Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park And Rec Golf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends Harding Park fee increase and 3-year viability plan to full board without recommendation
Summary
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick proposed a Harding Park–only 15% fee increase and a three‑year fiscal viability plan to reduce the golf fund’s general‑fund subsidy; the committee debated privatization, sponsorships, and repayment of an $18 million bond and voted to forward the ordinance to the full Board without a committee recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Park And Rec Golf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The committee took up an ordinance by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick to amend the Park Code to raise fees at Harding Park Golf Course by 15% and require the Recreation and Park Department to submit a midyear report and a three‑year fiscal viability plan to reduce the general‑fund subsidy to the golf program.
McGoldrick said Harding is the principal source of the golf-fund shortfall because the course must make annual repayments tied to roughly $18 million in prior capital work; the proposal would apply an across‑the‑board fee increase only at Harding and seek additional revenue avenues such as dynamic pricing and philanthropic sponsorships. Budget Analyst Ken Bruce said a 15% increase would generate about $659,000 a year assuming no change in rounds played, while acknowledging prior fee increases produced declines in rounds and that revenue could fall if play drops substantially. Rec & Park staff (Katie Patruccione) said the department expects revenue growth next fiscal year from concessions and other sources but cautioned that revenue alone will not eliminate structural deficits.
Public commenters included labor representatives who urged keeping the courses public while pursuing a business plan; neighborhood and civic groups urged transparency and questioned management and contractor costs (Kemper management was discussed in public comment). The committee debated trade-offs including the potential effects on seniors, visitor access, and the danger that long-term leases would amount to de facto sales of public assets. By committee agreement the item was sent to the full Board of Supervisors without a committee recommendation so the full body can weigh options.
