HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/3/2026 Item 7a, Walker
kathie walker <
To:E-mail Council Website; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike;
Shoresman, Michelle
Subject:Laguna Lake Golf Course, Item 7a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
I am writing to provide analysis in advance of the upcoming Study Session on the Laguna Lake Golf
Course. Based on the City’s own financial and operational data, I urge the Council to reconsider the
selective scrutiny being applied to this facility while it remains in a compromised operating condition.
1. Superior Financial Performance Compared to Other City Facilities
The argument that the golf course warrants special scrutiny based on “financial sustainability” is
contradicted by the City’s FY 2024–25 data. When compared to other major City-owned recreational
facilities:
Laguna Lake Golf Course: 45% cost recovery; $459,140 annual subsidy
Damon-Garcia Sports Complex: 34% cost recovery; $317,982 annual subsidy
SLO Swim Center: 28% cost recovery; $1,024,865 annual subsidy
Laguna Lake Golf Course has the highest cost recovery rate among these facilities. Notably, the Swim
Center requires a subsidy more than $565,000 greater than the golf course, yet it is not subject to similar
scrutiny. This raises legitimate questions about why the City’s most fiscally efficient recreational asset is
being singled out.
2. Deferred Maintenance Has Artificially Suppressed Performance
Any assessment of performance must account for the City’s prolonged failure to restore basic
functionality:
Pro Shop: Flooded in December 2021, forcing operations into a temporary trailer and eliminating
revenue from full retail, food service, rentals, events, and community gatherings.
Bridge Access: Damaged during the January 2023 storms and still closed, restricting access, limiting
tournaments and programming, and degrading the user experience.
Capital Projects on Hold: The bridge ($600,000) and Pro Shop ($250,000) projects are included in the
Capital Improvement Program but remain on hold pending Council direction.
Studying Laguna Lake Golf Course before fixing the bridge and clubhouse is like evaluating a public
transit line after closing half the stops and then citing low ridership. The conclusions will reflect the
imposed constraints, not the asset’s true value. By withholding these repairs, the City has suppressed
1
revenue potential and then cited that suppressed performance as justification for further study. Despite
these obstacles, golf course revenues have increased substantially over the past two fiscal years,
demonstrating resilience and unrealized potential.
3. Misinterpretation of City Policy
Advocacy for housing conversion, such as the letter submitted by the SLO Tenants Union, incorrectly
cites the Parks and Recreation Blueprint to justify replacing the golf course. Policy 2.6 explicitly directs
the City to “continue to manage the golf course for its primary use.” The policy actually encourages
exploration of complementary uses (such as walking loops, disc golf, or additional community
programming), not elimination of the facility or conversion to high-density housing.
Using Policy 2.6 to support wholesale replacement of the golf course is a misreading of the City’s
adopted policy framework.
4. Public Input and Process Integrity
What concerns me is not that there are differing opinions, it is how those opinions are being weighed.
Approximately 90 letters submitted in advance of this Study Session support restoring the golf course,
yet one of only two opposing letters advances a fully developed proposal that relies on the facility
remaining in a degraded condition. That letter was submitted at the last minute and urges the City to
further delay repairs in favor of additional study.
I also want to raise a concern regarding process and transparency. While I support the goal of ensuring
safe and affordable housing for residents, I note that the organization submitting that letter is a relatively
recent group formed at the urging of a sitting Councilmember who has been a primary advocate for
initiating this study session. The organization is also working with that same Councilmember on a
proposed “free” mediation program, funded by taxpayer money, affiliated with the law school where she
previously served as dean and remains professionally connected.
Two weeks from now, Council will be asked to decide how to allocate a $3.5 million surplus of one-time
funds, including the Councilmember’s request to fund that mediation program. Even if each of these
actions is technically permissible on its own, the overlap in timing, roles, and advocacy creates a
reasonable appearance that certain positions are being amplified through aligned relationships, while
overwhelming resident input in favor of restoring the golf course is marginalized.
This raises legitimate questions about whether the public process is functioning neutrally and
transparently. If Councilmembers discussed potential golf course reuse with the SLO Tenants Union
outside of the public process, those discussions should be disclosed.
Bottom line: This proposal for reuse of the golf course likely would not even exist if the bridge and
clubhouse had been repaired years ago. The City should restore basic functionality and allow the course
to operate as intended. Anything less risks drawing conclusions from circumstances the City itself
created.
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
2
3