HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2012 AGENDA PACKET
Municipal Services Committee
January 9, 2012 - 3:00 PM
City Hall Conference Room 3
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes December 12, 2011*
III.ACTION
A. Resolution No. 4778* (Faber)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending the
City of Auburn fee schedule relating to fees charged by the cemetery
B. Resolution No. 4788* (Coleman)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the
acceptance and appropriation of grant funds in the amount of Sixty Two Thousand
and Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($62,650.00), and authorizing the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute an interlocal agreement between the Department of Ecology and
the City of Auburn to accept said funds for implementation of the 2012-2013
Coordinated Prevention Grant Program
C. Resolution No. 4790* (Lee)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington declaring
certain items of property as surplus and authorizing their disposal
IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Resolution No. 4786* (Faber)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the
acceptance of a grant from the Washington State Arts Commission and authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary contracts to accept said funds
B. Auburn Golf Course Operations Review* (Coleman)
C. City Towing Rates* (Heid)
D. Auburn Valley Humane Society: Project Schedule* (Heineman)
E. Charteris (Lee)
F. Matrix*
V.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for
review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Minutes December 12, 2011
Date:
December 14, 2011
Department: Attachments:
Minutes of December 12, 2011 Meeting
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:CA.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.0
Municipal Services Committee
December 12, 2011 - 3:00 PM
City Hall Conference Room 3
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
Chair Peloza called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. in Conference Room 3 on the second floor of
City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn WA. Members present: Chair Bill Peloza, Vice Chair Sue
Singer, Member John Partridge. Staff present: Mayor Peter Lewis, Chief of Police Bob
Lee, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator Joan Nelson,
Police Secretary/Scribe Kathy Emmert. Others present: Councilmembers elect Largo Wales,
Wayne Osborne, John Holman, Auburn Reporter representative Robert Whale, Cynthia Schmidt
and her grandson Gage Bailey a Cub Scout, Troop 711, working on a merit badge.
B. Announcements
C. Agenda Modifications
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes November 28, 2011 Meeting
Vice Chair Sue Singer moved to accept the Minutes as presented. Member Partridge seconded.
Chair Peloza concurred. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0
III. ACTION
A. Ordinance No. 6395 (Coleman)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington,
correcting language in Ordinance No. 6367, amending Section 8.08.180A of
the Auburn City code relating to residential garbage and recycling service
charges
Vice Chair Singer moved for accept Ordinance No. 6395 and forward to the full Council for action.
Member Partridge seconded. Chair Peloza concurred. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0
B. Resolution No. 4780 (Coleman)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington,
authorizing the Mayor to execute a Services Contract with the Seattle-King
County Department of Public Health for reimbursement of funds related to
2012 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program activities
Vice Chair Singer moved for accept Resolution No. 4780 and forward to the full Council for action.
Member Partridge seconded. Chair Peloza concurred. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0
C. Resolution No. 4781 (Coleman)
Page 1 of 2
CA.0
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington,
authorizing the acceptance and appropriation of grant funds in the amount
of One Hundred Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Dollars
($112,772.00), and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
Interlocal Agreement between King County and the City of Auburn to accept
said funds for implementation of the 2012-2013 Waste Reduction and
Recycling Grant Program
Vice Chair Singer moved for accept Resolution No. 4781 and forward to the full Council for action.
Member Partridge seconded. Chair Peloza concurred. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0
D. VADIS Service Agreement AG-S-053 (Coleman)
Vice Chair Singer moved for accept The VADIS Service Agreement and forward to the full Council
for action. Member Partridge seconded. Chair Peloza concurred. MOTION CARRIED: 3-0
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Matrix
The Matrix is amended as follows:
Item 29P - Status is amended to reflect the Consultant report will be reviewed at the January 9,
2012 meeting.
Item 30P- New item added - Street Median Maintenance with Director Heineman as the Lead and
a review date of January 23, 2012.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Prior to adjourning Chair Peloza expressed his thanks and appreciation to Vice Chair Sue Singer and
Member John Partridge for their contributions to the Municipal Services Committee in 2011.
The meeting adjourned at 3:19 p.m.The next Municipal Services Meeting will be January 9, 2012 at 3
p.m.
Signed this _____ day of January, 2012
________________________________ ________________________________
Bill Peloza, Chair Kathy Emmert, Police Secretary/Scribe
Page 2 of 2
CA.0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4778
Date:
December 19, 2011
Department:
Parks/Art and Recreation
Attachments:
Resolution
Cemetery Fee Increase
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Council approve Cemetery increase in fees
Background Summary:
Periodic fee adjustment in Cemetery fees based on review of other cemeteries in the
region.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Faber
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:ACT.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.0
RESOLUTION NO. 4 7 7 8
A RESOLUTION OF TME CITYCOUNCILOF THECITY OF .
AUBURN, 1NASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF
AUBURN FEE SCHEDULE RELATING TO FEES
CHARGED BY THE GEMETERY
WHEREAS, in connection with the municipal functions and operations of the City
ofAubum, the City providesvarious public services, a number of which entail fees; and
WHEREAS, the Ciry Councilprovided for adoption of a City of Aubum Fee
Schedules'in the adoption ofOrdinance No. 5707; and
WHEREAS, in thenormal course of reviewing oemeteryfees and costs, R is
appropriate to revise and amendamounts charged for certain materials and servicea ,.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE C.ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES, as follows:
Section 7: Section f of theCity of Aubum Fee Schedule related to Gity
Cemetery Fees is hereby amended antl updated as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A,"
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. The Mayor is authorized to implement suchadministrative
proceduresas may be necessary to carry out thedirectives of this legislation.
Section 3. This Resolution shallbe in fuU force and affect upon passage and
signatures hereon.
DATED and SIGNED this_day of 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
Resolution No. 4778
Nwember 18, 2011
Page 1 of 2
ACT.0
ATTEST:
Danielle E: Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TOFORM:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attomey
Resolution No.4778
Novembgr 18; 2011
Page 2 of 2
ACT.0
E. CITY CEMETERY FEES (Per Ordinance5715, Resolirtion No. 3797, Resolution No.
3953, ResolufionNo. 4027, Resolution No. 4103, ResoluEioa No. 4117, ResolutionNo.'4272
Resolution No. 4424, Resolution No. 4552, aad-Reso/ution No. 4675 and Resolution 4778.)
GRAVES
Section 9A and 9B 2 95-992.395.00
All other adult graves 83-991.995.00
Child's Place 300:00
Double Depth (includes 2 burial spaces/2 iiners) 88 094.390.00
Section 9A& 9B'(Quads& Upright monument plots) 3,995.00each
Section 96(Dry river bed area— Block 41A) 4,995.00 each new
GROUNDCREMATION PLOTS
Centennial Um Garden (single) 9-98695.00
Centennial Um Garden (double) 498-891.295.00
Section 9 Upright Section Um Piots (6-4 ums) 3 195.00
NICHES
Mausoleum (top rows available only)
Single S$695.00
CentennialColumbarium II (1 or 2 ums)
Row 1 Top SOLD OUT
Row2 Middle 1,895.00
Row 3 Middle 1,795.00
Row 4 Bottom 1,695.00
CHAREL OF MEMORIES—INTERIOR NICHES'
Niclie Dimensions
12 x 12 Single 2,195.00-$3,595.00
12 x 18 Double 3,295.00—$5,995.00
12.x 24'Family (up to 3 urns) . 6,895,00— $8,295.00
Ttie above nicHe pricesincludeone bud vase per niche. Inumment will be $375:99395.00 per
occasion. See guidelines foradditional pertinentinformation. A single inscription on the glass
front is'$68:88175.00 plus tax. Um's to be purchased separately.
CHAPEL OF MEMORIES—EXTERIOR NICHES•
Rows 4, 5 8 6 Rows 2 & 3 Rows 1, 7& 8
Niche 2,695.00 2,295.00 1,895.00
If theniche (extemal) is to be used a_s a double niche, the inumment, inscription and tax willbe
due when a second um is placed. (Row 1 is the bottom row)
OVERTIME WILL BE CHARGED AT $150.00 PER HOUR AFfER 4:30 P.M., MONDAYTHROUGH
FRIDAY.,THE SATURDAYSERVICE CHARGE IS $595.00 FOR FUCL INTERMENT AND $325.00 FOR
CREMATION SERVICES.
EXTENDED LAND USE 495.00
MEMORIAC PLAQUE- $175.00 a8ditional for inscription +4ax 295.00
SERVICES
Op"ening ancJ Closing —Ground Burials
LinerNault 1,195.00
Children's Place 295.00
ACT.0
Opening and Closing —Cremation
ForestWalk 85:SA495.00
Cremation Plot 425-99495.00
Niche -$175.QO for additional inscription +tax 3 98395.00
Opening anii Closing —Entombmerrt`- $175 inscription +tax 685-99895.00
VauftJnstallation+tax 395.00
Marker Services
FlatGrass:
Setting.Fee+tax 295.00
Resetting Fee + tax 150.00
UprighY.
Setting Fee +tax 425.00
Resetting Fee 325.00
Vase Se4ting Fee+tax 45.00
Recording Fee 88100.00
Overtime Charge—per hour 175.00 ,
Saturday Service Fee
Full Interment 595.00
Cremation 325.00
MATERIALS
Flower Vases: (prices include vase setting fee)
Standa d 95:9A125.00
Deluze Cast Zinc (gray or bronze zinc) 458-99175.00
Deluxe Wall (brass) 175.00
Liners: ConcreteLiner+ tax 595.00
Mountain ew Vault (+ instailation fee &tax) 68 98795.00
Double Depth +tax 89:98895:00
nfant+tax as required
Um Encasement+tax 195.00
Vault Installation +tax 395.00
FORESTWALK INFORMAL CREMATIONGARDEN
Single 3' Double 4'
Single Ground Plof $485:99695.00 Double Ground Plot $9-991.295.00-
3"995.00
Feature Site 4' WishingWell
Double Ground Plot $49g-99SOLD OUT Scattering 295.00
monument and tax
Biodegradable Um 90125:00 Add for 2n°.Inumment 5-99495.00
tax
Granite Memorials Start At $295.00 +tax Add for 2ntl Marker Inscription $5-99195.00+
tax
ACT.0
ACT.0
ACT.0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4788
Date:
January 3, 2012
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Resolution
Agreement
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council adopt Resolution No. 4788
Background Summary:
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requests to enter into an interlocal
agreement with the City of Auburn for the 2012-2013 Coordinated Prevention Grant
Program. Ecology has appropriated $62,650 for the City to promote waste reduction and
recycling.
The City of Auburn Solid Waste Division will use the grant funds for the following programs:
1. Residential Recycling: Staff will promote waste reduction and recycling to residents
through a newsletter, presentations at community events, a community yard sale, and a
compost bin subsidy program.
2. School Education and Outreach: Staff and a consultant will continue the School
Recycling and Waste Prevention Campaign directed at Auburn School District students.
3. Public Place Recycling: The City will continue to provide recycling opportunities for the
public at all City-sponsored events and City parks.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:ACT.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.0
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 4788
December 30, 2011
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4788
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF GRANT FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF SIXTY TWO THOUSAND AND SIX
HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($62,650), AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CITY OF
AUBURN TO ACCEPT SAID FUNDS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2012-2013 COORDINATED
PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, King County and the City of Auburn have adopted the King
County Solid Waste Management Plan, which includes recycling and waste
reduction goals; and
WHEREAS, in order to help meet these goals, the Department of
Ecology with King County Solid Waste Division has established a multi-phased
waste reduction and recycling grant program for the suburban cities; and
WHEREAS, this program provides funding to further the development of
local waste reduction and recycling for Auburn businesses and residents; and
WHEREAS, the Auburn City Council of the City of Auburn must adopt
and approve all appropriations by Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 35A.33 RCW;
and
ACT.0
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 4788
December 30, 2011
Page 2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, IN A
REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Chapter 35A.33 RCW, the City hereby approves
the expenditure and appropriation of a total amount of SIXTY TWO
THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($62,650) which
constitutes reimbursement of funds for implementing the 2012-2013
Coordinated Prevention Grant Program.
Section 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Auburn are
authorized to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Department of Ecology
for the reimbursement of said funds. A copy of said Agreement is attached
hereto and designated Grant No.: G1200277 and is incorporated by reference
herein.
Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out directions of the
legislation.
Section 4. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage
and signatures hereon.
ACT.0
--------------------------
Ordinance No. 4788
December 30, 2011
Page 3
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________________, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
___________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
ACT.0
COORDINATED PREVENTION GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND THE
CITY OF AUBURN
Grant No.: G1200277
This is a binding agreement entered into by and between the state of Washington Department of Ecology,
hereinafter referred to as ECOLOGY or DEPARTMENT, and the City of Auburn, hereinafter referred to
as the RECIPIENT, to carry out the activities described herein.
JURISDICTION:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn WA 98001-4998
RECIPIENT GRANT COORDINATOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
Joan Nelson
253-931-5103
253-876-1900
jenelson@auburnwa.gov
RECIPIENT BILLING/INVOICE COORDINATOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
Linda Owens
253-931-3003
253-876-1900
LRains@auburnwa.gov
ECOLOGY GRANT OFFICER:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
Diana Wadley
425-649-7056
425-649-7193
Diana.Wadley@ecy.wa.gov
FUNDING SOURCE
MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST
STATE GRANT SHARE
LOCAL SHARE
STATE MAXIMUM GRANT PERCENT
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.
Local Toxics Control Account
$83,533.33
$62,650
$20,883.33
75 %
91-6001228
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT 01-01-2012
EXPIRATION DATE OF THE AGREEMENT 06-30-2013
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 2 of 20
PART 1: SCOPE OF WORK
7KHWDVN V VHWIRUWKEHORZVXPPDUL]HWKH5(&,3,(17¶6DFWLYLWLHVWREHSHUIRUPHGXQGHUWKLVagreement.
Costs are limited to those approved by ECOLOGY as outlined in the current scope of work and budget.
The RECIPIENT must complete all deliverables by the expiration date of this agreement, including
delivery of purchases, unless otherwise stated in the scope of work or approved by ECOLOGY in writing.
Note: The term ³WDVN´DVXVHGLQWKLVDJUHHPHQWLVLQWHUFKDQJHDEOHZLWKWKHWHUP³SURMHFW´DVXVHGRQWKH
online Solid Waste Information Clearinghouse DQG³HOHPHQW´as used on payment request forms.
7KH³0D[LPXP(OLJLEOH&RVW´LVWKHPD[LPXPDPRXQWRIHOLJLEOHFRVWVincurred by a RECIPIENT that
ECOLOGY can reimburse at a rate of 75 percent under this grant.
The RECIPIENT shall identify tKHZRUNSODQDQGDFWLYLWLHVE\³4XDUWHU.´$TXDUWHULVGHILQHGE\
calendar year and begins with the first three months of the grant period. The RECIPIENT may negotiate
changes to the work plan with the ECOLOGY grant officer. ECOLOGY shall document mutually agreed
changes to the plan in writing.
CATEGORY: Organics
1. TASK TITLE: Home Compost and Worm Bin Distribution with Education
Maximum Eligible Task Cost: $4,450
Task Description: The RECIPIENT will use grant funding to subsidize wholesale
purchase and distribution of residential on-site composting containers. The purchase will
include two containers designed specifically for outdoor yard debris composting, one for indoor
or outdoor worm composting, and a container designed to accumulate interior compostable
materials for home composting. The mix of available containers may change based on
wholesale pricing, alternatives, and availability. The RECIPIENT plans to use local retailers to
distribute these containers. The RECIPIENT will make the opportunity to participate available
to all retailers, and will inform them of this (within reason).
The RECIPIENT will also develop (or update as needed) and distribute educational materials to
foster awareness about best practices for residential composting. The RECIPIENT will provide
direct assistance to residents in setting up or troubleshooting their compost efforts. The
RECIPIENT will survey purchasers to gather anecdotal data on this task's utility and potential
ways to improve it. Task will include these components: promotion, printing, mailing services,
postage, graphics, staff or consultant time for organizing and performing outreach, and
purchasing and distribution of compost bins. Revenue received from the sale of bins will be
credited back to the grant.
Goal Statement: Through this task, more residents will realize the benefits of on-site
composting, such as reduction in transportation costs & emissions while providing useful soil
amendments. Providing timely up-to-date advice to practitioners will also increase their
awareness and expertise.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 3 of 20
Outcome Statement: Over the 18-month grant period, the RECIPIENT expects sales of 250
units. The RECIPIENT estimates ongoing diversion of an estimated 250 cubic yards per year
from this task.
Work Plan, Deliverables and Activities Timeline:
Quarter Activity
Q1 Notify all retailers with potential to carry such products of this
program and their potential to participate. Acquire and distribute
containers as needed. Develop or continue promotion as needed.
Q2 Acquire and distribute containers as needed (ongoing). Develop
or continue promotion as needed (ongoing).
Q3 Ongoing
Q4 Ongoing
Q5 Ongoing, survey purchasers of bin utility
Q6 Ongoing
Method of Evaluation: The RECIPIENT will track the number and type of containers
distributed, number and type of educational materials distributed, and survey purchasers to
determine utility and on-site use levels (anecdotal self-reported information). Tons of organics
diverted will be estimated using an average of waste placed in such bin types multiplied by the
number of bins sold.
CATEGORY: Waste Reduction/Recycling
2. TASK TITLE: Residential Education and Outreach
Maximum Eligible Task Cost: $ 21,013.33
Task Description: The RECIPIENT will use different forms of media and promotional
items throughout the grant to promote waste reduction and recycling programs to residents.
Efforts may include, but are not limited to: producing and mailing a newsletter to all single-
family residents that includes waste prevention and recycling information, and hiring a
consultant to give waste reduction and recycling presentations at various community events.
Promotion specifically targeted to increasing the volume of offsite-composting of organics is
not eligible during this grant cycle. However, materials or programs addressing contamination
in food and yard waste carts is eligible.
The RECIPIENT is advised to contact its Ecology grant officer for prior approval of
promotional giveaway items. See page D-5 of the 2012-2013 CPG Guidelines for further
information.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 4 of 20
If the RECIPIENT utilizes retailers for distribution (subsidized sales) of items such as the
reusable shopping bags, the opportunity must be made available for all retailers.
Goal Statement: The goal of this task is to increase knowledge and practice of waste
reduction and recycling among City of Auburn residents by developing new programs and
bringing awareness to existing programs.
Outcome Statement: The RECPIENT will increase the residential diversion rate in its Allied
Waste Services area from 39.77% to 41% and the residential diversion rate in our Waste
Management area will increase from 68.51% to 71%. The RECIPIENT will conduct
inspections of residential recycling before and after outreach efforts to determine whether
contamination was reduced.
Furthermore, the RECIPIENT estimates the following outcomes during the 18-month grant
period:
Recycling/Reuse: 4,750 total tons
Residential Contacts: Approximately 17,500 households
Residential Contacts: 3,000 ± 5,000 households
Work Plan, Deliverables and Activities Timeline:
Quarter Activity
Q1 Write service contract & hire consultant; Program & event
planning - including a Sustainable Movie Night. Create & mail
outreach/education (17,500) newsletters/informational pieces.
Q2 Promote events/programs, conduct outreach
Q3 Ongoing
Q4 2QJRLQJSOXVFRQGXFWHYDOXDWLRQDQGZULWHVXPPDU\RI\HDU¶V
accomplishments
Q5 Promote events/programs, conduct outreach
Q6 Ongoing, plus conduct evaluation and write summary for end of
grant
Method of Evaluation: The RECIPIENT will evaluate this task by using the tonnage reports
from the solid waste haulers, examining the amount of contamination before and after the
outreach, and tracking the number of participants or attendees at events, and number of
materials distributed at presentations and events.
3. TASK TITLE: Community Yard Sale
Maximum Eligible Task Cost: $ 22,940
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 5 of 20
Task Description: The RECIPIENT will promote waste reduction, reuse, and recycling by
sponsoring a three-day city-wide yard sale for all single-family residents. Activities include
promotion of the event and distribution of yard sale kits to registered participants.
Goal Statement: The goal of this task is to encourage residents to reduce their waste by
reusing items.
Outcome Statement: The RECIPIENT will have at least 200 households participate in the
community yard sale. The sale will divert an estimated 5 tons of reusable items from the
landfill.
Work Plan, Deliverables and Activities Timeline:
Quarter Activity
Q1 Create & mail 17,500 promotional registration postcards; print
registration forms; create 6 promotional ads; create, print & mail
200 yard sale kits.
Q2 Create 4 sale ads to promote event; create & print 200 sale
map/address flyers. Collect surveys from participants after the
yard sale.
Q3 None.
Q4 None.
Q5 Create & mail 17,500 promotional registration postcards; print
registration forms; create 6 promotional ads; create, print & mail
200 yard sale kits.
Q6 Create 4 sale ads to promote event; create & print 200 sale
map/address flyers. Collect surveys from participants after the
yard sale.
Method of Evaluation: The RECIPIENT will record the number RI³<DUG6DOH.LWV´
distributed. A survey will be conducted to determine the number of items sold or given away,
from which the tonnage diverted will be estimated.
4. TASK TITLE: School Education and Outreach
Maximum Eligible Task Cost: $19,740
Task Description: The RECIPIENT, in conjunction with a consultant, will continue its
school recycling and waste prevention campaign directed at the Auburn School District (ASD)
students. City staff and a consultant will coordinate with the Auburn School District's Resource
Conservation Manager to conduct school waste audits, recycle program tune-ups, staff
trainings, reduction and recycling classroom presentations, and to promote King County School
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 6 of 20
Programs and Washington Green Schools. The ³3RZHUIXO&KRLFHV´materials will be presented
to middle school students in ASD.
Waste reduction and recycling education and outreach will be offered through multiple methods
which may include, but are not limited to: classroom presentations, on-site visits and training,
informational hand-outs, and promotional items. Note: promotional items (giveaways) must
have Ecology grant officer approval before purchase. (See page D-5 in the 2012-2013 CPG
Guidelines.)
Goal Statement: The goal of this task is to increase waste reduction and recycling
awareness among Auburn's elementary and middle school students, resulting in more positive
waste management behaviors both at home and school.
Outcome Statement: Over the 18-month grant period, the RECIPIENT will give 50
elementary classroom presentations, 50 eighth grade middle school (science) classroom
presentations and promote other local environmental programs and presentations.
Recycling/Reuse: 1,325 total tons
Business Participants: (# of schools): 19 schools
Residential Participants: 1,500 elementary school students, 1,300 middle school students.
Work Plan, Deliverables and Activities Timeline:
Q1 Update Auburn School District (ASD) student count database
and recycling programs spreadsheet with ASD Resource
Conservation Manager; Write service contract & hire
consultant; Meet with RCM and Consultant to plan 2012
outreach ; Design and develop or update recycling & waste
reduction information & presentations; Promote & deliver -
recycling & waste reduction information and presentations.
Q2 Continue to promote & deliver recycling & waste reduction
information and presentations; Evaluate & write Summary.
Q3 Meet with RCM and Consultant ± Outreach planning for 2012-
2013; Update recycling & waste reduction information &
presentations; Promote & deliver recycling information,
classroom presentations and program tune-ups.
Q4 Promote & deliver recycling information, classroom
presentations and program tune-ups; Evaluate & write Summary.
Q5 Promote & deliver recycling information, classroom
presentations and program tune-ups; Purchase (1) classroom
displays/materials, (1,000) activity books.
Q6 Promote & deliver recycling information, classroom
presentations and program tune-ups; Meet with ASD RCM &
Consultant for program evaluation; Evaluate & write Summary.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 7 of 20
Method of Evaluation: The RECIPIENT will evaluate this task by the number of students
reached through classroom presentations. The RECIPIENT will survey the students before and
after the presentations to determine the effectiveness of the presentations. The RECIPIENT
will work with the ASD Resource Conservation Manager to track the tons recycled at each
school.
5. TASK TITLE: Public Place and Event Recycling Bins and Outreach
Maximum Eligible Task Cost: $15,390
Task Description: The RECIPIENT will continue to provide recycling opportunities for the
public and employees at all City sponsored events and City parks, and event recycling
education through the City Temporary Permit process. Grant funds will be used to continue
adding recycling containers and supplies for use at events, parks, and in the downtown area.
Task components include staff time for researching, installing, maintaining, and servicing
containers, purchase of recycling containers, as well as paint, decals, and other related start-up
materials. Note: the RECIPIENT is expected to provide the liner bags for permanent bins at its
own expense. After initial start-up, the RECIPIENT is also expected to maintain the bins at its
own expense.
Goal Statement: The goal is to increase recycling in public areas and the amount of
recyclables diverted from landfills.
Outcome Statement: Over the 18-month grant period, the RECIPIENT expects to increase
public place recycling diversion by 5%, from 12% (2,900 32-gallon bags) to 17% (4,160 32-
gallon bags), based on garbage collection of 24,462 bags.
Work Plan, Deliverables and Activities Timeline:
Quarter Activity
Q1 Update container inventory database; design media campaign.
Q2 Order: (~23) containers/liners/lids, (~27) signage, (~100) labels,
(~36) locks; Promote program information ± (newspaper ad).
Q3 Continue to promote program information.
Q4 Continue to promote program information; evaluate collection
and programs, write summary for 2012.
Q5 Update container inventory database; Continue to promote
program information.
Q6 Continue to promote program information ±(newspaper ad);
evaluate collection and program, write final summary.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 8 of 20
Method of Evaluation: The RECIPIENT will report the number of additional recycling
collection containers purchased and installed, anecdotal community usage of public area
recycling containers, percentage of recycling diverted from the landfill through recycling, and
the estimated tonnage of additional recyclable materials collected as a result of this task.
PART 2: BUDGET
TASK Maximum Eligible Cost
Category: Organics $ 4,450
1. Home Compost and Worm Bin Distribution with
Education
$ 4,450
Category: Waste Reduction and Recycling $ 79,083.33
2. Residential Education and Outreach $ 21,013.33
3. Community Yard Sale $ 22,940
4. School Education and Outreach $ 19,740
5. Public Place and Event Recycling Bins and Outreach $ 15,390
TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST $ 83,533.33
STATE SHARE (75%) $ 62,650
LOCAL CASH MATCH (25%) $ 20,883.33
PART 3: BUDGET CONDITIONS
A. ECOLOGY requires the RECIPIENT to provide a match of 25 percent of the maximum eligible cost
with cash or interlocal costs. Interlocal costs are the only type of in-kind contributions the
RECIPIENT may use as match.
B. If parties are contributing to the local share of task costs (match) through interlocal-in kind
contributions, the RECIPIENT shall negotiate a memoranda of understanding or other written
agreement confirming the contribution between the parties. These agreements shall specify the exact
work to be accomplished and be signed by all parties contributing to the local match of this task.
&RSLHVRIWKHVHDJUHHPHQWVVKDOOEHPDGHSDUWRIWKH5(&,3,(17¶6JUDQWILOHDQGVXEPLWWHGWR
ECOLOGY.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 9 of 20
C. Overhead is eligible at a rate up to 25 percent of staff salaries and benefits for actual time spent on
tasks outlined in this agreement. Salaries and benefits to administer the grant agreement are eligible
(excluding time spent to write a grant application).
D. The RECIPIENT must submit a written request to ECOLOGY to amend budgets between grant tasks,
to modify a scope of work, or for a budget increase or decrease. To increase or decrease the
DJUHHPHQW¶Vtotal maximum eligible cost or change the scope of work for any tasks as outlined in this
grant agreement, ECOLOGY requires a formal amendment.
E. The RECIPIENT must provide ECOLOGY with an updated Spending Plan when requested by
ECOLOGY.
F. Any work performed or costs incurred prior to the effective date or after the expiration date of this
agreement will be at the sole expense of the RECIPIENT.
PART 4: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. BILLING
1. Unless otherwise approved in writing by ECOLOGY, the RECIPIENT shall submit a payment
request to ECOLOGY at least quarterly (by calendar year), but no more often than once per
month.
2. The RECIPIENT must submit payment requests on approved State Invoice Voucher forms: A19-
1A, B1/B2, C1/C2. Until there is a change in agency policy, the recipient must submit an A-19
signed in blue ink by an authorized person. The B2 and C2 forms are acceptable in electronic
format. The RECIPIENT must also include all backup documentation to support items listed on
Form C1/C2. The budget is organized by task and therefore, the RECIPIENT shall itemize costs
by task on Form C1/C2 and Form B1/B2. Forms B1 and C1 are used only when interlocal costs
are used towards the 25% match.
3. Any income directly generated as a result of the activities funded by this grant shall be reported
DVDFUHGLWDJDLQVWWKHH[SHQVHVRIWKDWDFWLYLW\DVUHTXLUHGE\(&2/2*<¶6Administrative
Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans, Ecology Publication #91-18.
4. 3D\PHQWWR5(&,3,(17ZLOOEHLVVXHGWKURXJK:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH¶V'HSDUWPHQWRI(QWHUSULVH
Services (DES). DES maintains a central vendor file for Washington state agency use to process
vendor payments. This allows vendors to receive payments from all participating state agencies.
RECIPIENTS must register as a state-wide vendor (SWV) by submitting a state-wide vendor
registration form and an IRS W-9 form
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/isd/vendors/payee_registration.doc to DES. If you have questions about
the vendor registration process you can contact DES at the Payee Help Desk at (360) 664-7779 or
email to payeehelpdesk@ofm.wa.gov.
B. REPORTING
1. The RECIPIENT shall submit a progress report with each payment request but no less often than
quarterly unless otherwise approved by ECOLOGY. These reports shall include activities that
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 10 of 20
support incurred costs shown on the C1 or C2 of the payment request, and must be submitted on-
line through the Solid Waste Information Clearinghouse.
2. 5(&,3,(17¶VPXVWVXEPLWDILQDOUHSRUWRIWDVNRXWFRPHVWKURXJKWKH6ROLG:DVWH,QIRUPDWLRQ
Clearinghouse. The final report must be submitted before ECOLOGY can process a final
payment request.
a. Final Performance Analysis (FPA) reports are used for all Planning and
Implementation tasks and special tasks in a solid waste enforcement grant (special
tasks do not include regular solid waste enforcement work such as enforcing solid
waste codes).
b. For Solid Waste Enforcement tasks, recipients must submit their final quarterly solid
waste enforcement progress report.
C. DOCUMENTATION
1. The RECIPIENT shall submit supporting documents with each payment request. This includes
cancelled checks, invoices, purchase receipts, payroll records, time and attendance records,
contract award documents, and any document deemed relevant by ECOLOGY to establish the
approval of an expense listed on Form C1/C2. Documentation shall be clear and legible and
organized by task in the order in which it is itemized on Form C1/C2.
2. The RECIPIENT shall maintain grant related material and supporting documents including
invoice vouchers sent to ECOLOGY in a common file. The Recipient shall keep all supporting
documents for audit purposes for at least three years from the date the agreement is closed by
ECOLOGY.
3. The RECIPIENT shall use the ECOLOGY provided Form E, or an equivalent time accounting
document approved by ECOLOGY, to record staff hours being charged to the grant.
D. TRAINING
The RECIPIENT agrees to participate in any ECOLOGY recommended trainings related to managing
a CPG agreement.
E. 0,125,7<$1':20(1¶6 BUSINESS PARTICIPATION
The RECIPIENT is encouraged to solicit and recruit, to the extent possible, certified minority-owned
(MBE) and women-owned (WBE) businesses in purchases and contracts initiated after the effective
date of this agreement.
Contract awards or rejections cannot be made based on MBE or WBE participation. M/WBE
participation is encouraged, however, and the RECIPIENT and all prospective bidders or persons
submitting qualifications should take the following steps, when possible, in any procurement initiated
after the effective date of this agreement:
a) Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists.
b) Assure that qualified minority and women's businesses are solicited whenever they are
potential sources of services or supplies.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 11 of 20
c) Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities, to
permit maximum participation by qualified minority and women's businesses.
d) Establish delivery schedules, where work requirements permit, which will encourage
participation of qualified minority and women's businesses.
e) Use the services and assistance of the State Office of Minority and Women's Business
Enterprises (OMWBE) and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, as appropriate.
f) The RECIPIENT should report payments made to qualified firms to ECOLOGY at the time of
submitting each invoice. Please include the following information on ECOLOGY provided
form (Form D).
g) Name and state OMWBE certification number (if available) of any qualified firm receiving
funds under the invoice, including any sub-and/or sub-subcontractors.
h) The total dollar amount paid to qualified firms under this invoice.
F. PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTS
a) The RECIPIENT shall provide written certification that it will follow its standard procurement
procedures and/or applicable state law in awarding contracts; RECIPIENTS with no formal
procurement procedures must certify that they have complied with the "Standards for
Competitive Solicitation," found in Part V of the Administrative Requirements for Recipients
of Ecology Grants and Loans ± Yellow Book, Ecology Publication #91-18 (Revised September
2005).
b) Upon issuance, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of all requests for qualifications (RFQs),
requests for proposals (RFPs), and bid documents relating to this grant agreement to
ECOLOGY¶6grant officer.
c) Prior to contract execution, the RECIPIENT shall submit all draft documents and a copy of the
draft proposed contract to ECOLOGY¶6grant officer for review. Following the contract
execution, the RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the final contract to ECOLOGY¶V assigned
grant officer.
d) Unless a specific purchase of equipment or real property is already written into the grant
agreement, the RECIPIENT must submit a written request to ECOLOGY to purchase any
equipment or real property (Property) with a single unit purchase price of $5,000 or more. The
request shall include the justification for the purchase of the property, the total cost, the
intended use, and the anticipated useful life of the property. The request must be approved in
writing by ECOLOGY prior to the purchase.
G. USE OF EXISTING CONTRACTS
The RECIPIENT may use existing contracts that conform to adopted procurement procedures and
applicable state laws. The RECIPIENT shall notify ECOLOGY if it used contracts entered into
prior to the execution of the grant agreement for performance of grant-funded activities. The
RECIPIENT shall submit a copy of the contract to its assigned ECOLOGY grant officer. The
grant eligibility of products or services secured by the RECIPIENT under existing contracts used
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 12 of 20
to perform the scope of work in this agreement must be deemed allowable and reasonable by
ECOLOGY prior to cost reimbursement.
H. PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION
For equipment or property purchased with a cost of at least $5,000 per unit or functional system,
the RECIPIENT must utilize an inventory control system, including physical inventory to
document the ongoing use, a description of the item (including serial or vehicle identification
number (VIN) when possible), and location. This information shall be submitted to ECOLOGY
upon request until final disposition is made. The RECIPIENT shall investigate, document, and
report to ECOLOGY any loss, theft or damage upon discovery of such conditions. The
RECIPIENT will follow manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures to keep the
property in good operating condition.
The RECIPIENT shall submit a written request to the ECOLOGY for any intent to change the use
of the equipment as outlined in this grant agreement, including uses past the expiration date of
this agreement. Disposition of the equipment shall be determined by ECOLOGY and
documented in writing. A copy of the determination will be provided to the RECIPIENT upon
(&2/2*<¶VFORVXUHRIWKHJUDQWDJUHHPHQWXQOHVVDOUHDG\LGHQWLILHGLQWKHWDVN¶VVFRSHRIZRUN
o If the equipment is necessary for the continued operation of the project or other
projects administered through ECOLOGY, the grant officer may instruct the
recipient to retain the equipment with no further compensation to ECOLOGY.
o If the project has no further significant use for the equipment, the grant officer
may instruct the recipient to retain or sell the equipment and pay ECOLOGY an
amount equDOWR(&2/2*<¶VVKDUHRIWKHFXUUHQWIDLUPDUNHWYDOXHVDOH
proceeds or other price agreed upon by the grant officer.
o The grant officer may instruct the recipient to transfer title to ECOLOGY or to a
third party named by ECOLOGY who is eligible under existing statutes.
I. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
This agreement, including the ³*HQHUDO7HUPVDQG&RQGLWLRQV´Program Guidelines ±
Coordinated Prevention Grants 2012-2013, and ECOLOGY¶S Administrative Requirements for
Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans, Ecology Publication #91-18, contain the entire
understanding between the parties, and there are no other understandings or representations
except as those set forth or incorporated by reference herein. No subsequent modification(s) or
amendment(s) of this grant agreement shall be of any force or effect unless in writing, signed by
authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY and made part of this agreement.
J. ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
The RECIPIENT shall take reasonable action to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to
the archeological or cultural resources. RECIPIENT shall immediately cease work and notify
ECOLOGY if any archeological or cultural resources are found while conducting work under this
agreement. In the event that historical or cultural artifacts are discovered at the project site, the
RECIPIENT shall also notify the state historic preservation officer at the Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (360) 586-3065. Applicability of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) may require the RECIPIENT to obtain a permit pursuant to Chapter
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 13 of 20
27.53 RCW prior to conducting on-site activity with the potential to impact historic properties
(such as invasive sampling, dredging, or cleanup actions).
K. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRABLE PURCHASING
In a joint effort to save costs, produce energy savings and prevent waste, the RECIPIENT agrees
to use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing. The RECIPIENT also agrees to
purchase paper products with a high level of post consumer recycled content whenever it is
comparable in quality, availability and price
PART 5: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements of the Department of Ecology, SS-010 Rev. 04/04
A. RECIPIENT PERFORMANCE
All activities for which grant/loan funds are to be used shall be accomplished by the RECIPIENT and
RECIPIENT's employees. The RECIPIENT shall only use contractor/consultant assistance if that has
been incluGHGLQWKHDJUHHPHQW¶VILQDOVFRSHRIZRUNDQGEXGJHW
B. SUBGRANTEE/CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE
The RECIPIENT must ensure that all subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and
conditions of this agreement.
C. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
The RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this
agreement, the state of Washington is named as an express third-party beneficiary of such
subcontracts with full rights as such.
D. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES (BIDDING)
Contracts for construction, purchase of equipment and professional architectural and engineering
services shall be awarded through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT shall
retain copies of all bids received and contracts awarded, for inspection and use by the
DEPARTMENT.
E. ASSIGNMENTS
No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this agreement shall be transferred or assigned by
the RECIPIENT.
F. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
1. The RECIPIENT shall comply fully with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, orders,
regulations and permits.
Prior to commencement of any construction, the RECIPIENT shall secure the necessary
approvals and permits required by authorities having jurisdiction over the project, provide
assurance to the DEPARTMENT that all approvals and permits have been secured, and make
copies available to the DEPARTMENT upon request.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 14 of 20
2. Discrimination. The DEPARTMENT and the RECIPIENT agree to be bound by all Federal and
State laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. The RECIPIENT further agrees to
affirmatively support the program of the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises to
the maximum extent possible. If the agreement is federally-funded, the RECIPIENT shall report
to the DEPARTMENT the percent of grant/loan funds available to women or minority owned
businesses.
3. Wages and Job Safety. The RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations,
and policies of the United States and the State of Washington which affect wages and job safety.
4. Industrial Insurance. The RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial
insurance requirements. If the RECIPIENT fails to comply with such laws, the DEPARTMENT
shall have the right to immediately terminate this agreement for cause as provided in Section K.1,
herein.
G. KICKBACKS
The RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise
involved in this project to give up any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled
or, receive any fee, commission or gift in return for award of a subcontract hereunder.
H. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS
1. The RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this
agreement. Such records shall clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures by fund source and
task or object.
All grant/loan records shall be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures.
All records shall be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections.
Engineering documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished
under this agreement shall be maintained by the RECIPIENT.
2. All grant/loan records shall be open for audit or inspection by the DEPARTMENT or by any duly
authorized audit representative of the State of Washington for a period of at least three years after
the final grant payment/loan repayment or any dispute resolution hereunder. If any such audits
identify discrepancies in the financial records, the RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and/or
make adjustments accordingly.
3. All work performed under this agreement and any equipment purchased, shall be made available
to the DEPARTMENT and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection
at any time during the course of this agreement and for at least three years following grant/loan
termination or dispute resolution hereunder.
4. RECIPIENT shall meet the provisions in OMB Circular A-133 (Audits of States, Local
Governments & Non Profit Organizations), including the compliance Supplement to OMB
Circular A-133, if the RECIPIENT expends $500,000 or more in a year in Federal funds. The
$500,000 threshold for each year is a cumulative total of all federal funding from all sources. The
5(&,3,(17PXVWIRUZDUGDFRS\RIWKHDXGLWDORQJZLWKWKH5(&,3,(17¶6UHVSRQVHDQGWKH
final corrective action plan to the DEPARTMENT within ninety (90) days of the date of the audit
report.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 15 of 20
I. PERFORMANCE REPORTING
The RECIPIENT shall submit progress reports to the DEPARTMENT with each payment request or
such other schedule as set forth in the Special Conditions. The RECIPIENT shall also report in
writing to the DEPARTMENT any problems, delays or adverse conditions which will materially
affect their ability to meet project objectives or time schedules. This disclosure shall be accompanied
by a statement of the action taken or proposed and any assistance needed from the DEPARTMENT to
resolve the situation. Payments may be withheld if required progress reports are not submitted.
Quarterly reports shall cover the periods January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1
through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. Reports shall be due within thirty (30)
days following the end of the quarter being reported.
J. COMPENSATION
1. Method of compensation. Payment shall normally be made on a reimbursable basis as specified
in the grant agreement and no more often than once per month. Each request for payment will be
submitted by the RECIPIENT on State voucher request forms provided by the DEPARTMENT
along with documentation of the expenses. Payments shall be made for each task/phase of the
project, or portion thereof, as set out in the Scope of Work when completed by the RECIPIENT
and approved as satisfactory by the Project Officer.
The payment request form and supportive documents must itemize all allowable costs by major
elements as described in the Scope of Work. Instructions for submitting the payment requests are
found in "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans", part IV,
published by the DEPARTMENT. A copy of this document shall be furnished to the
RECIPIENT. When payment requests are approved by the DEPARTMENT, payments will be
made to the mutually agreed upon designee.
Payment requests shall be submitted to the DEPARTMENT and directed to the Project Officer
assigned to administer this agreement.
2. Period of Compensation. Payments shall only be made for actions of the RECIPIENT pursuant to
the grant/loan agreement and performed after the effective date and prior to the expiration date of
this agreement, unless those dates are specifically modified in writing as provided herein.
3. Final Request(s) for Payment. The RECIPIENT should submit final requests for compensation
within forty-five (45) days after the expiration date of this agreement and within fifteen (15) days
after the end of a fiscal biennium. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement.
4. Performance Guarantee. The DEPARTMENT may withhold an amount not to exceed ten percent
(10%) of each reimbursement payment as security for the RECIPIENT's performance. Monies
withheld by the DEPARTMENT may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the project(s) described
herein, or a portion thereof, have been completed if, in the DEPARTMENT's sole discretion, such
payment is reasonable and approved according to this agreement and, as appropriate, upon
completion of an audit as specified under section J.6 herein.
5. Unauthorized Expenditures. All payments to the RECIPIENT may be subject to final audit by the
DEPARTMENT and any unauthorized expenditure(s) charged to this grant/loan shall be refunded
to the DEPARTMENT by the RECIPIENT.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 16 of 20
6. Mileage and Per Diem. If mileage and per diem are paid to the employees of the RECIPIENT or
other public entities, it shall not exceed the amount allowed under state law for state employees.
7. Overhead Costs. No reimbursement for overhead costs shall be allowed unless provided for in
the Scope of Work hereunder.
K. TERMINATION
1. For Cause. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon
satisfactory performance by the RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this agreement. In the
event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion of the DEPARTMENT, to perform any
obligation required of it by this agreement, the DEPARTMENT may refuse to pay any further
funds thereunder and/or terminate this agreement by giving written notice of termination.
A written notice of termination shall be given at least five working days prior to the effective date
of termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys,
drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports or other materials prepared by the RECIPIENT
under this agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, shall become Department property
and the RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials.
Despite the above, the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to the DEPARTMENT
for damages sustained by the DEPARTMENT and/or the State of Washington because of any
breach of agreement by the RECIPIENT. The DEPARTMENT may withhold payments for the
purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the DEPARTMENT from
the RECIPIENT is determined.
2. Insufficient Funds. The obligation of the DEPARTMENT to make payments is contingent on the
availability of state and federal funds through legislative appropriation and state allotment. When
this agreement crosses over state fiscal years the obligation of the DEPARTMENT is contingent
upon the appropriation of funds during the next fiscal year. The failure to appropriate or allot
such funds shall be good cause to terminate this agreement as provided in paragraph K.1 above.
When this agreement crosses the RECIPIENT's fiscal year, the obligation of the RECIPIENT to
continue or complete the project described herein shall be contingent upon appropriation of funds
by the RECIPIENT's governing body; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall
preclude the DEPARTMENT from demanding repayment of ALL funds paid to the RECIPIENT
in accordance with Section O herein.
3. Failure to Commence Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails to commence work on the project
funded herein within four months after the effective date of this agreement, or by any date
mutually agreed upon in writing for commencement of work, the DEPARTMENT reserves the
right to terminate this agreement.
L. WAIVER
Waiver of any RECIPIENT default is not a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of a breach of
any provision of this agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent breach and will not be construed as
a modification of the terms of this agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized
representative of the DEPARTMENT.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 17 of 20
M. PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents
any patentable property, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but the
DEPARTMENT retains a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce,
publish, recover or otherwise use the material(s) or property and to authorize others to use the
same for federal, state or local government purposes.
Where federal funding is involved, the federal government may have a proprietary interest in
patent rights to any inventions that are developed by the RECIPIENT as provided in 35 U.S.C.
200-212.
2. Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish
information of the DEPARTMENT; present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information
supplied by the DEPARTMENT; use logos, reports, maps or other data, in printed reports, signs,
brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to the DEPARTMENT.
3. Tangible Property Rights. The DEPARTMENT's current edition of "Administrative
Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans", Part V, shall control the use and
disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds furnished by
the DEPARTMENT in the absence of state, federal statute(s), regulation(s), or policy(s) to the
contrary or upon specific instructions with respect thereto in the Scope of Work.
4. Personal Property Furnished by the DEPARTMENT. When the DEPARTMENT provides
personal property directly to the RECIPIENT for use in performance of the project, it shall be
returned to the DEPARTMENT prior to final payment by the DEPARTMENT. If said property
is lost, stolen or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, the DEPARTMENT shall be
reimbursed in cash or by setoff by the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property.
5. Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this
agreement includes funds for the acquisition of land or facilities:
a. Prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this agreement, the RECIPIENT shall establish
that the cost of land/or facilities is fair and reasonable.
b. The RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each
parcel prior to disbursement of funds provided by this agreement. Such evidence may
include title insurance policies, Torrens certificates, or abstracts, and attorney's opinions
establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or claim which would impair the
uses contemplated by this agreement.
6. Conversions. Regardless of the contract termination date shown on the cover sheet, the
RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment, property or facility acquired or
developed pursuant to this agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally
approved without prior written approval of the DEPARTMENT. Such approval may be
conditioned upon payment to the DEPARTMENT of that portion of the proceeds of the sale,
lease or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this agreement bear
to the total acquisition, purchase or construction costs of such property.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 18 of 20
N. SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS
,QRUGHUWRVXVWDLQ:DVKLQJWRQ¶VQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGHFRV\VWHPVWKH5(&,3,(17LVHQFRXUDJHGWR
implement sustainable practices where and when possible. These practices include use of clean
energy, and purchase and use of sustainably produced products (e.g. recycled paper). For more
information, see www.ecy.wa.gov/sustainability.
O. RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS TO RECIPIENT
The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies paid to it as reimbursement payments is contingent
upon satisfactory performance of this agreement including the satisfactory completion of the project
described in the Scope of Work. In the event the RECIPIENT fails, for any reason, to perform
obligations required of it by this agreement, the RECIPIENT may, at the DEPARTMENT's sole
discretion, be required to repay to the DEPARTMENT all grant/loan funds disbursed to the
RECIPIENT for those parts of the project that are rendered worthless in the opinion of the
DEPARTMENT by such failure to perform.
Interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per year from the time the DEPARTMENT
demands repayment of funds. If payments have been discontinued by the DEPARTMENT due to
insufficient funds as in Section K.2 above, the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay monies
which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination. Any property acquired under this
agreement, at the option of the DEPARTMENT, may become the DEPARTMENT'S property and the
RECIPIENT'S liability to repay monies shall be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of
such property.
P. PROJECT APPROVAL
The extent and character of all work and services to be performed under this agreement by the
RECIPIENT shall be subject to the review and approval of the DEPARTMENT through the Project
Officer or other designated official to whom the RECIPIENT shall report and be responsible. In the
event there is a dispute with regard to the extent and character of the work to be done, the
determination of the Project Officer or other designated official as to the extent and character of the
work to be done shall govern. The RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided
for below.
Q. DISPUTES
Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising
under this agreement which is not disposed of in writing shall be decided by the Project Officer or
other designated official who shall provide a written statement of decision to the RECIPIENT. The
decision of the Project Officer or other designated official shall be final and conclusive unless, within
thirty days from the date of receipt of such statement, the RECIPIENT mails or otherwise furnishes to
the Director of the DEPARTMENT a written appeal.
In connection with appeal of any proceeding under this clause, the RECIPIENT shall have the
opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of this appeal. The decision of the Director
or duly authorized representative for the determination of such appeals shall be final and conclusive.
Appeals from the Director's determination shall be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County.
Review of the decision of the Director will not be sought before either the Pollution Control Hearings
Board or the Shoreline Hearings Board. Pending final decision of dispute hereunder, the RECIPIENT
shall proceed diligently with the performance of this agreement and in accordance with the decision
rendered.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 19 of 20
R. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No officer, member, agent, or employee of either party to this agreement who exercises any function
or responsibility in the review, approval, or carrying out of this agreement, shall participate in any
decision which affects his/her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or
association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly interested; nor shall he/she have any personal or
pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this agreement or the proceeds thereof.
S. INDEMNIFICATION
1. The DEPARTMENT shall in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's
fees, and other costs related to the project described herein, except as provided in the Scope of
Work.
2. To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party shall
indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to
persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of that party or that party's agents
or employees arising out of this agreement.
T. GOVERNING LAW
This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
U. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall
be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this agreement which can be
given effect without the invalid provision, and to this end the provisions of this agreement are
declared to be severable.
V. PRECEDENCE
In the event of inconsistency in this agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency
shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (a) applicable Federal and State
statutes and regulations; (b) Scope of Work; (c) Special Terms and Conditions; (d) Any terms
incorporated herein by reference including the "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of
Ecology Grants and Loans"; and (e) the General Terms and Conditions.
ACT.0
Grant No. G1200277 FINAL
City of Auburn
Page 20 of 20
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties sign this Agreement:
STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF AUBURN
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Laurie G. Davies Date Authorized Official Date
Program Manager
Waste 2 Resources Program
Printed Name and Title of Signatory
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Assistant Attorney General
ACT.0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4790
Date:
January 4, 2012
Department:
Police
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4790
Schedule A
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council approve and implement Resolution No. 4790
Background Summary:
With the closure of the Auburn Jail, there are items which no longer have use or benefit
the City. Therefore, it is recommended that the items be surplused.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Lee
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:ACT.0
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.0
-----------------------------
Resolution No. 4790
January 4, 2012
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 4790
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON DECLARING
CERTAIN ITEMS OF PROPERTY AS SURPLUS
AND AUTHORIZING THEIR DISPOSAL
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn Police Department has a number of items
which are no longer of use to the City; and
WHEREAS, it would be appropriate to surplus the property and dispose of
it by auction or other sale mechanism, or to dispose of it, in whole or in part,
through gift to another governmental agency or an appropriate charitable non-
profit entity, as deemed most expedient by the Mayor.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. That the property identified below is declared
to be surplus, and the Mayor is authorized to dispose of and convey such
property through appropriate sale or donation to another governmental agency or
charitable non-profit entity.
Police
The items listed on Schedule A are to be surplused.
Section 2. Implementation. That the Mayor is authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directives of this legislation.
ACT.0
-----------------------------
Resolution No. 4790
January 4, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Section 3. Effective Date. That this Resolution shall take effect
and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and signed this _____ day of _________, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
ACT.0
Schedule A
Amount Item Serial Number Location
1Cummins document shredder with stand4468Jail
1Cummins document shredder with stand4772Evidence
6Metal filing cabinet Jail
1Metal Storage locker - Janitor's closet Jail
1Dynex TV with stand168700TQZ426HOO725Jail
3Bank of 3 full-size lockers Jail
1Metal chair Jail
5Rolling office chair Jail
2workstations with 2 two-drawer stands Jail
22 drawer file cabinet Jail
1Panasonic VHS player G5IA21589Jail
1Panasonic VHS playerG5IA21582Jail
1Epic Go-video 2 deck VHS player67106869995Jail
6Cubicle wall panel Jail
1Fingerprint stand Jail
2Wood cabinet Jail
8Plastic stack chair Jail
7Metal stacking chair Jail
1Round table Jail
2Corner workstation sections Jail
5Metal crutch Jail
1Metal walker Jail
1Metal rolling oxygen tank caddy Jail
1Table top Jail
9Bank of 6 half lockers Jail
2Large cooking pots Jail
121" Color Monitor - HoneywellJ130000137Jail
115" Viewsonic monitor6A94593938Jail
123" Sylvania TVT35590565Jail
117" Sylvania TVV35478030Jail
Misc Plastic cups Jail
Misc plastic food trays Jail
Misc plastic bowls Jail
1JVS VHS video camera11142119Jail
1Small rectangular table Jail
13-drawer lateral file Jail
3Foam mattress pad Jail
1Suicide smock Jail
2Colanders Jail
1Fry pan Jail
1Saucepan Jail
1Fry pan Jail
4Mixing bowl Jail
1Proctor-Sylex coffee makerUnreadableJail
1Sharp Carousel microwave144804Jail
4Cooking tray (burned)Jail
Misc jail clothing Jail
Misc Jail bedding Jail
1Cart Jail
ACT.0
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4786
Date:
December 20, 2011
Department:
Parks/Art and Recreation
Attachments:
Resolution 4786
WSAC Contract
Award Letter
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Muni Services supports acceptance of this grant.
Background Summary:
The office of the Washington State Arts Commission awarded a grant to the City of
Auburn in the amount of $5,000 as part of its Grants to Organizations Project Support -
Level B, Midsized Arts Organizations. The funds are awarded for the period beginning
January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 for the support of the inaugural year of the outdoor
sculpture gallery.
All funded programs are required to acknowledge support from the Washington State
Arts Commission as well as the National Endowment for the Arts.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development
Councilmember:Backus Staff:Faber
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A
- - - - - - -
Resolution No. 4786
December 2011
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4786
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT
FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE
NECESSARY CONTRACTS TO ACCEPT SAID FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn Arts Commission, on behalf of the City of
Auburn, submitted an application to the Washington State Arts Commission, Grants to
Organizations, Program Support Grant; and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised that it has been approved to receive a
grant from said program in the amount of Five Thousand and No/100s Dollars
($5,000.00); and
WHEREAS, acceptance of the grant will benefit the citizens of Auburn.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. Acceptance of Grant and Authorization of Contract. The City
Council hereby accepts the Project Support Grant from Washington State Arts
Commission, in the amount of Five Thousand and No/100s Dollars ($5,000.00), and
authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Contract with Washington State Arts
Commission in substantial conformity with the Contract marked as Exhibit “A” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is further authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
DI.A
- - - - - - -
Resolution No. 4786
December 2011
Page 2
legislation, including assuring that the grant fund appropriation is included in the
appropriate budget documents of the City.
Section 3. Effective Date. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full
force upon passage and signatures hereon.
SIGNED and DATED this ______ day of December, 2011.
CITY OF AUBURN
________________________________
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
DI.A
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Auburn Golf Course Operations Review
Date:
January 3, 2012
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Memo
Report
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
For discussion only.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Coleman
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B
Interoffice Memorandum
To: Municipal Services Committee
From: Shelley Coleman, Finance Director
CC: Pete Lewis, Mayor
Date: January 9, 2012
Re: National Golf Foundation – Review of Auburn Golf Course
This memorandum transmits a copy of the final report by the National Golf Foundation (NGF) on
the Auburn Golf Course (AGC).
The purpose of the NGF study was to identify opportunities to improve the operations of the AGC
and help ensure its long-term financial viability. Specific items in the NGF scope of work
included:
x Operations review, including an assessment of the AGC facility, operations, and
competitive market.
x Policy review including a discussion of the public policy issues as it pertains to municipal
ownership of golf courses and municipal golf industry trends.
Please note some of the key recommendations from this report require development of a project
scope and budget and shifting some costs to other funds. Most recommendations, however,
have minimal or no budget impact.
NGF also reviewed the feasibility of privatizing the AGC operations and recommends that the
City continue municipal ownership of the AGC for the foreseeable future and that there is no
‘magic bullet’ to be expected from privatization. Should the City consider privatizing, there are a
number of legal and administrative issues to be addressed including property ownership, bond
covenants, unionized labor agreements and the financial arrangement with the private third party
operator/owner.
Page 1 of 1
DI.B
Preliminary Operational Review
Auburn Golf Course
in
Auburn, Washington
Prepared For:
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Prepared By:
1150 South U.S. Highway One, Suite 401
Jupiter, FL 33477
(561) 744-6006
November 2011
DI.B
Preliminary Operational Review
Auburn Golf Course
in
Auburn, Washington
November 2011
DI.B
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1
Purpose..................................................................................................................................1
Background ............................................................................................................................1
Scope of Work .......................................................................................................................1
Summary of Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................2
Recommendations.........................................................................................................................2
Revenue Growth through Facility Enhancements .........................................................................3
Concession Agreement .................................................................................................................3
Privatization ...................................................................................................................................4
CITY OF AUBURN MUNICIPAL GOLF SYSTEM OVERVIEW ...................................................5
Location and Accessibility Analysis .......................................................................................5
Local Map Context.........................................................................................................................6
Organization and Administration ............................................................................................6
System Debt ..................................................................................................................................6
Food and Beverage Concession ...................................................................................................6
City-Wide Support for Golf System ...............................................................................................7
Interfund Charges ..........................................................................................................................7
Citizen Committees .......................................................................................................................8
Inventory of Facilities .............................................................................................................8
Golf Course ...................................................................................................................................8
Practice Facilities.........................................................................................................................10
Auburn Golf Clubhouse ...............................................................................................................10
Golf Operations ....................................................................................................................12
Golf Facility Staffing.....................................................................................................................12
Point-of-Sale (POS) and Reservation Systems ..........................................................................13
Leagues and Clubs......................................................................................................................13
Tournaments and Outings ...........................................................................................................14
Seasonal Golf / Winter Operations ..............................................................................................15
Lesson Program ..........................................................................................................................15
High School / Junior Program .....................................................................................................15
Auburn Golf Fee Structure ..........................................................................................................16
Auburn Golf Marketing .........................................................................................................18
Website ........................................................................................................................................18
Printed Advertising and Promotions ............................................................................................19
E-mail Marketing..........................................................................................................................20
Social Media ................................................................................................................................20
Other Marketing Efforts ...............................................................................................................20
Auburn Golf Course Player Card and Monthly Off-Season Pass ...............................................21
NGF Commentary on Auburn Golf Marketing .............................................................................21
DI.B
Review of Food and Beverage Operation ............................................................................22
Agreement Structure ...................................................................................................................22
Basic Operation ...........................................................................................................................23
Working Relationship – Auburn Golf Course and Copper Falls Restaurant ...............................24
Marketing .....................................................................................................................................25
NGF Summary and Commentary of Auburn Golf Course Food and Beverage Service .............25
Performance ........................................................................................................................27
Rounds Activity ............................................................................................................................27
Economic Performance ...............................................................................................................27
Summary – City of Auburn Municipal Golf Operations ........................................................28
As-Is Economic Performance ......................................................................................................29
EXTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE AUBURN MUNICIPAL GOLF OPERATION..........30
National Trends....................................................................................................................30
Participation .................................................................................................................................30
Public Sector (Municipal) Golf .....................................................................................................31
Auburn Area Market Overview .............................................................................................32
Demographics .............................................................................................................................32
Economy ......................................................................................................................................33
Climate ........................................................................................................................................34
Golf Market Supply and Demand Indicators ........................................................................35
Local Golf Demand and Supply...................................................................................................35
Competitive Golf Market ......................................................................................................36
Competitive Assessment Review – Local Market Competitors ...................................................37
Competitive Facility Observations:..............................................................................................39
Local Municipal Golf Revenues and Expenses ...........................................................................41
External Factors Summary ..................................................................................................42
SUMMARY OF NGF CONSULTING RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
IMPLICATIONS ..........................................................................................................................43
City of Auburn Golf System Basic Vision.............................................................................43
Mission Statement .......................................................................................................................43
Recommendations on Basic Oversight and Structure .........................................................44
Management Options ..................................................................................................................44
Option 1: Self-Operation by City ..................................................................................................44
Option 2: Full Service Management Contract .............................................................................45
Option 3: Concession Agreements..............................................................................................47
Option 4: Operating Lease ..........................................................................................................48
Option 5: Hybrid Management Contract ......................................................................................50
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................50
NGF Recommendation ................................................................................................................51
Specific Physical Recommendations ...................................................................................52
DI.B
NGF Recommended Auburn Golf Course Improvements...........................................................52
Specific Operational Recommendations..............................................................................53
Non-Economic Benefits of Municipal Golf ............................................................................54
Charitable Impacts.......................................................................................................................54
At-Risk Youth ...............................................................................................................................54
Minority Golf Participation ...........................................................................................................54
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................55
Appendix A – Golf Course Life Cycle.....................................................................................1
Appendix B – Golf Industry Standards and Norms ................................................................2
Public Golf Operational Norms ......................................................................................................2
Appendix C – Golfer Expectations of Better Quality Public Golf Facilities ...........................10
Golf Course Expectations ............................................................................................................10
Clubhouse Expectations ..............................................................................................................10
Service Expectations ...................................................................................................................11
Merchandising Operations ..........................................................................................................12
Food and Beverage Operations ..................................................................................................13
Appendix D – National Rounds Played Report ....................................................................15
DI.B
Executive Summary
PURPOSE
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. (“NGF Consulting” or “NGF”) was retained by the City
of Auburn (“City”) to assist in evaluating the operational and economic performance of the City’s
municipal Auburn Golf Course (“Auburn GC”). The following is a summarized version of our
report, detailing the main findings and NGF recommendations for the City to improve its
municipal golf operation. In this Executive Summary, NGF provides a brief review of our findings
and recommendations on the Auburn Golf system, intended to provide an “at-a-glance”
summarization of the full review. Additional details on this summary can be found in the full body
of our report and its appendices.
BACKGROUND
The City of Auburn is operating a good-quality 18-hole municipal golf course with appropriate
support amenities, including a new clubhouse that was added in 2007. The golf facility appears
to be very important to the City, and the Auburn GC has developed a reputation for high activity
and low fees that seems to be well known in the south Seattle Region. With the addition of the
new clubhouse, the City is now operating a golf facility with differing appeal to a wide variety of
both golfers and non-golfers alike. The golf facility reflects very well on the City of Auburn and is
a fine complement to the overall City image.
In the last several years, the economic performance of the City’s golf course has declined,
leading to stress within the system. There have been many reasons for the decline including
both factors that are controllable by the City (amenities, pricing, customer service, condition,
etc.) and factors that are not controllable by the City (weather, economy, golf market, etc.). As
many of these factors have been negative for the continued operation of public golf courses,
there are signs showing that this operation has the staff and amenities to improve its fiscal
situation through the preparation and implementation of an appropriate business plan for the
Auburn GC.
We also note that the addition of the new clubhouse, financed via revenue bond, has left a
substantial debt that is tied to the golf enterprise and must be serviced. While NGF recognizes
that this new addition may not have been overly popular with some constituencies in Auburn,
the golf assets within the City are now fixed, and the NGF Consulting review has been
completed to offer the most appropriate plan for this facility going forward, regardless of what
has happened in the past. In reviewing the Auburn Golf system, it was conveyed to the NGF
consultants that the City of Auburn is “committed to providing affordable golf to the citizens of
Auburn,” while making every effort to minimize the economic burden on the City.
SCOPE OF WORK
In 2011, NGF was retained by the City of Auburn to assist with evaluating the Auburn Golf
Course and to make recommendations to help ensure the long-term viability of the golf program.
This includes a thorough review of the system on an ‘as-is’ basis, as well as a consideration of
other operating alternatives, including privatization options. It is expected that the results of this
NGF study will be used by the City as a guide for the future of the golf system, and to help
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 1 DI.B
convey to interested parties (citizens of Auburn, City Council, etc.) that the City will operate the
golf system in the most efficient manner possible, and clearly identify why and how much City
economic support may be required.
The key issues addressed by the NGF team include:
x Overall condition and operating structure of the Auburn Golf Course
x A review of golf industry standards and norms of operation
x Status of the local Seattle / Auburn area golf market
x A summary of NGF recommendations
NGF Consulting completed a review of the City’s golf program that included several meetings,
inspections, review of data, and utilization of the NGF consultants’ experience and basic
knowledge of golf industry best practices. NGF findings and recommendations are designed to
give the City of Auburn a full understanding of its golf facility as a whole, along with an
understanding of each individual component within the City’s golf facility. The ultimate goal of
this project is to create a formal business plan for the City golf courses that will put the system
on a path toward long-term economic stability and sustainability.
The NGF consulting engagement was managed by Richard Singer, Director of Consulting
Services for the NGF, with assistance from Senior Project Director Ed Getherall.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, our findings are that the City of Auburn is operating a high quality golf facility that is
suffering from a convergence of factors, many of which are not controllable by the City. The golf
course is operating in an environment of intense competition, a weather-limited golf season,
declining demand for golf, and reduced discretionary funds among golf consumers. In addition,
the investment in the clubhouse has added a new dimension to the facility with a program of
operation that may not be a strong fit for the tradition and existing clientele of the Auburn GC.
Recommendations
In summary, NGF Consulting has crafted its recommendations based on the assumption that
the City will seek to have a golf system that is operationally self-supporting and not a burden to
City taxpayers. The City appears willing to make some capital investment in the facility to
ensure its economic viability, some of which may not be fully supported by operations.
The recommendations made by NGF Consulting are generally centered on increasing revenues
and reducing expenses. Still, despite the course of action recommended by NGF, the City of
Auburn may not achieve rounds and revenue performance that is comparable to levels
experienced a decade ago, but should exceed the levels experienced in 2011. The Auburn GC
compares favorably to its immediate set of municipal golf facility competitors (Renton, Kent,
Tukwila, and Sumner), all of which are facing similar fiscal problems. We also note the strong
non-economic benefit of golf on the Auburn community and the willingness of many
communities to provide taxpayer support to the golf enterprise for these benefits, similar to other
parks that have much lower (or no) cost recovery.
It is clear that there are three key issues leading to economic hardship with the Auburn Golf
Course, with two of these not being controllable by the City. Key stresses to the system are: (1)
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 2 DI.B
weather impacts; (2) high overall expense structure (being reduced in 2011); and (3) the trend
toward declining golf activity in this market.
NGF recommendations for Auburn Golf include (in order of importance):
1. Take action to provide a casual dining and gathering space for the golfers at Auburn
GC (awning, turn window, bar/lounge area, etc.).
2. Continue to enhance marketing of the Auburn GC, especially electronic marketing
(website, email, social media, etc.).
3. Improve marketing and promotion of the clubhouse facilities at Auburn GC to
highlight the location as an ideal venue for banquets, gatherings, luncheons,
weddings, parties, etc. Some of this may be simply assisting the F & B
concessionaire, while other activities may include direct City involvement in
marketing.
4. Provide some level of general fund support to the golf course to recognize the
broader community benefit of the Auburn GC that cannot be measured in dollars and
cents. This may include a program to share the expense of debt from the new
clubhouse.
5. Retain the basic pricing structure, but include practices that allow for fee adjustments
on short-term notice to react to changing market conditions and the need to run
“specials.”
6. Work to reduce the overall high labor expense through increased reliance on
seasonal labor as opposed to full-time labor (as positions become vacant), and seek
to control the rate of growth in benefits.
7. Clarify the terms of the F & B concession agreement as they relate to beverage cart
and turn window operation.
NGF finds that action on these above items will provide some relief from economic
stress to the system; however there are many variables in the golf operation making it
difficult to project the level of relief with any certainty. The City of Auburn should expect
a “new reality” in rounds and revenue performance that is not likely to return to levels
experienced a decade ago, but should exceed the levels experienced in 2011.
Revenue Growth through Facility Enhancements
Given that expenses have already been reduced to the furthest extent reasonable, any future
improvement in economic performance will have to be derived from enhancements to revenues.
In an effort to grow revenues at Auburn GC, the City should be prepared to consider some
capital investment in the facility as detailed by NGF in this report. Assuming the viability of the
golf course is in the best interest of the City, it is expected that these investments will provide
some economic stimulus to the Auburn GC.
Concession Agreement
The City should also consider altering its contract agreement with the food and beverage
concessionaire at the next renewal period, and ensure the vendor is in full compliance with the
existing agreement. While it is not the NGF opinion that the problems with the food and
beverage concession that are documented in this report are the entirety of the reason for
economic stress with the Auburn GC, these problems are a contributing factor. One issue to
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 3 DI.B
note is that given the structure of the present contract, the City does not stand to earn large
income even if the Food & Beverage concession business is improved. However, the downside
for the City is real in that rounds of golf and green/cart fee revenue could be diminished,
especially with tournaments, if the food and beverage concession is not the right match. Our
review of other municipal golf courses in the area (presented later) suggests that this
concession operation is missing a key segment in public golf facility service – the needs of the
golfers.
Privatization
As part of this consulting effort, NGF reviewed alternative options for the operation and
management of the City’s golf system. This review showed that none of the “privatization”
alternatives would immediately improve the economic performance of the Auburn Golf
Enterprise fund to a level that is clearly better than the expectations under continued operation
as is. Put simply, there is no “magic bullet” for Auburn in privatizing.
It is the opinion of the NGF consultants that the present self-operation system should be
continued, with implementation of key NGF recommendations, at least through the end of 2013.
This will allow the changes from the recommendations presented earlier to take hold and create
economic improvement. If the this new level of performance by the Auburn GC is not acceptable
to the City of Auburn, then the only alternative remaining for the City may be to seek some form
of privatization structure that involves turning the golf operation over to a private third-party
operator, where the risk of economic performance can be shifted away from the City and on to a
private entity. However, some NGF observations regarding privatization:
x In exchange for contracted services for the operation of Auburn GC, a management
company will charge between $50,000 and $100,000 per year in management fees
(3% to 6% of gross), thus requiring the system to improve by $50,000 to $100,000 in
increased revenue or reduced expenses just to retain its present position. Further, all
needed capital improvements will be the responsibility of the City and all risk of
operational loss will remain with the City.
x A pure site lease arrangement may be problematic for this system due to several
factors such as park property, bond covenants, and unionized maintenance staff.
x It is likely that under any privatization structure, the method used by the private
sector to achieve desired economic profitability will be to either terminate existing
City golf employees, or reduce salaries and benefits of existing employees.
However, review of policy in the Auburn area shows that replacing union employees
will not be possible, hence the privatization structure may not produce any real
savings for the City of Auburn.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 4 DI.B
City of Auburn Municipal Golf System
Overview
The City of Auburn golf system comprises operation of the 18-hole Auburn Golf Course, a City-owned
facility that dates back to 1947. The City acquired the facility in 1968 and then added a second nine
holes in 1969-70. The City had debt on the property stemming from the expansion, with debt service
totaling $40,000 annually and expiring in 1990. From 1990 through 2007 there was no debt on the
property. In 2007, the City added a new clubhouse facility that was originally planned to cost around
$3.0 million, with an annual debt payment of $300,000 per year. Upon completion, the new clubhouse
ended up costing over $4.3 million and over $400,000 per year in debt service. The new clubhouse
opened late in the golf season of 2007, and now includes a pro shop, restaurant, and banquet facility
for up to 175 patrons. It was reported to NGF that the Auburn Golf Course has traditionally been
profitable, although the recent addition of debt service associated with the new clubhouse has led to a
reduction in net operating income.
LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS
Auburn Golf Course is located at the northern end of the City of Auburn, in immediate proximity to the
Green River. Primary access to the facility is via Green River Rd SE, which connects to Central
Avenue in South Kent (East Valley Highway). Green River Rd SE connects to downtown Auburn via
104th Avenue SE. Although the facility has great ease of access, golfers unfamiliar with the property
may have trouble finding it the first time, as the property is not along main thoroughfares and the
signage to the golf course is not that good. Overall, there is nothing inherent in its location that would
prevent the Auburn Golf Course from achieving maximum capacity in its total rounds activity.
The facility is bounded by dense residential elements as well as open space and other Auburn River
park property. The site does have dense tree covering in several locations that provide a separation
from surrounding elements, although there are also several areas where there are residential
elements immediately adjacent to the golf course. The golf course is low lying and within a flood plain
for the Green River. The map below puts the location into local and regional context.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 5
DI.B
Local Map Context
ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The City golf program is structured as an enterprise fund, which is common in municipal golf all across
the U.S. The system is structured with ultimate authority in the City of Auburn Park and Recreation
Department. Since 1970, the City has had several operating structures in place for the pro shop
operation, with a golf professional concession for most of this period. Since 2007, the City has
operated the golf course with a Head Golf Professional as on-site manager of golf operations and a
Head Superintendent to oversee golf course maintenance. Both positions report to the Director of
Parks and Recreation.
System Debt
At present, the Auburn Golf Course is operating with an annual debt service payment of approximately
$415,000 per year through 2025 to pay down the debt for the new clubhouse (added in 2007). This
annual debt payment is now the second largest single line item expense for the Auburn Golf Course,
trailing only salaries and wages. In the late 1980s the golf course did have a smaller debt obligation
totaling around $40,000 per year to pay for previous upgrades. It was reported to NGF that the Auburn
Golf Course operated without any debt service from 1990 through 2007, with all golf facility profits put
back into the golf course as capital improvements.
Food and Beverage Concession
The one area of Auburn Golf Course operations that is structured via contract is the food and
beverage operation. Upon opening a new clubhouse operation, the City awarded a new concession to
Copper Falls Restaurant to provide the food and beverage service at the facility. The agreement is for
3% of the first $600,000 in total revenue, including all room rental revenue. The City has collected
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 6
DI.B
approximately $26,000 per year in 2009 and 2010, indicating total gross food and beverage revenue
of around $860,000 each year (more later in this section). All direct expenses including labor for the
food and beverage operation are borne by the concessionaire. The City provides oversight to the
concessionaire via contract compliance, but does not have direct authority on activities or pricing
through the Parks and Recreation Director or the Head Professional.
City-Wide Support for Golf System
The City of Auburn golf operation is a key element of the City’s public service offering, and the system
has support from City administration and the Park and Recreation Department in particular.
Marketing – At present, the Head Professional is responsible for all marketing for the golf course.
However, there is no comprehensive City-wide marketing plan for golf incorporating research,
planning, strategy, market identification, budget, advertising, timetable, and follow-up. There is some
marketing support from the City for the golf course, including basic descriptions on its City website and
a direct link to www.auburngolf.org, the golf course website.
Accounting – The golf course is required to provide an appropriate accounting statement to the City
each year for review. All financial statements provided to NGF Consulting by the City of Auburn are
prepared using an accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned, and
expenses are recognized when incurred.
Enterprise Fund – The City of Auburn operates the golf course under a defined Golf Enterprise Fund.
The enterprise fund structure is very common for municipal golf systems, both in the State of
Washington and nationwide. The City currently supports the enterprise fund for larger capital
improvements and covering the debt service on the facility.
As of the end of 2011, the Golf Course Working Capital Fund is forecasted to have a positive cash
balance of $281,412, which reflects a $400,000 transfer from the City’s cumulative reserve fund. Prior
to the addition of the new clubhouse in 2007, the Course Working Capital Fund cash position had
peaked at $562,750 at the end of 2007, and declining each year since through the end of 2011.
Enterprise accounting allows a community to demonstrate to the public the portion of total costs of a
service that is recovered through user charges and the portion that is subsidized by the tax levy or
other available funds, if any. A community may choose to recover total service costs through user
charges, but it is not required. Enterprise funds frequently are used to account for services whose
costs are only partially funded by fees and charges. A community may account for a certain service in
the general fund, special revenue fund or an enterprise fund. The advantages of using the enterprise
fund method include the ability to demonstrate the total cost of the service and the ability to retain
investment income and surplus.
Interfund Charges
Like many municipalities that operate golf facilities, the City of Auburn has a program for assessing the
golf course for certain services provided by other City departments, including Facilities Services
(janitorial, etc.), Information Technology (IT), Utilities, Media Services, and others. The charges are
based on a square foot allocation formula and total $146,786 in 2010, although the amount was
subsequently reduced to $78,692. The budget for interfund charges in 2011 is $176,600.
These charges have been a point of contention for the golf operations for two reasons: (1) the charges
were increased dramatically after the addition of the new clubhouse (were under $16,000 each year
from 2004 – 2007); and (2) the amount charged may not fully represent "market rate” for the services
rendered. It is difficult for NGF to appropriately estimate the “true value” of these services, but our
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 7
DI.B
review shows the charges are mostly in line with significant benefit to the golf course given the
problems with the building and the uniqueness of the computer needs of Auburn GC. Further, the
interfund charges include an estimated $30,000 to $35,000 in utilities charges plus $20,000 to $30,000
worth of other services (total $50,000 to $65,000).
Citizen Committees
Like many municipalities that operate golf facilities, the City of Auburn has a Golf Association (called
the Auburn Men’s Golf Association) whose responsibility is to organize golf events and participate in
the enhancement and upkeep of the City’s golf facilities through volunteerism.
Auburn benefits from the presence of these groups, which provide strong support to the facility and
participate in golf events and otherwise support the facility through use and payment of fees, even
when weather may be bad or when others are less enthusiastic. One specific point of contention
expressed to NGF in meeting with these members was the drastic change in culture with the new food
and beverage concession agreement and the feeling that the service program does not fit
appropriately with the Auburn Golf Course (more later in this chapter).
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
The Auburn Golf Course includes three basic components – 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, and
practice amenities. The facility is well organized physically, and has a very attractive entrance
presentation with nice landscaping and art pieces. The NGF review of these components follows in
this section.
Golf Course
Overall, Auburn Golf Course has the basic layout and amenities to offer a high quality golf experience
with good basic design, tree-lined holes, and interesting topography. Auburn Golf Course possesses
design characteristics and features comparable to other public golf courses in the market area and
consistent with its target fee level. Thus, no significant changes to the layout are recommended, as
these would likely have a high dollar investment that is not likely to be recovered through increased
activity or increased fees.
x Originally built as a 9-hole course on present site in 1948
x Expanded to 18 holes in 1969-70 by the City of Auburn
x Par is 71
x The layout features a golf course with returning nines, as each nine starts and ends at the
clubhouse. This helps the course in two ways:
Convenience for golfers wishing to only play nine holes;
Golfers must pass by the clubhouse when going from the 9th hole to the 10th tee.
This can be helpful to maximize food and beverage sales, assuming the service is
available (clubhouse has a pass-through window for convenience between the 9th
and 10th holes.
x Yardages range from 6,354 from the longest (Blue) tee to 5,474 from the most forward
(Red) tee. Auburn Golf Course now offers the traditional three sets of tees, which is one
less than the “standard” for modern high-quality golf courses. The multiple tee positions
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 8
DI.B
allow for golfers of different skill levels to play from a total golf course yardage that is
comfortable for them.
x The United States Golf Association (USGA) slope and rating data show the relative
difficulty of the Auburn Golf Course from the various tees, with a slope of 124 and a rating
of 69.8 from the blue tees, and a 122 slope and 71.3 rating from the Red tees. Slope
represents a course’s difficulty, compared to the “standard” USGA Slope Rating of 113. As
can be seen, the Blue tee course at Auburn Golf Course is considered to be about 10%
“harder” than the standard, while the White and Red tee courses (Slope = 121/122) are 7%
harder.
x There are approximately 35 bunkers on the course and water is in play on four holes.
Some severe elevation on holes #11-#15 make the course difficult to walk.
x There are no permanent restrooms on the golf course. This is a significant issue, as many
customers (especially women and seniors) want permanent restrooms, not “port-a-potties.”
x Auburn Golf Course does not have a formal driving range, limiting its market appeal. A
large practice area, used for lessons and programming, could be converted to a full driving
range – a very large expense that is probably not cost-justified.
x The course has some very marketable aesthetics, including outstanding views at the higher
elevations (#15 tee especially), and the very attractive waterfall feature on hole #16.
x Upgrades: Over the past several years, the golf course has been upgraded through re-
investment. Projects included a reconstruction of 10.5 fairways, 16 greens (including a
putting green), and 18 tee boxes. The most recent renovation included lengthening the
11th hole, which now takes golfers 330 yards uphill to a new 6,000 square foot green.
x Course Maintenance Issues: The NGF found the Auburn Golf Course to be in outstanding
condition during the consultant visit. There did not appear to be any large-scale problems
or issues with golf course maintenance. Some observations include:
Irrigation – The course is irrigated from river water pumped onto the golf course
site. The system appears to work well, although full coverage is deficient in the
areas of holes #1-#5, and the system lacks modern computerized controls, making
it difficult to target irrigation to select areas without having to irrigate other areas.
Drainage – Drainage characteristics of the golf course appear to be good, as the
NGF inspection did occur during a continuous light rain of several days. We
recognize that the facility is located within a flood plain for the Green River and
some portions of the golf course will be fully under water during peak flood periods.
There is a low-lying area in open space between the 10th, 1st, and 2nd holes that
could be more formally converted into a pond or collection area.
Turf – Overall, the turf condition appeared to be very good with no urgent issues or
replacement needs. Holes #1 and #2 were the only fairways that showed some
stress.
Tees – Some tees need leveling, and some are just too small, especially on par 3s
(particularly Blue tee on #8).
Greens – Appeared to be in good condition and several have been replaced or
repaired in recent years. Holes #10, #1, and #2 are the only remnants of older golf
course greens that have not been upgraded.
Cart Paths – The facility has full wall-to-wall cart paths with only a few localized
areas needing upgrade.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 9
DI.B
Trees and Brush – Much of the Auburn Golf Course is surrounded by dense tree
cover and/or thick underbrush. One key area is the space between holes #11 and
#14 that appeared particularly problematic. Maintenance of these trees and brush
will always be a key activity and challenge for maintaining Auburn Golf Course.
Maintenance Facility and Equipment – The facility maintenance area appeared
adequate and possessed all features NGF considers “standard” in golf operations,
except an adequate wash station for cleaning equipment. At present the staff is
using space between holes #15 and #10 as an open wash area for equipment. The
equipment for maintaining the Auburn Golf Course appeared adequate, although
several pieces were old. The equipment is being very well maintained and is stored
indoors. The City owns all maintenance equipment, and the high quality of care
allows for longer-than-standard life span of equipment. Recent declines in revenue
have led to deferment of equipment purchases after many years of staying up to
date.
Practice Facilities
Auburn Golf Course has limited practice amenities, with open space to the left (west) of hole #7
serving as a driving range. As the area is very small (only 220 yards in length), golfers are encouraged
to use irons only (shorter hitting clubs). The area is good for lessons, but Auburn Golf Course has not
been able to generate other revenue from this space. The facility also has a large practice green and a
small netted “warm up” hitting station near the 10th tee.
Auburn Golf Clubhouse
The Auburn golf clubhouse is a key aspect of the facility operation, providing for several key functions
at the facility including:
x Golf Operations
x Retail / Merchandise Sales
x Food and Beverage service
x Banquets
Background
The present clubhouse facility at Auburn Golf Course replaces an older structure that had dated back
to 1957. The building had become inadequate for several reasons, including lack of gathering space,
mechanical problems, and structural issues. The program was smaller and less sophisticated, with a
light snack bar and small gathering area for golfers after and/or before a round of golf. There was no
space to host parties or banquets, nor was there space for hosting meals after larger tournaments
(maximum patrons was 75).
In 2005, the City prepared a plan to replace and upgrade the clubhouse, to be paid for by the issuance
of new debt on the facility. The total cost for the new clubhouse was $4.4 million, inclusive of features
such as HVAC and plumbing upgrades, raising the site, water-line improvement, increasing banquet
space, larger basement, a new partition, plus other concessionaire improvements. It is understood by
NGF that the food and beverage concessionaire was selected prior to construction of the new
clubhouse and that this concessionaire requested additional upgrades in the clubhouse, with most
expense of the request borne by the City.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 10
DI.B
Present Clubhouse Program
As a result of the above-noted history, the Auburn Golf Course clubhouse was completed and opened
to the public in November of 2007. The facility has a “footprint” of approximately 8,000 square feet and
includes the following elements:
x Pro Shop: space for retail and golf check-in. The large window provides views of the 1st
and 10th tees (an important design feature to control play and access).
x Administrative Office: a small office for the head golf professional and assistants,
programmed well to cover multiple users. Plus a small storage area.
x Entrance Hallway: a nice entrance presentation, with fireplace and seating area, is a great
showpiece for the City.
x Restrooms: men’s and ladies’ restrooms of adequate size for daily golf service and larger
events / banquets.
x Banquet Room: large flexible space with sound-proof room divider and large windows
overlooking the golf course. Seating capacity of up to 175 patrons (maximum).
x Restaurant: the space for the Copper Falls restaurant includes high quality wood
finishing, open bar area, and seating for up to 90 patrons, including booth seating. The set-
up appears and functions in a rather formal structure that is not typically associated with a
public golf course, unless another snack bar area is also offered.
x Bar: although part of the restaurant, the bar offers a nice separate presentation with flat
screen TVs. This type of bar set-up is usually very popular at golf facilities nationwide.
x Kitchen: facilities at Auburn Golf Course include cooking equipment typically associated
with larger restaurant and banquet operations, indicating the facility is fully capable of
hosting both restaurant and banquet operations.
x Lower Level: includes storage for the fleet of 72 golf carts, with electric charging facilities.
NGF Noted Program Deficiencies
The Auburn Golf Course clubhouse presents a very nice complement to the City’s golf program, with
attractive design features and large and adequate space for larger gatherings and events, including
both golf events (tournaments) and non-golf events (banquets and parties). However, in review of this
facility NGF has observed several deficiencies in programming, functionality, and operations as
compared to the most successful public golf facility operations, including:
x Despite large space, there is no casual gathering area for golfers to check scores and/or
otherwise have a casual gathering after golf, which is very popular in the golf industry.
x No snack-bar operation, although there is a pass-through window.
x Banquet Room space is used only for banquets and not for any other use, such as smaller
after-golf gatherings.
x The outdoor patio on the east side of the clubhouse is under-utilized, not covered, and has
only limited service by food and beverage staff.
x The restaurant (Copper Falls Restaurant) appears to be a more formal operation, with a
fine dining set-up and generally more expensive menu. This is generally not consistent with
successful public golf facilities that offer more of a “sports pub” operation that is popular
with golfers. More formal restaurant operations at public golf courses do work, as long as
there is some form of snack bar service in another section of the clubhouse.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 11
DI.B
GOLF OPERATIONS
As part of this consulting effort, NGF Consulting has observed a skilled and dedicated staff at the
Auburn Golf Course. The facility is presently operating under somewhat reduced staffing due to
budgetary limitations, and staff is trying to get by with often very limited resources. The City appears
willing to put additional resources into the golf courses, provided these resources are used to help
improve financial performance and increase revenues.
To make matters more difficult, the recent addition of the new clubhouse has added more debt to the
golf operations. The new clubhouse was expected to produce both direct revenue (food, beverage,
and banquet sales) and indirect revenue (more golf rounds), but to date, the revenue picture at Auburn
Golf Course has not materially improved with this new addition.
A summary of the City of Auburn golf course operations is covered in the following section.
Golf Facility Staffing
The Auburn Golf Course includes staffing in two basic departments – pro shop operations and
maintenance, as outlined below:
Pro Shop
x Head Professional – golf facility manager is full-time position employed by the City.
Additional pro shop employees include:
x Two Assistant Professionals – both full-time:
PGA – handles lessons, leagues, and tournaments
Manage the on-course activities (marshalling)
x Additional seasonal (part-time) staff (totals approximately $30,000 annually):
Three seasonal positions for four months in summer (approximately 30 hours per
week)
One to two cart attendants – each can work year-round a few hours per week.
Maintenance
x Head Superintendent – an experienced (35 years) superintendent manages all golf
course maintenance operations and is a full-time position employed by the City. Additional
maintenance staff includes:
x Three Maintenance Assistants – all full-time without specific position descriptions (cover
many aspects of the operation).
x One Mechanic – full-time position.
x Additional seasonal (part-time) staff:
Two part-time positions support maintenance activities
x Volunteers (program is common in the industry):
Marshall program staffed by volunteers
Volunteers receive one round for every 6 hours worked
Totals approximately 1,000 rounds per year
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 12
DI.B
Golf Industry Norms
The Auburn Golf Course staff size can be compared to golf courses of similar operation (see below) to
gauge appropriateness. There are no industry standards that can be referenced to determine the
appropriate staffing levels for a golf operation. The number of staff needed for a particular golf
operation depends on several factors, not the least of which is budget considerations. Personnel costs
typically represent the largest single expense item in a golf course operation, as is the case for Auburn
Golf Course.
The review of industry norms suggests that Auburn may be understaffed by 2.25 FTE positions. We
note that this is a simple number exercise based on 2010 comparative data (most recent available),
and this review of positions does not consider the value received, quality of service, or actual condition
of the golf courses (more later in this section). Overall, the analysis shows Auburn Golf Course to have
a staff size that is smaller than would be expected at similar public golf course operations, but further
review will address the value derived from the facility’s staff.
U.S. Averages
Distribution of Staffing – Full-Time Equivalents (Year-Round Operation)
Average Public Golf Course
(Municipal + Daily Fee) – Year
Round Operation
Auburn GC
(2011)*
18-H Operation w/
Golf Season is 12
Months
18-H Operation
w/ Golf Season
less than 10
Months
Golf Maintenance Staff 10.0 10.0 9.0
Pro Shop Staff 4.25 9.0 7.5
Clubhouse Staff (F&B) 0.0** 3.0 2.5
Total FTE 14.25 22.0 19.0
Total FTE w/o Clubhouse 14.25 19.0 16.5
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole Facilities in the U.S., National Golf Foundation. 12
Mos. indicates year-round operation. *based on combination of pt and ft – volunteers not counted. **All F & B staff
provided by concessionaire.
Point-of-Sale (POS) and Reservation Systems
Based on the NGF review, it does appear that the Point-of-Sale (POS) and phone reservation systems
are working well for Auburn Golf Course. The Zen Cart system is not designed for golf but appears to
have integrated well for this golf use. The system allows for some online purchases of items such as
gift certificates and lessons, but additional outside assistance is required for online tee times. The
department intake sales reports generated by the POS appear to be appropriate for internal and
external reporting and management planning. No change is recommended in POS system by NGF.
Leagues and Clubs
Golf clubs and leagues represent a large part of business for the Auburn Golf Course and are a great
source of income for any public golf course. Clubs and leagues can be a great source of play for
facilities like this as they represent a strong and loyal core of customers, willing to support operations
even when other sources are reduced (poor weather, bad economy, changes in operation, etc.).
These clubs also produce a large share of the pro shop revenue, through direct purchases and use of
gift certificates in the pro shop as prizes. The league and club rounds are typically played on
weekdays when other demand is reduced, thus providing a potentially strong revenue boost for public
golf courses. NGF can go as far as to say that any public golf operation that is not active in leagues
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 13
DI.B
will have a severe disadvantage in producing needed revenue. Leagues and clubs at Auburn Golf
Course include:
x Men’s Club – The Men’s club is one of the largest in the region, with 275 players in 2011
(down from 324 in 2009). This club offers weekly competition with some type of event every
Thursday – Sunday in the golf season. Plus, the group hosts up to 16 tournaments during
the year. The club costs $80 to join, and is well organized with emails and well coordinated
with the pro shop.
x Ladies’ Club – This club is a much smaller group and less organized than the Men’s club.
There are only several dozen members in either an 18-hole or 9-hole ladies club. Each
plays once per week.
x Other Leagues – Include the Auburn Senior Activity Center League, various Boeing
Leagues, a GSA League, a Weyerhaeuser League, and several others.
x Merchant’s League – Is a 17-week league on Mondays & Tuesdays, May through August,
with 9-hole medal-play events leading to a season-ending playoff.
x The Auburn Summer Fun Golf League is a non-competitive league for players of beginner
and intermediate skill levels. The purpose of the league is to give families and friends an
inexpensive opportunity to gain golf experience in a laid-back and fun atmosphere. The
league runs for 20 weeks from April through September.
Overall, the league program at Auburn Golf Course is healthy for the system and should be continued
and better promoted to grow membership in existing leagues as well as developing new leagues.
Tournaments and Outings
The Auburn Golf Course is an ideal location for tournaments, offering a high quality golf course, nice
clubhouse, and full staff service. All indications are that the Auburn Golf Course staff does a good job
hosting events and providing a high level of service (scoring, prizes, organization, etc.). Tournaments
and outings include a schedule of men’s club events (16), plus other Auburn Golf Course organized
events and charity tournaments.
Tournament Food and Beverage
Given the concession structure in place, organizers of golf tournaments have to deal with two separate
Auburn Golf Course representatives to put together a successful golf tournament. This is not the ideal
situation for a public golf course, but one that can work effectively with proper organization and
planning. NGF was made aware of issues related to organizing men’s club golf tournaments that are
likely present in other organized tournaments and outings, including:
x Charging of room rental fees for golf tournaments (not common in the golf industry)
x High cost for food and beverage and not offering a lower-priced alternative, when desired
x Offering only full-service concession options and no “box lunch” options that are popular
with golf tournaments, especially charity tournaments
All indications are that the situation is improving as the Head Professional has been working with the
food and beverage concessionaire to provide a lower-priced alternative for events and waiving the
room rental fee. It is in the interest of the Auburn golf operation for the concessionaire to be
accommodating to golf tournaments, keeping in mind that many “charity” golf tournaments are
designed to raise funds, and anything that can be done to make the Auburn Golf Course an affordable
venue will help the charities raise more money and make the Auburn Golf Course a more popular
location to host such events.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 14
DI.B
Seasonal Golf / Winter Operations
The Auburn Golf Course operates on a year-round basis, although the peak demand season is April
through October, with a definable shoulder season in March and October. The City has opted to
continue operating its golf facilities through the winter months, on a day-by-day basis depending on
weather. This practice is common in this market where golf is often played during the winter season.
Depending on the weather, there is revenue to be made by keeping the facilities open through the
winter, provided the staffing plan is appropriate. A heavy reliance on seasonal / part-time labor will
allow for some improved revenue opportunities. Records show over 5,000 rounds of golf were played
in 2010 during the months of December, January, and February (11%).
It is appropriate for golf facilities in the Washington climate to have some level of full-time staff
involved in winter operations, even on days the golf course is closed and no golf is played. The senior
office staff is planning for the upcoming year (business, marketing, and budgets) as well as overseeing
clubhouse operations. The maintenance staff is working to get the course ready for season and
repairing equipment. It is not likely that the City can earn significant savings in this operation with
significant changes to this system.
Lesson Program
Auburn Golf Course offers both group and individual golf lessons at the facility, all coordinated by the
top Assistant Golf Professional. The lack of a full driving range does affect the lesson program, but
having the open practice area space is also a plus for any organization that is desired. Group lessons
that teach the basics of golf are offered at the course for both youth and adults from May through
August. These programs serve many functions and can help improve overall revenue to the Auburn
golf system through direct program revenue and thorough the development of new golfers and the
advancement of existing players. Over the years, the NGF has documented a “Golf Enthusiasm Index”
that shows how better play directly correlates to increased spending – golfers who play better (score
lower) tend to play and spend more on golf. As such, the lesson programs offered by Auburn Golf
Course for both beginners and more advanced players will do much to help improve overall revenue
performance of this facility.
Key programs offered include:
x Juniors: Auburn Golf Course operates a junior golf camp in late June each year, usually
attracting 10 to 12 participants for the Monday – Thursday weeklong camp.
x Adults: The adult program includes a package of six classes on Mondays and
Wednesdays or Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6 to 7 pm. These classes are attracting
upwards of 60% female participation.
x Individual: Auburn Golf Course does not have a large and active individual lesson
program.
High School / Junior Program
The junior golf program at Auburn Golf Course is not very large or important, with very little organized
activity and/or participation from junior golfers. As noted, there are summer camps for juniors that
attract a dozen or so players. However, there is an active high school program at the facility with four
separate high school teams playing golf regularly at the course during the shoulder months and the
summer. These rounds are played at no charge to the schools (not common in the industry –
consideration should be given to charging for high school rounds). As junior golf is a key to the future
of the Auburn golf program, additional emphasis on junior golf would be recommended, even if the
programs themselves are not profitable for the facility (more in recommendations section).
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 15
DI.B
Auburn Golf Fee Structure
The tables below show the fees at Auburn Golf Course in 2011:
Auburn Golf Course 2011 Summer Rates
May 1 - September 30
Weekdays Weekends
Daily Fee Rates 18 Holes 9 Holes 18 Holes 9 Holes
Regular $34 $23 $39 $26
Senior $27 $17 NA NA
Early Bird $27 $17 NA NA
Junior $18 $13 NA NA
Twilight NA $26
Super Twilight $18 $18
Players Card Rates
Regular $28 $19 $32 $22
Senior $22 $14 NA NA
Early Bird $22 $14 NA NA
Twilight NA $22
Super Twilight $14 $14
Rental Rates Regular Players Card
18 Hole Power Cart $14 $12
9 Hole Power Cart $8 $8
Twilight Power Cart $8 $6
Spectator Cart $8 $8
Private Power Cart Trail Fee $8 $8
18 Hole Rental Clubs $8 / $15 $8 / $15
9 Hole Rental Clubs $8 $8
Twilight Rental Clubs $8 $8
Super Twilight Cart $6 $6
18 Hole Push Cart $5 $5
9 Hole Push Cart $3 $3
Weekday – Monday through Friday
Weekend – Saturday, Sunday and Holidays
Senior – age 62 and up before 1:00 pm
Early Bird – before 8:00 am
Twilight – Friday, Saturday, Sunday; all you can play 3:00 pm till dusk
Super Twilight – any day; all you can play from 6:00 pm till dusk
Power Cart Rental is per rider
NA – not applicable. Junior – age 17 and under
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 16
DI.B
Auburn Golf Course November 2011 Winter Rates
Weekdays Weekends
Daily Fee Rates 18 Holes 9 Holes 18 Holes 9 Holes
Regular $24 $14 $28 $18
Senior $20 $12 NA NA
Early Bird $18 $12 NA NA
Junior $10 $10 NA NA
Twilight $16 $18
Twilight Weekday Pass $129 NA
Twilight Unlimited Pass $159 $159
Players Card Rates
Regular $19 $12 $23 $16
Senior $15 $10 NA NA
Junior NA NA NA NA
Early Bird $15 $10 NA NA
Twilight $14 $16
Twilight Weekday Pass $109 NA
Twilight Unlimited Pass $139 $139
Rental Rates Regular Players Card
18 Hole Power Cart $10 $10
9 Hole Power Cart $6 $6
Private Power Cart Use $6 $6
18 Hole Push Cart $5 $5
9 Hole Push Cart $3 $3
Weekday – Monday through Friday
Weekend – Saturday, Sunday and Holidays
Senior – age 62 and up before 1:00 pm
Early Bird – before 9:00 am
Junior – age 17 and under
Twilight – starting at 12:30 pm
Power Cart rental is per rider
NA – not applicable
Key findings related to golf fees charged at Auburn golf courses:
x The City sets rates and fees, but gives the manager flexibility to do some manipulation with
specials and yield management. We agree with giving the manager flexibility with rates, the
more the better.
x Auburn Golf Course was traditionally the lowest priced public golf course in the area, but
that has changed in recent years. Although not the lowest priced anymore (Sumner
Meadows in particular is lower), the pricing still offers a very good overall value for the
green fee charged.
x GolfNow: Management also utilizes Golfnow.com – by far the largest Internet based golf
tee time wholesaler. Discounted tee times are offered only within a 3-day window of the
unsold time. As is the case in many markets across the nation, GolfNow is having an
increasingly large influence on how tee times are booked and, more important, on the rates
that golfers pay, especially during traditionally slower demand periods.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 17
DI.B
AUBURN GOLF MARKETING
Marketing for the Auburn Golf Course is handled by the senior golf staff with support from the City
administration, Park and Recreation Director, and the Parks Department Marketing Manager. The
marketing program is quite extensive and includes several elements that NGF will typically find at
successful public golf courses. Key areas of focus in Auburn Golf Course marketing include website,
print advertising, e-mail messaging, social media, and other efforts.
Review of data shows direct expenditures for advertising budgeted to be $6,000 and communications
budgeted to be $9,000 for 2011. This total represents approximately 1% of total revenues. NGF
typically recommends total marketing (advertising and communications) expense to be at least 2% of
total gross revenue, or approximately $27,000 based on 2010 actual revenue (excluding gross Food
and Beverage sales).
In review of the marketing and communication program for Auburn Golf Course, it appears that the
City is getting excellent value for the money spent on advertising, and this golf facility is focusing on
marketing resources that tend to provide strong value for the money spent (i.e. electronic marketing,
Website, email, etc.).
Website
It is clear that in 2011 and the foreseeable future, the Internet is the most significant piece of golf
course marketing. The Internet is having a larger and larger impact on golf as time goes on. Golfers,
especially when traveling, are using the Web more and more to find places to play. As such, the
Internet is now the most important single element in a golf facility’s marketing, and Auburn Golf
Course appears to recognize this reality. NGF studies show that upwards of 90% of all golfers view
web content on a regular basis. The Web has several key advantages over other forms of advertising:
x Cost. A Website is relatively inexpensive to set up and maintain.
x Reach. As the name “World Wide Web” indicates, the Internet is international in scope.
Today, almost every household that contains a golfer will have access to the Internet.
x Information. The amount of information that can be put on the Web is virtually unlimited.
At the very least, clear directions and contact information can be used to dramatically
increase impact.
The NGF has viewed the Auburn Golf Course website(s) and finds some confusion regarding the site
www.auburngolf.org, and the site www.auburngolfcourse.org. Both sites are presently active and both
contain critical information about the Auburn Golf Course program.
Having two separate addresses (they are linked) may be confusing, but makes memory of the site
easier. Both sites are similar in overall appearance and look, complete with the Auburn Golf logo that
is clearly identifiable and forms the core of all marketing. This consistent appearance is a definite plus
for golf course marketing.
Of course, for a Website to be effective, people have to be able to find it. The first site, auburngolf.org,
is linked to the City’s website, although one must go through Community Services to find it. It is also
beneficial for golf course Websites to be designed so that today’s Web search engines will find it
based on key terms people are likely to use. In reviewing search engines such as Google and Yahoo,
NGF found that the above-noted varies in search engine activity, such as:
x “Golf Seattle” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on the first several pages.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 18
DI.B
x “Golf South Seattle” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages, but Foster
GL was on page 1.
x “Golf Auburn” – Auburn Golf Course was the first listing.
x “Wedding Seattle” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages.
x “Wedding South Seattle” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages.
x “Wedding Auburn” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages.
x “Banquet Space Seattle” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages.
x “Banquet Space Seattle” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages.
x “Banquet Space Auburn” – Auburn Golf Course did not appear on first several pages, but
the City of Auburn Website was on page 1 noting several banquet locations (including
Auburn Golf Course).
Website Features
The Auburn Golf Website(s) appears to the NGF to be very “pedestrian” (not “flashy”), but very
effective. The auburngolf.org site is navigable and includes most of the key aspects typically
associated with higher quality golf facility sites. NGF identified the most important features of a golf
Website should include:
x Maps with locations and directions (Auburn Golf Course – yes, but hidden under “contact
us”)
x Ability to book tee-times online (Auburn Golf Course– yes)
x Pictures and verbal descriptions of the facility (Auburn Golf Course – very limited)
x A full scorecard and layout map (Auburn Golf Course come close with each hole pictured
and layout map, but no scorecard).
x Process to sign up for email (member) program – this is a key program in the golf industry
in 2011 as a way of staying in touch with golf customers (Auburn – yes)
x Current rates and operating hours (Auburn– yes)
x Specials (Auburn – yes)
x Amenities offered (Auburn– yes)
x A calendar or news of tournaments and upcoming events (Auburn– yes)
It is essential that the Website be kept current for rates, hours, etc. The best sites are the ones that
are constantly being updated with new promotions and news items, so that customers get in the habit
of checking them. An NGF review of other related communication efforts includes:
Printed Advertising and Promotions
The Auburn Golf Course has used its limited budget effectively, showing several printed advertising
and promotional pieces utilized in 2010. The ads all had a similar feel and all used a consistent theme
with picture of the 16th hole and Auburn Golf Course logo. Among the advertisements run in 2010 and
2011:
x Cascade Golfer Magazine (2011) - glossy color ad showing 16th hole and focus on player
card.
x Cascade Golfer Magazine (2010) - glossy color ad focus on new clubhouse.
x Inside Golf Newspaper (2010) – focus on player card and benefits.
x Golf Washington Magazine (2011) – Same ad as in Cascade Golfer (above) was also
attached to the program guide during the Golf Show in Seattle.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 19
DI.B
x Golf Washington Magazine (2010) – focus on “Outstanding value” and was also attached to
the program guide during the Golf Show in Seattle.
x Auburn Reporter Golf Guide (2010) - glossy color ad showing 16th hole and focus on player
card.
x Golf Today Magazine (winter 2010-2011) – focus on winter golf.
x Small ad Featured in the Chamber map – (2011)
x One-half page ad Featured in the Auburn Reporter Resident’s Guide (2010 & 2011).
x Several Features in the Park, Arts and Recreation Guide for Auburn.
E-mail Marketing
The creation and utilization of e-mail databases are essential in today’s golf marketplace as a means
of staying in touch with the facility’s customer base. The Auburn Golf Course has created and is
utilizing an updated database of e-mail addresses, providing regular email messages via Course
Trends through the auburngolfcourse.org Website. These messages also have the same look and feel
of other Auburn Golf Course communications, stressing the consistency noted before. These
messages are focused on specific events, which are shown to be the most effective in golf course e-
mail marketing. E-mails can be captured via participation in the “Player Card” program (more below),
or from customers via a sign-up sheet at the pro shop, with a notice that people on the e-mail list will
receive notice of special promotions.
Social Media
The Auburn Golf Course has a Facebook page (Auburn, Washington Golf Course) with 3,820 “likes”
and a Twitter account with several notifications from PGA and lessons to updates about Auburn golf.
Marketing golf courses in 2011 and beyond has to be about reaching potential golf customers where
they are, and if they are on the Internet and Facebook, then that is where Auburn Golf Course has to
be as well. Golf course Facebook and/or Twitter pages have become common in golf course
marketing with mixed results. On one hand it is a great way of keeping your facility “top of mind” to
your customers, but this form of marketing also requires effort to continuously post new items and stay
current and up to date. Social media works best when posts are about what is going on at the
facilities, such as tournaments, new events, who won what event, who got a hole-in-one, etc.
Other Marketing Efforts
Auburn Golf staff is also conducting other marketing efforts, including:
x Text – sending text messages to cell phone users who sign up, mostly about upcoming
events and last-minute specials. This is a subscriber system that allows users to end the
subscription at any time.
x E-newsletter – among the items sent as part of the e-mail program noted above, is an e-
newsletter sent every month during the golf season.
x Posters and Flyers – Auburn Golf Course can print high-quality flyers and small posters
in-house, mostly to promote specific events, leagues, specials, and/or the Player card.
x Discount Coupon Books – The Auburn Golf Course has been featured in discount books
that are mailed to Auburn area residents or can be obtained at Puetz stores. Coupons are
for specific discounts and have produced upwards of 3,000 rounds.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 20
DI.B
Auburn Golf Course Player Card and Monthly Off-Season Pass
The Auburn Golf Course offers two key golfer discount programs, both of which are common in the
Seattle area golf market. These include the “Player’s Card” and “Monthly Off-season Pass.”
Auburn Golf Course Player’s Card
The card costs $99 ($89 for seniors), and benefits of the card include:
x One free 18-hole round with sign up
x Save up to 33% ($5 to $8 discounts) per round
x Save up to 25% off 9-hole or twilight green fees
x Discounts on power cart rentals
x Ability to book tee-times 14 days in advance
Monthly Off-Season Pass
x Passes good October through March
x Weekday Pass $129 ($109 w/ Player Card)
x Weekend Pass $159 ($139 w/ Player Card)
x Save up to 33% ($5 to $8 discounts) per round
x Save up to 25% off 9-hole or twilight green fees
x Discounts on power cart rentals
x Ability to book tee-times 14 days in advance
NGF views these programs as an effective strategy to create loyalty and drive rounds. The cards are
able to tie customers to Auburn Golf Course for maximum volume to maximize the discount program.
NGF Commentary on Auburn Golf Marketing
The NGF review of Auburn Golf marketing shows a program that is covering all of the bases typically
recommended by NGF for public golf operations. The NGF review of the Auburn Golf marketing
program shows the staff is placing emphasis in the most appropriate areas that NGF industry research
has shown can provide the most direct impact on a high quality public golf operation. It also appears
that the City is getting excellent value for the money spent. Website and direct e-mail marketing have
been shown to be the most effective marketing at golf courses nationwide. The NGF has estimated
that upwards of 90% of all golfers get information about golf courses they are considering for play from
the Internet. Other key items to consider:
x Trackable – The most effective advertising activities are ones that can be tracked, showing
effectiveness.
x Labor Intense – Social media marketing is growing in golf and should be used to
communicate with golfers who are NOT presently customers and drive them to learn more
about a property. Existing Auburn customers should be communicated to via e-mail.
Posting in social media is time consuming and should be evaluated to gauge effectiveness.
x Print Is Not Dead – Although various forms of print media are less popular with golf
facilities in the Internet age, this area of golf marketing is not totally dead. Print media can
help raise brand awareness and promote the image of Auburn Golf Course, even if at a
quick glance or to drive prospects to the Website for more information. Magazine ads and
rack brochures are still effective in the Seattle market and should be included in the
facility’s marketing plan. The City may want to consider advertising in foreign language
newspapers (Korean, Spanish, etc.) to reach a new customer base.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 21
DI.B
Historically, the Auburn golf system was not heavily marketed. With the recent declines in business,
Auburn GGC management has become more aggressive in an attempt to drive business onto the golf
course. This is expected to produce better operating results in rounds and total facility revenue.
REVIEW OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATION
The food and beverage service at Auburn Golf Course is provided via contract with a vendor named
Kava, LLC and doing business as Copper Falls Restaurant on the Auburn Golf Course. The food and
beverage service can be a vital component to the overall success of a public golf course, both through
direct revenue earned from the concession, and the level of service provided to golfers. Thus a poor
food and beverage operation can also have a negative impact on the level of rounds played and total
green and cart fee revenue.
NGF has reviewed the food and beverage operation at Auburn Golf Course and found a very high
quality restaurant and banquet operation that may not be the best fit for the facility, as many golfers
and Auburn Golf Course staff had indicated concerns. It is clear that the food and beverage operation
in place at Auburn Golf Course today is a drastic change from the older concession operation in the
old clubhouse building. This should be expected, given the considerable upgrade in clubhouse
facilities made at this property in 2007. Still, it does appear to NGF that what Auburn Golf Course has
now is a good quality restaurant that happens to be located at a golf course, rather than an
appropriate golf course food and beverage concession. The NGF review of the Auburn Golf Course
food and beverage concession follows in this section, with a discussion of the contract agreement in
place, the basic structure of the operation, the services offered, and a commentary on the concession
service at Auburn Golf Course.
Agreement Structure
The contract for food and beverage service at Auburn Golf Course is a concession agreement
between the City of Auburn and the concessionaire (Kava, LLC), which is commonly referred to as the
“Copper Falls Restaurant.” Copper Falls also operates other restaurants in the area, including Al Lago
Ristorante and Verrazano’s. The agreement began in March 2007 (prior to opening of the new
clubhouse) and expires on December 31, 2014. Some key elements of the agreement include:
x Compensation – Copper Falls pays the City of Auburn concession fees on the following
schedule:
3% of first $600,000 of total gross restaurant/lounge/beverage cart revenue, plus
6% on amounts above $600,000.
6% of first $100,000 of total gross catering / banquet / room rental revenue, plus 9%
on amounts above $100,000
4% of total gross out catering revenue.
x Personnel – Copper Falls is responsible for staff and has discretion as to the amount, but
a site manager with primary responsibility for the Copper Falls Restaurant must be
assigned.
x Liquor License – Copper Falls must obtain and maintain an appropriate liquor license.
x Hours – Copper Falls must provide food service for a minimum of eight (8) consecutive
hours per day when the golf course is open. In that the Copper Falls restaurant is seeking
to serve a dinner market, this often means opening is not required until after 10:00 a.m.
x Advertising – Copper Falls is responsible for (but not required to) advertising the
restaurant and/or other food and beverage services, subject to City approval.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 22
DI.B
x Beverage Cart – Copper Falls is required to run a beverage cart Friday through Sunday in
April, and seven days a week from May through September (except in inclement weather).
Hours of operation are not specified. The City provides gasoline for the beverage cart.
x Pricing – Copper Falls establishes all pricing of items, subject to City approval.
x City Banquet Rights – The City has use of the banquet room at no charge for 10 events
annually, including four non-golf events.
x Exclusions – Copper Falls may not sell non-food items, or have vending machines or
video games.
x Contract Alterations – The City can require changes to the above program with 30 days
notice.
The results of this NGF study will assist the City in determining whether the present contract will be
renewed and/or modified, or another vendor sought. NGF will also consider the possibility of the City
self-operating the food and beverage area (as in the past) as an alternative option for the future
beyond the end of 2014.
Basic Operation
The food and beverage operation at Auburn Golf Course consists of four areas: (1) Copper Falls
Restaurant and Bar; (2) the turn window for outside service; (3) beverage cart service; and (4) the full-
service banquet facilities.
Copper Falls Restaurant and Bar
Copper Falls offers both a full-service restaurant as well as bar with full liquor service. The basic set-
up of Copper Falls includes the restaurant / lounge area with seating for a maximum of 90 (+/-), plus
the outside patio, capable of seating a total of 30 patrons. There is a front bar area with seating for 12.
The facility also includes a kitchen, storage (including cold storage), and a small catering office. The
facility is operated as a full service restaurant, advertising breakfast, lunch, and dinner. NGF
observations include:
x During the NGF visit it appeared the restaurant was only open for lunch and dinner, as
there was no breakfast menu.
x Copper Falls includes a full lunch menu with appetizers ($8 to $13), salads ($4 to $10),
Lunches ($10 to $15), Burgers ($7 to $10), and sandwiches/wraps ($9 to $12).
x Copper Falls includes a full dinner menu with entrees between $14 and $25.
x There is a “Happy Hour” from 4:00 to 6:00 with appetizers from $3 to $6 and drinks starting
at $2.50 for domestic beer on tap.
x The bar includes seating for 12 and has two flat screen TVs, usually tuned to sports
channels.
x The restaurant features large windows with nice views of the golf course, especially the
hole #16 waterfall feature.
The Copper Falls Restaurant has developed into a relaxed, family-oriented food service operation with
a focus on outside restaurant service, as well as service to golfers. The overall ambience is that of a
fine dining establishment with full tableside service meals prepared to order. As such, service may be
slow at times as was experienced during the NGF visit (more than 15-20 minutes for meal service).
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 23
DI.B
Banquet Operations
In addition, the Copper Falls Restaurant is available to cater any type of party or gathering at the
facility, including golf events as well as separate non-golf events such as luncheons and weddings,
etc. Copper Falls Restaurant is operating out of the Auburn Golf Course clubhouse for both on-site
food and beverage service, as well as using the facilities for an outside catering business. The Auburn
Golf Course clubhouse features two dining/seating areas with seating up to 160 guests, plus the deck
overlooking the 16th hole and water features.
The banquet operations at Auburn Golf Course include the service of non-golf events such as
weddings, etc., as well as serving golf events and tournaments. Fees and charges for these services
are varied and based on direct negotiation with the Copper Falls senior staff, although the basic
restaurant menu does apply for events as well. Many of the golf events are of a smaller nature (under
60 patrons) and involve the Men’s club or other in-house organization that are often seeking much
lower prices and a lower level of service.
Turn Window/Beverage Cart
In addition to the restaurant, Copper Falls is serving golfers with an “at-the-turn” window food and
beverage service. The turn window is located at the north end of the clubhouse and is convenient for
golfers between the 9th and 10th holes, with direct access along the cart path between the two holes.
Both the structure and location are positives for the golf operation and this type of set-up traditionally
will produce additional concession revenue at public golf courses. The turn station has a separate
menu with items as low as $3.25 for hot dogs, burgers at $6 and “grab-n-go” sandwich (ham or turkey)
at $5.50. Drinks are $2.25 for sodas, $3.00 for a sports drink and beer starts at $3.
The course is also operating on-course food and beverage service via a beverage cart, which offers a
menu similar to the turn station, but focused mostly on beverages. Contract terms require the
operation of the beverage cart seven days s week from May through October 1, although no hours are
specified. Several Auburn Golf Course golfers and staff noted to NGF the inconsistency of the
beverage cart operation. While a beverage cart is often not profitable in its own right, it is a level of
service that is expected by golfers and thus an important component of the experience and plays a
role in selecting where to play. Thus, like the rest of the concession operation, the beverage cart can
have impact on total facility rounds and green/cart fee revenue.
Working Relationship – Auburn Golf Course and Copper Falls Restaurant
The relationship between the Auburn Golf Course golf staff and food service vendor Copper Falls
Restaurant has been a generally positive one, with a few complaints noted to NGF by golfers and golf
staff. During the course of the NGF Consulting engagement, we have observed that there were a few
areas where there may be some disconnect that should be brought out in to the open, with some
added insight from NGF. A summary of issues is presented below:
Concerns of Auburn Golf Course Golf Staff
Among the concerns noted to the consultants by Auburn Golf Course golf staff about Copper Falls
Restaurant operation (in no particular order):
x The Auburn Golf Course has a restaurant and not a snack bar.
x Organizing tournaments is more difficult with Copper Falls. The menu is not standardized,
and every negotiation is different. Staff believes events have been lost due to this process
and negotiation with Copper Falls.
x High prices for food and beverage have hurt the golf business.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 24
DI.B
x The restaurant is not open for breakfast, but golfers are out as early as 5:00 am in peak
season. Golf staff has sought to add convenience breakfast items to be sold in the pro
shop (coffee, bagels, muffins, microwavable sandwiches, etc.), as allowed by contract.
x In the last year, the Copper Falls concessionaire has become more flexible and is working
better with golf staff to improve food and beverage service.
Concerns of Auburn Golf Course Golfers
Among the concerns noted to the NGF consultant about the food and beverage operation by golfers
include (in no particular order):
x The atmosphere is too “fine dining” and not casual enough for after golf with “dirty shoes
and sweaty hats.”
x The value of food service is not favorable when the overall price of items is considered.
Prices are too high for golfers.
x Groups of golfers will frequently go elsewhere after a round of golf for food and beverage
service.
x There is no schedule or consistency with beverage cart.
x The turn window is not always staffed, especially before 10:00 am.
x Breakfast is not served.
x Copper Falls’ staff is not knowledgeable about golf and is not attentive to the needs of the
golfers and too focused on banquet / catering business.
Marketing
Copper Falls Restaurant has been doing some things with regard to marketing, such as offering a
varied menu, creating its own printed materials for the restaurant and banquet service, and
maintaining its own separate website (www.copperfallsrestaurant.com). Further, the golf course
Website noted earlier also has a page for information about Copper Falls that provides a link to the
restaurant website. Copper Falls is also actively promoting the wedding/banquet services that are
available at Auburn Golf Course Golf Course on its Website, although banquet pricing information is
not present. The Copper Falls owner appears to be very active in promoting the facility for parties and
functions as well as daily restaurant service.
NGF Summary and Commentary of Auburn Golf Course Food and Beverage Service
In summary, NGF Consulting can see that there is some disconnect between what the City and
Auburn Golf staff want and need with concessions at Auburn Golf Course and what Copper Falls is
providing. In reviewing the operation, the NGF has observed that Copper Falls Restaurant is a very
good quality operation that appears to be doing well in terms of total revenue (likely in excess of
$800,000 annually). NGF cannot stress enough the importance of serving the needs of golfers as a
means for success for both the concessionaire and the golf facility.
One issue to note is that given the structure of the present contract, the City does not stand to earn
large income even if the Copper Falls Restaurant business is improved and is wildly successful.
However, the NGF must note that the downside for the City is real in that rounds of golf and green/cart
fee revenue could be diminished, especially with tournaments, if the food and beverage concession is
not the right match. Our review of other municipal golf courses in the area (presented later) suggests
that this concession operation is missing a key segment in public golf facility service – the needs of the
golfers.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 25
DI.B
Other observations of NGF in comparison to our market review and understanding of basic golf
industry norms and standards:
x The Auburn Golf Course has a fine clubhouse presentation that is attractive and potentially
very functional. However, what is missing from the program is any kind of casual gathering
space for golfers before or after golf.
x The City’s share of concession revenue is lower than industry expectations. The “standard”
for municipal golf courses nationwide is for concession payment to the municipality of 10%
of gross revenues.
x It is rare for concessionaires to own room rental revenue, unless the concessionaire has
made capital investment (i.e., concessionaire paid to expand banquet room).
x It is not common in the golf industry to charge room rental fees to golf tournaments for post
event seated meal service.
x The beverage cart is not about profitability but service to golfers. The beverage cart
programs that work best are those set with standards of practice, including a schedule that
mandates service when a certain minimum number of groups are on the course,
irrespective of any other issue (staff, weather, profits, etc.).
x In general, all food and beverage service stations should be open and staffed if the golf
course is open – dawn to dusk. If the golf course is open and players are on the course, the
Turn window should be staffed.
x The most successful food and beverage operations at public golf courses are those that
offer simple, quick, and inexpensive service that is convenient to the round of golf, and is in
alignment with the golf operation. The customer doesn’t view the operations as being
separate; it is all one level of service to them and ultimately reflects on the City.
x Successful public golf courses typically will have a “standard” menu of items for
tournaments and outings, both in choices for golf and for food and beverage. These
choices should include some form of low-priced “box” lunch service.
x Our review of pricing suggests that while there is some variation, the pricing of food and
beverage items at Foster, Maplewood, and Riverbend is comparable to Copper Falls at
Auburn Golf Course with generally comparable quality. There are some other lower-level
food and beverage operations in place at municipal golf courses in the Seattle area and
prices at those facilities are much lower than Copper Falls.
x In Appendix C, NGF presents a basic review of golfer expectations of food and beverage
operations at middle to better quality golf courses from our reviews nationwide.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 26
DI.B
PERFORMANCE
NGF Consulting has reviewed the Auburn Golf Course financial reports and offers the following
observations regarding its economic performance:
Rounds Activity
x Auburn Golf Course hosted 50,572 rounds in 2009, declining 6.8% to 47,139 in 2010.
x July and August are the busiest months, with roughly 32% of total rounds in 2010 played in
these months (14,983 rounds). Totals in 2011 show an increase to 15,670 for July and
August.
x Despite the increase in July and August totals from 2010 to 2011, overall rounds through
the end of August show a decline from 37,130 in 2010 to 35,157 in 2011 (decline of 5.3%).
Much of the decline occurred in the January through May period, when rounds were off
24% from 2010 to 2011.
x Overall, Auburn Golf Course has played approximately 11% of rounds in winter
(December-February), 18% in the shoulder season (March, April, November), and 71% in
peak season (May-October).
Economic Performance
x The golf operation is set up with financial reporting that includes all revenues less
expenses in six categories: salaries/wages; benefits; supplies; other service charges;
interfund; and depreciation and amortization. The last two categories (interfund and
depreciation) are not commonly included in golf course financial statements and are
removed for NGF comparisons to national averages (more below and in Appendix B).
x Revenue: Total revenue has been declining since the 2008 peak of $1,649,752. In 2009,
revenue declined 4.7% to $1,573,444, and then declined another 12.8% in 2010 to just
over $1,370,652. The decline in revenue was more severe than the decline in rounds,
showing the impact of discounting. Further decline is expected in 2011 as rounds are down
5.3% for the first 8 months of 2011. Still, revenues at Auburn Golf Course are higher than
the U.S. standard of $993,800 for 18-hole courses (Appendix B).
x Green Fees: Total green fee revenue has mirrored the total revenue performance, falling
from a high of $1,157,563 in 2008 to $966,608 in 2010 (decline of 16.5%). Average green
fee per round is also declining from $22.00 in 2008 to $19.52 in 2010 (11% decline).
x Pro Shop: Pro shop revenue has remained fairly consistent since the new clubhouse
opened, with an average of $147,800 since 2008. This revenue stream appears stable and
strong, with around $3.00 per round of golf in shop sales compared to the U.S. standard of
$2.32 per round (Appendix B). The total cost of sales was reported at 60%, which is right
on the U.S. standard of 60%.
x Cart Rental: Cart rental revenue has also mirrored green fee revenue with a 16% decline
from 2010 to 2011, reflecting several factors such as reduced rounds played and reduced
spending per round as more golfers seek to walk and not take a cart.
x Expenses: While revenues have been declining, expenses have also been declining,
although not as fast. Total operating expenses (excluding interfund and
depreciation/amortization) declined from $1,342,094 in 2008 to $1,188,298 in 2009 (11%
decline), only to increase to $1,230,600 in 2010 (3.6%). Operating expenses at Auburn
Golf Course are higher than the U.S. standard of $931,900 for 18-hole courses (Appendix
B). Auburn Golf Course staff has reported reducing expenses an additional $140,000 r
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 27
DI.B
through reductions in maintenance ($35,000), reductions in pro shop ($35,000), and
reductions in equipment ($70,000) expenses in 2011.
x Labor Expense: While total expenses have declined since 2008, total personnel expense
(salaries, wages, and benefits) has increased dramatically. Total labor has grown 15% from
2008 to 2010, increasing from $707,938 to $814,101 in just three years. Considering the
staff analysis shown earlier, total FTEs are about 2.0 FTEs lower than the U.S. standard.
As a benchmark, the total U.S. ‘standard’ is for labor to be 50% of total expenses, with a
maximum of 60% of total operating expense (Appendix B). Auburn Golf Course was within
the standard in 2008 when total labor expense was 65.5% of total operating expense, but
changes have increased this proportion to 68.6% in 2009 and 71.1% in 2010, reflecting the
relative decline in operating expenses. It is expected that reductions made in 2011 will help
reduce this proportion.
x Net Operating Profit: The total net revenue less operating expenses remains positive for
Auburn Golf Course, although the figure has declined in 2010 and again in 2011. NGF
calculates net operating income as $269,549 in 2008, $385,155 in 2009, and $140,052 in
2010.
x Fund Balance: The addition of the new clubhouse and recent performance have led to a
depletion of the working capital balance in the golf enterprise fund. Data shows the decline
from $562,750 at the end of 2007 to $281,412 by the end of 2011 (reflecting a transfer of
$400,000 from the City’s cumulative reserve fund).
In short, we are seeing a steady and significant decline in performance over the past three years,
sparked mostly by a general decline in rounds. Expenses have largely stayed under control, with the
exception of the expected increase in labor expenses at Auburn Golf Course. As noted, direct costs
for labor are higher than standard in proportion to total spending at Auburn Golf Course in 2010, not
considering additional reductions set for 2011. This finding, coupled with the previous review of
positions, shows that Auburn Golf Course is not “over-staffed,” but total expense is likely reflecting
compensation costs and benefits such as pensions and health insurance that have shown great
inflation in recent years (15% increase in benefits expense from 2009 to 2010).
SUMMARY – CITY OF AUBURN MUNICIPAL GOLF OPERATIONS
Given its location, quality of golf course, and pricing structure, Auburn Golf Course has the potential to
become one of the more active “value” golf courses in the south Seattle region and thus produce a
strong volume of revenue. Its outstanding clubhouse has the potential to add rounds to the facility,
assuming appropriate operation and marketing. While the location is not as convenient as others in
this market (not on a main road), the facility is still convenient enough that golfers will seek out the
value provided if they know it is there and know how to get there (improve signage).
The management and operation of the Auburn Golf course appears to be professional, and NGF
observed that the Auburn GC team has worked hard to reduce the cost of operation in recent years in
order to maintain profitability. The recent changes to the system, including the reduction in personnel,
do not appear to have damaged the quality of the facilities to any degree lessening the appeal. The
present City-employed management team has been moderately active in marketing the facility in an
attempt to attract new players, although greater emphasis on marketing and promotion strategies will
be required to improve revenue at this facility.
It is clear that the key issues facing the City in the Auburn operation are: (1) how to maximize revenue
through appropriate fee structures without ‘chasing away’ golfers with too aggressive fees; and (2)
how to maximize the organized event schedule of tournaments, outings, charity functions, etc. without
displacing the regular play golfers and club members. In short, the use of off-peak demand periods to
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 28
DI.B
maximize outing activity and the ability to host non-golf events without interfering with golf activity will
be keys to maximizing revenue at Auburn Golf Course. The possible addition of some type of snack
bar operation somewhere at Auburn Golf Course would help alleviate this concern, as golfers would
have concession service, even if a banquet or party were ongoing. As the facility has a generally
modest amount of revenue earned per round of golf, it is expected that revenue can grow considerably
only with a strong increase in activity.
As-Is Economic Performance
The estimates in this section show Auburn’s performance at various rounds played totals (worst case,
‘as-is,’ modest growth, and best case), assuming expected 2011 inputs for revenues and expenses.
The table shows that Auburn Golf Course can generate revenue sufficient to cover its basic operating
expenses and cover interfund costs and interest with a minimum of 52,000 rounds annually. Even with
growth to 58,000 rounds, it is unlikely that the Auburn Golf Course will earn enough revenue to cover
all of the above-noted expenses and cover the depreciation and amortization expense. NGF has
prepared these projections noting that there is some variability in expenses at higher rounds and
revenue totals (i.e. more maintenance needed when more rounds played). We also note that the NGF
estimate is based on the actual 2010-11 average fee structure, as no change is projected for Auburn
in 2012.
Auburn Golf Course
Estimated Economic Performance
at Various Rounds Totals
Rounds
42,000
45,000
(Close to
Actual 2011)52,000 58,000
Revenue
Green Fees $840,000 $900,000 $1,040,000 $1,160,000
Lessons / Range 2,100 2,300 2,600 2,900
Pro Shop 126,000 135,000 156,000 174,000
F & B Concession 42,000 45,000 52,000 58,000
Carts 210,000 225,000 260,000 290,000
Other 42,000 45,000 52,000 58,000
Total Revenue $1,262,100 $1,352,300 $1,562,600 $1,742,900
Expenses:
Salaries & Wages $580,000 $580,000 $610,000 $625,000
Benefits 232,000 232,000 244,000 250,000
Supplies 250,000 260,000 275,000 290,000
Other Service Charges 160,000 170,000 190,000 220,000
Total Operating Expense 1,222,000 1,242,000 1,319,000 1,385,000
Net Operating Income (Loss) $40,100 $110,300 $243,600 $357,900
Interfund Expense $177,000 $177,000 $177,000 $177,000
Depreciation & Amortization $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000
Interest Expense $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000
Net Income (Loss) ($676,900)($606,700)($473,400) ($359,100)
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 29
DI.B
External Factors Affecting
the Auburn Municipal Golf Operation
In this section of the report, NGF Consulting will provide a summary of important uncontrollable
factors that have direct affect on the operation of the City of Auburn golf program. This includes
a review of national trends in golf industry demand and supply, a specific estimate of golf
demand in the Auburn market, a review of economic and weather issues and their effect on golf
facility operations, and a review of other golf courses in the market area that compete with
Auburn Golf for market share. We will then provide a summary of these factors and how they
relate to the continued operation of City of Auburn golf facilities.
NATIONAL TRENDS
Participation
Golf participation in the U.S. has grown from 3.5% of the population in the early 1960s to about
± 9.6% of the population today. NGF estimates that about 27.1 million golfers ages 6 and above
reside in the U.S. Other surveys completed outside the golf industry show the number of people
who “identify themselves as golfers” is as high as 45 million, indicating a large potential “latent”
demand from very inactive golfers.
In addition to increased competition, other factors have contributed to a decline in the number of
rounds per course nationally during the 2002 to 2011 period, including the poor national
economy that has led to decreased discretionary income and greatly reduced corporate budgets
for travel and promotional events. The combination of these and other factors has caused many
golf facilities to become distressed, particularly those that have a high debt load because of
higher construction costs and the perceived need to build high-end courses.
The number of golf course closings quadrupled from an annual average of 24 courses per year
in the 1993-2001 time period to more than 100 courses in 2005. In 2006, there was negative net
growth in golf facilities for the first time in six decades. NGF tracked 46 18-hole equivalent golf
course openings in 2010 vs. 107 closures, for a net negative of 61, the fifth consecutive year
that closures have outpaced openings. The total net loss of 220 18-hole courses from 2006 to
2010 represented roughly 1.5% of the total supply. The net loss in 2010 represents less than
one half of one percent of total supply. Considering the severity of the recession, one could
argue that golf has held its ground reasonably well.
In terms of the total number of rounds produced, NGF estimates that national rounds
experienced an overall drop from 2000 to 2010 of -9.5%. The Auburn Golf Courses declined -
18% over that same period. Total U.S. rounds played decreased by -3.5% for the first nine
months of 2011 compared to 2010. Rounds at the Auburn Golf Course declined -5.3% in 2011,
compared to 2010.
The National Golf Rounds Played Report (Appendix D) shows a 1.3% increase in rounds for
the Pacific Region (includes Oregon and California). The data shows that precipitation was
down 71.3%, while temperatures were up 2.1 degrees in the Region. This review is for the full
region that includes all of California. More localized climate data (presented later in this section)
shows a much different picture with a significant increase in precipitation in Auburn since 2010.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 30 DI.B
On the positive side, the growth in golf course development has slowed considerably nationally
and in the majority of local markets, a trend that should help ease some of the competitive
pressure. Another positive trend is the aging of America. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching
retirement age when golf activity flourishes. The baby boomers represent not only the largest
single demographic in the US, but they also approach retirement age with more disposable
income than any previous generation.
Public Sector (Municipal) Golf
Municipalities were largely responsible for helping bring golf to the masses by creating
affordable golf courses for their citizens. The role of municipal golf has changed dramatically
over the past 30 years, with fewer municipalities viewing golf in the same vein as other
recreational opportunities offered – simply an amenity for its citizens. Still, many municipalities
remain that are willing to subsidize municipal golf. Though these municipalities certainly prefer
to earn a profit, they recognize the value of offering affordable golf to their residents with respect
to quality of life issues, providing positive diversions for lower-income and/or at-risk youth, and
even longevity, due to health benefits.
Several factors have changed over the last few decades that have, at least temporarily, altered
the golf course market and the role of the public sector golf courses. The main factor has been
increased competition. As noted, in the last two decades the supply of public golf courses has
increased dramatically, thus eliminating the near-monopoly that municipalities used to have on
public golf. Now municipal courses are finding themselves competing head-to-head for market
share with private enterprise. Unfortunately, few public agencies find they are equipped to
handle this type of competitive environment.
There are several factors that typically inhibit public agencies in their ability to compete
successfully with private enterprise and present them with considerable challenges in the
modern golf industry. These include:
x Slow response. By nature of the bureaucracy that is typically involved in making
decisions, government-owned business are typically very slow to respond to market
conditions – such as rates, promotions, etc.
x Budget Constraints. Often budgetary problems in other departments can have an
adverse affect on golf operations.
x Personnel Policies. Governments often have restrictions on changing benefits and
termination.
x Marketing. Most public agencies lack golf marketing expertise that is critical to
succeeding in a competitive business. At present, the Auburn Golf Course marketing
is conducted at the facility, with limited support from the City.
x Incentive. With most municipal golf operations where all the employees are
employees of the municipality, there is little or no incentive for employees for
superior performance. As a result, municipal golf employees often earn the same
secure income regardless of how successful the golf facilities may be.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 31 DI.B
AUBURN AREA MARKET OVERVIEW
In addition to identifying trends in golf course demand and supply, the NGF has examined
certain factors that have the potential to affect the performance of the Auburn Golf Course.
Following are some key observations highlighting the basic demographics, economy, climate,
and transportation of Auburn and the south Seattle market, and the potential impact of each on
golf activity. The overall findings are viewed as mixed for the City’s golf market, in that the basic
income characteristics are consistent with higher-than-average participation in golf, while other
factors such as high annual precipitation tends to impact negatively on golf participation.
Demographics
With just over 3.4 million people (2010 census), the greater Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) is the 15th largest MSA in the U.S. The City of Auburn reports a population of 70,180 at
the 2010 census. Auburn is a suburb in the Seattle MSA and the City is currently ranked the
14th largest city in the state of Washington. However, the City is not isolated and fully
surrounded by other population centers including the cities of Federal Way, Pacific, and Algona
to the west, Sumner to the south, unincorporated King County to the east, and Kent to the north.
The Muckleshoot Indian Reservation is located within southern city limits. Basic demographic
characteristics are shown be\low:
Auburn Golf Course 3 mi5 mi10 mi
Seattle
MSAWA U.S.
Summary Demographics
Population 1990 Census 148,614426,483851,7592,559,1654,866,699 248,710,012
Population 2000 Census 186,015521,8891,010,3283,043,8785,894,121 281,421,906
CAGR 1990-2000 2.27%2.04%1.72%1.75%1.93% 1.24%
Population 2010 Estimate 208,573591,6411,123,5013,412,9196,690,746 308,332,907
CAGR 2000-2010 1.15%1.26%1.07%1.15%1.28% 0.92%
Population 2015 Projected 221,935630,9161,191,6293,639,8597,162,483 322,581,814
CAGR 2010-2015 1.25%1.29%1.18%1.30%1.37% 0.91%
Median HH Inc $55,720$61,586$59,465$63,500$56,201 $51,627
Median Age 37.238.138.238.337.5 37.1
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate
From the data collected for this study, NGF Consulting has made the following observations
regarding the Auburn area market:
x The Auburn area continues to grow, at a rate outpacing the total United States.
Population in 2010 is estimated at 591,641 within five miles, growing to 630,916 by
2015.
x The greater Seattle metro region had an estimated population of 3 million in 2000,
growing to 3.4 million by 2010. Projections for 2015 show more than 3.6 million
residents in the metro area.
x Median household income in the Auburn market is slightly lower than the overall
Seattle MSA, but still higher than the total U.S., indicating a higher proportion of
upper income residents. In general, higher income residents are more likely to
participate in golf, and they play more frequently than lower income golfers. Thus the
local Auburn market area appears favorable for higher golf participation and activity,
when compared to other regional markets.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 32 DI.B
Economy
In addition to identifying trends in golf course demand and supply, NGF has examined certain
economic indicators and other mitigating factors that have the potential to affect the
performance of the Auburn Golf Course. It is unclear what effects the troubled regional and
national economies will have on activity levels at public courses. On one hand, decreased
discretionary income and the plunging values of many stock portfolios, retirement accounts, and
homes will almost certainly cut down on recreational / leisure spending. However, interviews
with area golf operators indicate that golfers are either playing less or shifting play patterns to
less expensive rounds, which actually could benefit lower price point municipal golf courses.
Key points regarding the local economy and relationship to the Auburn Golf Course:
Seattle Metro
x Auburn is part of the greater Seattle MSA. The Seattle regional economy is driven by
a mix of older industrial companies, and "new economy" Internet and technology
companies, service, design and clean technology companies. The city's gross
metropolitan product was $231 billion in 2010, making it the 12th largest metropolitan
economy in the United States. Though it has been affected by the recent recession,
Seattle has retained a comparatively strong economy, and remains a hotbed for
start-up businesses, especially in green building and clean technologies.
x Other facts about the Seattle area are shown below. Each of these factors is
viewed as positive for continued public golf operations in the area.
Several companies on the 2008 Fortune 500 list of the United States' largest
companies are headquartered in the Seattle area: Costco (#29), Microsoft
(#44), Amazon.com (#100), Starbucks (#241), and Nordstrom (#270).
Prior to moving its headquarters to Chicago, aerospace manufacturer Boeing
(#27) was the largest company based in Seattle. Its largest division is still
headquartered in nearby Renton, and the company has large aircraft
manufacturing plants in Everett and Renton, so it remains the largest private
employer in the Seattle metropolitan area.
Also in 2006, Expansion Magazine ranked Seattle among the top 10
metropolitan areas in the nation for climates favorable to business expansion.
In 2005, Forbes ranked Seattle as the most expensive American city for
buying a house based on the local income levels.
Alaska Airlines, operating a hub at Seattle–Tacoma International Airport,
maintains its headquarters in the city of SeaTac, next to the airport.
City of Auburn
x Other facts about the City of Auburn are shown below. These facts show the
small City has advantages usually associated with larger communities,
showing the importance of its location proximate to Seattle and the Sea-Tac
Airport area.
With some of the most available and affordable land in the lower Puget
Sound area, local business of notice include: Northwest Territorial Mint,
ZONES, Toysmith, Timberland Homes, POE construction, Armstrong
Construction, Miles Sand and Gravel, Oak Harbor Freight Lines, all with
headquarters based in Auburn, with the exception of Boeing. Much of the
city's once fertile farm land has now become industrial and business parks,
the majority of which are located on the lower west valley floor.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 33 DI.B
The Auburn Boeing Plant, opened in 1966, is the largest airplane parts plant
in the world, with 2,100,000 square feet (200,000 m2) and 265,000 parts
being manufactured each year. With 11,000 employees, the Boeing plant is
the 3rd major employer in Auburn.
The City of Auburn Office of Economic Development announced that Auburn
has added 143 new businesses and 706 new jobs to Auburn’s economy
since January and anticipates adding about 20 more businesses and more
than 700 additional jobs in the near future.
January 2011 cost of living index in Auburn 111.0 (U.S. average is 100).
The average home price in Auburn in 2011 has continued to decline along
with real estate markets throughout the U.S., and the number of home sales
has fluctuated as well.
The mean travel time to work is 27.8 minutes.
Climate
Seattle's climate can be described as “Oceanic or Marine” west coast, with fairly mild, wet
winters and mild, dry summers. Temperature extremes are moderated by adjacent Puget
Sound, the greater Pacific Ocean, and Lake Washington. The region is largely denied with
Pacific storms by the Olympic Mountains and Arctic air by the Cascade Range. The area has a
reputation for frequent rain, based mostly on the frequency of precipitation in the winter. In an
average year, more than 0.01 inches of precipitation falls on 150 days. It is cloudy 201 days and
partly cloudy 93 days. The location of official weather and climatic records, the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, is located within 10 miles of the Auburn Golf Course, and records more
cloudy days and fewer partly cloudy days per year. Overall, the climate in this market does
serve to limit the number of “golf playable days,” adding challenge to the regions golf courses.
Between November and February, Seattle is mostly or partly cloudy six out of every seven days,
with temperatures commonly below 40 degrees. This is typically considered by NGF to be too
cold to play golf, although some will participate. The NGF will assume that the peak golf season
for golf in this area is from March through October each year. The climate data shows that
average precipitation during this period is 16.24 inches over the eight months. The table below
shows the actual climate record since 2008, noting the impact on golf playable days. The table
shows clear elevation in precipitation and rain days, likely leading to fewer rounds of golf. We
note the particularly high number of weekend days lost to golf in 2010 and 2011.
Historical Weather
Auburn Golf Course (2008-2011)
2008 2009 2010 2011*
Total Rainfall 14.38 in. 19.82 in. 23.87 in. 17.72 in.
Average Rainfall 16.24 in. 16.24 in. 16.24 in. 13.05 in.
+ or – (Unfavorable) 1.86 in. (3.58 in.) (7.63 in.) (4.67 in.)
Days with Rain 96/245 (39%) 93/245 (38%) 129/245 (53%) 114/214 (53%)
Weekend Days with Rain 37/105 (35%) 37/104 (36%) 54/106 (51%) 50/91 (55%)
Source: City of Auburn and the National Weather Service. *Through September 2011
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 34 DI.B
GOLF MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND INDICATORS
The basic measures of golf demand and supply that may affect the performance of Auburn Golf
Course are outlined below.
Local Golf Demand and Supply
The methodology for determining the relative strength of the subject market is based on ongoing
NGF research of American golf participation habits. The NGF Golf Demand Model includes the
critical combination of age and income, regional seasonality, and available golf course supply,
as well as existing and emerging demographic trends in a particular market area. This model
can be used as a benchmark for estimating potential market strength in a particular area. The
results of this survey allow NGF to make accurate predictions concerning demand, participation,
and golf spending. The results for the local areas are posted below:
Golf Demand and Supply Estimates (2010)
Auburn Golf Course 3 mi 5 mi 10 mi Seattle MSA WA U.S.
# of Golfing Households 15,153 43,628 84,676 264,357 500,309 21,237,600
Number of Rounds Played 324,839 950,025 1,843,512 5,782,931 10,931,391 498,831,616
Golfing Household Index 102 105 106 105 104 100
Rounds Played Index 93 97 98 97 97 100
Retail Indicators
Golfing Fees $11,996,001 $36,346,880 $74,601,328 $230,436,656 $425,711,328 $20,179,122,176
Hard Goods Spending $1,814,877 $5,307,783 $10,299,703 $32,357,912 $61,207,808 $2,794,251,520
Soft Goods Spending $1,166,687 $3,412,107 $6,621,156 $20,801,260 $39,347,288 $1,796,280,960
Supply Indicators
Total Golf Facilities 4 17 23 94 282 15,902
Total Golf Holes 81 279 378 1,602 4,410 268,443
Household Supply Ratio* 231 188 268 199 138 100
* U.S. Standard is 7,733 households per 18-holes
Key notes from the above table include:
x The golf market in the small Auburn area 5-mile market is potentially very large, with
upwards of 43,000 golfers potentially demanding over 950,000 rounds of golf
annually.
x The NGF model estimates a golf economy of over $36 million in golf fees and over
$8.7 million in retail spending, all from local residents within 5 miles of the Auburn
Golf Course. The total Seattle MSA shows over $230 million in golf fees and $53
million in retail sales.
x The supply of golf facilities is generally lower in the overall Seattle MSA and the
Auburn area in proportion to the population. The NGF estimates nearly two times as
many (Index = 188) households available to support each 18-holes of golf (favorable)
in the 5-mile Auburn Golf Course market.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 35 DI.B
COMPETITIVE GOLF MARKET
NGF Consulting has analyzed the public access golf market in the local Auburn market area,
with particular emphasis on determining the facility’s current market position and prospects for
sustaining and/or building market share in the future.
NGF confined its focus to public golf courses in the immediate market area that are likely to
have the greatest impact on play at Auburn Golf Course. For this study, we defined the local
market area as being similar facilities within 10 miles of Auburn Golf Course.
There are 23 golf courses in this 10-mile area. Of these, eight are private clubs, which are not
viewed as significant competition to the City’s courses. This leaves 15 public courses in the
market, including Auburn Golf Course. Eight of these facilities are considered the primary
competition for Auburn Golf Course.
Competitive Facilities Map
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 36 DI.B
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 37
Competitive Assessment Review – Local Market Competitors
Summary Information – Auburn Golf Course Primary Competitors
Facility Type Location
Year
Open Par / Slope
Back Tee /
Forward Tee Architect
Auburn Golf Course MU 18H Auburn 1948 71 / 124 6,354 / 5,474 Proctor/Bauman
Riverbend Golf Complex MU 27H Kent 1970 72 / 125 6,701 / 5,541 George Eddie
Maplewood Golf Course MU 18H Renton 1927 72 / 122 6,112 / 5,155 John Steidel
Foster Golf Links MU 18H Tukwila 1925 70 / 101 4,804 / 4,529 Roy Moore
Sumner Meadows MU 18H Sumner 1995 72 / 126 6,765 / 5,269 John Harbottle III
North Shore Golf Course DF 18H Tacoma 1961 71 / 126 6,305 / 5,442 John Fought
Elk Run Golf Club DF 18H Maple Valley 1989 71 / 121 5,724 / 5,189 Al Smith
Tyee Valley Golf Course DF 9H Seatac 1966 71 / 106 5,845 / 5,414 Al Smith
Washington National Golf Club DF 18 H Auburn 2000 72 / 141 7,304 / 5,117 Pete Peterson
KEY:
MU – Municipal DF – Daily Fee
All are Regulation length, with a 9-hole Par 3 at Riverbend in addition to the 18-hole Regulation
DI.B
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 38
Primary Competitive Golf Facilities – Summary Rounds Played and Fee Information
Golf Course
2010
Rounds /
2011 Trend
2011
Sumer
WD 18-H
2011
Summer
Fr. 18-H
2011
Summer
WE 18-H
Summer
Twilight
WD / WE
18H PP
Cart Fee
Membership:
Single /
Family Amenities
Auburn Golf Course 47,139 /
Down $34 $34 $39 $18 / $26 $14
Players Card
gives various
discounts
110 seat restaurant; 150 seat
banquet, tournament; large outdoor
patio; no range
Riverbend Golf
Complex1
53,4001/
Down $40 $40 $45 $26/$22 $14 Players Card
$99; 25% off
Café; party room; tournaments;
Covered range w/ 44 tees
Maplewood Golf Course 54,000 /
Down $31 $37 $37 $16 $13 Range club
only
Restaurant; banquets; events;
weddings; range w/ 30 tees
Foster Golf Links 51,0001/
Down $292 $292 $342 $122 $14.50 Foster VIP
Players Card
Bar & Grill; ballroom; banquets;
weddings; pavilion; no range
Sumner Meadows 38,000 /
Down $20 $20 $28 $15/$20 $14
$129 WD and
$149 for 7-day
+ Players card
Small clubhouse; tent; range
North Shore Golf Course 39,000 /
Down $40 $40 $50 $29 $13 $40 / $160 Restaurant; patio; banquet room;
Range w/ 65 Tees
Elk Run Golf Club N/A $30 $30 $35 $17/$22 $14 No
Memberships Banquet; covered pavilion; no range
Tyee Valley Golf Course 17,000 /
Down $18 $20 $12 $12 $650 / yr. for
membership No range
Washington National G C N/A $74 $87 $87 $32 included No
Memberships
Clubhouse practice range (30 tees)
w/ putting & chipping greens;
restaurant; large groups
1 Riverbend Park also includes 9-hole par-3, with $9/$10 winter WD/WE and $13/$16
Summer WD/WE green fees, that generates about 30,000 rounds annually
2 Tukwila residents receive $2 discounts off of 18-hole rates and $1 off of 9-hole rates
KEY
*NGF Consulting estimate. Average rounds per 18 holes.
N/A – Not Available
DNA – Does not apply
DI.B
Competitive Facility Observations:
Riverbend Golf Complex: is owned and operated by the City of Kent and is a public golf facility
with a Championship 18-Hole golf course, 9-Hole par 3 course, driving range, miniature golf
course, and large golf retail store. The golf course is operated by the Golf Division of the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department since 2000. In addition to the two golf
courses, the golf complex also has a 32 stall driving range, 18 holes of miniature golf, and a full
scale golf merchandise retail store
The golf complex is bisected north and south by Meeker Street, with the Par 3 Golf Course and
Driving Range facilities are located on the south side and the 18 Hole Golf Course and main
clubhouse are located on the north side. The City reports historically the rounds played have
been in excess of 65,000 on the 18-hole course and 38,000 on the par-3 course. However,
reductions in 2009 and 2010 bring the totals closer to 53,400 for the 18-hole course and 32,000
for the par-3 course.
The food and beverage service at Riverbend is provided via contract to Mick Kelly’s Pub, which
pays the City approximately $60,000 per year for the concession (estimated at 5 to 7% of
gross). In addition, the facility has a Divot Café for service in the driving range / mini golf area.
The retail operation is very large and produces upwards of $600,000 in gross revenue. The City
operates Riverbend via enterprise fund with the 2012 City budget showing a $1.7 million
accumulated deficit.
Maplewood Golf Course: is owned and operated by the City of Renton and is a public golf
facility with a Championship 18-hole golf course, double-deck driving range, and large
clubhouse with banquet facilities. The golf course is operated by Community Services with a
reported staff of 9.5 full-time equivalent personnel (reduced from 10.0 in 2009). The food and
beverage service at Maplewood is provided via contract to River Rock Grill and Ale House
(concession fee not disclosed). The service of River Rock is divided between a higher-end
dining room and a lower-fee casual area with bar and TVs, with minimal separation. River Rock
also offers a walk-up window with a limited menu. The casual dining fare at River Rock includes
Burgers from $4.75, breakfast sandwiches from $5, sodas at $1.50 and beer at $3.50. Banquets
are also separate and there is a large and flexible space for hosting banquets and parties.
The City operates Maplewood via enterprise fund with the facility earning approximately $2.1
million in each of the last few years and expenses of $2.3 million the last few years, leading to a
reported loss of over $200,000 before debt, overhead and depreciation for 2010. Rounds and
revenues are reported to have declined even further in 2011. There is a $358,000 annual debt
service on Maplewood resulting from upgrades made to the clubhouse.
Foster Golf Links: is owned and operated by the City of Tikwila and is a shorter, par 68 golf
course with large clubhouse (added in 2004) and no driving range. The golf course is 4,800
yards in length and is clearly a step below Auburn, Riverbend, and Maplewood. The golf course
is operated by the City with all City employees in operations and maintenance. The food and
beverage service at Maplewood is provided by Billy Baroo’s, which operates a sports pub on the
premises. The casual dining fare at Billy Baroo’s includes a large menu of items with Burgers
from $9, entrée salads at $10, sandwiches at $10 and soft drinks $2.25 and beer starting at
$3.75. Banquets are also separate and there is a large and flexible space for hosting banquets
and parties meeting and banquet rooms for up to 220, and outdoor patio and pavilion seating for
an additional 220.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 39 DI.B
The City of Tikwila recently remodeled the facility for a reported investment of over $5 million
dollars, including the construction of a new 15,000 square foot clubhouse and renovations to the
golf course. The golf course was renovated, adding new tees, rebuilt and added several greens,
and rebuilt the 10th fairway.
The City operates Foster via enterprise fund with the facility earning approximately $1.42 million
in 2010 and direct operating expenses of $1.46 million, leading to a reported loss of over
$40,000 before debt, overhead, and depreciation for 2010. Rounds and revenues are reported
to have declined even further in 2011. There is a $313,000 annual debt service on Foster
resulting from upgrades made to the clubhouse and golf course in 2004.
Sumner Meadows: Sumner Meadows Golf Links is a municipal golf facility for the City of
Sumner that is operated via contract by Billy Casper Golf. The course is enrolled in Audubon
International's Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses to ensure that the course helps
to protect the local environment, conserve natural resources, and provide wildlife habitats. The
course is a Scottish links-style layout that is unique to the Pacific Northwest, and includes 5 sets
of tees ranging from 5,269 to 6,765 yards in length. The course appears to be a step below
Auburn Golf Course in layout quality and maintenance during the NGF visit in October 2011.
The facility offers a monthly membership and a players card with reward green fees beginning
at $200 of spending. The course has an expanded practice facility with a large grass driving
range. and a small clubhouse with large gatherings for golf tournaments and outings served by
tent.
Tyee Valley: The Tyee Valley Golf Course is a daily fee golf facility that includes a 5,200-yard,
par-70 golf course along with a small clubhouse and putting green, all owned and operated by
the Port of Seattle on airport property. Fees for golf tend to be under $20 plus carts, and Tyee
Valley Golf Course offers an annual pass, or pre-paid annual green fee, for $650 per year. The
facility reported sales of approximately 20 such annual passes in the last year.
Washington National: This facility is a daily fee golf course near Auburn operated by Oki Golf
that is located as part of a residential community immediately adjacent to the course. The facility
is newer (opened in 2000), with modern features and length over 7,300+ yards from its farthest
tee. Green fees (with cart) are between $74 and $87, making direct competition to Auburn Golf
Course minimal. The clubhouse is modest with limited room for large parties or banquets.
Elk Run Golf Club: This facility is a daily fee golf course located 30 miles southeast of Seattle
in Maple Valley, between Renton and Enumclaw. The golf course is much shorter (length only
5,700 yards) despite a par 71. Green fees are under $35 and there are no memberships. The
course is distinctive with two separate nine holes and many features, but it is clearly a step
below the quality of Auburn Golf Course. Amenities include a small restaurant/snack bar and a
tournament pavilion.
North Shore Golf Course: This is an older style daily fee golf course in the Tacoma area with a
par 71 and 6,300 yards. The course is set at a higher price point than Auburn Golf Course, with
$53 weekday and $63 weekend with carts. The older style golf course is evident in the lack of
many modern design features. The modest clubhouse includes both a full service restaurant,
On the Greens, and banquet facilities. The restaurant is also priced comparably to Copper Falls
but does have a full breakfast menu. North Shore has a small driving range. The facility has
several active clubs and club membership to help secure tee times, but no pre-paid green fee
arrangement.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 40 DI.B
Closed Facility
Southcenter Golf: This facility was located to the northeast in Tukwila and was the only stand-
alone practice facility in the area prior to closing in 2010. When open, the facility included a
range with 65 covered hitting stations in two tiers, a practice sand trap, a chipping area, a 5,000
square foot natural grass putting green, and indoor “state-of-the-art” video equipment and
launch monitor. The closing of this facility has increased range business at other area courses
with extensive range facilities like Riverbend and Maplewood.
Local Municipal Golf Revenues and Expenses
Information and data collected by the City of Auburn shows the following comparison of financial
performance between Auburn Golf Course and the three primary competitors (Kent, Renton,
and Tukwila).
Annual Operating Revenue Local Golf Courses
Year
Auburn
(Auburn GC)
Kent
(Riverbend GC)
Renton
(Maplewood GC)
Tukwila
(Foster GC)
2008 $1,701,487 $2,895,616 $2,262,841 $1,563,681
2009 $1,653,769 $2,698,663 $2,134,394 $1,424,593
2010 $1,425,987 $2,394,945 $2,095,751 $1,425,328
Operating revenue excludes interest earnings and other miscellaneous revenues
Source: Auburn Financial Planning, September 2011
Annual Operating Expenses Local Golf Courses
Year
Auburn
(Auburn GC)
Kent
(Riverbend GC)
Renton
(Maplewood GC)
Tukwila
(Foster GC)
2008 $1,734,250 $2,818,484 $2,165,480 $1,629,392
2009 $1,698,116 $2,834,101 $2,127,595 $1,890,387
2010 $1,645,608 $3,093,542 $1,979,753 $1,784,191
Operating expenses exclude debt service expenses
Source: Auburn Financial Planning, September 2011
Annual Operating Income Local Golf Courses
Year
Auburn
(Auburn GC)
Kent
(Riverbend GC)
Renton
(Maplewood GC)
Tukwila
(Foster GC)
2008 ($32,763) $77,132 $97,361 ($65,711)
2009 ($44,347) ($135,438) $6,799 ($465,794)
2010 ($219,621) ($698,597) $115,998 ($358,863)
Operating income measures ability of each golf course to cover its costs of operations from revenues
Source: Auburn Financial Planning, September 2011
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 41 DI.B
EXTERNAL FACTORS SUMMARY
Some summary points about the overall market environment within which Auburn Golf Course is
operating include:
x National trends in the golf industry are generally not favorable for operators of golf
courses. The total number of “core” golfers is declining and total spending on golf is
declining along with them. Similarly, the total number of golf facilities has expanded
in the last ten years, leading to a decline in per-course rounds played and revenues
collected. The NGF has also documented a rapid inflation in expenses to operate
golf facilities nationwide.
x On the positive side, the NGF has observed a growing trend of golf facility closures,
the result of which would be a more favorable environment for those golf facilities
that survive. Among the keys to growth in golf activity will be increasing participation
among minorities and females. Beginner-type facilities such as Auburn Golf Course
can be helpful in meeting this challenge.
x The greater Seattle metro area and the City of Auburn in particular have many
favorable attributes related to economic activity that can translate to high golf activity.
High incomes and the presence of large employers typically translate to higher-than-
average golf activity, providing a positive impact on golf activity at the Auburn Golf
Course. Negative attributes include increasing traffic congestion, local recession, and
wet weather patterns that serve to limit golf activity.
x The overall golf market in the Seattle metro area is large, with upwards of 5.8 million
rounds of golf potential demanded at area golf courses, including 950,000 in the
local 5-mile Auburn Golf Course market alone. Overall participation in golf is
predicted to be higher than average in the City of Auburn market, but actual
participation may be slightly lower, indicating an “inactive” golf population.
x Along with an expected higher participation rate come lots of golf courses, including
5.5 new 18-hole courses added since 2001 after an active 1996 to 2001 period. The
overall ratio of households to golf courses is favorable in the Seattle market, but
more is needed to stimulate greater activity from the “inactive” households as noted.
x The weather clearly has an impact on the overall potential for golf rounds in this
area. Data show the reduction in the number of golf playable days has been similar
to the reduction in rounds at the Auburn Golf Course.
x The subject Auburn Golf Course has unique key market competitors, but several
facilities stand out as offering the most direct competition. These include municipal
golf facilities operated by the Cities of Tukwila (Foster GL), Renton (Maplewood Golf
Course), Kent (Riverbend Golf Course), and Sumner (Sumner Meadows Golf
Course) that are providing the most immediate competition.
x The City of Auburn golf course generally compares favorably to its immediate
competition with Riverbend in Kent and Maplewood in Renton providing the most
comparable facilities based on price, quality and amenities offered.
x While there is some variation, the pricing of food and beverage items at Foster,
Maplewood, and Riverbend is comparable to Copper Falls at Auburn Golf Course.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 42 DI.B
Summary of NGF Consulting
Recommendations and Public Policy
Implications
NGF Consulting has prepared a schedule of recommendations for the continued operation of
the Auburn Golf Course. These recommendations have been organized into three main
categories: (1) overall system vision; (2) basic oversight and structure; (3) physical
enhancements; and (4) operational recommendations.
CITY OF AUBURN GOLF SYSTEM BASIC VISION
In our examination of the City of Auburn golf program, we came away with the impression that
there is no clear vision as to what the City wants from its golf facility – other than improved
performance. As a result, a lot of decisions have been made that help with the immediate
profitability of the facility, but do not address long-term issues or provide a clear guidance as to
the facility’s future.
Mission Statement
Perhaps the most critical issue is “what is the mission statement for Auburn Golf?” All other
decisions need to take this into consideration. It is not clear to us that there is a defined Mission
Statement. Some considerations:
1. Is the Auburn Golf Course intended to be only an amenity to the citizens of Auburn? In
which case, the course could be treated similar to parks, swimming pools, etc. where the
operations are heavily subsidized.
2. As an enterprise fund, the golf course is supposed to be self-supporting. How important
is it to the City that the golf operations be fully self-supporting (including capital
improvements)? To the extent that profitability is important, the operation will need to
function more like a business and less like a park. This, in turn, affects issues such as
management, pricing, marketing, etc.
3. Does the City want the golf course to be an economic stimulus for Auburn? There are
several ways in which the facility can significantly increase its economic impact. One, if
Auburn Golf improves its ability to attract tourists (resort golf), it could improve tourism to
the area, both in bringing new people in and getting existing tourists to stay longer.
Secondly, studies have shown that public golf opportunities are important considerations
for corporate relocations, as well as residential.
In summary, NGF Consulting has crafted its recommendations based on the assumption that
the City will seek to have a golf system that is operationally self-supporting and not a burden to
City taxpayers. The City appears willing to make some capital investment in the facility to
ensure its economic viability, some of which may not be fully supported by operations.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 43 DI.B
RECOMMENDATIONS ON BASIC OVERSIGHT AND STRUCTURE
The NGF Consulting recommendation for the future operation of the Auburn Golf Course is
based on our understanding of the economic performance of the facility and the City’s need to
maximize this performance. The following section summarizes the options available to the City
of Auburn by presenting descriptions of the most typical management options for public sector
golf operations, as well as advantages, disadvantages and public policy implications of each
option. Before presenting the recommended management arrangement for the City’s golf
course, NGF Consulting has presented three basic options the City could consider for golf
facility operations.
Management Options
These options, which are presented in order of most direct City involvement to the least City
involvement, include:
1. Self Operation. Under this scenario, the City would continue to operate the facilities
under direct control of the Director of Recreation and through an on-site Golf
Manager who is a City employee (essentially status quo).
2. Full-Service Management Contract. Hire a management company to operate all
aspects of the Auburn GC.
3. Concession Agreements. Similar to a lease agreements and can come in several
types or combinations, the most common being:
a) Multiple Concessions would involve creating multiple contract agreements for
separate entities for each facet of the golf operation (pro shop, food / beverage,
and maintenance).
4. Lease / Concession. Lease the facility to a private operator in exchange for an
annual (or monthly / quarterly) lease payment to the City. The lease could be
established to include certain lessee requirements, including capital investment in
facility improvements. Maintenance standards and compliance policies would be
included, and some restrictions regarding setting of green fees could be included.
5. Hybrid Contract. A hybrid contract combines some of the advantages of a lease
with those of a management contract. These are usually of shorter term (3-5 years)
than a lease and should have escape clauses that can be triggered if the operator
does not perform up to expectation.
Management contracts and operating leases are the most commonly used terms to describe a
contract between a municipality and a private golf course operator. Each has significant
differences, but also several common characteristics. A general discussion of each option,
along with key advantages and disadvantages is presented in the following paragraphs.
Option 1: Self-Operation by City
Self-operation gives the City the greatest control over golf operations. The City of Auburn would
continue to have control over all employees, course maintenance, policies and procedures,
hours of operation, fee schedules, and operating and capital budgets. All revenues would be
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 44 DI.B
available to pay for operating and maintaining the facilities. This option is essentially the ‘status
quo’ option for Auburn.
Advantages of Self-Operation
x Simplest option
x Direct City control of the assets
x All workers are City employees
Disadvantages of Self-Operation
x Golf operation may experience fiscal loss and require subsidies from other
departments (i.e., taxpayer support).
x Revenues may not cover rapidly increasing costs (particularly labor), especially when
the golf market is in decline.
x In the future, the City may lack necessary expertise in managing golf facilities (not
the case in 2011).
x When revenues and/or operating/capital reserves are down, needed improvements
may not be funded (or at least deferred). Auburn Golf Course has traditionally funded
capital upgrades, but recent addition of debt service has made this difficult in last few
years.
Discussion and Policy Implications
Under this option, the City will have to be prepared to fund all needed improvements, and these
needs may be in excess of the Golf Enterprise Fund balance (as at present). Providing this
funding would be consistent with the City’s goal of providing affordable recreation to its citizens,
and the community benefit of having the Auburn GC would be preserved. If the City was not
willing to fund capital improvements and ever-increasing operating expenses, this could
ultimately result in a less attractive product to golfers, leading to rounds and revenue decreases.
Further, this operational scenario allows for the maximum public accommodation of the facility in
terms of access and programs in areas such as high school golf, beginner programs, senior
discounts, winter passes, league programs, and the Men’s Club activities.
Option 2: Full Service Management Contract
The primary goal of a management contract or management agreement is to provide a golf
facility with experienced, professional managers who are responsible for the daily operations,
thus relieving the owner (City) of this task. In a typical management contract, the municipality
hires a firm that is charged with all management responsibility. The municipality funds all capital
improvements, and the management firm hires all employees. Because employees work for the
management firm and not the City, payroll cost may be less; thus, the operating expenses may
be reduced. Management fees paid as compensation in these agreements typically fall between
two and four percent (3% to 6%) of total revenues, or approximately $41,000 to $82,000 for the
Auburn Golf Course without F & B, and possibly as high as $65,000 to $130,000 if the full gross
F & B is included.
Advantages of Management Contracts
x Operating costs are often significantly reduced due to labor cost reductions. These
reductions come in several forms, including staff reductions (number of positions
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 45 DI.B
reduced – possibly affecting service), reduction in salary, and reductions in fringe
benefits.
x It is assumed that the company hired would have individuals to staff the facility that
have experience and expertise in golf facility operations, plus the support of
(sometimes national) corporate network. Not only can this company provide help in
operations and maintenance, but also in other areas such as marketing and
merchandising.
x The City is removed from day-to-day operation in exchange for a payment of a pre-
determined fee plus a percentage of gross revenues or some other formula, which is
equitable to both parties. In addition, net revenues (if any) are retained by the City.
Disadvantages of Management Contracts
x Though this option offers the City more control than with an operating lease, it offers
less control than self-operation.
x Unlike a lease, management contracts usually do not provide a guaranteed income
for the owner (the City), but rather a guaranteed income for the management entity
(operating risk remains with the City).
x The City would still be responsible for capital improvements (which NGF Consulting
believes will continue to be an important element in the case of Auburn Golf Course).
x The City would still need staff with golf course expertise who could spend a
significant amount of time overseeing the golf operation and contract compliance.
Discussion and Policy Implications
This is an option that is typically considered as a reaction to total system failure and the inability
of City staff to either appropriately operate the golf course (management, marketing,
maintenance, etc.), or control expenses. Still, under this option the total business risk would still
lie with the City of Auburn, and it seems very unlikely that this type of arrangement would
significantly alter the basic revenue/expense equation that is present at Auburn Golf Course in
2011. It is also expected that any agreement of this type would have to include the food and
beverage and banquet operations, as these elements are key to overall golf operations and
would be required by any private management agreement.
Further, the City of Auburn has 8 full-time and 16 seasonal (part-time) employees on the payroll,
plus volunteers. Many of these employees are long-term City employees with lengthy records of
service to the City of Auburn, and some are even unionized. It is likely that under any
privatization structure, the method used by the private sector to achieve desired economic
profitability will be to either terminate existing City golf employees, or reduce salaries and
benefits of existing employees. It is understood by NGF that replacing unionized workers
through privatization is not allowable in Auburn.
Further, NGF notes that in the last few years the golf system has experienced what can best be
described as a “perfect storm” of events including a national recession, increasing competition,
changing demographics, and extremely poor weather in 2010 and 2011, factors that would have
affected any private operator as well as City employees.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 46 DI.B
Option 3: Concession Agreements
This form of agreement is similar to a lease agreement. However, a concession agreement
usually involves granting a license to operate a facility rather than the right to occupy the
premises. It is very common in the golf industry, especially in the food and beverage service
area, and presently exists with the food and beverage concession with Copper Falls Restaurant.
The second most typical concession agreement would be for the Pro Shop, including one or
more of the cart, merchandise, lesson, and driving range revenue centers. In this case, the
municipality receives all green fees, plus an agreed upon percentage of the other revenue
centers. The municipality typically is responsible for maintenance. This was in place at Auburn
Golf Course in previous years through the 1980s and 1990s. Because of the short term of most
concession agreements, there is little incentive for the concessionaire to make major
investments.
Advantages of Concession Agreements
x The City would be removed from the day-to-day operation (if a pro shop or full facility
concession) in exchange for green fees and a pre-determined percentage of other
gross receipts.
x Concession agreements provide more control than an operating lease, but less than
a management contract.
x The term of a concession agreement is typically shorter than an operating lease.
Disadvantages of Concession Agreements
x Concession agreements do not provide guaranteed revenue to the municipality and
the City will still be responsible for facilities maintenance (operating risk remains
with the City).
x The City would be responsible for all major capital improvements.
x In most cases, the City would be expected to retain the very expensive course
maintenance function.
x There are likely to be few highly qualified management firms interested in a short-
term concession agreement, as these agreements are most often with a single
individual (golf professional). Management firms frequently prefer to put their
resources into projects that have longer terms and have the potential to be more
financially rewarding.
Discussion and Policy Implications – Maintenance-Only Concession
Another area of separate concessions is in maintenance-only contracts. In this case, the pro
shop and food & beverage operations would operate under separate concession agreements, or
by the City, but the City would privatize the maintenance function to another private entity. This
model has become more common in certain areas of the country where labor costs for
maintenance are increasing too rapidly to keep under control, or where maintenance staffs have
been reduced significantly to reduce expense thereby reducing the overall quality of
maintenance. Golf course maintenance, including associated labor, is almost universally the
largest single line expense item on a golf course’s operating budget. This is especially true in
public sector golf operations, when employee wage and benefit costs are often significantly
higher than in the private sector.
There are a number of companies that specialize in fixed-fee outsourced golf course
maintenance, ranging from single-contract operators to industry leaders such as ValleyCrest
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 47 DI.B
Golf Course Maintenance, which reports 54 total contracts, and International Golf Maintenance
(IGM), which totals 45 contracts. Maintenance companies are able to offer considerable
maintenance cost savings due to several reasons, foremost of which is the ability to employ
cost-effective manpower and scheduling strategies, which most municipalities are constrained
from doing. Additional savings are often achieved through the ability of the larger companies to
leverage national purchasing agreements for equipment, materials and supplies, and through
other economies of scale.
The advantages to this type of arrangement include a likely reduction in maintenance labor
expense with comparable quality. The disadvantages include difficulty finding good companies,
enforcing the contract, and getting the system to work well together with pro shop management.
Auburn Golf Course has a particularly strong resource in the Head Superintendent who has
been at this golf course for 35 years, a resource that may not be included in any maintenance
outsource arrangement. Again, the NGF understands that replacing unionized workers through
privatization is not allowable in Auburn.
Option 4: Operating Lease
The primary goals of an operating lease are to relieve the golf course owner (City) of all
operating concerns, to ensure a minimum rent payment to the City, and to improve and/or
protect the asset. An operating lease is similar to a management contract in that the lessee, like
the management firm, hires and fires all employees and is responsible for the day-to-day
operation of the facility. The difference between the two is that the lessee would be committed
to pay all operating expenses, supply equipment, and, typically, provide some capital for
investment in the golf facility. The ability of the selected private vendor to have control over the
labor resource at the facility, and not have to pay “municipal” wages and benefits, would be key
to making this arrangement work. These leases are typically for a longer term (longer than 10
years), especially when large lessee capital investment is involved.
In exchange for incurring all operating expenses and capital upkeep, the private lessee would
receive most (if not all) of the revenue and pay the City either a flat payment (flat lease) or a
percentage of revenue (percentage lease). It is assumed by NGF that the City of Auburn would
require the lease payment to be at least equal to the required annual debt service on the
clubhouse (approximately $415,000 per year through 2025). In today’s golf economy, it is very
unlikely the City will be able to find a private partner willing to pay that amount as many recent
leases observed by NGF in the 2011 golf economy have been much closer to the $50,000 to
$100,000 per year range, excluding carts and equipment. As both the carts and equipment are
owned by the City, some accommodation may be made but still unlikely to reach the level of
$400,000 per year in lease payment to the City.
Advantages to Leasing
x Burden of Risk. Leasing the facility to a private entity shifts the burden of
operational risk to the lessee. This includes the risk associated with rapidly rising
labor and other expenses, as well as potential continued downturns in rounds played
and revenues. Barring a breach of the contract, the City could have a guaranteed net
revenue stream. The only expenses remaining with the City will be those associated
with administering the contract, oversight, and compliance.
x Simplicity. The City would be relieved of the day-to-day responsibility in maintaining
and operating these facilities. (As with all management options, the City should still
have a person who has golf course expertise monitoring the operation and enforcing
contract compliance – i.e., Director of Golf Operations or Golf Course Manager).
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 48 DI.B
x Capital Improvements. Depending on the relative attractiveness of the business
opportunity to the private entity, the lease terms could require (or at least incentivize)
the lessee to make, or at least contribute significantly to, needed capital
improvements (i.e., improving drainage, maintenance facility and on-course
services).
x Maintenance Equipment. The lessee would be responsible for providing
maintenance equipment and golf carts.
Disadvantages to Leasing
x Control. This lease option offers municipalities the least amount of control over the
golf course operation, especially with regard to resident use of the facility and pricing.
x Profit Motive. This is closely tied to the control issue. If not carefully executed, a
lease arrangement may conflict with the objective of providing an affordable
recreation activity for residents, as private interests (including maximizing return) can
often be in opposition to public interests (such as providing a community service).
x Labor Issues. The lease could lead to public sector employees losing their positions
at the golf course, or at least face reductions in pay and/or benefits.
x Revenue Constraint. As would be expected when one party shares a
disproportionately low share of the risk, the City would receive less of the upside
revenue potential than it would with a management contract.
x Long Term. Leases are typically for a long term, especially if capital improvements
are included in the lease terms. This makes it difficult to get out of the lease, should
the municipality become displeased with the lessee’s operation of the facility.
x Down Market. The lessee may be forced to cut maintenance expenses and/or raise
fees if revenues do not meet expectations. Unexpected golf market downturns often
lead to the lessee seeking to renegotiate terms.
Discussion and Policy Implications
While leasing of public sector golf facilities was popular in previous decades, its popularity
waned in the 1990s as golf revenues were increasing and public agencies began to see what
they thought were large sums in golf revenue going to an outside vendor and not being
reinvested in the facility or going as profit to the municipality. However, since the turn of the 21st
century, leases are coming back into fashion for municipal golf facilities, particularly in the 2009-
2011 period of time, with public sector budget challenges. Leasing out the golf operations shifts
the burden of operating risk to the private vendor, eliminates large fiscal losses, and, in some
cases, provides a guaranteed revenue stream to public agencies. In most cases, the vendor will
also contribute to capital improvements.
Although the appeal of turning everything over to an outside agency may have a lot of merit,
especially in terms of transferring operational risk, we should note that the basic issues that tend
to drive municipalities into this option do not exist in Auburn golf operations. While there may be
some inflation in its expenses and diminishment of the golf enterprise working capital fund,
Auburn Golf is presently operating efficiently and working to increase revenue and reduce its
expense structure in 2011, despite challenges from uncontrollable factors. Overall, it does not
seem that the conditions in Auburn lend themselves to this sort of solution.
Further, the City of Auburn will also have to consider other issues related to leasing that should
be reviewed by City legal staff. NGF has noted the issues we find that commonly affect Cities
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 49 DI.B
considering leasing public sector-owned golf courses (some may also apply to management
contracts):
x Unionized Staff. The NGF review of Auburn Golf shows a unionized maintenance
staff that may have to be retained even in a lease agreement. If this is the case, the
lease becomes less attractive to the private sector.
x Bond Covenants. The clubhouse was funded through the issuance of a revenue
bond that remains in place through 2025. The restrictive covenants in bond issues of
this type typically prevent the “conveyance” of property in a lease agreement.
x Park Property. Further, the Auburn Golf Course may be considered a “park
property” that may also have restrictions on “conveyance” that may apply under a
lease option. The key issue in this possible constraint is the definition of
“conveyance,” and whether a lease or some type of concession agreement would be
considered a “conveyance.”
Option 5: Hybrid Management Contract
A Hybrid contract blends many of the advantages of a lease with those of a management
contract. Similar to a lease, the operations of the facility would be turned over to a privately
owned company who would be responsible for all the operating expenses. Thus the
management company assumes MOST of the risk. However, it is not a lease. It varies in a
number of ways, including.
x Term: A management contract is for a shorter period, typically three to five years.
x Variable Payment: In most cases the payment to the management entity has a low
fixed base, heavily weighted toward incentives on performance.
x Capital Improvements: Typically, the City would still be responsible for all major
capital improvements, although some management companies may be willing to
include some of the capital improvement recommendations contained in this report in
exchange for more favorable terms.
x Flexibility: A management contract can include all or only parts of the operation.
Advantages / Disadvantages
The advantages and disadvantages of a Hybrid contract generally mirror the management
agreement and leasing advantages and disadvantages, combining the best of both options for
the benefit of the municipality.
Discussion
The NGF Consulting review of the various operational considerations for the Auburn Golf
Course shows that two of the four options presented are probably not the best fit for the City of
Auburn and can be eliminated from further evaluation:
x Outright Lease. The NGF review of the lease option shows that leasing may not be
fully allowable under various legal and City charter provisions. The most important of
these are bond covenants, conveyance of park property and union issues. Further
review of these issues will be required if the City is to consider a lease option, as
there clearly are “gray” areas in these considerations.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 50 DI.B
x Traditional Concession. This option will likely produce too many “working parts”
that require attention and shift the City burden from managing golf courses to
managing contracts. The City will likely still be responsible for covering losses and
making capital improvements (retain risk). Thus the multiple concession option is not
likely to bring the City into a more favorable economic position than it is at present.
In light of this, NGF sees the continued self-operation (as-is), or some form of management
agreement, as the two most appropriate options for the City going forward. However, NGF must
also note that if the City opts to pursue a management agreement for the Auburn Golf Course,
the key issues that must be addressed prior to making the evaluation include the issue of
whether to include the food and beverage operation into the agreement, given that it is under
contract through 2014.
NGF Recommendation
NGF recommends that the City of Auburn continue with its present operational structure,
with a business-oriented Golf Facility Manager (as at present), continue with upgrades to
its marketing (especially electronic), make some investment in the facility to improve
revenue, and make other modifications to operations, particularly food and beverage
operations, over the next two years (through 2013) to better promote the facility as an
ideal venue for tournaments, events and outings. As the new clubhouse was developed to
become a community resource, in addition to an amenity to the golf course, some form of
sharing of the total debt expense between City departments is also recommended and common
in the golf industry. Further, NGF Consulting recommends the City of Auburn explore a
management contract option only if action on these items still fails to improve net revenue by
the end of FY2013.
Public Policy Implication
If the above items can be adjusted to ease the economic burden on the City Golf System, the
continued self operation option becomes much more appropriate, and the privatization option
much less appealing as the Auburn Golf Course would be in much improved fiscal condition. If
the City is to seek a management company type of arrangement, NGF recommends that the
agreement be entered into only if:
x Hybrid Agreement. Includes a variable portion that helps spread the risk to the
operator.
x Include Some Capital Investment. Requires the private vendor to contribute capital
to the properties, which would be in their interest given the recommended
investments are designed to increase revenue.
x Commit to Public Service. The selected vendor will have to commit to a program of
service to the community by offering junior programs, high school access,
senior/junior discounts, frequent tournaments, honor league commitments, and other
activities presently employed by the Auburn Golf Course under self-operation.
x Oversight: The contract should contain an oversight mechanism that allows the City
to inspect the operation on a regular basis (such as twice a year) and have set
standards that the contractor should adhere to. If the contractor is not performing to
standards, then there would be financial consequences. (We further suggest that
these inspections be carried out by a qualified third party).
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 51 DI.B
SPECIFIC PHYSICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
In an effort to raise the quality of the golf course and help to improve performance, the City must
be prepared to make some capital investment in the golf course. While the Auburn Golf Course
was in excellent condition during the NGF visit, there are some upgrades that should be
considered as a way to enhance revenue and/or reduce expense. These are outlined below:
NGF Recommended Auburn Golf Course Improvements
As NGF was not retained for a full and comprehensive physical review, we recommend
consulting a local engineer, golf course architect, or the on-staff golf superintendent for cost to
complete estimates. The main improvements we recommend for Auburn include the following:
x Add Patio Covering: The City should consider adding a permanent or retractable
awning or some type of covering for the open patio area at the northeast side of the
clubhouse. This area could then better function as the casual gathering / snack area
space that is lacking at Auburn Golf Course.
x Improve the “old” holes. Complete the upgrade by:
Improving irrigation on holes #1-#5 and improving #1 and #2 fairways.
Replacing the #10, #1, and #2 old push-up greens with newer, modern green
complexes.
x Upgrade irrigation computer control: Providing this upgrade will allow for very
specific irrigation practices and serve to save water and money.
x Add a minimum of one new tee: The course should have at least four sets of tees,
with a forward tee of less than 5,000 yards. The new forward tee can then be labeled
“Red,” and the existing Red tee can change to a new “senior” tee.
x Repair 4th tee: Repairing problems with this tee would help speed up play and add
more rounds (revenue).
x Add collection area by #10: This may be a large program, but deepening and
sealing the low-lying area between holes #10 and #1-2 (convert to a pond) may help
with drainage on the course and allow for more rounds on wet days.
x Clear the brush between #11 and #14: This would also help speed up play and can
be completed as a maintenance project, as opposed to capital investment.
x Improve cart path on #10 and #15: to fill in potholes and cracking. This will save
wear and tear on carts (owned by the City) and make the course more comfortable.
x Permanent restroom on the 18-hole course: Lack of permanent restrooms will
greatly hamper getting play from women and seniors. You may be able to get self-
contained restrooms that could be added, somewhere in the vicinity of the 14th hole
(on the high point of the golf course).
x Equipment Program: Although the Auburn Golf Course maintenance staff is doing
an excellent job of caring for maintenance equipment, the City should be on a
program to replace pieces more frequently. This will save staff time to maintain faulty
equipment and may even help prevent damage to the golf course (not an issue yet).
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 52 DI.B
x Signage. The signage for the Auburn Golf Course should be improved to the extent
that is allowable by County, State, and local guidelines. Ideally, the City should add
directional signs with the Auburn Golf Course logo at several key locations, including
the SR 167 / 15th St interchange, the SR 167 / 277th St interchange, the intersections
in Auburn 15th / Harvey / 8th St, 8th St and 104th Av and the intersection of 104thAv
and Green River Rd. Be sure to note that the golf course is “open to the public.”
SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
After our review of the Auburn Golf Course, NGF Consulting is not inclined to recommend that
any fundamental changes be made to its operation. As noted above, the management of the
facility appears sound and the facility is being managed and maintained efficiently as
reasonable, given budget realities. We have observed that a new, more aggressive marketing
attitude is taking hold in the last two years, and it appears that the City is receiving excellent
value for the money spent on marketing. The NGF has observed a dedicated staff that appears
to be working to improve the physical and financial condition of this property for the City.
Therefore, no major changes in operation are recommended, except the following:
x Food and Beverage Concession: NGF recommends the City do all it can to
improve the working relationship with the F & B concessionaire and enforce “gray”
areas of the F & B concession contract. Specifically, the City should make sure:
The beverage cart schedule is set
The turn window is staffed when golfers are on the course
Some type of breakfast is served – i.e., increase “grab-n-go” items on the
Copper Falls menu.
x Improve F & B Marketing/Promotion: Although this is the responsibility of the F &
B concessionaire, the City and Auburn Golf Course staff should work to both help
Copper Falls with marketing and also do more to market Copper Falls on the City’s
and Auburn Golf Course’s websites. Specifically, promotion and awareness of the
site as an ideal venue for banquets, parties, weddings, etc. needs to be improved.
x Labor Expense: Work to reduce the overall high labor expense through increased
reliance on seasonal labor as opposed to full-time labor (as positions become
vacant), and seek to control the rate of growth in benefits.
x Yield Management Practices: Make sure the Auburn Golf Course senior staff has
authority adjust fees on short notice to capture rounds of golf when reservations are
low. Yield management practices such as using GolfNow and the texting program
should continue and/or be expanded.
x Accounting: Explore ways to better allocate interfund expenses based on market
value and use, rather than a square foot allocation. This will not have any real
economic impact, as the expenses are fixed, but it will ease public pressure on the
golf enterprise fund, as the expenses will be more appropriate to the enterprise.
x Clubhouse Debt: Consider creating some type of system whereby the outstanding
debt on the clubhouse can be shared across City departments. The clubhouse was
developed with the intent of it serving many community needs, yet all the debt is tied
directly to the golf enterprise.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 53 DI.B
NON-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF MUNICIPAL GOLF
NGF Consulting has long noted and advocated the many benefits that a golf facility brings to a
community. Among them:
x Provides a healthy recreational outlet for its residents
x Provides an outlet for charitable donations
x Provides an outlet for at-risk youth
x Enhances the overall quality of life in the City
x Reflects well on the image/brand of the City
x Creates golf-related jobs and income to the community through purchases, wages,
and taxes
Additionally, a golf facility can elevate the quality of life, improve the business climate, and
induce tourist traffic.
Charitable Impacts
Golf courses have proven to be an especially great venue for raising money for local charities.
The Auburn Golf Course has been especially active in this area hosting numerous events that
have the potential for considerable charitable impact.
At-Risk Youth
In addition to offering organized junior golf programs and free golf for local high schools, many
municipalities offer highly discounted, or even free, programs for lower-income and/or at-risk
youth. Though there may be no short-term financial benefit in doing this, the intangible benefits
are obvious, as programs such as this have proven to help troubled kids by providing them with
a healthy outlet that can become a lifelong interest or even passion. Golf has proven to be a
diversion for lower-income and/or at-risk youth, as it has the potential to help troubled kids by
providing them with a healthy outlet that can become a lifelong interest or even passion. Finally,
there is likely to be long-term financial benefit to the City, as players are being cultivated as
potential future customers.
Minority Golf Participation
In 2003, the National Golf Foundation conducted a research study as part of Golf 20/20’s
Diversity Task Force, which is developing strategies for player development programs and other
initiatives focused on women and minorities. The study found that the golf participation rate
among minority populations was significantly lower than the overall U.S. golf participation rate.
The implications for Auburn and continuing golf operations is that it is imperative that the City
initiate player development programs aimed at stimulating latent golf demand among all groups.
This is not an easy task, as golf operators are fighting ingrained cultural perceptions and habits
regarding entertainment / sporting choices. As a result, golf participation rates in these
communities remain flat. Therefore, it will take a dedicated and concerted effort by the City of
Auburn to grow the game in these communities.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 54 DI.B
Appendices
A – Golf Course Life Cycle
B – Golf Industry Standards and Norms
C– Golfer Expectations of Better Quality Public Golf Facilities
D – National Rounds Played Report
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – DRAFT Report – 55 DI.B
APPENDIX A – GOLF COURSE LIFE CYCLE
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 1 DI.B
APPENDIX B – GOLF INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND NORMS
The NGF has presented a selection of basic golf industry information designed to help educate
the City of Auburn on “reasonable expectations” for public golf operations in the U.S.
Information provided includes operational norms for public golf courses (rounds, revenues,
expenses, staffing) as well as some other “standards” consistent with successful public golf
courses. As City of Auburn is operating a golf facility that fits into separate categories, the NGF
has included benchmark data for both ‘mid-range’ and ‘premium’ public golf courses.
Public Golf Operational Norms
For comparison purposes to City of Auburn golf course, we present a review of selected NGF
data from our bi-annual surveys of golf facilities. As the 2011 edition was not yet complete at the
time of this report, the NGF has used the 2009 figures for comparison to Auburn Golf Course.
This include data from the aggregate of all golf courses in the U.S. (by category), as well as
data from selected sub-categories of golf facilities including mid-range (middle fee) public golf
facilities and premium (highest fee) golf facilities. These data are detailed in the National Golf
Foundation publication, Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-hole Golf Facilities in
the U.S. These figures were included and used for this effort as they represent “reasonable
estimates” for comparison to the City of Auburn golf courses. In addition, NGF Consulting has
added estimates from the “Future of Public Golf in America” study completed in 2010 and
presented at the annual NGF Golf Business Symposium.
Public Golf Facility Rounds Expectations
NGF research indicates that the average number of rounds played per 18-hole golf course has
been declining in the last 25 years. The totals now stand at an average of 32,497 rounds for
municipal golf courses, 26,009 for all daily fee (privately-owned, open to the public), and 17,748
for private clubs. We note these figures all represent significant declines since 1985, with
acceleration of decline since 2001. As a benchmark comparison, average rounds per 18-hole
municipal golf course was around 36,000r in 2005 and just over 33,500r rounds in 2009.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 2 DI.B
Rounds Played
Median 18-hole
32,497
26,009
17,748
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1985199219941997199920012003200520082009
Municipal
Daily Fee
Private
Public Golf Facility Revenue Expectations
NGF research indicates that the total of all golf facility revenues in the U.S. represents a $22.3
billion industry, down from a peak of $29.1 billion in 2005. The table below shows the NGF
estimate for total golf facility revenue (public and private combined) in the United States for
selected years since 1992.
Total Golf Facility Revenues
Adjusted for inflation, includes public & private
$15.5
$18.5
$20.9
$24.2
$28.5 $29.1
$23.5
$22.3
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
19921994199719992001200520082009
Billions of Dollars
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 3 DI.B
Average Revenue per Golf Facility
The NGF estimate for total revenue per golf facility in the U.S. now stands at $1.5 million for
daily fees, $1.3 million for municipals, and $3.4 million for private clubs. Again, we note that this
is a full aggregate of all golf facilities in the U.S., inclusive of all climatic regions and facility
types.
Facility-Level Revenues
Average Total Revenues
18-hole - $millions
2008 2009 % change
Daily Fee $1.6 $1.5 -6.1%
Municipal $1.3 $1.3 -2.1%
Private $3.6 $3.4 -4.7%
Source: National Golf Foundation and Golf Datatech
Revenue Detail for ‘Mid-Range’ Public Golf Courses
Further detail on ‘mid-range’ public golf facility operations in the United States has been
collected by NGF over the years, a summary of which is presented below for 2005 and 2009.
‘Mid-range’ public golf courses are those with green fees in the $40 to $70 range (excluding
carts). The NGF consultants feel that this represents the best measure of comparison to
performance at Auburn Golf Course, and is used for this purpose throughout the NGF
engagement for the City of Auburn.
Public Mid-range Average Revenues
2005 2009* % change
Green fees, cart fees and member/passholder revenue $679,280 $624,900 -8.0%
All other golf revenue $76,930 $75,000 -2.5%
F&B revenue (incl. banquets) $214,400 $182,200 -15.0%
Merchandise revenue $80,080 $75,300 -6.0%
All other operating revenue $37,560 $36,400 -3.1%
Total Revenue $1,088,250 $993,800 -8.7%
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010 edition, National Golf
Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2010.
*Estimated totals derived from sample research in 2009.
Revenue Detail for ‘Premium’ Public Golf Courses
In addition, the NGF also has data on ‘Premium’ public golf facility operations in the United
States, which is summarized in the following table for 2005 and 2009. ‘Premium’ public golf
courses are those with green fees $70.01 and up (including cart fee), making Auburn Golf
Course close to this level. As the facility has some amenities that would be comparable to
‘premium’ facilities, the NGF has included this data for comparison.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 4 DI.B
Public Premium Average Revenues
2005 2009* % change
Green fees, cart fees and member/passholder revenue $1,872,270 $1,610,100 -14.0%
All other golf revenue $210,760 $200,800 -4.7%
F&B revenue (incl. banquets) $620,750 $516,200 -16.8%
Merchandise revenue $276,240 $216,200 -21.7%
All other operating revenue $120,270 $102,400 -14.9%
Total Revenue $3,100,290 $2,645,700 -14.7%
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010 edition, National Golf
Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2009. *Estimated totals derived from sample research in 2009.
Public Golf Facility Expense Expectations
NGF research indicates that all golf facilities in the U.S. had a total of $21.3 billion in direct
operating expenses, down 20.5% from a high of $26.8 billion in 2001. The table below shows
the NGF estimates for total golf facility expenses (public and private combined) in the United
States for selected years since 1992.
Total Golf Facility Expenses
Adjusted for inflation, includes public & private
$12.4
$14.6
$16.5
$20.0
$26.8
$24.7
$22.4
$21.3
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
19921994199719992001200520082009
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 5 DI.B
Average Expense per Golf Facility
The NGF estimate for total expenses per golf facility in the U.S. now stands at $1.3 million for
daily fees, $1.1 million for municipals and $3.2 million for private clubs. Again, we note that this
is a full aggregate of all golf facilities in the U.S., inclusive of all climactic regions and facility
types.
Facility-Level Expenses
Average Total Expenses
18-hole - $millions
2008 2009 % change
Daily Fee $1.4 $1.3 -5.8%
Municipal $1.1 $1.1 -1.2%
Private $3.4 $3.2 -5.4%
Source: National Golf Foundation and Golf Datatech
Operating Expense Detail for ‘Mid-Range’ Public Golf Courses
Further detail on ‘mid-range’ public golf facility operational expenses in the United States from
2005 and 2009 are displayed below. The NGF consultants feel that this represents the best
measure of comparison to performance at Auburn Golf Course, and is used for this purpose
throughout the NGF engagement for the City of Auburn.
Public Mid-range Average Expenses
2005 2009* % change
Total maintenance costs $377,160 $414,900 10.0%
Golf car fleet costs $31,120 $30,500 -2.0%
COGS F&B $86,360 $76,200 -11.8%
COGS merchandise $56,450 $44,600 -21.0%
Other expenses $315,280 $365,700 16.0%
Total Expenses $866,360 931,900 7.6%
Notes:
”Total maintenance costs” includes payroll, supplies, and equipment.
”Other expenses” is a large category because it includes all non-maintenance payroll and all
other operating expenses. Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010
edition, National Golf Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2010.
*Estimated totals derived from sample research in 2009.
Operating Expense Detail for ‘Premium’ Public Golf Courses
Operating expense detail for ‘Premium’ public golf facilities appears in the following table. As the
facility has some amenities that would be comparable to ‘premium’ facilities, the NGF has
included this data for comparison.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 6 DI.B
Public Premium in Average Expenses
2005 2009* % change
Total maintenance costs $825,640 $923,900 10.6%
Golf car fleet costs $57,040 $55,800 -2.2%
COGS F&B $189,750 $167,500 -11.7%
COGS merchandise $189,000 $148,200 -21.6%
Other expenses $1,167,480 $1,354,300 16.0%
Total Expenses $2,428,910 $2,649,700 9.1%
Notes:
”Total maintenance costs” includes payroll.
”Other expenses” is a large category because it includes all non-maintenance payroll and all
other operating expenses. Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010
edition, National Golf Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2009. *Estimated totals derived from
sample research in 2009.
Other Expense Findings
NGF Consulting has also included basic information on golf industry ‘standards’ for all golf
courses of all types in all climates. Industry standards can vary depending upon specific
courses, but as a “rule of thumb,” allocated spending in key areas coincide with the following
percentages:
1. Key Area
2. Allocated
Spending
Labor 50%
Products, Supplies & Repair 15%
Services (Incl. Equipment) 10%
Utilities 5%
Other 20%
Source: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
(GCSAA) and NGF Consulting. Expense totals do not include non-
recurring capital expenses, amortization, or depreciation.
Public Golf Facility Average Revenue and Expense per Round
The following section provides NGF estimates for revenues and expenses per round of golf
played for each of ‘Mid-Range’ and ‘Premium’ golf facilities.
Public ‘Mid-range’ Revenue and Expense per Round - NGF research indicates that middle-
fee public golf courses in the U.S. average $30.58 in total facility revenue per round of golf in
2009. Of this figure, $21.54 (70.4%) is derived from “golf” sources (green, cart, pass fees and
driving range), with the remaining $9.04 (29.6%) per round derived from “ancillary” (mostly
merchandise, food + beverage) sources. Overall, this figure has declined by about 6.0%
between 2005 and 2009, with the largest decline (12.5%) coming from food and beverage
revenue.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 7 DI.B
Public Mid-range U.S.
Average Revenue Per Round
2005 2009 % change
Total Revenue $32.54 $30.58 -6.0%
Golf Revenue $22.61 $21.54 -4.7%
F&B revenue (incl. banquets) $6.41 $5.61 -12.5%
Merchandise revenue $2.39 $2.32 -2.9%
All other operating revenue $1.12 $1.12 0.0%
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole
Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010 edition, National Golf Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2010
Middle-fee public golf courses in the U.S. average $28.68 in total facility expenses per round of
golf. Of this figure, $12.77 (44.5%) is derived from golf course maintenance, with the remaining
$15.91 (55.5%) per round derived from all other expenses. Overall, this figure increased by
about 11% between 2005 and 2009.
Public Mid-range U.S.
Average Expense Per Round
2005 2009 % change
Total maintenance costs $11.28 $12.77 13.2%
Golf car fleet costs $0.93 $0.94 0.9%
Total COGS $4.27 $3.71 -13.1%
Other expenses $9.43 $11.25 19.4%
Total Facility Expense $25.91 $28.68 10.7%
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole
Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010 edition, National Golf Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2010
Public ‘Premium’ Revenue and Expense per Round - NGF research indicates that the
highest fee public golf courses in the U.S. average $81.41 in total facility revenue per round of
golf. Of this figure, $55.73 (68.5%) is derived from “golf” sources (green, cart, pass fees and
driving range), with the remaining $25.68 (31.5%) per round derived from “ancillary” (mostly
merchandise, food + beverage) sources. Overall, this figure declined by about 12% between
2005 and 2009.
Public Mid-range U.S.
Average Revenue Per Round
2005 2009 % change
Total Revenue $92.70 $81.41 -12.2%
Golf Revenue $62.28 $55.73 -10.5%
F&B revenue (incl. banquets) $18.56 $15.88 -14.4%
Merchandise revenue $8.26 $6.65 -19.5%
All other operating revenue $3.60 $3.15 -12.4%
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole
Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010 edition, National Golf Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2010
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 8 DI.B
Premium public golf courses in the U.S. average $81.54 in total facility expenses per round of
golf. Of this figure, $28.43 (34.9%) is derived from golf course maintenance, with the remaining
$53.11 (65.1%) per round derived from all other expenses. Overall, this figure increased by
about 12% between 2005 and 2009.
Public Mid-range U.S.
Average Expense Per Round
2005 2009 % change
Total maintenance costs $24.69 $28.43 15.2%
Golf car fleet costs $1.71 $1.72 0.7%
Total COGS $11.32 $9.71 -14.2%
Other expenses $34.91 $41.67 19.4%
Total Facility Expense $72.63 $81.54 12.3%
Source: Operating & Financial Performance Profiles of 18-Hole
Golf Facilities in the U.S., 2010 edition, National Golf Foundation, and “Future of Public Golf in America” study – 2010
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 9 DI.B
APPENDIX C – GOLFER EXPECTATIONS OF BETTER QUALITY PUBLIC
GOLF FACILITIES
Golf consumers have developed certain expectations about the package of amenities they
expect at golf courses of various levels of quality. These expectations extend to both the
physical attributes (maintenance) of a facility as well as the level of service provided. In this
section, NGF will provide a basic “checklist” of amenities and services that are expected at
various levels of golf course quality and should be considered within the overall program of the
City of Auburn golf system. This includes a review of golf course facilities, support amenities,
and service.
Golf Course Expectations
A summary of categories of expectations for golfers at middle-to-better quality golf courses
includes:
x Clean carts
x Good scenery
x Appropriate length and challenges (see below)
x Well maintained conditions
x Well maintained greens
x Well maintained fairways
x Well maintained tees
x Well maintained bunkers
x Clearly marked and visible yardage and hazard indicators
x Rough that is not too difficult and ball can be found
x Practice facility
x On-course facilities / water fountains
Clubhouse Expectations
Basic expectations of golf course clubhouses from golf consumers at middle-to-better quality
public golf courses include:
x Visually appealing entrance and landscaping
x Area to drop golf bags directly from auto
x Clean and clearly marked entrance
x Appropriate and visible art and decorations
x Visually appealing pro shop area
x Room to shop and view items for sale + ease of purchase
x Convenient restrooms cleaned twice daily
x Clear logistics and ergonomics (where do I go to check in?)
x Space and comfortable chairs to sit and relax
x Wi-Fi and cell service available
x Space to privately change clothes/shoes (if necessary)
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 10 DI.B
x Nice views of the golf course
x Good food and beverage service
x Alcohol service (at least beer) and a comfortable place to go to enjoy food and drinks
and reflect on their round with friends
x Big screen TVs in the lounge/bar and/or grill area that are always tuned to sports
Service Expectations
Basic service expectations from golf consumers at middle-to-better quality public golf courses
include:
x Availability of, and accommodation for booking tee-times
x Assistance with golf bag drop
x Ease of parking
x Friendly/courteous staff at check-in counter
x Pro shop stocked with appropriate basic items (balls, tees, gloves, etc)
x Carts cleaned and fully charged for a round
x Courteous starter attentive to golfer needs
x Management/staff attention to pace-of-play
x Courteous ranger moving play along
x Beverage cart service
x On-course restroom / drinking stations
x Ability to conveniently consume snacks/beverages after 9th hole (the “turn”)
x Assistance with golf bag after the round
x Ability to conveniently consume snacks/beverages after 18th hole
x Pro shop open when round complete
The above items represent the basic package of golf facility amenities expected by golfers to
complete a better quality golf experience. Attention to these details will help produce repeat
customers and strong “word-of-mouth” recommendations. In general, the facilities at Auburn
Golf Course meet these expectations with some exceptions to be addressed by NGF in our
recommendations section.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 11 DI.B
Merchandising Operations
Merchandise sales are an often overlooked aspect of golf operations. Most operators realize
that it is important to carry some items as a convenience to their customers, some even see it
as a profit center, but rarely is it seen as a significant source of income. Instead, it is looked
upon more as a small add-on sale and is rarely given much attention. As a result, most
operators are content with merchandise sales of $2.50 or so per round. On the other hand,
some operators see merchandise sales as a potential major profit center for the golf operation.
In addition, savvy operators understand that the quality of the merchandise helps set the golfer’s
expectations for the course. For example, if a golfer comes in and sees a sparsely stocked pro
shop, they are likely to conclude that the golf course is in financial difficulty, which may reflect
on the quality of the golf course and its condition. Similarly, if the pro shop carries high-quality
shirts and supplies, the golfer is led to believe the golf course is a higher-end facility that attracts
higher-end golfers who can afford to play at better facilities.
The biggest key to success in merchandise sales is attitude. If a golf facility operator
approaches merchandise sales as simply a minor add-on, it is likely to remain a low priority and
generate little revenue. On the other hand, if the pro shop is viewed as a retail store, the entire
perspective changes. The degree to which a golf facility can emulate successful retail store
practices will determine just how successful that golf shop can become. Ideas to help move
improve merchandise operations at public golf courses include:
x Sales. Always have merchandise on sale. Further, the merchandise on sale is not
just the rejects, but includes popular selections as well. Merchandise should be
rotated regularly through the sales tables and not kept on sale for more than a few
weeks at a time.
x Promotion. The typical pro shop relies on a small sign placed strategically on a rack
or table to announce items that are on sale. Merchandise sales can also be
promoted on the Website, sent out in emails, and noted on large signs in the lobby or
grill area or on smaller signs at the pro shop counter or even on the golf carts.
x Inventory. Successful retail stores recognize that having a strong inventory is
important for two reasons: (1) it gives customers a wider selection, which increases
the chances for a sale; and (2) full shelves are much more enticing to customers
than sparsely stocked shelves.
x Margin. Most successful pro shops will have a cost-of-goods for merchandise sales
of around 70-75% (Auburn Golf Course is close to this threshold).
x Know Your Market. One of the biggest keys to success is to know your market and
stock merchandise that is consistent with golfers at the facility and the price point.
x Logo. One thing golf discounters and on-line stores do NOT have is your logo! Your
logo is often the main reason buyers will purchase your shirts and caps, etc.,
because it is unique and gives them something to wear others won’t have. The
Auburn Golf system and Auburn should strive to improve the golf logo, and then
promote it on all soft goods items (shirts, jackets, hats, etc.), as well on golf balls and
umbrellas and other hard goods items.
x Staffing. The best pro shops will have staff that is dedicated to merchandise sales.
There should be a merchandising manager (as with Auburn) who is knowledgeable
on retail sales and knows both how to order and display merchandise successfully.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 12 DI.B
Food and Beverage Operations
The food and beverage (F&B) operation at most golf courses is critical to the facility’s
profitability, either positively or negatively. The F&B operation, though, is more important to the
success of a golf course than simply its direct contribution to the bottom line. What is often
undervalued, perhaps because it is so hard to measure, is the F&B’s impact to the overall
desirability of a golf course and thus its effect on rounds performance.
There is no question that for most golfers a golf course’s F&B operation significantly impacts the
overall golfing experience. Given that an 18-hole golf round usually takes four to four and half
hours to play, a golf round is inevitably going to impact at least one meal for a golfer. Further,
many golfers enjoy relaxing after a round of golf, preferably while eating and/or drinking. This is
an important social time as the golfers reflect on the round, settle bets, and often discuss
various issues that may have nothing to do with golf. (Notably, a golf course is a popular spot to
conduct business).
As a result, a facility’s F&B operation can be either an asset or a detriment to a facility. If the
quality of the food and beverage concession does not match the experience or price of a golf
course, there is no doubt that the operation will have a negative impact on golf course
performance. However, if the F&B operation is in strong sync with the golf course, revenues in
both operations will be maximized. This is true if for no other reason than convenience. Given
that the golfer is likely to need a place to eat either before, after or even during a round, if the
golf course cannot provide the meal appropriately, the golfer must find another place – adding
additional time and inconvenience to the round. Further, a golfer tends to want to satisfy thirst
and hunger immediately. If this cannot be done at the golf course, the round can be much less
pleasant.
On the other hand, if the food quality and service is a good match for a facility, it adds to the golf
experience and increases the desirability of the golf course as a place to play. A high quality
F&B operation with multiple options can help make up for deficiencies of a golf course. Similarly,
a poor F&B operation can drag even a good golf operation down.
Successful Food and Beverage Operations at Golf Facilities
From a golf perspective, the F&B operation does not need to be elaborate; a simple grill
operation is often sufficient. Golfers are looking mostly for tasty items that can be prepared and
delivered quickly in an inviting and friendly atmosphere. Hot dogs and hamburgers are still the
overwhelmingly most popular items served. However, with healthy selections becoming more
socially acceptable and appealing and with the desire to expand the market to include women
and seniors, other menu items are required. There should be salad and healthy sandwich
choices as well as fruit offerings. To increase appeal to regulars, there should be daily specials.
A “signature” item is always desirable.
It is also important to understand that the F&B operation is not limited to the grill or restaurant,
but definitely extends to the golf course. Many golf operators have discovered that offering a
good beverage cart operation not only creates a new profit center, but also increases total
rounds performance. Golfers tend to enjoy beverage cart service, when the operators are well-
trained and personable and the prices and selection reasonable. It is not uncommon for a mid-
level facility to average more than $1 to $2 per round from beverage cart sales alone. However,
to be successful, a beverage cart operation needs to have the following:
x Good Servers. The attendants need to be friendly and helpful.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 13 DI.B
x Beer. Beer is the beverage of choice for a large percentage of golfers. Having beer
readily available will significantly help performance – both for the F&B operation and
for the golf course.
x Good Selection. Savvy operators track what golfers are buying and do their best to
keep these items in stock and available on the golf cart.
x Consistency. This is perhaps the most important ingredient of all. To be successful,
the beverage cart must be present consistently. It cannot be operated only during
“peak” days and at “peak times.” Golfers need to be trained to expect that the
beverage cart will be there in order to leave their coolers behind and for the
beverage cart to have a positive impact on the golf course rounds.
Where F&B operations tend to create fiscal problems for a golf facility is when they start offering
dinner services that go beyond the typical golf course fare and try to compete with restaurants.
On the other hand, this strategy can work so long as the golfers are being taken care of and the
restaurant option is in addition to, not in lieu of focus on golfers.
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 14 DI.B
APPENDIX D – NATIONAL ROUNDS PLAYED REPORT
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – City of Auburn Golf Operations – Appendices – 15 DI.B
MT
WY
ID
NV
UT
AZ
CO
NM
ND
SD
NE
KS MO
IA
MN
TX
OK
AR
LA
KY
TN
MS AL
FL
GA
SC
NC
VA
WV MD
DE
NY
PA NJ
CT RI
MA
ME
VT NH
WA
OR
HI
Pacific
Mountain
West North Central
South Central
South Atlantic
Mid Atlantic
East North Central
New England
WI
IL
IN
MI
OH
LEGEND:
Outline colors represent regions. Round percentages compare
September 2011 to September 2010.
1º WARMER Temp YOY = 0.76% Increase in Rounds Played*
1" RAIN increase YOY = 2.2% Decrease in Rounds Played*
*Based on WTI’s historical analysis of weather conditions for all
US markets. Results may vary by region
This report represents 3890 reporting courses.
ROUNDS -10.4%
TEMP -1.5°
PRECIP +28.0% ROUNDS -7.7%
TEMP +0.4°
PRECIP +73.0%
ROUNDS +1.3%
TEMP +0.6°
PRECIP +44.5%
ROUNDS -15.5%
TEMP +0.7°
PRECIP +96.0%
ROUNDS -3.0%
TEMP -1.7°
PRECIP +13.3%
ROUNDS +0.5%
TEMP -2.7°
PRECIP +35.4%
APPENDIX D -- NATIONAL GOLF ROUNDS PLAYED REPORT
PGA PerformanceTrak in cooperation with NGCOA, the joint financial benchmarking initiative of the PGA of America and the National Golf Course Owners Association, supports
the National Rounds Played Report by supplying data included in this report.
CA
ROUNDS +1.3%
TEMP +2.1°
PRECIP -71.3%
ROUNDS +1.9%
TEMP -1.2°
PRECIP -68.9%
U.S. TOTAL
SEPTEMBER '11 YTD '11
-4.4% -3.5%
Off Season
+ 2.0% and higher
between -1.9% and +1.9%
-2.0% and lower
DI.B
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
City Towing Rates
Date:
December 14, 2011
Department:
Legal
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4598
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Heid
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C
RESOLUTION NO. 4 5 9 8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF POLICE
DEPARTMENT TOW COMPANY ROTATION LIST
AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has a variety of tow companies operating
within its corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, there are occasions whenthe police department needs to
call, on a citizen's behalf, a tow company to have a vehicle removed from its
current location, sometimes for traffic safety but sometimes for other purposes,
whereby the obligation and responsibility for the tow payment would belong to
the vehicle owner; and
WHEREAS, in those instances where the City of Aubum Police
Department would be calling. a tow company on another persons behalf, it is
appropriate that a mechanism, which wouldinclude agreements with qualified
tow #ruck operators, be put into place so that those matters could be handled
expeditiously and conveniently for all concerned.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THECITY OF AUBURN,
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. That Tow Truck Rotation List Agreements in substantially
the form of the copy of which is attached heretomarked as "Exhibit A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, be, and the same hereby are, approved
Resolution No. 4598
July 21, 2010
Page 1 of 2
DI.C
for use by the police department and identifying the qualified tow truck
operators who would be called on a rotationalbasis for.those instances where
police department representatives would need to call on a citizens behalf to
have a vehicle movedfrom one location to another.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of
this legislation.
Section 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Si9ned this day of 2010.
C OF A
PETER B. LEWIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPR A TO FORM•
D n' I B. Hei , ty ttorne
Resolution No. 4598
July 21, 2010
Page 2 of 2
DI.C
CITY OF AUBURN
AGREEMENT FOR TOW CALL ROTATION LIST
THIS AGREEMENT made andentered into on'this day of .
20 by and between the City o£ Auburn, a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington, hereinafter referred to as "City" and hereinafter referred to
as the "Contractor."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is seeking vehicles towing services operating within Auburn for a
rotation list to be calledwhen a. police officer comes across the situation where a citizen's
vehicle must be towed or moved; and
WHEREAS, the City has selected the Contractor to perform such services pursuant to
certain terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is qualified and able to provide such services and is willing
and agreeable to provide such services upon the terms and conditions herein contained; and
WHEREAS, as part of the consideration of being selected to provide such services, the
City is asking that the Contractor agree to provide towing services upon the ferms and conditions
herein contained when summoned by the City's Police Department on behalf of or at the
direction of the owner or operator of a vehicle, or is such.other circumstances when vehicles
need to be moved in connection with a police response or accident; and
WHEREAS, as further part of the consideration of being selected to provide such
services, the City is asking that the Contractor agree to assist law, enforcement in the City and in
the surrounding area by determining whether an abandoned or impounded vehicle is stolen prior
to towing that vehicle, so-that law. enforcement can be alerted to stolen vehicles as quickly as
possible; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is a. registered tow truck operator (RTTO) per Chapter 46.55
of the Revised Code of Washington (RCV) and is willing and able to provide the services
described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual benefits provided herein, and corisideration of
placement ori the City of Aubum Police Tow Rotation List, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1.Time for Performance and Term of Aueement.
The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and run for a period of
one year; provided, this Agreement shall automatically renew for subsequent one-year
periods upon the anniversary of the date of execution unless one party provides the other
with written notice of its intent not to renew at least thirty days prior to said anniversary
date.
Page 1 of 17 .
DI.C
2.Administration of Agreement.
This Agreement sha11 be administered by on behalf of
the Contractor, and shall be administered out of the Contractor's billing office located
within the City of Auburn, Washington, and by on behalf
of the City.
3.Scope of Services.
The Contractor agrees to perform in a good and professional manner the tasks described
on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; which sha11 be
individually referred to as a"task," and collectively referred to as the "services." The
Contractor shall perform the services as an independent contractor and shall not be
deemed, by virtue of this Agreement and the performance thereof, to have entered into
any partnership, joint venture, employment or other relationship with the City.
4.Additional Services.
From time to time hereafter, the parties hereto may agree to the. performance by the
Contractor of additional services with respect to related work or projects. Any such
agreement(s) shall be set forth in writing and shall be executed by the respective parties
prior to the Contractor's performance of the services there under, except as may be
provided to the contrary in Section 3 of this Agreement. Upon proper completion and
execution of an addendum (agreement for additional services), such addendum shall be
incorporated into this Agreement and sha11 have the same force and effect as if the ferms
of such addendum were a part of this Agreement as originally executed. The
performance of services pursuant to an addendum shall be subj ect to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement except where the addendum provides to the contrary, in
which case the terms and conditions of any such addendum shall control. :In a11 other
respects, any addendum shall supplement andbe construed in accordance with the terms
and. conditions of this Agreement.
5.This Contract Not Exclusive. The Contractor agrees that the City may at its sole option
enter contracts with one or more other tow companies for the services contemplated and
described in this Agreement.
6.Contractor's Representations.
The Contractor hereby represents and warrants that the Contractor has all necessary
licenses and certifications to perform the services provided for herein, and is qualified to
perform such services.
7.Acceptable Standards.
The Contractor sha11 be responsible to provide, in connection with , the services
contemplated in this Agreement, Work Product and services of a quality ancl professional
standard accepta.ble to the City.
8.Compensation.
The Contractor shall charge and be compensated by the person(s), company(ies) or
entity(ies) responsible for sueh charges at the rates specified on Exhibit "B" attached
hereto and made a part hereof, as follows:
Page 2 of 17
DI.C
a.The City shall compensate the Contractor at the rates specified on said Exhibit
B" for any City vehiclestowed or stored upon request of authorized City
personnel. The Contractor sha11 submit to the City an invoice or statement of time
spent on thosetasks or services set forth in Exlubit "A" for which the Contractor
seeks payment. T'he City shall process the invoice or . statement in the next
billing/claim cycle following receipt of the invoice or statement, and shall remit
payment to the Contractor thereafter in the normal course, subject to any
conditions or provisions in this Agreement.
b.Unless agreed to in writingprior to the tow of a vehicle, the City shall not be
responsible for towing, storage, or impound fees for any vehicle not owned or
opera.ted by the City, including non-impound vehicles towed or stored upon
request of the City's Police. Department and impounded vehicles; provided, for
vehicles impounded for evidentiary purposes, the City shall pay such towing,
storage, or impound fees that accrue from the time of impound until the City of
Auburn Police Department releases its hold on such vehicles; and further
provided, should a court of competent jurisdiction rule that an impound was
improper, the City shall compensate the Contractor for such towing, storage, or
impound in an amount found by said court.
c.For any tow, stora.ge, or impound fee not paid by the City, the Contractor may
seek compensation from the owner of said vehicle at the rates specified on Exhibit
B," and may take such other steps as may be authorized by law to obtain
compensation.
d.The requirements hereof are supplemental and in addition to any requiiements '
imposed on tow truck operators by federal, state and/or local law, including, but
not limited to the provisions of Chapter 46.55 of the Revised Code of Washington
RCV), Towing and Impoundment.
9.Work Performed at Contractor.'s Risk.
The Contractor sha11 take all precautions necessary for, and shall be responsible for, the
safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the work
hereunder and shall utilize a11 protection necessary for that purpose. All work sha11 be
done at the Contractor's own risk, and the Contractor shall be responsible for any loss of
or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection witli the
work.
10. Stolen Vehicle Check. Prior to towing any impounded or abandoned vehicles from its
existing location to the Contractor's Storage Lot or any other destination, the Contractor
shall check the vehicle's identification numbers ("VIN") against the Washington State
Crime Information Center ("WSCIC") and the National Crime Iriforination Center
NCIC") stolen car databases, regardless of whether such tow is undertaken pursuant to
this agreement or isundertaken for any other customer either within or outside of the City
of Auburn. Should the VIN of any such vehicle appear in either the WSCIC or NCIC
database as stolen, the Contractor shall notify the Auburn Police Department and/or any
other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the vehicle's loeation or
responsibility over the impound prior to towing the vehicle.
Page 3 of 17
DI.C
11. Records Inspection and Audit.
All compensation payments shall be subject to the adjustments for any amounts found
upon audit or otherwise to have been improperly invoiced, and all records and books of
accounts pertaining to any work performed under this Agreement sha11 be subject to
inspection and audit by the City for a period of up to three (3) years from the final
payment for work performed under this Agreement.
12. Continuation of Performance.
In the event that any dispute or conflict arises between the parties while this Contract is in
effect, the Contractor agrees that, notwithstanding such dispute or conflict, the Contractor
sha11 continue to make a good 'faith effort to cooperate and confinue work toward
successful completion of assigned duties and responsibilities.
13. Notices.
All notices or communications permitted or required to be given under this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be served either in person or by certified mail, return receipt
requested, at the following addresses:
City of Auburn Contractor
Auburn City Hall
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Auburn, WA
253) 931-3000 FAX (253) 931-3053
All such notices or communications shall be effective upon the date of receipt.
14. Insurance.
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persbns or damage to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Gontractor, its agents,
representative5, or employees.
a.Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the
types described below:
1) Automobile. Liabilitv insurance covering all owned, non-owned,
hired, and leased vehicles. Coverage_ shall be written on Insurance
Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form
provid.ing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy
sha11 be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2) Commercial General Liabilitv insurance sha11 be written on ISO
occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from
premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed
operations, stop gap liability, and personal injury arid advertising
injury and liability assumed under an insured contract. The
Commercial General Liability insurance sha11 be endorsed to
Page 4 of 17
DI.C
provide the Aggregate Per Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25
03 11 85. There sha11 be no endorsement or modification of the
Commercial General Liability insurance for liability arising from
explosion, collapse, or underground property damage. The City
sha11 be named as an additional insuredunder the Contractor's
Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the
work performed for the City using ISO Additional Insured
Endorsement CG 20 10 10 0 1 and Additional Insured=Completed
Operations endorsement CG 20 37 1001 or substitute,
endorsements providing equivalent covera.ge.
3) Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial
Insurance laws of the State of Washington.
b.Minimum Amounts of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain the following
insurance limits:
1) Automobile Liabilitv insurance_ with a minimum combined single
limit for bodily injury and properEy damage of $1,000,000 per
occurrence, $2,000;000 aggregate.
2) Commercial \ General Liabilitv insurance shall be written with
limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general
aggregate and a$2,000,000 products-completed operations
aggregafe limit.
c.Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies aze to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability,
Professional Liability, and Commercial GeneTal Liability insurance:
1) The Contraetor's insurance coverage sha11 be primary insurance as
respects tHe City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool
coverage maintained by the Gity shall be in excess of the
Contractor's insurance and sha11 not contribute with it.
2) The Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage
shall not be cancelled by either party except after thirty (30) days'
prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has
been given to the City.
d.Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. `Best rating of not less than _ A:VII.
e.Verification of Coverage. The Contractor shall furnish the City with
documentation of insurer's A.M. Best rating and with original certificates
and a copy of amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily
limited to the, additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance
requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work.
Page5of17
DI.C
f.Subcontractors. The Contractor shall include all subcontractors as
insureds under its policies or sha11 furnish separate certificates and
endorsernents for each subcontractors. All coverages for subcontractors
sha11 be subject to a11 of the same insurance requirements as stated herein
for the Contractor.
g.No Limitation. Contraetor's maintenance of insurance as required by the
agreement sha11 not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to
the covera.ge provided by such insurance, or otherwise.limit the City's
recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
15. Indemnification.
The Contractor shall indemnify defend and hold hazmless the City and its officers,
officials, agents and employees; or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits,
liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of
or arising out of the act or omission of the Contractor, its officers, agents, employees, or
any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of this Agreement. If a final
judgment is rendered against the Gity, its officers, agents, employees and/or any of them,
or jointly against the City and the Contractor and their respective officers, agents and
employees, or any of them, the Contractor sha11 satisfy the same to the extent that such
judgment was due to the Contractor's negligent acts or omissions.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction detemune that this Agreement is subject to
RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodilyinjury to
persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of
the Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the
Contra.ctor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence.
It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided
herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title
51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually
negotiated by the parties. T'he provisions of this section shallsurvive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
16. Assignment.
Neither party to this Agreement, sha11 assign any right or obligation hereunder in whole or
in part, without the prior written consent of the ottier party hereto. No assignment or
transfer of any interest under this Agreement shall be deemed to release the assignor from
any liability or obligadon under this Agreement, or to cause any such liability or
obligation to be reduced to a secondary liability or obligation:
17. Amendment. Modification or Waiver.
No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition, provision or term of this
Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing, signed by the party or
parties to be bound, or such party's or parties' duly authorized representa.tive(s) and
specifying with particularity the nature and extent of such amendment, modification or
waiver. Any waiver by any party of any default of the other party shall not effect or
Page 6 of 17
DI.C
impair any right azising from any subsequent default. Nothing herein shall limit the
remedies or rights of the parties hereto under and pursuant to this Agreement.
18. Termination and Suspension.
Either party may terminate .this Agreement upon written notice to the other party if the
other party fails substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement
through no fault of the party terminating the Agreement.
The City may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven (7) days written notice
to the Contractor if the services provided for herein are no longer needed from the
Contractor. The City may also te'rminate this Agreement immediately if the Contractor
breaches this Agreement or fails to comply with any of its terms or provisions.
If this Agreement is terminated through no fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be
compensated for services performed prior to termination in accordance with the rate of
compensation provided in Exhibit "B" hereof.
19: Parties in Interest.
This Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits and obligations provided for
herein sha11 inure to and bind, the parties hereto and their respective successors and
assigris, provided that this section shall not be deemed to permit any transfer or
assignment otherwise prohibited by this Agreement. This Agreement is for the exclusive
benefit of the parties hereto and it does not create a contractual relationship with or exist
for the benefit of any third party, including contractors, sub-contractors and their sureties.
20. Costs to Prevailing Partv.
In the event of litigation or other legal action to enforce any rights, responsibilities or
obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing parties sha11 be entitled to receive its
reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
21. Applicable Law.
This Agreement and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue for any
action hereunder shall be in King County, Washington; provided, however, that it is
agreed and understood that any applicable statute of limitation shall commence no later
than the substantial completion by the Contractor of the services.
22. Captions, Headings and Titles.'
All captions, headings or titles in the paragraphs or, sections of this Agreement are
inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this
Agreement or act as a limitation of the scope of the particular paragraph or sections to
which they apply. As used herein, where appropriate, the singulaz sha11 include the plural
and vice versa and masculine; feminine and neuter expressions sha11 be interchangeable.
Interpretation or construction of this Agreement shall not be affected by any
determination as to who is the drafter of this Agreement, this Agreement having been
drafted by mutual agreement of the parties.
23. Severable Provisions.
Page 7 of 17
DI.C
Each provision of this Agreement isintended to be severable. If any provision hereof is
illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect
the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
24. Entire Aaeement.
This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto in respect to the
transaetions contemplated hereby and supersedes a11 prior agreements and understandings
between the parties with respect to such subject matter:
25. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which sha11 be one
and the same Agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts haye
been signed by'each of the parties and delivered to the other party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
effective the da.y and year first set forth above.
CITY OF AUBURN CONTRACTOR
Peter B. Lewis; Mayor By:
Attest:
Danielle E. Daskam City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Page 8 of 17
DI.C
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES & SCOPE OF WORK
Scope of Services.
1.The Contractor shall tow, store, protect, and release or otherwise dispose of:
a.Vehicles ordered impounded by the Police Department.
b.Vehicles otherwise ordered to be towed by the City's Police Department.
c.Vehicles requested to be towed by the City's Police Department on behalf of a
vehicle's owner and/or operator, who has no tow company preference. The next
available contractor will be selected from a towing rotation `list of City-licensed
tow companies that have entered into a City of Auburn Agreement for Tow Ca11
Rota.tion List.
d.Any City vehicles requiring towing services upon request of authorized City
personnel.
2.The Contractor sha11 provide such ancillary services as set forth herein, as directed by the
City, including, but not limited to the following:
a.Compliance with all applicable business and business licensing requirements of
the City, State or other governmental body with jurisdiction over activities of the
Contractor and Contractor's business(es); and
b:Prompt/timely payment of all assessments, costs, fees and taxes due in connection
with Contractor's business(es).
3.The Contractor shall have the following equipment on hand for use in performing the
contract:
a.Sufficient Vehicles. Contractor shall have a sufficient number of tow trucks of
adequate size and capacity, together with operating personnel, to respond to requests for
services within the times specified herein, including the following:
i)Class A and Class E Tow Trucks. By ownership, lease, purchase contract,
the Contractor shall have at least one (1) Class A tow truck and one (1)
Class E tow truck with drivers on call af all times.
ii) Class "B" Tow Truck. By ownership, lease , purchase contract, the
Contractor sha11 at a11 times have available the use of a heavy-duty tow
truck as defined by WAC 204-91A-170 relating to Class "B" tow trucks
as now ena.cted or hereafter amended, together with a driver skilled and
licensed in its operation.
iii) Class "C" Tow Truck. By ownership, lease, purchase contract, or
temporary use agreement, the Contractor sha11 at all times have available
the use of a heavy-duty tow truck as defined by WAC 204-91A-170
Page 9 of 17
DI.C
relating to Class "C" tow trucks as now enacted or hereafter amended,
together with a driver skilled and licensed in its operation.
b.Tow Trucks must be approved and certified by the Washington State Patrol as set
forth in WAC 204-91A-050 and170 and vehicles must reflect the appropriate signage per
WAC 308-61-115, and must comply with any other applicable law, statute, or rule as
now enacted or hereafter amended.
c.Telephone. The Contactor shall have telephone equipment and service in proper
working order at its dispatch facility. twenty-four (24) hours per day for sending and
receiving ca11s.
d.Facsimile. The Contractor shall have facsimile equipment and service in proper
working order at its dispatch facility twenty-four (24) hours per day for sending and
receiving facsimiles.
e.Two-Way Communication. The Contractor shall ha.ve two-way communication,
including the following:
i)Radio.The Contractor shall provide two-way radio
communications equipment and service in proper working order between
its dispatch facility and each tow truck used to impound vehicles pursuant
to this Agreement, and/or
ii) Cellular - Phone. The Contractor shall provide two-way cellular
communication equipment and service in proper working condition to its
dispatch facility and to each tow truck used to impound vehicles pursuant
to this Agreement.
4.Facilities. The Contractor sha11 havethe following facilities available for use in
perfornung the contract:
a.Dispatch Facility. The Contractor shall provide a staffed dispatch facility twenty-
four (24) hours per day seven (7) days per week, which sha1T be capable of receiving City
requests for vehicle impound, towing, or redemption; verifying vehicle impounds and
vehicle impound information; and dispatching personnel and equipment to the site of a
requested impound or tow. From 8:00 a,m. to 5:00 p.m., excluding weekends and
holidays, the Contractor shall maintain an in-house dispatcher. From' 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
a.m. the Contractor may utilize a hired dispatch service.
b.Offices and Storage Lot., The Contractor shall, at a11 times, maintain its billing.
offices and a storage lot within the corporate limits of the City of Auburn, and shall
provide its local storage lot complying with all applicable laws, statutes, rules, and
regulations, including zoning regulations, and no more tlian one-half mile walking
distance from a bus route.
c.Delivery. Except as otherwise directed by the City, or its authorized
representative, vehicles impounded pursuant to this Agreement shall be towed directly to
Page 10 of 17
DI.C
the local storage lot. Privately-owned non-impound vehicles shall be towed to the
location specified by the registered owner or other person responsible for the vehicle, or
to the nearest storage lot if no other location is specified.
d.Physical Conditions and Security. The Contractor's storage lot will be kept
surfaced, _ graded, drained, lighted, in accordance with City codes, and free of
obstacles and hazazds at all times, so that persons redeeming vehicles have safe
and convenient access to the vehicles. The Contractor shall provide adequate
security at its storage lot to prevent loss or damage to vehicles or their contents:
All such lots shall be screened and fenced in accordance with state law and city
ordinances, gates sha11 be securely locked at all times when an attendant is not on
duty on the premises, and all vehicles sha1I be locked, if possible. The Contractor
shall also comply to the extent reasonably possible with other or specific requests
for security measures by the Police Department.
e.Sheltered Space. The Contractor shall provide adequa.te shelter at its storage lot
for motorcycles, open convertibles, or other vehicles open and exposed to the :
elements, and will store such vehicles under the shelter when reasonable or
necessary to protect such vehicles.
f.Approval Required. The storage lot will be subject to the initial and continuing
approval of the Chief of Police or designee, with respect to meeting the
requirements of this Agreement. _
5.Personnel. The: qualifications for the Contractor's personnel employed in performing this
Agreement shall be as follows:
a.Skill and Supervision. The Contractor shall employ only persons competent and
skilled in the performance of the work assigned to them and shall provide skilled,
responsible supervisions and training for such persons.
b.License and Insurance Required. Any person operating a tow truck on behalf of
the Contractor shall have a valid Washington Drivers License; shall have all
licenses necessary to operate a tow truck in the State of Wastungton, and shall be
insured according to the terms of this Agreement and legal requirements
applicable to the industry.
c.Courtesy. The Contractor and its agents and employees shall be courteous at a11
times when performing work under this Agreement: The use of abusive, indecent,
offensive, coarse or insulting behavior or lariguage during the performance of this
Agreement shall be deemed a violation of this Agreement.
d.Appearance. During the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor's
personnel shall maintain a professional, personal appearance, sha11 be dressed in
clothing approved by the Contractor, and sha11 be free of excessive dirt, grease,
and grime. The failure of tow truck operators to present themselves in a neat,
clean and professiorial manner while performing pursuant to this Agreement shall
be deemed a breach of this Agreement.
Page 11 of 17
DI.C
6.Procedures. The Contractor shall institute the following procedures in performing the
Agreement:
a.Care and Skill. The Contractor shall use reasonable care and skill in towing
and/or impounding vehicles and will not damage them through lack of reasonable
care.
b.Response Time.. The Contractor shall dispatch a tow lruck to the location
specified by the City immediately upon receiving a request for impound/tow. A v
tow truck of the proper class sha11 arrive at the site of impound/tow within twenty
20) minutes of the time the Contractor receives the impound request. In the
event a Class C tow truck is necessary, a Class C tow truck shall arrive at the site
of the impoundltow within thirty (30) minutes of the request. The' Contractor
sha11 immediately report any delay in response time due to heavy traffic volume
or otherwise.
c.Storage. All vehicles shall be handled and returned in substaritiality the same
condition as they existed before being towed: The Contractor will not store any
towed and/or impounded vehicle on public streets, public property, or any place
other than an approved storage lot.
d.Notice to Legal Owners. When a vehicle is impounded, the Contractor will notify
the legal owners pursuant to the requirements of RCW 46.55.110 and all other
applicable laws, statutes, rules, regulations, or City ordinances as now enacted or
hereafter amended.
e.Contesting the impound.of a vehicle. At the request ofthe person redeeming the
vehicle, the contractor shall supply a completed RTTO Impound Vehicle Request
Form (DLR-430-508), The Contractor sha11 make a representative available to
testify in court when necessary.
This representative shall provide the King County District Court with a written
itemized accounting of tow and impound" charges conforming to the Agreement
rates, together with a copy of all documents generated and in the possession of the
Contractor relating to that tow. The contractor's representative will further testify
and affirm that; A4-all documents provided to the court pursuant to this
Agreement shall be accompanied bv an affidavit ensurin t~ hat -A-ad-the
information contained in such documents is true and correct, that the documents
were prepared in the regular course of business at or neaz the time of the impound.
or the accruing of `other costs of the impound, and that they aze being provided by
the custodian of records of the Contractor.
f.Release of vehicle. If a vehicle has been impounded because the driver had a
suspended license, the Contractor shall not release a vehicle prior to the
termination of any mandatory impound period absent an order from the Auburn
Police Department, the King County District Court, or the Auburn City
Attorney's Office. Prior to releasing any vehicle, the Contra.ctor sha11 verify that
Page 12 of 17
DI.C
the person redeeming the vehicle has a valid Washington Driver's License. The
Contractor shall deliver possession of properly redeemed vehicle not more than
thirty (30) minutes after payment of the impound fee set forth in this Agreement
or required by law.
g.Personal Property. The personal property and contents of towed or' impounded
vehicles shall be handled in the manner required by RCW 46.55.090, WAC 204-
91A-130, and any other applicable law, statute, rule, or regulation, as now enacted
or hereafter amended. The City of Auburn will not accept personal property set
forth in WAC 204=91A-130(1)(a)-(m). The property/evidence officer must be
contacted before any property is brought to the police station. City of Auburn
personnel will not transport the property. Copies of the Vehicle Inventory and
Authorization/Impound forms must accompany the property whensubmitted by
Contractor to the property officer.
h.Abandoned Vehicles. The Contractor sha11 dispose of abandoned vehicles in the
possession of the Contractor pursuant to all applicable laws, statutes, rules and
regulations.
i.Removal of Junk Vehicle or Parts Thereof. Upon receipt of a"Junk Vehicle
Verification, Notification and Affida.vit" form or its equivalent from the Aubum
City Police Department, the Contractor sha11 remove the designated junk vehicles
or parts thereof to a disposal site. Costs of such removal sha11 he recovered by the
Contractor in accordance with RCW 46.55.130 as now enacted or hereafter
amended.
j.Receipt. The Contractor sha11 prepaze a receipt using uniform, sequentially
numbered forms for every impounded vehicle which leaves Contractor's
possession. The Contractor shall deliver one (1) copy of the receipt to the person
to whom the vehicle is delivered and shall keep one (1).copy, filed in the order of
the receipt number: For the purposes hereof, the stored copy may be stored in
electronic format. The receipt shall state:
1) The date and time of delivery to the claimant;
2) The name, address, and Washington State (or other State) driver's license
number of the person to whom it is delivered;
3) The name and address of the employer or principal of such person, if such
person is the agent for the registered owner or purchaser of the vehicle;
4) The name and address of the vehicle's registered owner at the time of
impound, if known;
5) Either:
a) an itemized statement of the impound, storage, and extra charges
collected by the Contractor, if redeemed by payment of chazges; or
Page 13 of 17
DI.C
b) a complete statement of moneys or other consideration paid for the
vehicle if sold;
6) The signature of the person to whom it is delivered acknowledging such
delivery and payment, if any; and
7) The signature of the Contractor's employee making such delivery and
receiving such payment, if any.
k.Records. The Contractor sha11 keep a11 records pertaining to vehicles impoundpd
pursuant to this Agreement for at least three (3) years following the expiration or
termination of the Agreement. The Contractor sha11 keep therecords in an orderly
manner to assure easy access and reference to the records and sha11 'make a11
records available for inspection and copying by the City at a11 times between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and at all other times when
employees having charge of the records are present at Contractor's billing office.
Upon request by the Auburn Police Department or the Auburn _City Attomey's
Office, the Contractor shall provide information of vehicles impounded because
the driver ha.d a suspended license, if that information is known by or has been
provided to the Contia.ctor, which shall include the na.me of the registered owners,
whether the vehicle was redeemed by the owner or by another person, and the
disposition of the vehicle if not redeemed.
1.Removal . of Debris. Unless otherwise directed, the Contractor sha11 at no
additional cost remove from the location of an impound /tow any broken glass or
other debris resulting from a collision involving the vehicle, before towing the
vehicle away. The Contractor shall dispose of a11 such debris in a lawful manner.
M. Complaints. The Contractor shall promptly and courteously respond to
complaints. This shall include furnishing a complainant with contact information
for the Contractor's insurance company and its claims agent if requested.
7.Contractor to Maintain Records to Support Independent Contractor Status. On the
effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), the Contractor shall:
a.File a scfiedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of
business the Contractor conducts;
b.Establish an account with the Washington Staxe Depaertment of Revenue and
other necessary state agencies for the payment of a11 state taxes normally paid by
employers, register to receive a unified business identifier number from the State
of Washington; Report local sales tax as code 1702 (Auburn/King);and
c.Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and
expenses of Contra.ctor's business, all as described in RCW Section 51.08.195, as
required to show that the services performed by Contractor under this Agreement
Page 14 of 17
DI.C
do not give rise to an employer-employee relationship which would be subject to
RCW Title 51, Inclustrial Insurance.
8.Itight to Inspect. The City shall have the right to inspect the Contractor's facilities and
equipment to ensure that the provisions of this Agreement are followed. Inspections shall
occur during normal business hours. The refusal of the Contractor to permit such
inspections shall be a breach of this Agreement and may result in immediate ternunation
by the City.
Page 15 of 17
DI.C
EXFIIBIT B
COMPENSATION
Charges by the Contractor for towing, storage, and other services pursuant to this Agreement
shall not exceed the following amounts:
TRUCK RATES; (Per Hour)
CLASS A,D&E 160.00 Rotator $224.00
Class B 194.00 Rotator $270.00
Class B**261.00 Rotator $364.00
30,000 pounds (lbs.) Crross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), or more, with air brakes)
Class C 339.00 Rotator$472.00
Class S 1 567.00 40+Ton Rotator
The term "rotator" applies to any approved vehicle that has a, rotaxing boom. The
cost of usirig a rotator, other than the S 1 will be its class rate plus 40 percent. Rotator
rates sha11 only apply if:
The services are specifically requested by the legal or registered owner of the
vehicle, or the officer in charge of the scene at the time of dispatch.
After being dispatched to the scene, the tow operator, legal or registered owner of
the vehicle, andlor the officer in charge of the scene agree to the cost and benefits
of the use of the rotator and the rotator is actually used in the recovery:
The 30,000 lbs. GVWR or more with air brakes rates apply only if the vehicle
being towed has a GVWR between 26,000 lbs. and 33;000 lbs.
Class E& S rates shall have a maximum rate appropriate for its GVWR and be consistent
with the above schedule. For example, if an "E" or "S" truck has a GVWR of 17,000 lbs.
or more, Class "B" rates will apply if hauling Class "B" loads. Class "A" rates apply if
hauling Class "A" loads.
Storage Rate: $41.00 per day
Storage: Storage rates sha11 follow the guidelines set forth in WAC 204-91A-140.
Hourly Labor: Extra Registered Tow Truck Operator (RTO) Employee/Driver
80.00 (per hour). Based on %Z the current Class A Truck Rate; must have
supporting documentation showing continuous employment.)
Casual Labor: Charges based on cost (must have supporting documentation) plus 25
percent mark-up.
Auxiliary Equipment;; Charges based upon the actual cost of equipment (must have
supporting receipt) plus 20 percent mark-up.
Page 16 of 17
DI.C
Handling and Disposing of Hazardous Materials: Charges based upon cost of
handling and disposing (must ha.ve supporting documentation) plus 20 percent mark-
up.
Fee for Absorbent Materials: Tow opera.tors will receive an additional $5.00 per hour
fee for carrying and use of absorbent material for fluid spills. This fee will be granted
whether the material is used or not. This fee is included in the hourly rates listed
above.
Future Increases: The Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton area Consumer Price Index for all
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) - Transportation expenditure category will be utilized for
future increases/decreases in truck and storage rates. Said increasesidecreases will be
to the nearest whole dollaz and shall be made automatically on October 15 of each
year, unless either party demands to meet and confer about price increases/decreases.
The annual review and increase/decrease will be based on the unadjusted CPI-U
Transporfation from June of the current year. In accordance with RCW 46:55.063,
any changes to the contractor's fee schedule must be filed with "the Department of
Licensing and must be in accordance with Auburn City Ordinance No. 61101
provided that such change shall not take efFect until ten (10) da.y after notification to
the Chief of Police and the City Of Auburn Clerks office.
Extra EquipmentlManpower: The registered or legal owner of a vehicle, the
contractor and/or the officer in charge of the scene, where it is clearly apparent that
additional manpower andlor auxiliary equipment is needed, must authorize extra
labor or equipinent as outlined in WAC 204-91A-140(d).
Application of Rate Maximums: These rate maximums shall apply whether the
services are provided as a result of "primary" (initial) or "secondary" tows as defined
in WAC 204-91A-030.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17 of this Agreement, the City may, by
unilateral action, prepare and adopt an addendum revising these rates at any time to
reflect the maximum rates for such services esta.blished by the Chief of the Sta.te Patrol
pursuant to Washington Administrative Code Section 204-91A-140.
Page 17 of 17
DI.C
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Auburn Valley Humane Society: Project Schedule
Date:
January 4, 2012
Department:
Human Resources/Risk &
Property Mgmt
Attachments:
Schedule Update
Updated Schedule
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
An update of the schedule.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Heineman
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.D
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D
DI.D
DI.D
DI.D
DI.D
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
December 14, 2011
Department: Attachments:
Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:January 9, 2012 Item Number:DI.F
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.F
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
C
O
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
-
G
O
A
L
M
A
T
R
I
X
NO
.
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
L
E
A
D
C
O
S
T
R
E
V
I
E
W
D
A
T
E
ES
T
.
C
O
M
P
L
.
DA
T
E
ST
A
T
U
S
10P
R
e
d
L
i
g
h
t
P
h
o
t
o
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
B
o
b
L
e
e
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
:
Ja
n
(
P
r
e
v
O
c
t
-
D
e
c
)
;
Ap
r
i
l
(
P
r
e
v
J
a
n
-
M
a
r
)
;
Ju
l
y
(
P
r
e
v
A
p
r
-
J
u
n
e
)
;
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
S
e
p
t
)
2n
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
th
e
m
o
n
t
h
.
Re
v
i
s
e
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
u
n
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
20
P
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
R
e
s
c
u
e
B
r
e
n
d
a
H
e
i
n
e
m
a
n
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
6
/
2
1
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
.
5
y
e
a
r
I
L
A
f
o
r
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
O
n
9
/
1
9
/
1
1
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
4
7
4
7
f
o
r
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
(
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
,
2
0
1
2
w
i
t
h
a
c
t
u
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
,
2
0
1
3
.
)
24
P
F
i
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
B
o
b
L
e
e
On
-
G
o
i
n
g
MS
C
h
e
l
d
a
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
n
1
0
/
2
0
/
1
1
.
M
a
y
o
r
Le
w
i
s
t
o
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
m
e
e
t
i
n
w
i
t
h
M
I
T
.
26
P
G
r
a
f
f
i
t
i
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
H
o
t
l
i
n
e
P
h
o
n
e
N
o
.
93
1
-
3
0
4
8
E
x
t
.
7
27
P
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
L
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
K
e
v
i
n
S
n
y
d
e
r
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
:
Ja
n
(
P
r
e
v
O
c
t
-
D
e
c
)
;
Ap
r
i
l
(
P
r
e
v
J
a
n
-
M
a
r
)
;
Ju
l
y
(
P
r
e
v
A
p
r
-
J
u
n
e
)
;
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
S
e
p
t
)
2n
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
th
e
m
o
n
t
h
28
P
S
o
l
i
d
W
a
s
t
e
R
a
t
e
R
e
v
i
e
w
S
h
e
l
l
e
y
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
2
Re
v
i
e
w
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
CP
I
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
H
a
s
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
R
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
l
d
o
n
e
i
t
'
s
jo
b
?
T
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
a
s
a
g
o
a
l
w
i
l
l
p
u
r
s
u
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
10
%
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
c
r
o
s
s
-
se
c
t
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
i
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
.
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
MS
W
M
A
C
i
n
p
u
t
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
C
O
A
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
i
t
w
i
l
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
d
i
r
e
c
t
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
w
i
ll
be
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
2
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
J
u
n
e
.
29
P
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
P
l
a
n
s
Sh
e
l
l
e
y
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
4
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
:
Ja
n
(
P
r
e
v
O
c
t
-
D
e
c
)
;
Ap
r
i
l
(
P
r
e
v
J
a
n
-
M
a
r
)
;
Ju
l
y
(
P
r
e
v
A
p
r
-
J
u
n
e
)
;
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
S
e
p
t
)
2n
d
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
f
th
e
m
o
n
t
h
.
Co
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
1/
9
/
1
2
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
30
P
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
d
i
a
n
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
B
r
e
n
d
a
H
e
i
n
e
m
a
n
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
NO
.
I
T
E
M
O
F
I
N
T
E
R
E
S
T
3
I
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
a
r
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
R
a
n
d
y
B
a
i
l
e
y
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
D
e
c
)
,
Ju
l
y
(
P
r
e
v
J
a
n
-
J
u
n
e
)
9
I
P
o
l
i
c
e
C
h
a
p
l
a
i
n
'
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
B
o
b
L
e
e
Ch
a
r
t
e
r
i
s
-
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
h
i
c
h
C
h
a
p
l
a
i
n
s
f
o
r
P
D
an
d
V
R
F
A
b
e
l
o
n
g
-
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
f
o
r
"
p
e
t
t
y
c
a
s
h
"
f
o
r
Ch
a
p
l
a
i
n
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
La
s
t
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
a
t
e
:
1
/
3
/
1
2
e:
\
m
a
y
o
r
\
P
D
F
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
.
2
1
6
8
.
1
.
M
a
t
r
i
x
_
1
-
3
-
1
2
.
x
l
s
DI.F