Bid Selection Task Force
March13, 2006
Chapman, Carolyn Chrone, Beverly Rhyan, Margaret
Hanson
Also present: Rob McDaniel, Frank Miller, Ed Robinson, Betty Ann Preston
Charlie reviewed the presentation to the CA Board workshop on March 9. The presentation provided details on the progress of the Task Force and the current status of the project. Few questions were asked and Charlie felt the presentation was well received.
One issue discussed was the timing of the planned negotiations with the management company selected and whether the negotiations would be completed in time for the finance committee to finalize a budget for 2007. Ann Dodson indicated that she thought that would not be a problem.
Maintenance of “non-golf” areas was discussed. Currently, for the purpose of routine maintenance, Fred Yates indicated that “golf areas” are defined as “… everything inside of the perimeter sprinkler heads”. This does include some of the rough as some sprinkler heads are placed in these areas. Any maintenance performed by golf maintenance personnel on areas outside the golf perimeter is billed separately as part of “property and grounds” and is charged to the CA, not to golf operations. A track record of such maintenance is available for review. It was decided that maintenance of these areas should be addressed in a separate contract which could be held either by the golf management company or another outside company.
Maintenance of “Level 4” areas was discussed. By definition, Level 4 areas are “no maintenance” unless there is an issue of safety involved. Examples of level 4 maintenance include clearing of underbrush and cutting trees near holes #15 and #16 on White Wing to improve resident’s view and clearing of downed trees on #18 on White Wing. Both of these activities were done by an outside contractor hired and paid by Pulte.
Preliminary results of the resident survey were presented. To date, 285 surveys have been returned. The deadline for returning surveys is March 15. A final summary of data will be compiled as soon as possible and the information used to complete portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The data summary also will be posted on the Task Force website.
Charlie reviewed the responses to the Request for Information letter sent to prospective bidders. To date, two written responses have been received (Casper and Century). In addition, Charlie has spoken with two other management companies, Western and EAGL. Both have expressed an interest in bidding and will submit a written response in the near future. To date, no response has been received from OB Sports or Troon. It was decided to wait until after March 15 to see if responses are received from these companies. If no response is received, the companies will be contacted to determine their interest in bidding.
Casper requested some addition information concerning the history of SCT and the club structure. It was felt that these questions could be addressed in a short paragraph included in the RFP.
An additional company, OnCourse Solutions, has indicated an interested in bidding on the management contract. The company operates out of Austin and is relatively new. They do manage the Forest Creek golf course. It was decided that Oncourse Solutions should be added to the list of companies who will receive an RFP.
Dennis presented a summary of utility charges for the White Wing and Legacy Hills clubhouses for 2005.
Monthly electric charges, by meter, were reviewed. Currently the CA allocates 50% of the utility charges to golf and 50% to the restaurants which share the facilities. The meter at Legacy Hills includes both golf and restaurant usage. The cart barn at Legacy Hills is very similar in usage to the one at White Wing. Both include an ice machine and a ball washer as well as chargers for golf carts. The cart barn at White Wing is on a separate meter and can be used to determine the actual electrical usage by the golf operation. Based on the usage at White Wing, it was estimated that the actual cost for electricity related to the cart barns is significantly less than the 50% allocated in the CA budget. It was decided that this analysis will be presented to the finance committee with a request that the utility allocation be adjusted to more fairly represent usage. The finance committee has been requested to meet with the Task Force on Monday 3/20 do discuss issues related to financial concerns.
A draft version of the RFP had been distributed to Task Force members prior to the meeting. This draft was discussed with corrections, additions, etc submitted to Lynn Chapman for updating. Several issues were discussed at length to determine how they should be addressed in the final version of the RFP. Mr. Robinson and Ms Preston provided valuable input on how to approach several of the issues in question. A revised draft of the RFP will be distributed to the Task Force members for review prior to the next scheduled meeting.