and bring a recommendation to the council for selection.

Saxon and councilmembers discussed operations and course condition. Saxon said the course typically records about 10,000 rounds per year and that the greens and grounds are in good condition. He noted the computerized sprinkler-control system (manufacturer name given as Rainbird) is showing age and estimated roughly $9,000–$10,000 in sprinkler-head replacements in the fairways. He said the current superintendent and the Jimmy Austin Golf Association have been key partners in maintaining the course, especially after tornado damage several years ago.

Councilmembers and speakers asked whether the golf association should have an explicit role in future lease terms. Staff replied proposal narratives and interview criteria in the RFP will be used to evaluate respondents’ plans for community engagement; if necessary, the council could require coordination with the association in the lease or through post-award conditions.

On data and oversight, several councilmembers asked for more regular, general performance data from lessees (for example, rounds played per month) while acknowledging that private operators treat detailed financials as proprietary. Saxon said the city does receive some gross-receipts information and that staff will ask for general operational metrics rather than proprietary profit-and-loss statements.

Council and staff discussed timeline logistics: proposals were sent to parties that had expressed interest and were also publicly posted; responses are due Feb. 27, and staff expects to present recommendations to council after scoring. Council members emphasized continuity of service and protecting volunteer engagement and youth programming associated with the course.

No binding decisions were made at the meeting beyond proceeding with the advertised RFP schedule; the council asked staff to return with scored proposals and a recommendation before the June 30 contract end date.