#EM2019 – Candidate Question – Golf Course Rezone

Question: The City Council approved a rezone of the Ranches Golf Course allowing for some additional residential units and development areas. How would you of voted on this item, and what are the reasons for your stance.

Rich Wood

I worked with Jared Gray and a plan that reduced the total number of houses, eliminated the road proposed to attach to Mt Airey and required all of the housing to match existing adjacent homes in size, style and placement, we also proposed an extension of Rock Creek Condos adjacent to its most northwest building(requiring a a parking over the Tickville gulch culvert that has become a trash pile) It would have impacted one home the same way that the properties to the south of the same home) . The city council never even considered that proposal because an alternative was presented to them that was not reviewed by the planning commission at all. They went with a much more invasive plan that I would have voted against.

Carolyn Love

I would have voted to allow the golf course to develop. By developing some excess land around the greens they will be able to build a nice, large clubhouse. The clubhouse will give the golf course a venue for golf tournaments and other events. This will help the golf course to remain financially stable and able to maintain current maintenance and operations. I know that the residents who live by the golf course were not expecting additional homes built next to them. But I feel that more homes in the surrounding neighborhoods is a better option than having homes that are surrounded by an abandoned, out-of-business golf course.

Ben Porter

The golf course is one of those issues where there is a lot of misunderstanding. I support what the city did, but before you grab the pitchfork and torch please let me explain why (then you can pitchfork me afterward) 🙂 Golf courses rarely make money. Most of them are subsidized by the local government. Because the golf course would likely run at a loss, had the city maintained ownership, it would have fallen on the taxpayers to keep the course afloat. I’m a terrible golfer, but I do enjoy getting out there occasionally. That said, I don’t think that my neighbors should be asked to help support my golfing. They put up with enough nuisance from kids playing loudly in my yard and kicking their soccer balls over the fences. I think the golf course is beautiful, and is nice to have. I hope it is able to last a long time! Permitting the rezoning of some of it to residential enabled them to raise enough capital to invest in a clubhouse and other amenities that will make the course more attractive for tournaments and other events that can bring in revenue. This helps to keep the course profitable and sustainable and does not leech on the hard-earned dollars of our residents. To me this seems like a good plan, and I would have voted for it.

Colby Curits

I voted to approve the rezone. There are two primary reasons. The first, Vanguard was told by previous councils/administrations they would be able to develop a small portion in the future in order to build their events barn. The second is a bit harder to distill, but simplistically, in order to ensure that the golf course remains in the private sector (rather than failing and reverting back to city control) it was reasonable to allow them to develop for the sole purpose of building the events barn to keep them profitable. The money cannot be pocketed by the developer and is tied to the events barn. I have personally seen every year’s profit and loss statement from the course. They are in the black, but very modestly (roughly 15-20k a year in profits). Nearly every golf course owned by a city runs at a deficit and in an effort to not end up with a golf course, a few efforts were taken to keep them profitable (based on previous agreement). Ideally, the city shouldn’t be involved at all, and were I on the council when we took ownership of the course and passed it through to Vanguard, I’d have voted against taking it over. However, since we did do that in the past, I believe in making the best decisions possible to ensure it can continue to stay out of the city’s hands. With the development of some lots on the course, the city has completed everything that was agreed to in the past. I requested that the agreement be updated to reflect that understanding.

Devyn Smith

The golf course is a great asset to our city! While most are public, we are lucky to have a privately-owned course in the city. A study by a BYU professor determined there are too many golf courses in Utah County for not enough golfers. Based on the setup, The Ranches Golf Course would likely be the first of the existing courses in the county to close if help is not made to get the course operating without deficit. The loss of the course would not only be deleterious to the owners, but also to the surrounding residents and would quickly create significant eyesores. The City Council removed Motion Area 1, a commercial area, from the approval. I would have joined the City Council in their vote to remove Motion Area 1, allow Motion Areas 2 thru 6, uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendations and “reserve the park fees-in-lieu for the benefit of adjacent developments.” The renderings for the new clubhouse have been recently submitted and we should see construction starting soon. This addition will allow the golf course to bid for tournaments. This, along with the sale of the other Motion Areas, helps to: increase cash flow, make the golf course more profitable and ultimately help avoid closing the golf course which brings more money to the city and patrons to our other local businesses.

Jared Gray

This is a great question for me because I spent lots of time on this as a planning commission. There were some specific goals, and contracts that needed to be considered. I personally researched and developed a plan that I felt would impact the course and the residents the least while still fulfilling the obligation of the city, and reaching the goal of the course. I made the motion as a planning commission, and it went forward to the council. It was then changed dramatically from what the commission requested, and now we have what they decided. Again, I’m not going to criticize the council for their decision, but since the question is asked, I would not of voted in favor of what we now have. I did like the plan I proposed and would of voted in favor of that plan had it gone through.