January 2, 2004

To:       Sean Sweeney

            Golf Course Coordinator

            San Francisco Recreation and Park Department

From:   John Plummer, Friends of Lake Merced

c.c.:      Mary King-Gorsky

            Margaret McArthur

Subject:   Performance of the renovated Harding Park Golf Course

It has been a heritage of Lake Merced, one of which we are quite proud, that it provide a natural and recreational resource that is enjoyed by the entire community.  Perhaps no other facility in the City attracts a wider array, or greater number, of area residents.  Golfing joins rowing, sail boating, fishing, bird watching, walking, jogging, cycling, roller-blading, and other recreational activities as well, that attract thousands of visitors each month.

When the renovation of Harding Park was first announced, together with a greatly enlarged fee schedule, we were concerned that area residents who can not afford the luxuries of the Olympic Club or other private courses in the area might be excluded from this new facility.  It seems that our fears were well founded.

Thanks to the efforts of Mary King-Gorwky, with a little encouragement from Margaret McArthur, I have been provided detailed rounds and revenue data for the renovated Harding Park Golf Course for the first three months of its operation, September through November.  Similar data was provided for the same three months in 2001, the period just preceding shutdown.  I would like to review a few observations on this data with you.

Reporting categories are not the same for the two years, and actually seem to have changed during 2001.  While that is in part understandable from the point of view of changing fee schedules, it does make accountability more difficult.  The groupings that I have assumed are indicated in the attached Excel file.  However, since the major groupings have remained the same, treatment of the smaller groups makes little difference to the conclusions.

The first observation is that the total number of rounds is down about 25% for the year-to-year comparison for these three months.  That may well be the result of a planned reduction in use in order to protect the virginal golf course surface.  Whether this reduction is at, above or below plan can not be determined, as although I requested the plan numbers none have been provided.  One hopes that there was a plan, but one can not be sure.

The distribution of this reduction is however far from uniform.  Non-resident use is up 40.41%, resident use is down 37.91%.  More important, the groups most likely to need a low-cost facility, Seniors and Juniors, indicate even greater discrepancies.  Weekday Senior use is down 66.83%, and weekend Senior use is down even more, 83.29%.  Weekday Junior use is down 65.00%.  Weekend Junior use, where the rates apparently have not changed, is down just 14.29%.  If we group Junior use into a single category, as was done in 2001, then weekend Junior use is actually up 21.98%.

Two conclusions seem apparent from this data.  First, underserved communities intended to be the beneficiaries of the Open Space Fund have been most dramatically affected by the use of this fund to support renovation of the Harding Park Golf Course.  Second, use by these groups is quite sensitive to the fee schedule, as demonstrated by the increased rate of use by Juniors when the fees had not been increased.

In as much as Senior and Junior revenues from all categories combined account for less that 6% of total revenues it would seem possible that these fees could be adjusted downward without making a significant impact on overall financial performance.

Mary King-Gorwky’s e-mail to me stated “We’ve brought forward changes to access policies to improve access for non-residents.”  This seems a bit ironic, as this is the only class that has shown a significant increase in participation.  Perhaps emphasis now is on the operation of Harding Park as a revenue source rather than as a facility committed to encouraging community participation.  I hope that if so this emphasis can be changed.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter, together with the supporting data, to the Recreation Committee of the Lake Merced Task Force.  Perhaps you might work with them to develop a program to encourage resident Senior and Junior use of the Harding Park facility.

Another point:  In that same e-mail, in response to a question regarding the distribution of funds generated by Harding Park Golf Course, Mary King-Gorwky observed, “I don't see there being
any funds left within the next 5 - 7 years for the bottom leg of the waterfall.”  That ‘bottom leg’ of course represents a commitment made when the renovation was funded to provide ongoing support for the renovation of the Lake Merced periphery.  This seems a rather cavalier dismissal of a commitment we were encouraged to accept in good faith.  I hope that you will see what can be done to improve on this predicted performance.

Please let me know if you have any questions.