Golf Facilities in the U.S.
2019 EDITION
THE PRAIRIE CLUB, VALENTINE, NEBRASKA
Z2017000338 2019 GOLF FACILITIES REPORT
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 2 Regional Summary – New England...... 4 Regional Summary – Middle Atlantic ...... 5 Regional Summary – East North Central...... 6 Regional Summary – West North Central...... 7 Regional Summary – South Atlantic...... 8 Regional Summary – East South Central...... 9 Regional Summary – West South Central ...... 10 Regional Summary – Mountain ...... 11 Regional Summary – Pacific...... 12 Table 1 Golf Development Projects Summary (18-HEQ)...... 13 Table 2 Under Construction and In Planning by State/Region (18-HEQ)...... 14 Table 3 New Openings by State (18-HEQ)...... 15 Table 4 New Openings in Detail (18-HEQ)...... 15 Table 5 Closures by State (18-HEQ)...... 16 Table 6 Closures in Detail (18-HEQ)...... 16 Table 7 Supply Summary (Facilities) ...... 17 Table 8 Total Supply by State/Region (Facilities)...... 18 Table 9 Public Supply by State/Region (Facilities)...... 19 Table 10 Private Supply by State/Region (Facilities)...... 20 Table 11 Real Estate and Resort Supply by State/Region (Facilities)...... 21 Table 12 Supply Summary by Course Length (18-HEQ)...... 22 Table 13 Total Supply by Course Length by State/Region (Total Holes and 18-HEQ)...... 23 Table 14 Public Supply by Course Length by State/Region (Total Holes and 18-HEQ)...... 24 Table 15 Private Supply by Course Length by State/Region (Total Holes and 18-HEQ)...... 25 Table 16 Real Estate and Resort Supply by Course Length by State/Region (18-HEQ)...... 26 Table 17 Golf Accessibility by State/Region...... 27 Table 18 Golf Accessibility by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)...... 28
Z2017000338 Definitions Golf course: A tract of land containing at least 9, and typically, 18 holes of golf. Regulation course: A course with a variety of par 3, par 4 and par 5 holes with a par rating typically between 67 and 72 for 18 holes. Executive course: A shorter version of the regulation golf course with a par rating typically between 60 and 66 for 18 holes. An executive course is generally built on a more compact tract of land as compared to a regulation course. Par-3 course: A course comprising only (or solely) par-3 holes. An 18-hole par-3 golf course has a par rating of 54. Golf facility: A business location where golf can be played on one or more golf courses. Public facility: A golf facility that is open to the public, all or part of the time. It includes daily fee and municipal facilities, and may offer memberships. Daily Fee facility: A privately owned golf facility that provides public access and may or may not offer memberships. A subset of public facilities. Daily Fee facilities that provide only limited public access are sometimes referred to as “semi-private” golf facilities. Municipal facility: A subset of public facilities, owned by a tax-supported entity such as a city, county or state and open to the public at all times. Private facility: A golf facility where play is restricted to members and their guests. Real Estate-related facility: A golf facility located in and considered an integral part of a real estate development. Resort facility: A golf facility located in a setting that usually includes other amenities such as tennis, swimming, gym facilities, etc. and is situated in conjunction with a hotel or motel. Real Estate/Resort facility: A golf facility that combines the features of a real estate development facility and a resort. 18-hole equivalent (18-HEQ): A measure of golf supply calculated by taking the total number of golf holes and dividing by 18. For example, one 18-hole golf course equals one 18-hole equivalent. Two 9-hole golf courses equal one 18-hole equivalent. Multi-course operator (MCO): A management company that operates two or more facilities. Golf Development: A new golf facility or course, or an addition to an existing course, that is currently in one of the following states of development: Renovation: A construction project at a golf facility where a minimum of nine holes is temporarily closed for at least three months to conduct the work. Proposed: The project is contemplated and the developer is identified. The project is at the point where the architect, civil and construction engineers might be selected, and the plans are in a state of refinement. Courses in planning: Specifications are being written and key product decisions are being made. Upon completion of the final plans and specifications, the owner will begin taking bids. Courses under construction: The general contract and subcontracts for the course have been awarded. Work has started and ground has been broken. Open: The course is now available and ready for play. Golfers (On-Course Golfers): Individuals ages 6 and above who played at least one round of golf on a golf course during the survey year.
© 2019 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION FRONT COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF THE PRAIRIE CLUB
Z2017000338 2019 GOLF FACILITIES REPORT
Introduction Market correction has been a familiar refrain in the golf Golf Supply - By the Numbers course industry, but the big-picture reality is that it’s (As of December 31, 2018) been more of a slow and steady trickle of closures than a deluge. Courses Facilities Total Number 16,693 14,613 The United States remains the world’s best-supplied golf Public 12,354 10,905 market, by far, boasting 43% of courses globally. Daily Fee 9,483 8,390 At the end of 2018, there were 14,613 golf facilities in the Municipal 2,871 2,515 U.S. with 16,693 courses, a net reduction of 1.2% in both Private 4,339 3,708 categories from 2017. The number of course closures has outweighed new Resort 1,537 1,160 openings for 13 consecutive years during the ongoing Real Estate 3,925 3,216 balancing of supply and demand. Since 2006, the cumulative reduction in the number of U.S. golf courses 9-Hole 5,833 3,869 (18-HEQ) is 8%. By comparison, there was a 44% increase 18-Hole 10,860 9,390 in the number of courses from 1986 through 2005. It was 27+-Hole 1,354 an unprecedented period of growth that coincided with a Openings 12.5 (18-HEQ) robust economy, a surge of interest driven in part by the Closures 198.5 (18-HEQ) play (and popularity) of Tiger Woods, and the desire to Re-Opened after 79.0 (18-HEQ) build golf courses to help sell homes. Renovation Now, the demand for land to develop residential and commercial real estate is influencing the supply Population per course/ 19,607 22,398 facility correction in golf. Closures tend to be more value- oriented, public facilities in the best-supplied areas; Florida, Texas, Ohio, California and New York had the layouts such as Mammoth Dunes and the 17-hole most closures in 2018 and all rank among the top six Sandbox par-3 course at the Sand Valley Golf Resort states with the most golf courses. in Nekoosa, Wisconsin; Sage Run at the Island Resort and Casino on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula; the Ohoopee Overall, the industry experienced the permanent closure Match Club in Cobbtown, Georgia; and Ozarks National of 198.5 courses (as measured in 18-hole equivalents), at Big Cedar Lodge in Hollister, Missouri. Four of those seven fewer than the previous year. five are open to the public. There were 12.5 (18-HEQ) new openings, down from Approximately 75 percent of all U.S. golf courses are 15.5 the previous two years. open to all players, matching the highest public-to-private Much of the new construction is found off the beaten ratio in history. The nationwide municipal facility count path. Almost half (46%) of the new 18-hole courses that hit a record-high 2,515 in 2018, an increase attributable have opened in the U.S. over the past five years were to some public agencies acquiring former privately- built more than 50 miles from a major city (population owned properties to control land use and/or to offer as 50,000+). In 2018, this group included highly-regarded an amenity to local residents.
2 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 High-end courses get a lot of attention, yet the game on At 15% of overall supply, it remains close to an all-time the whole is affordable, with an average price of $35 for high for the industry, although the majority of facilities are an 18-hole public round in the U.S. This cost is based still under independent management. on the average public, peak season weekend greens There are 44 management companies that operate 10 or fee with cart, adjusted for discounts such as weekday more facilities. rates, junior/senior discounts, walking, and time of day. Excluding resort courses, the average greens fee drops Facilities vs Courses vs 18-HEQ to $31. The NGF’s facility count looks at doors – a business While new course construction remains very limited, location where golf can be played at one or more golf investment within the industry is noteworthy. Over the courses. So, properties like Bandon Dunes Golf Resort in past 13 years, there have been an estimated 1,200 major Oregon or Bethpage State Park in New York are counted renovation projects that have resulted in more than $3.5 as one facility, but have five unique courses served by a billion of investment. This figure accounts only for major single clubhouse. overhauls – projects in which a minimum of nine holes The NGF counts a course as a tract of land that has at were closed for at least three months – and doesn’t factor least nine holes of golf and typically 18. in the minor rehabilitation projects occurring throughout the industry intended to make courses more playable and The terms “facility” and “course” are occasionally used enjoyable. interchangeably both in and out of the golf industry, but they can be quite different. An equipment company may The outlook for 2019 is expected to be similar to recent look at how many facilities it works with from a sales years, with the closure of approximately 1% to 1.5% of the perspective, while a golf travel business or the public in total supply in a further balancing of supply and demand. general might be more focused on courses. New course openings will be limited in a competitive environment – approximately 10 to 20 nationally – while As for 18-hole equivalent, this is a measure of supply major renovation projects continue to be the significant based on 18 holes. For example, one 18-hole golf course form of investment in the market, strengthening the equals one 18-hole equivalent, while two 9-hole golf existing supply. courses also equal one 18-hole equivalent. A golf facility with 27 holes can have a variety of There are 2,122 total golf facilities managed by multi- measurements. While it’s a single facility, it might have course operators. An MCO is a third-party management three separate courses (all nine holes) and is considered company that operates two or more facilities. 1.5 18-HEQ. This is also why there are “half-course” increments in the openings and closures sections, Golf Facility because some facilities might add a second nine-hole Management 15% course after previously building the first or downsize from 18 holes to nine. The NGF originally counted only facilities in its earliest Multi-Course Operator record-keeping, focusing solely on the number (MCO) 85% of businesses in the game. Because the various measurements mean different things to different Independent stakeholders in the industry, these differences are being highlighted a bit further for clarity and transparency.
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 3
Z2017000338 Connecticut | Maine | Massachusetts | NEW ENGLAND New Hampshire | Rhode Island | Vermont
From quaint seaside towns and mountain lakes to gently rolling hills and KEY colorful fall foliage, there’s a quiet beauty to golf in New England. There’s also a Public courses decidedly historic feel in some parts of the region, given the area’s deep roots. Private clubs Massachusetts features more than a third of New England’s courses, with 382 in total. There are recognizable old-school names in the Boston area such as The Country Club, where the U.S. claimed the 1999 Ryder Cup in the Battle of Brookline, and modern layouts like Old Sandwich and Boston Golf Club. Nearby Cape Cod also has a wealth of incredible golf, with operators reliant on demand from visiting and seasonal golfers similar to markets such as Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and Naples, Florida.
Renowned golf course architect Donald Ross grew up in Scotland, but got his first job in the U.S. in Massachusetts. Ross went on to build or re-design more than 300 courses nationwide, including almost 50 in Massachusetts and many others in the surrounding New England area.
Connecticut is home to 193 golf courses, among them the highly-regarded Yale Golf Course built by Charles Blair MacDonald that’s recognized as one of the finest examples of early American design as well as one of the Courses Facilities nation’s top college courses. Total Number in Region 955 893 Connecticut 193 172 Maine 138 136 Massachusetts 382 357 New Hampshire 112 104 Rhode Island 59 58 Vermont 71 66
Total Public by Greens Fee 682 639 Premium (> $70) 138 115 Standard ($40-70) 287 275 Value (< $40) 257 249
Number of Daily Fee 566 534 Number of Municipal 116 105
Number of Private 273 254 Number of Resort/Real Estate 129 118
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 376 317 18-Hole 579 528 27-Hole + 48
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 1 New Openings 0 Closures 8.5
Sunday River Country Club in Newry, Maine. Demand (in millions) Estimated number of golfers 1.2 Estimated total Rounds Played 20 Population (6+) 14
DID YOU Maine, which has 138 golf courses, is one of only seven states that has more layouts of 9 holes than the standard 4 18. Five of the other states are in the West North Central region (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota), while the last is Alaska. KNOW? Z2017000338 MIDDLE ATLANTIC New Jersey | New York | Pennsylvania
For a region comprised of only three states, albeit heavily-populated ones, the Middle Atlantic boasts some of the finest golf in the United States – from upstate New York to Long Island and the hills of Western Pennsylvania to the Jersey Shore.
New York has the fourth-most golf courses (866) of any U.S. state, behind only Florida, California, and Michigan, and there’s a diversity similar to that found in the nation’s most populous city. Long Island has long been a hotbed of golf, one that ranges from historically significant private clubs like Shinnecock Hills and National Golf Links of America to one of the game’s grandest municipal facilities: Bethpage State Park and its five courses of varying color.
With a wealth of old-school and modern era clubs located around the bustling metropolitan centers of New York City and Philadelphia, the Middle Atlantic KEY has one of the highest concentrations of private Public courses facilities in the country -- 514 in total. There is also Private clubs plenty of affordable golf in the region, as 85% of the 1,324 public courses have a greens fee of $70 or less.
Pennsylvania isn’t too far behind New York with its 705 Courses Facilities golf courses, the seventh-most in the U.S., while New Total Number in Region 1,902 1,686 New Jersey 331 281 Jersey has 331. Given its population, New Jersey may New York 866 770 be among the most under-supplied states in terms of Pennsylvania 705 635 public golf, with the third-highest population per 18 Total Public by Greens Fee 1,324 1,172 holes in the country. Premium (> $70) 197 153 Standard ($40-70) 500 441 Value (< $40) 627 578
Number of Daily Fee 1043 937 Number of Municipal 281 235
Number of Private 578 514 Number of Resort/Real Estate 273 234
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 586 372 18-Hole 1,316 1,173 27-Hole + 141
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 4.5 New Openings 0 Closures 19.5 The par-3 12th hole at Shepherd’s Rock, part of the Nemacolin Demand (in millions) Woodlands Resort in Farmington, Pennsylvania. Estimated number of golfers 3 Estimated total Rounds Played 41 Population (6+) 39
DID YOU Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx borough of New York lays claim to being the oldest public U.S. golf course. The original nine holes opened in 1895 and were built at a cost of $624.80. The first eight holes were all less than 5 200 yards, while the ninth played approximately 700 yards and crossed two stone walls and two small brooks. KNOW? Z2017000338 EAST NORTH CENTRAL Illinois | Indiana | Ohio | Michigan | Wisconsin
From top to bottom, this region might be the richest for golf of any in the nation, extending from the scenic shores of Lake Michigan to the sand-swathed center of Wisconsin and the golf hotbed that is Ohio (the home of Jack Nicklaus).
It’s a diverse area, both from a climate and topographic standpoint, and four of the five states in the East North Central rank among the top 10 nationally in the total number of courses. Michigan is third nationwide with 910, followed by Ohio (730), Illinois (677) and Wisconsin (549). Indiana has a healthy 444 in total.
What’s particularly noteworthy is that for all the great private clubs in and around cities like Chicago and Columbus, 82% of the 3,310 courses in this region are open to public play.
There were more 2018 course openings in this region than any other, including three in Michigan – among them the South Course at Arcadia Bluffs -- and two at Wisconsin’s Sand Valley Resort: Mammoth Dunes and a 17-hole, par-3 layout called The Sandbox.
With its wealth of golf options, the East North Central also had the most course closures of any region in 2018, with 62 (47 18-hole equivalent). Twenty of those were in Ohio, which is better known for its course builders, as the home state to architects such as Nicklaus, Pete Dye, Arthur Hills, Michael Hurdzan and Mike Strantz.
Courses Facilities Total Number in Region 3,310 2,865 Illinois 677 611 Indiana 444 393 Michigan 910 749 Ohio 730 645 Wisconsin 549 467 KEY Total Public by Greens Fee 2,715 2,332 Public courses Premium (> $70) 210 145 Private clubs Standard ($40-70) 997 833 Value (< $40) 1508 1354
Number of Daily Fee 2,155 1,846 Number of Municipal 560 486
Number of Private 595 533 Number of Resort/Real Estate 634 511
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 1,135 672 18-Hole 2,175 1,918 27-Hole + 275
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 4.5 New Openings 4.5 Closures 47
The Bay Harbor Golf Club in Petoskey, Michigan. Demand (in millions) Estimated number of golfers 4.1 Estimated total Rounds Played 78 Population (6+) 43
DID YOU Tiger Woods and his TGR Design team are the lead architects on a project to redevelop two golf courses in downtown 6 Chicago. The project, which is on the banks of Lake Michigan and features views of the city skyline, will have an 18-hole championship course and a shorter family course. KNOW? Z2017000338 Iowa | Kansas | Minnesota | Missouri | WEST NORTH CENTRAL Nebraska | North Dakota | South Dakota
This seven-state region in the middle of the country is primarily land-locked, save for a section of Minnesota on Lake Superior, and is home to more 9-hole golf courses than any other – more than KEY 1,000 in total. Public courses The West North Central is the western half of the U.S. Census Private clubs Bureau’s larger region of the Midwest, with the Mississippi River serving as the boundary between the west and east. The states in this region are considered to be the core of the nation’s Farm Belt or Heartland and have 1,968 golf courses in total.
Despite being relatively sparsely populated, there’s significant golf interest throughout, from Missouri to North Dakota. The region has almost half the number of golf holes (25,290) as the South Atlantic (52,713), which is home to states like Florida, Georgia, Virginia and the Carolinas, yet less than one-third of the population. North Dakota has more golf courses per capita than any state in the nation.
Iowa has 250 nine-hole facilities, a total that makes up more than 60% of the state’s supply. From Iowa City to Cedar Rapids and Des Moines, Iowa has by far the most nine-hole facilities of any state in Courses Facilities the country. In fact, of the 14 U.S. states with more than 100 nine- Total Number in Region 1,968 1,828 hole courses, five of them are in the West North Central. Perhaps Iowa 401 383 Kansas 250 242 not surprisingly, this region is home to the most affordable golf, on Minnesota 496 436 average, with 64% of courses having a greens fee less than $40 and Missouri 345 317 95% under $70. Nebraska 232 215 North Dakota 117 116 There’s also a wide variety in the region’s golf offerings, from courses South Dakota 127 119 crafted in the Sandhills of Nebraska to those built in the windswept Total Public by Greens Fee 1,679 1,559 prairies of the Dakotas or the land of 10,000 lakes in Minnesota. Premium (> $70) 77 57 Standard ($40-70) 521 473 Value (< $40) 1081 1029
Number of Daily Fee 1,254 1,169 Number of Municipal 425 390
Number of Private 289 269 Number of Resort/Real Estate 324 270
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 1,126 960 18-Hole 842 779 27-Hole + 89
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 4.5 New Openings 2 Closures 10.5
The Wilderness at Fortune Bay in Tower, Minnesota. Demand (in millions) Estimated number of golfers 2 Estimated total Rounds Played 42 Population (6+) 20
DID YOU Bois de Sioux Golf Club claims to be the only public golf course in the U.S. with nine holes in one state and nine holes in another. The front side is in Wahpeton, North Dakota, and the back is in Breckenridge, Minnesota. 7
KNOW? Z2017000338 Delaware | D.C. | Florida | Georgia | Maryland | SOUTH ATLANTIC North Carolina | South Carolina | Virginia | West Virginia
Stretching from Delaware to the tip of Florida, the South Atlantic features more courses (3,348) than any other region. This sprawling region along the Eastern seaboard spans eight states, plus the District of Columbia, where the nation’s capital is home to six golf courses. Florida, meanwhile, has a nation-leading 1,306. That’s 30% more than California, which is the only other U.S. state with more than 1,000 golf courses. There’s good reason Florida is often called the Golf Capital of the World. The Sunshine State has more than 20,000 holes of golf. It’s home to 24 facilities that have at least 45 holes of golf, while no other state has more than eight. Florida also has 550 facilities that are directly tied to real estate communities, while California is a distant second with 239. Between them, the golf-rich states of North Carolina (557), Georgia (420) and South Carolina (366) have 1,343 combined courses, just surpassing Florida. Virginia isn’t just for lovers; it’s also a popular state for golf, with 350 courses. There is a relatively high concentration of private clubs in the South Atlantic region, at least in comparison to the national average. While there are 2,137 courses open to the public, there are 1,211 private clubs, meaning 36% of the total supply in the region is private. In Florida, Courses Facilities that percentage is almost 40%. Total Number in Region 3,348 2,768 Delaware 45 40 With 20 new courses currently District of Columbia 6 4 under construction or in planning, Florida 1,306 986 the South Atlantic is tied with Georgia 420 358 Maryland 191 168 the Pacific region as the North Carolina 557 496 most active when it comes South Carolina 366 312 to future projects. Given its Virginia 350 303 geographic expanse, it’s also West Virginia 107 101 second in course closures Total Public by Greens Fee 2,137 1,831 behind the East North Central, Premium (> $70) 509 364 with 60 in 2018 (51 18-HEQ). Standard ($40-70) 835 748 Value (< $40) 793 719
Number of Daily Fee 1,791 1,526 Number of Municipal 346 305
Number of Private 1,211 937 Number of Resort/Real Estate 1,726 1,313
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 838 337 18-Hole 2,510 2,078 27-Hole + 353
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 16 New Openings 2.5 Closures 51
The Dye Course at PGA Golf Club in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Demand (in millions) Estimated number of golfers 4.6 Estimated total Rounds Played 93 Population (6+) 60
DID YOU North Carolina is home to the biggest public golf facility: the Pinehurst Resort, with 171 holes of golf. In 2018, Pinehurst 8 opened a nine-hole short course named “The Cradle,” which was built in the same area where Dr. Leroy Culver in 1898 carved the first nine holes out of the sand and helped create America’s first golf resort. KNOW? Z2017000338 EAST SOUTH CENTRAL Alabama | Kentucky | Mississippi | Tennessee
This group of four states has the fewest collective golf courses (932) among the nine geographic regions highlighted, with a fairly even balance between them. Tennessee leads the way with 287, followed by Kentucky (259) and Alabama (238).
When thinking of golf in the Southeastern U.S., these states aren’t usually top of mind, but there are terrific options from the mountains of North Alabama to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and the musically-inclined city of Nashville, which has become an emerging golf destination.
In addition to the Musclecar and Motorsports Museums, Alabama has the U.S. Civil Rights Trail, where activists changed the nation’s history in the 1960’s, as well as the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail, which spreads 26 courses and 468 holes of golf across 11 locations in the state.
More than 70% of golf courses in the region are open to the public and more are on the way. There’s currently a new golf course in construction or in planning in all four states.
One of the more notable new courses in the region is Sweetens Cove, a 9-hole public layout in the foothills of Appalachia, approximately a half-hour outside of Chattanooga. This hand-built design located off the beaten path has gotten rave national reviews for its fun, diverse and inventive golf – the kind of play that historically has more frequently been found at courses in the U.K.
Courses Facilities Total Number in Region 932 849 Alabama 238 199 Kentucky 259 243 Mississippi 148 144 Tennessee 287 263
Total Public by Greens Fee 659 593 Premium (> $70) 51 32 Standard ($40-70) 217 195 Value (< $40) 391 366
Number of Daily Fee 474 420 Number of Municipal 185 173
Number of Private 273 256 Number of Resort/Real Estate 232 206
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 300 223 18-Hole 632 575 27-Hole + 51
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 4 New Openings 0 Closures 15
Demand (in millions) Cambrian Ridge in Greenville, Alabama, is part of the Robert Trent Estimated number of golfers 1.1 Jones Golf Trail. Estimated total Rounds Played 23 Population (6+) 18
DID YOU Valhalla Golf Club, a three-time PGA Championship site and host of the 2008 Ryder Cup, is one of just a handful of entities (non-individuals) in the Kentucky Sports Hall of Fame. The Jack Nicklaus design near Louisville is part of a 9 select group that also includes the company that makes Louisville Slugger baseball bats and Churchill Downs race track. KNOW? Z2017000338 WEST SOUTH CENTRAL Arkansas | Louisiana | Oklahoma | Texas
Courses Facilities Total Number in Region 1,382 1,223 Arkansas 190 171 Louisana 142 135 Oklahoma 198 185 Texas 852 732
Total Public by Greens Fee 968 874 Premium (> $70) 85 62 Standard ($40-70) 364 325 Value (< $40) 519 487
Number of Daily Fee 642 592 Number of Municipal 326 282
Number of Private 414 349 Number of Resort/Real Estate 446 363
Total by Number of Holes The old saying is 9-Hole 514 381 that everything is 18-Hole 868 731 27-Hole + 111 bigger in Texas. That
goes for the game of golf too. Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ The Lone Star State boasts 852 courses, the fifth-most in the Construction and In Planning 5.5 nation behind only Florida, California, Michigan and New York. New Openings 1.5 Closures 21.5 The diversity of golf in Texas is significant, from the historic and flat Brackenridge Park Golf Course just 10 minutes from the Demand (in millions) Estimated number of golfers 2.5 Alamo outside San Antonio to the clubs and golf communities Estimated total Rounds Played 35 sprinkled across the rugged beauty of the Texas Hill Country. The Population (6+) 36 golf courses near Dallas in the northeast can look and play quite differently than those closer to Houston and the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention those in the El Paso area, where the western frontier feel remains.
Texas has produced golf champions such as Byron Nelson, Ben Hogan, Lee Trevino, Tom Kite and Justin Leonard – many of whom learned how to expertly play the state’s strong winds -- and soon it will be home to the new headquarters of the PGA of America. More golf courses are on the way too. Texas opened three new courses in 2018, matching Michigan for the most nationwide, and its six course projects under construction or in development trail only California and Florida.
The 171 golf facilities connected to real estate communities in Texas are also the third-most in the country. No state, however, had more course closures than Texas (21) did in 2018.
Oklahoma has 198 golf courses, followed by Arkansas with 190 and Louisiana with 142. In total, 54% of the public courses in the The par-3 16th hole at Cordillera Ranch Golf Club in Boerne, Texas. region have a greens fee priced under $40.
DID YOU Oklahoma State and Oklahoma have won the past two collegiate men’s golf championships. Oklahoma State won the 2018 10 title on its home course, Karsten Creek, which is located in Stillwater, Oklahoma, and is considered one of the top collegiate golf courses in the country. The NGF course database lists 137 courses as being directly affiliated with colleges. KNOW? Z2017000338 Arizona | Colorado | Idaho | Montana | Nevada | MOUNTAIN New Mexico | Utah | Wyoming
With layouts stretching from the Rocky Mountains to the Sonoran Desert of Arizona, this expansive region is home to some of the most dramatic golf course views anywhere in the country.
Arizona is one of the nation’s most golf-rich destinations, with most of that focused in the Phoenix and Scottsdale markets, and has 378 courses. Colorado is second in the Mountain region with 284 courses, with many of its mountain courses situated near major resort towns. Utah is a distant third at 128.
Given the appeal of Arizona and Colorado as vacation and second home destinations, not to mention Arizona’s standing as a top option for retirees, it stands to reason that the Mountain region has the second-highest concentration of courses affiliated with a resort or real estate community -- at almost 45%. Only the South Atlantic is higher at 52%.
This region also has the third-highest percentage of courses open to the public, behind only the Midwest (both East North Central and West North Central). While there are a host of high-end and high-priced private clubs in the Rocky Mountains, almost 80% of courses in the Mountain region are open to public play – among them highly-regarded Arizona properties like Troon North, TPC Scottsdale or We- Ko-Pa, all of which have two 18-hole courses. In total, Arizona has 34 golf facilities with 36 holes or more, the fifth-most nationally behind Florida, California, Texas and Michigan. Courses Facilities Total Number in Region 1,296 1,102 Arizona 378 310 Colorado 284 237 Idaho 122 111 Montana 110 101 Nevada 112 94 New Mexico 96 79 Utah 128 112 Wyoming 66 58
Total Public by Greens Fee 1,028 879 Premium (> $70) 294 219 Standard ($40-70) 415 385 Value (< $40) 319 275
Number of Daily Fee 691 602 Number of Municipal 337 277
Number of Private 268 223 Number of Resort/Real Estate 581 480
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 439 251 18-Hole 857 715 27-Hole + 136
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 15 New Openings 2 Closures 8.5
The 9th hole at TPC Colorado in Berthoud, Colorado. Demand (in millions) Estimated number of golfers 2 Estimated total Rounds Played 40 Population (6+) 22
DID YOU The Coeur D’Alene Resort in Idaho features one of the most unique and memorable holes in golf – as its par-3 14th green is a floating and movable island that weighs 22,000 pounds and moves along an intricate underwater cable system to varied 11 distances from the tee. Those who find the putting surface get ferried to the green in a Honduran Mahogany water taxi. KNOW? Z2017000338 PACIFIC Alaska | California | Hawaii | Oregon | Washington
There may not be a more geographically diverse U.S. region for golf than the Pacific, which spans a wide variety of courses in almost every state. The Pacific Region has 1,600 courses in total and also has the highest population per course of any region, with an average of 33,401 per course.
California is second nationally only to Florida in total supply, with 1,004 courses. It’s a rich smorgasbord of year-round golf that spans a variety of settings, from the rugged or sun-splashed California coastline to inland forests, deserts and mountains. The Monterey Peninsula is regarded as one of the game’s most historic locations, the home to Pebble Beach Golf Links, yet has a drastically different look and feel than golf destinations like Palm Springs and Palm Desert.
California currently has 10 golf course projects under construction or in planning, the most of any state.
The Oregon coast has emerged as one of golf’s most desirable spots thanks to Bandon Dunes, a public resort that brings the linksy feel of Irish or Scottish golf to the U.S. and is home to five of the state’s 201 courses. Washington is second in the region with 284 courses. Alaska has the fewest golf courses of any U.S. state, with 23 in total, and 15 of those are nine-hole properties. The 279 holes of golf in the entirety of the 49th state is the exact same total found in metropolitan areas like Battle Creek, Michigan, and Rockford, Illinois.
Hawaii has 88 golf courses, almost half of which are affiliated with a resort or real estate community ranging from Kauai’s lush North Shore to the black lava rock layouts on the Big Island.
Courses Facilities Total Number in Region 1,600 1,399 Alaska 23 22 California 1004 859 Hawaii 88 77 Oregon 201 178 Washington 284 263
Total Public by Greens Fee 1,162 1,026 Premium (> $70) 355 283 Standard ($40-70) 448 414 Value (< $40) 359 329
Number of Daily Fee 867 764 Number of Municipal 295 262
Number of Private 438 373 Number of Resort/Real Estate 596 488
Total by Number of Holes 9-Hole 519 356 18-Hole 1,081 893 27-Hole + 150
Number of Courses Under 18-HEQ Construction and In Planning 19 New Openings 0 Closures 17
Demand (in millions) The 11th hole of the Manele Golf Course at the Four Seasons Lanai in Estimated number of golfers 3.7 Hawaii. Estimated total Rounds Played 62 Population (6+) 49
DID YOU North Star Golf Club in Fairbanks, Alaska, is the Northernmost golf course in America. The scorecard includes a 12 checklist of the wildlife golfers might see on the course and has a local rule that says if a raven or fox steals a golf ball, a replacement may be dropped without penalty “at the scene of the crime.” KNOW? Z2017000338 Table 1. Golf Development Projects Summary – 2018 (18-HEQ)
Golf Facility Development Summary Golf Facility Development Summary STATUSStatus
Opened During 2018 Under Construction In Planning Proposed
Grand
New Expansion Total New Expansion Total New Expansion Total New Expansion Total Total
Daily Fee 2.0 7.5 9.5 5.5 7.5 13.0 25.0 7.0 32.0 10.0 1.0 11.0 65.5
Municipal 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.5
Private 1.0 1.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 16.5
Totals 3.0 9.5 12.5 8.0 11.0 19.0 28.5 9.5 38.0 13.0 4.0 17.0 86.5
The 15th hole at Atlantic Dunes at the Sea Pines Resort in Hilton Head, South Carolina.
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 13
Z2017000338 2019 GOLF FACILITIES REPORT
Table 2. Under Construction and In Planning by State/Region – 2018 (18-HEQ)
State and Region Under Construction In Planning Proposed Total Connecticut 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 Maine 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Hampshire 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vermont 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New England 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 New Jersey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 New York 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 Pennsylvania 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 Middle Atlantic 3.0 1.5 0.0 4.5 Illinois 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Indiana 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Michigan 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Ohio 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Wisconsin 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 East North Central 1.5 3.0 0.0 4.5 Iowa 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Minnesota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missouri 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Nebraska 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 North Dakota 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 South Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 West North Central 2.5 2.0 0.0 4.5 Delaware 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Florida 2.0 3.0 2.5 7.5 Georgia 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 Maryland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 North Carolina 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 South Carolina 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Virginia 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 West Virginia 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 South Atlantic 5.5 7.0 3.5 16.0 Alabama 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 Kentucky 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Mississippi 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Tennessee 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 East South Central 0.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Louisana 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Texas 2.5 1.5 0.0 4.0 West South Central 3.0 2.5 0.0 5.5 Arizona 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 Colorado 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Idaho 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 Montana 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Nevada 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 New Mexico 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Utah 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 Wyoming 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mountain 3.5 5.0 6.5 15.0 Alaska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 California 0.0 8.0 2.0 10.0 Hawaii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oregon 0.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 Washington 0.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 Pacific 0.0 13.0 6.0 19.0 U.S. Totals 19.0 38.0 17.0 74.0
14 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 3. New Openings by State – 2018 (18-HEQ)
State Openings MI 2.5 WI 2 TX 1.5 GA 1.5 FL 1 AZ 1 CO 1 MO 1 SD 0.5 NE 0.5 Total 12.5
Table 4. New Openings in Detail – 2018(1) (18-HEQ)
% of Current U.S. % of By Type Openings Total Total Total Daily Fee 9.5 76% 7,649.5 56% Municipal 0.5 4% 2,333.5 17% Private 2.5 20% 3,793.5 28% Total 12.5 100% 13,776.5 100%
(1) % of Current U.S. % of By Price Point Openings Total Total Total $70+ 6 48% 2,683.5 19% $40-$69 3.5 28% 4,187.5 30% $0-$39 0.5 4% 3,112.0 23% Private 2.5 20% 3,793.5 28% Total 12.5 100% 13,776.5 100%
By Holes Openings % of Current U.S. % of Total Total Total 9 5.5 44% 2,916.5 21% 18 7.0 56% 10,860.0 79% Total 12.5 100% 13,776.5 100%
(1) The peak season weekend greens fee with golf car (if included).
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 15
Z2017000338 2019 GOLF FACILITIES REPORT
Table 5. Closures by State – 2018(1) (18-HEQ)
State Closings FL 19 OH 16.5 TX 15.5 NC 11 CA 10.5 Table 6. Closures in Detail – 2018(1) (18-HEQ) IN 9.5 NY 9.5 % of Current U.S. % of PA 9 By Type Closures Total Total Total GA 8 Daily Fee 171.5 86% 7,649.5 56% IL 8 Municipal 14.5 7% 2,333.5 17% MI 6.5 Private 12.5 6% 3,793.5 28% WI 6.5 Total 198.5 100% 13,776.5 100% TN 5.5 MA 5 (2) % of Current U.S. % of VA 5 By Price Point Closures Total Total Total AL 4.5 $70+ 14.5 7% 2,683.5 19% AZ 4.5 $40-$69 54.5 27% 4,187.5 30% SC 4.5 $0-$39 118.0 59% 3,112.0 23% WA 4 Private 11.5 6% 3,793.5 28% KY 3.5 Total 198.5 100% 13,776.5 100% MN 3.5 IA 2.5 By Holes Closures % of Current U.S. % of MO 2.5 Total Total Total OK 2.5 9 120.5 61% 2,916.5 21% LA 2 18 78.0 39% 10,860.0 79% WV 2 Total 198.5 100% 13,776.5 100% AR 1.5 CO 1.5 CT 1.5 (1) Not every closure verified in 2018 necessarily took place during that year due to the timing of MD 1.5 the verification process. NGF records closures in the year in which they are discovered and verified.
ME 1.5 (2) The peak season weekend greens fee with golf car (if included). MS 1.5 OR 1.5 HI 1 KS 1 NJ 1 ID 1 WY 1 SD 0.5 MT 0.5 VT 0.5 NE 0.5 Total 198.5
16 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 7. Supply Summary – 2018 (Facilities)
Type Total
Daily Fee Municipal Private (by size & Length) 9 holes 2,560 749 560 3,869 18 holes 5,137 1,512 2,741 9,390 Number 27 holes 403 147 209 759 of Holes 36 holes 231 96 165 492 45 or more holes 59 11 33 103 Total 8,390 2,515 3,708 14,613
Type Total
Daily Fee Municipal Private (by size & Length) Regulation Only 7,388 2,135 3,459 12,982 Executive Only 519 176 102 797 Par-3 Only 307 108 78 493 Regulation & Executive 70 43 23 136 Length Regulation & Par-3 93 48 45 186 Executive & Par-3 12 3 1 16 Regulation, Executive, Par-3 1 2 0 3 Total 8,390 2,515 3,708 14,613
The Sand Valley Course at the Sand Valley Golf Resort in Nekoosa, Wisconsin.
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 17
Z2017000338 Table 8. Total Supply by State/Region – 2018 (Facilities)
Regulation Executive Par-3 Holes State and Region Total Only All Only All Only All 9 18 27 36 45 or more Facilities Connecticut 154 157 9 12 6 6 48 109 10 4 1 172 Maine 127 127 4 4 5 5 73 60 2 1 0 136 Massachusetts 319 322 19 20 16 18 117 221 12 7 0 357 New Hampshire 89 92 6 6 6 9 38 59 5 2 0 104 Rhode Island 52 53 1 1 4 5 21 36 1 0 0 58 Vermont 60 60 2 2 4 4 20 43 2 1 0 66 New England 801 811 41 45 41 47 317 528 32 15 1 893 New Jersey 243 249 17 20 14 19 49 200 16 14 2 281 New York 683 699 49 58 22 29 200 511 36 17 6 770 Pennsylvania 577 586 33 39 16 19 123 462 32 16 2 635 Middle Atlantic 1,503 1,534 99 117 52 67 372 1,173 84 47 10 1,686 Illinois 547 559 34 41 18 23 180 389 26 10 6 611 Indiana 348 359 18 24 14 23 80 280 23 8 2 393 Michigan 695 712 24 33 12 22 136 516 56 33 8 749 Ohio 583 594 33 38 17 25 123 469 37 14 2 645 Wisconsin 398 409 32 37 25 33 153 264 31 14 5 467 East North Central 2,571 2,633 141 173 86 126 672 1,918 173 79 23 2,865 Iowa 362 369 12 14 2 7 250 122 10 1 0 383 Kansas 225 227 13 13 2 4 139 98 3 2 0 242 Minnesota 363 388 33 51 14 23 163 236 27 7 3 436 Missouri 286 296 10 14 11 17 116 179 18 4 0 317 Nebraska 194 196 6 8 12 14 124 83 5 2 1 215 North Dakota 105 106 9 9 1 2 89 26 1 0 0 116 South Dakota 110 112 6 6 1 3 79 35 5 0 0 119 West North Central 1,645 1,694 89 115 43 70 960 779 69 16 4 1,828 Delaware 33 34 1 2 5 5 4 33 1 1 1 40 District of Columbia 2 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 4 Florida 807 835 107 124 43 57 94 707 78 83 24 986 Georgia 337 344 8 8 6 13 49 272 24 9 4 358 Maryland 148 152 9 12 7 8 24 126 7 10 1 168 North Carolina 466 471 9 10 16 20 49 407 19 17 4 496 South Carolina 299 300 3 4 8 10 26 252 18 12 4 312 Virginia 279 284 8 10 11 14 52 221 17 10 3 303 West Virginia 92 94 3 4 4 5 38 58 0 4 1 101 South Atlantic 2,463 2,517 149 176 100 133 337 2,078 164 147 42 2,768 Alabama 179 189 7 8 3 12 44 134 10 6 5 199 Kentucky 228 235 5 7 3 8 63 168 9 2 1 243 Mississippi 142 142 2 2 0 0 50 91 1 2 0 144 Tennessee 248 251 5 7 7 8 66 182 9 5 1 263 East South Central 797 817 19 24 13 28 223 575 29 15 7 849 Arkansas 153 157 8 11 6 7 62 99 6 3 1 171 Louisana 129 129 4 4 2 2 46 84 3 2 0 135 Oklahoma 176 177 3 3 5 6 71 102 1 11 0 185 Texas 685 697 12 18 22 30 202 446 43 38 3 732 West South Central 1,143 1,160 27 36 35 45 381 731 53 54 4 1,223 Arizona 243 254 42 49 14 18 37 220 19 32 2 310 Colorado 199 215 15 17 7 22 50 156 24 6 1 237 Idaho 97 101 6 8 4 6 39 65 6 1 0 111 Montana 92 95 4 5 2 4 47 47 4 3 0 101 Nevada 83 85 6 6 3 5 12 71 4 5 2 94 New Mexico 71 76 1 3 2 5 21 46 11 1 0 79 Utah 100 103 6 10 1 4 20 82 6 4 0 112 Wyoming 54 55 3 3 0 1 25 28 5 0 0 58 Mountain 939 984 83 101 33 65 251 715 79 52 5 1,102 Alaska 16 16 2 2 4 4 15 6 0 1 0 22 California 670 693 103 114 60 78 187 563 54 51 4 859 Hawaii 72 74 2 3 1 2 10 57 3 7 0 77 Oregon 146 152 17 19 9 13 61 102 8 5 2 178 Washington 216 222 25 27 16 20 83 165 11 3 1 263 Pacific 1,120 1,157 149 165 90 117 356 893 76 67 7 1,399 U.S. Totals 12,982 13,307 797 952 493 698 3,869 9,390 759 492 103 14,613 * “ONLY” refers to facilities that have one or more course in the featured length category only. “ALL” refers to facilities that have one or more courses of differing length categories but at least one course in the featured category.
18 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 9. Public* Supply by State/Region – 2018 (Facilities)
Regulation Executive Par-3 Holes State and Region 45 or Total Only All Only All Only All 9 18 27 36 more Facilities Connecticut 84 86 9 11 6 6 32 59 5 4 1 101 Maine 118 118 3 3 5 5 69 54 2 1 0 126 Massachusetts 203 205 15 15 15 17 86 136 8 5 0 235 New Hampshire 71 74 5 5 5 8 33 44 5 2 0 84 Rhode Island 30 30 1 1 4 4 17 18 0 0 0 35 Vermont 52 52 2 2 4 4 19 37 2 0 0 58 New England 558 565 35 37 39 44 256 348 22 12 1 639 New Jersey 127 130 13 16 9 11 30 106 8 8 1 153 New York 478 490 45 53 21 25 170 338 28 15 5 556 Pennsylvania 412 420 29 34 14 17 102 325 22 13 1 463 Middle Atlantic 1,017 1,040 87 103 44 53 302 769 58 36 7 1,172 Illinois 398 409 33 39 16 21 147 279 19 8 5 458 Indiana 283 292 17 22 14 22 70 228 18 7 2 325 Michigan 590 605 22 29 12 22 120 434 51 27 8 640 Ohio 437 447 32 37 17 24 108 347 31 10 1 497 Wisconsin 344 355 32 37 24 32 150 214 29 14 5 412 East North Central 2,052 2,108 136 164 83 121 595 1,502 148 66 21 2,332 Iowa 314 321 11 13 2 7 226 99 9 0 0 334 Kansas 169 171 11 11 2 4 119 62 2 1 0 184 Minnesota 323 347 31 49 13 21 159 197 26 7 3 392 Missouri 215 224 9 12 9 15 95 132 14 1 0 242 Nebraska 168 170 5 7 10 12 118 62 4 1 1 186 North Dakota 100 100 9 9 1 1 88 22 0 0 0 110 South Dakota 103 104 6 6 1 2 77 31 3 0 0 111 West North Central 1,392 1,437 82 107 38 62 882 605 58 10 4 1,559 Delaware 22 22 1 1 5 5 4 23 1 0 0 28 District of Columbia 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 Florida 477 498 75 90 20 29 62 440 46 35 11 594 Georgia 216 219 7 7 6 9 40 175 12 3 2 232 Maryland 95 98 8 10 5 6 17 84 4 6 0 111 North Carolina 334 337 7 7 14 17 39 294 13 9 3 358 South Carolina 213 213 3 4 7 8 22 181 13 5 3 224 Virginia 179 182 6 7 10 12 38 142 10 6 2 198 West Virginia 74 76 3 4 4 5 35 43 0 4 1 83 South Atlantic 1,611 1,647 111 132 71 92 257 1,384 99 69 22 1,831 Alabama 119 126 6 6 3 10 27 92 6 5 5 135 Kentucky 165 170 5 6 3 7 51 117 7 3 1 179 Mississippi 87 87 1 1 0 0 23 63 0 2 0 88 Tennessee 179 181 5 7 6 6 54 127 8 2 0 191 East South Central 550 564 17 20 12 23 155 399 21 12 6 593 Arkansas 90 94 8 11 6 7 46 54 5 2 1 108 Louisana 99 99 4 4 2 2 35 66 3 1 0 105 Oklahoma 138 139 3 3 5 6 68 69 1 9 0 147 Texas 481 488 11 14 15 19 173 298 23 20 0 514 West South Central 808 820 26 32 28 34 322 487 32 32 1 874 Arizona 184 193 36 42 13 16 34 167 15 25 1 242 Colorado 148 159 15 17 6 16 49 111 16 3 1 180 Idaho 82 84 5 7 4 4 37 51 4 1 0 93 Montana 74 77 4 5 2 4 44 32 4 3 0 83 Nevada 67 69 6 6 3 5 11 57 4 4 2 78 New Mexico 56 61 0 2 1 4 17 35 10 0 0 62 Utah 83 85 6 9 0 3 19 67 4 3 0 93 Wyoming 44 45 3 3 0 1 24 20 4 0 0 48 Mountain 738 773 75 91 29 53 235 540 61 39 4 879 Alaska 16 16 2 2 4 4 15 6 0 1 0 22 California 440 457 84 94 45 58 156 363 33 36 1 589 Hawaii 56 57 2 2 1 2 9 43 2 6 0 60 Oregon 117 122 16 18 8 11 55 78 6 5 2 146 Washington 168 174 22 24 13 17 70 125 10 3 1 209 Pacific 797 826 126 140 71 92 305 615 51 51 4 1,026 U.S. Totals 9,523 9,780 695 826 415 574 3,309 6,649 550 327 70 10,905
*Public includes daily fee and municipal facilities.
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 19
Z2017000338 Table 10. Private Supply by State/Region – 2018 (Facilities)
Regulation Executive Par-3 Holes State and Region 45 or Total Only All Only All Only All 9 18 27 36 more Facilities Connecticut 70 71 0 1 0 0 16 50 5 0 0 71 Maine 9 9 1 1 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 10 Massachusetts 116 117 4 5 1 1 31 85 4 2 0 122 New Hampshire 18 18 1 1 1 1 5 15 0 0 0 20 Rhode Island 22 23 0 0 0 1 4 18 1 0 0 23 Vermont 8 8 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 8 New England 243 246 6 8 2 3 61 180 10 3 0 254 New Jersey 116 119 4 4 5 8 19 94 8 6 1 128 New York 205 209 4 5 1 4 30 173 8 2 1 214 Pennsylvania 165 166 4 5 2 2 21 137 10 3 1 172 Middle Atlantic 486 494 12 14 8 14 70 404 26 11 3 514 Illinois 149 150 1 2 2 2 33 110 7 2 1 153 Indiana 65 67 1 2 0 1 10 52 5 1 0 68 Michigan 105 107 2 4 0 0 16 82 5 6 0 109 Ohio 146 147 1 1 0 1 15 122 6 4 1 148 Wisconsin 54 54 0 0 1 1 3 50 2 0 0 55 East North Central 519 525 5 9 3 5 77 416 25 13 2 533 Iowa 48 48 1 1 0 0 24 23 1 1 0 49 Kansas 56 56 2 2 0 0 20 36 1 1 0 58 Minnesota 40 41 2 2 1 2 4 39 1 0 0 44 Missouri 71 72 1 2 2 2 21 47 4 3 0 75 Nebraska 26 26 1 1 2 2 6 21 1 1 0 29 North Dakota 5 6 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 6 South Dakota 7 8 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 0 0 8 West North Central 253 257 7 8 5 8 78 174 11 6 0 269 Delaware 11 12 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 1 1 12 District of Columbia 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Florida 330 337 32 34 23 28 32 267 32 48 13 392 Georgia 121 125 1 1 0 4 9 97 12 6 2 126 Maryland 53 54 1 2 2 2 7 42 3 4 1 57 North Carolina 132 134 2 3 2 3 9 113 6 8 1 137 South Carolina 86 87 0 0 1 2 5 71 5 7 1 89 Virginia 100 102 2 3 1 2 14 79 7 4 1 105 West Virginia 18 18 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 0 18 South Atlantic 852 870 38 44 29 41 80 694 65 78 20 937 Alabama 60 63 1 2 0 2 17 42 4 1 0 64 Kentucky 63 65 0 1 0 1 12 51 2 0 0 65 Mississippi 55 55 1 1 0 0 27 28 1 0 0 56 Tennessee 69 70 0 0 1 2 12 55 1 2 1 71 East South Central 247 253 2 4 1 5 68 176 8 3 1 256 Arkansas 63 63 0 0 0 0 16 45 1 1 0 63 Louisana 30 30 0 0 0 0 11 18 0 1 0 30 Oklahoma 38 38 0 0 0 0 3 33 0 2 0 38 Texas 204 209 1 4 7 11 29 148 20 18 3 218 West South Central 335 340 1 4 7 11 59 244 21 22 3 349 Arizona 59 61 6 7 1 2 3 53 4 7 1 68 Colorado 51 56 0 0 1 6 1 45 8 3 0 57 Idaho 15 17 1 1 0 2 2 14 2 0 0 18 Montana 18 18 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 0 18 Nevada 16 16 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 16 New Mexico 15 15 1 1 1 1 4 11 1 1 0 17 Utah 17 18 0 1 1 1 1 15 2 1 0 19 Wyoming 10 10 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 10 Mountain 201 211 8 10 4 12 16 175 18 13 1 223 Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California 230 236 19 20 15 20 31 200 21 15 3 270 Hawaii 16 17 0 1 0 0 1 14 1 1 0 17 Oregon 29 30 1 1 1 2 6 24 2 0 0 32 Washington 48 48 3 3 3 3 13 40 1 0 0 54 Pacific 323 331 23 25 19 25 51 278 25 16 3 373 U.S. Totals 3,459 3,527 102 126 78 124 560 2,741 209 165 33 3,708
20 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 11. Real Estate and Resort Supply by State/Region – 2018 (Facilities)
Real Estate Only Resort Only Real Estate/Resort State and Region Daily Daily Daily Muni Private Total Muni Private Total Muni Private Total Fee Fee Fee Connecticut 3 0 6 9 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 Maine 3 0 1 4 9 0 1 10 1 0 0 1 Massachusetts 16 0 19 35 3 0 3 6 2 0 2 4 New Hampshire 4 0 4 8 12 0 2 14 3 0 1 4 Rhode Island 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vermont 1 0 1 2 12 0 0 12 1 0 0 1 New England 30 0 33 63 37 0 8 45 7 0 3 10 New Jersey 13 1 23 37 5 1 1 7 3 0 2 5 New York 24 1 20 45 31 0 2 33 5 0 1 6 Pennsylvania 32 3 21 56 32 0 5 37 8 0 0 8 Middle Atlantic 69 5 64 138 68 1 8 77 16 0 3 19 Illinois 52 10 22 84 8 0 1 9 2 0 0 2 Indiana 50 2 18 70 9 1 0 10 2 0 0 2 Michigan 79 3 21 103 45 0 4 49 15 0 0 15 Ohio 42 4 28 74 3 1 1 5 1 0 2 3 Wisconsin 36 0 8 44 30 0 1 31 9 0 1 10 East North Central 259 19 97 375 95 2 7 104 29 0 3 32 Iowa 23 1 6 30 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Kansas 13 5 16 34 3 0 0 3 1 0 1 2 Minnesota 45 2 5 52 20 1 2 23 3 1 0 4 Missouri 32 3 21 56 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 8 Nebraska 16 1 7 24 2 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 North Dakota 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 South Dakota 8 4 2 14 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 West North Central 137 18 58 213 36 2 4 42 13 1 1 15 Delaware 8 0 3 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Florida 246 8 255 509 41 2 28 71 28 0 13 41 Georgia 47 2 49 98 9 0 1 10 10 0 14 24 Maryland 22 1 9 32 6 1 1 8 4 0 0 4 North Carolina 102 1 59 162 27 2 4 33 21 1 2 24 South Carolina 68 1 42 111 24 0 5 29 15 0 5 20 Virginia 35 2 30 67 20 0 3 23 7 0 1 8 West Virginia 7 0 2 9 8 7 1 16 2 0 0 2 South Atlantic 535 15 449 999 135 12 43 190 88 1 35 124 Alabama 17 5 19 41 12 0 1 13 2 0 0 2 Kentucky 24 1 11 36 6 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 Mississippi 21 0 9 30 7 0 2 9 0 0 1 1 Tennessee 36 0 20 56 4 1 0 5 6 0 0 6 East South Central 98 6 59 163 29 1 3 33 8 0 2 10 Arkansas 33 0 12 45 4 0 0 4 5 1 6 12 Louisana 17 2 6 25 6 0 0 6 1 1 0 2 Oklahoma 18 1 10 29 5 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 Texas 83 4 84 171 21 0 13 34 19 0 10 29 West South Central 151 7 112 270 36 0 13 49 26 2 16 44 Arizona 88 1 47 136 38 2 1 41 15 0 4 19 Colorado 34 12 20 66 7 0 6 13 6 0 5 11 Idaho 14 0 7 21 6 0 0 6 6 0 2 8 Montana 14 0 6 20 6 1 1 8 3 0 2 5 Nevada 23 3 9 35 9 3 1 13 5 0 2 7 New Mexico 5 3 8 16 7 0 0 7 2 0 1 3 Utah 12 3 5 20 6 0 1 7 2 0 1 3 Wyoming 4 0 4 8 4 0 2 6 0 0 1 1 Mountain 194 22 106 322 83 6 12 101 39 0 18 57 Alaska 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 California 83 8 101 192 68 5 13 86 41 0 6 47 Hawaii 7 0 4 11 16 0 2 18 5 0 2 7 Oregon 18 1 4 23 10 0 0 10 11 1 2 14 Washington 35 0 16 51 10 1 0 11 13 1 0 14 Pacific 146 9 125 280 105 6 15 126 70 2 10 82 U.S. Totals 1,619 101 1,103 2,823 624 30 113 767 296 6 91 393
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 21
Z2017000338 2019 GOLF FACILITIES REPORT
Table 12. Supply Summary by Course Length – 2018 (18-HEQ)
Type Length Total Daily Fee Municipal Private Regulation 6,967.5 2,094.0 3,609.0 12,670.5 Executive 431.0 141.5 112.5 685.0 Par-3 251.0 98.0 72.0 421.0 Total 18-Hole Equivalents 7,649.5 2,333.5 3,793.5 13,776.5
The 10th hole of the Pinnacle Course at Troon North Golf Club in Scottsdale, Arizona.
22 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 13. Total Supply by Course Length by State/Region – 2018 (Total Holes and 18-HEQ)
Regulation Executive Par-3 Total State and Region Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Connecticut 2,637 146.5 135 7.5 63 3.5 2,835 157.5 Maine 1,728 96.0 36 2.0 45 2.5 1,809 100.5 Massachusetts 5,130 285.0 252 14.0 243 13.5 5,625 312.5 New Hampshire 1,485 82.5 63 3.5 81 4.5 1,629 90.5 Rhode Island 810 45.0 9 0.5 45 2.5 864 48.0 Vermont 981 54.5 27 1.5 36 2.0 1,044 58.0 New England 12,771 709.5 522 29.0 513 28.5 13,806 767.0 New Jersey 4,599 255.5 279 15.5 198 11.0 5,076 282.0 New York 11,943 663.5 666 37.0 315 17.5 12,924 718.0 Pennsylvania 10,233 568.5 522 29.0 207 11.5 10,962 609.0 Middle Atlantic 26,775 1487.5 1,467 81.5 720 40.0 28,962 1,609.0 Illinois 9,306 517.0 468 26.0 234 13.0 10,008 556.0 Indiana 6,201 344.5 306 17.0 252 14.0 6,759 375.5 Michigan 13,077 726.5 423 23.5 225 12.5 13,725 762.5 Ohio 10,413 578.5 486 27.0 261 14.5 11,160 620.0 Wisconsin 6,948 386.0 414 23.0 351 19.5 7,713 428.5 East North Central 45,945 2,552.5 2,097 116.5 1,323 73.5 49,365 2,742.5 Iowa 4,518 251.0 162 9.0 72 4.0 4,752 264.0 Kansas 2,988 166.0 144 8.0 36 2.0 3,168 176.0 Minnesota 6,084 338.0 558 31.0 207 11.5 6,849 380.5 Missouri 4,563 253.5 144 8.0 180 10.0 4,887 271.5 Nebraska 2,646 147.0 81 4.5 135 7.5 2,862 159.0 North Dakota 1,197 66.5 81 4.5 18 1.0 1,296 72.0 South Dakota 1,377 76.5 63 3.5 36 2.0 1,476 82.0 West North Central 23,373 1,298.5 1,233 68.5 684 38.0 25,290 1,405.0 Delaware 639 35.5 36 2.0 72 4.0 747 41.5 District of Columbia 45 2.5 27 1.5 9 0.5 81 4.5 Florida 17,325 962.5 2,295 127.5 648 36.0 20,268 1,126.0 Georgia 6,246 347.0 108 6.0 135 7.5 6,489 360.5 Maryland 2,844 158.0 162 9.0 81 4.5 3,087 171.5 North Carolina 8,739 485.5 135 7.5 270 15.0 9,144 508.0 South Carolina 5,724 318.0 54 3.0 117 6.5 5,895 327.5 Virginia 5,148 286.0 126 7.0 144 8.0 5,418 301.0 West Virginia 1,467 81.5 45 2.5 72 4.0 1,584 88.0 South Atlantic 48,177 2,676.5 2,988 166.0 1,548 86.0 52,713 2,928.5 Alabama 3,303 183.5 108 6.0 153 8.5 3,564 198.0 Kentucky 3,789 210.5 81 4.5 90 5.0 3,960 220.0 Mississippi 2,160 120.0 27 1.5 0 0.0 2,187 121.5 Tennessee 4,194 233.0 90 5.0 90 5.0 4,374 243.0 East South Central 13,446 747.0 306 17.0 333 18.5 14,085 782.5 Arkansas 2,520 140.0 126 7.0 72 4.0 2,718 151.0 Louisana 2,016 112.0 45 2.5 18 1.0 2,079 115.5 Oklahoma 2,799 155.5 27 1.5 72 4.0 2,898 161.0 Texas 12,069 670.5 180 10.0 306 17.0 12,555 697.5 West South Central 19,404 1,078.0 378 21.0 468 26.0 20,250 1,125.0 Arizona 5,121 284.5 711 39.5 225 12.5 6,057 336.5 Colorado 3,753 208.5 207 11.5 207 11.5 4,167 231.5 Idaho 1,584 88.0 81 4.5 54 3.0 1,719 95.5 Montana 1,368 76.0 63 3.5 54 3.0 1,485 82.5 Nevada 1,629 90.5 99 5.5 45 2.5 1,773 98.5 New Mexico 1,269 70.5 36 2.0 45 2.5 1,350 75.0 Utah 1,827 101.5 99 5.5 36 2.0 1,962 109.0 Wyoming 819 45.5 36 2.0 9 0.5 864 48.0 Mountain 17,370 965.0 1,332 74.0 675 37.5 19,377 1,076.5 Alaska 225 12.5 18 1.0 36 2.0 279 15.5 California 13,005 722.5 1,422 79.0 891 49.5 15,318 851.0 Hawaii 1,386 77.0 36 2.0 27 1.5 1,449 80.5 Oregon 2,502 139.0 234 13.0 180 10.0 2,916 162.0 Washington 3,690 205.0 297 16.5 180 10.0 4,167 231.5 Pacific 20,808 1,156.0 2,007 111.5 1,314 73.0 24,129 1,340.5 U.S. Totals 228,069 12,670.5 12,330 685.0 7,578 421.0 247,977 13,776.5
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 23
Z2017000338 Table 14. Public* Supply by Course Length by State/Region – 2018 (Total Holes and 18-HEQ)
Regulation Executive Par-3 Total State and Region Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Connecticut 1,449 80.5 126 7.0 63 3.5 1,638 91.0 Maine 1,593 88.5 27 1.5 45 2.5 1,665 92.5 Massachusetts 3,213 178.5 189 10.5 234 13.0 3,636 202.0 New Hampshire 1,188 66.0 54 3.0 72 4.0 1,314 73.0 Rhode Island 432 24.0 9 0.5 36 2.0 477 26.5 Vermont 828 46.0 27 1.5 36 2.0 891 49.5 New England 8,703 483.5 432 24.0 486 27.0 9,621 534.5 New Jersey 2,385 132.5 216 12.0 108 6.0 2,709 150.5 New York 8,298 461.0 612 34.0 279 15.5 9,189 510.5 Pennsylvania 7,218 401.0 468 26.0 189 10.5 7,875 437.5 Middle Atlantic 17,901 994.5 1,296 72.0 576 32.0 19,773 1,098.5 Illinois 6,768 376.0 441 24.5 207 11.5 7,416 412.0 Indiana 5,031 279.5 288 16.0 243 13.5 5,562 309.0 Michigan 11,133 618.5 378 21.0 225 12.5 11,736 652.0 Ohio 7,749 430.5 468 26.0 252 14.0 8,469 470.5 Wisconsin 5,976 332.0 414 23.0 342 19.0 6,732 374.0 East North Central 36,657 2,036.5 1,989 110.5 1,269 70.5 39,915 2,217.5 Iowa 3,834 213.0 153 8.5 72 4.0 4,059 225.5 Kansas 2,115 117.5 126 7.0 36 2.0 2,277 126.5 Minnesota 5,364 298.0 531 29.5 189 10.5 6,084 338.0 Missouri 3,348 186.0 126 7.0 162 9.0 3,636 202.0 Nebraska 2,187 121.5 63 3.5 117 6.5 2,367 131.5 North Dakota 1,098 61.0 81 4.5 9 0.5 1,188 66.0 South Dakota 1,242 69.0 63 3.5 27 1.5 1,332 74.0 West North Central 19,188 1,066.0 1,143 63.5 612 34.0 20,943 1,163.5 Delaware 387 21.5 18 1.0 72 4.0 477 26.5 District of Columbia 36 2.0 27 1.5 9 0.5 72 4.0 Florida 9,810 545.0 1,386 77.0 315 17.5 11,511 639.5 Georgia 3,852 214.0 99 5.5 99 5.5 4,050 225.0 Maryland 1,791 99.5 135 7.5 63 3.5 1,989 110.5 North Carolina 6,156 342.0 99 5.5 243 13.5 6,498 361.0 South Carolina 3,978 221.0 54 3.0 99 5.5 4,131 229.5 Virginia 3,267 181.5 81 4.5 126 7.0 3,474 193.0 West Virginia 1,170 65.0 45 2.5 72 4.0 1,287 71.5 South Atlantic 30,447 1,691.5 1,944 108.0 1,098 61.0 33,489 1,860.5 Alabama 2,286 127.0 90 5.0 135 7.5 2,511 139.5 Kentucky 2,727 151.5 72 4.0 81 4.5 2,880 160.0 Mississippi 1,404 78.0 9 0.5 0 0.0 1,413 78.5 Tennessee 2,952 164.0 90 5.0 63 3.5 3,105 172.5 East South Central 9,369 520.5 261 14.5 279 15.5 9,909 550.5 Arkansas 1,503 83.5 126 7.0 72 4.0 1,701 94.5 Louisana 1,557 86.5 45 2.5 18 1.0 1,620 90.0 Oklahoma 2,106 117.0 27 1.5 72 4.0 2,205 122.5 Texas 7,884 438.0 135 7.5 207 11.5 8,226 457.0 West South Central 13,050 725.0 333 18.5 369 20.5 13,752 764.0 Arizona 3,861 214.5 603 33.5 207 11.5 4,671 259.5 Colorado 2,664 148.0 207 11.5 153 8.5 3,024 168.0 Idaho 1,287 71.5 72 4.0 36 2.0 1,395 77.5 Montana 1,053 58.5 63 3.5 54 3.0 1,170 65.0 Nevada 1,332 74.0 99 5.5 45 2.5 1,476 82.0 New Mexico 999 55.5 18 1.0 36 2.0 1,053 58.5 Utah 1,476 82.0 90 5.0 27 1.5 1,593 88.5 Wyoming 639 35.5 36 2.0 9 0.5 684 38.0 Mountain 13,311 739.5 1,188 66.0 567 31.5 15,066 837.0 Alaska 225 12.5 18 1.0 36 2.0 279 15.5 California 8,352 464.0 1,179 65.5 648 36.0 10,179 565.5 Hawaii 1,071 59.5 27 1.5 27 1.5 1,125 62.5 Oregon 1,953 108.5 225 12.5 162 9.0 2,340 130.0 Washington 2,880 160.0 270 15.0 153 8.5 3,303 183.5 Pacific 14,481 804.5 1,719 95.5 1,026 57.0 17,226 957.0 U.S. Totals 163,107 9,061.5 10,305 572.5 6,282 349.0 179,694 9,983.0
*Public includes daily fee and municipal facilities.
24 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 15. Private Supply by Course Length by State/Region – 2018 (Total Holes and 18-HEQ)
Regulation Executive Par-3 Total State and Region Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Holes 18-HEQ Connecticut 1,188 66.0 9 0.5 0 0.0 1,197 66.5 Maine 135 7.5 9 0.5 0 0.0 144 8.0 Massachusetts 1,917 106.5 63 3.5 9 0.5 1,989 110.5 New Hampshire 297 16.5 9 0.5 9 0.5 315 17.5 Rhode Island 378 21.0 0 0.0 9 0.5 387 21.5 Vermont 153 8.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 153 8.5 New England 4,068 226.0 90 5.0 27 1.5 4,185 232.5 New Jersey 2,214 123.0 63 3.5 90 5.0 2,367 131.5 New York 3,645 202.5 54 3.0 36 2.0 3,735 207.5 Pennsylvania 3,015 167.5 54 3.0 18 1.0 3,087 171.5 Middle Atlantic 8,874 493.0 171 9.5 144 8.0 9,189 510.5 Illinois 2,538 141.0 27 1.5 27 1.5 2,592 144.0 Indiana 1,170 65.0 18 1.0 9 0.5 1,197 66.5 Michigan 1,944 108.0 45 2.5 0 0.0 1,989 110.5 Ohio 2,664 148.0 18 1.0 9 0.5 2,691 149.5 Wisconsin 972 54.0 0 0.0 9 0.5 981 54.5 East North Central 9,288 516.0 108 6.0 54 3.0 9,450 525.0 Iowa 684 38.0 9 0.5 0 0.0 693 38.5 Kansas 873 48.5 18 1.0 0 0.0 891 49.5 Minnesota 720 40.0 27 1.5 18 1.0 765 42.5 Missouri 1,215 67.5 18 1.0 18 1.0 1,251 69.5 Nebraska 459 25.5 18 1.0 18 1.0 495 27.5 North Dakota 99 5.5 0 0.0 9 0.5 108 6.0 South Dakota 135 7.5 0 0.0 9 0.5 144 8.0 West North Central 4,185 232.5 90 5.0 72 4.0 4,347 241.5 Delaware 252 14.0 18 1.0 0 0.0 270 15.0 District of Columbia 9 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.5 Florida 7,515 417.5 909 50.5 333 18.5 8,757 486.5 Georgia 2,394 133.0 9 0.5 36 2.0 2,439 135.5 Maryland 1,053 58.5 27 1.5 18 1.0 1,098 61.0 North Carolina 2,583 143.5 36 2.0 27 1.5 2,646 147.0 South Carolina 1,746 97.0 0 0.0 18 1.0 1,764 98.0 Virginia 1,881 104.5 45 2.5 18 1.0 1,944 108.0 West Virginia 297 16.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 297 16.5 South Atlantic 17,730 985.0 1,044 58.0 450 25.0 19,224 1,068.0 Alabama 1,017 56.5 18 1.0 18 1.0 1,053 58.5 Kentucky 1,062 59.0 9 0.5 9 0.5 1,080 60.0 Mississippi 756 42.0 18 1.0 0 0.0 774 43.0 Tennessee 1,242 69.0 0 0.0 27 1.5 1,269 70.5 East South Central 4,077 226.5 45 2.5 54 3.0 4,176 232.0 Arkansas 1,017 56.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,017 56.5 Louisana 459 25.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 459 25.5 Oklahoma 693 38.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 693 38.5 Texas 4,185 232.5 45 2.5 99 5.5 4,329 240.5 West South Central 6,354 353.0 45 2.5 99 5.5 6,498 361.0 Arizona 1,260 70.0 108 6.0 18 1.0 1,386 77.0 Colorado 1,089 60.5 0 0.0 54 3.0 1,143 63.5 Idaho 297 16.5 9 0.5 18 1.0 324 18.0 Montana 315 17.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 315 17.5 Nevada 297 16.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 297 16.5 New Mexico 270 15.0 18 1.0 9 0.5 297 16.5 Utah 351 19.5 9 0.5 9 0.5 369 20.5 Wyoming 180 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 180 10.0 Mountain 4,059 225.5 144 8.0 108 6.0 4,311 239.5 Alaska 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 California 4,653 258.5 243 13.5 243 13.5 5,139 285.5 Hawaii 315 17.5 9 0.5 0 0.0 324 18.0 Oregon 549 30.5 9 0.5 18 1.0 576 32.0 Washington 810 45.0 27 1.5 27 1.5 864 48.0 Pacific 6,327 351.5 288 16.0 288 16.0 6,903 383.5 U.S. Totals 64,962 3,609.0 2,025 112.5 1,296 72.0 68,283 3,793.5
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 25
Z2017000338 Table 16. Real Estate and Resort Supply by Course Length by State/Region – 2018 (18-HEQ)
Real Estate Only Resort Only Real Estate/Resort State and Region Daily Daily Daily Fee Muni Private Total Fee Muni Private Total Fee Muni Private Total Connecticut 3.0 0.0 6.0 9.0 1.0 0.0 2.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maine 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 7.5 0.0 1.0 8.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Massachusetts 13.0 0.0 17.0 30.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 7.0 2.5 0.0 3.0 5.5 New Hampshire 3.5 0.0 3.5 7.0 10.5 0.0 1.5 12.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 2.5 Rhode Island 2.5 0.0 1.5 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vermont 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 New England 25.0 0.0 31.0 56.0 34.0 0.0 9.0 43.0 6.5 0.0 3.5 10.0 New Jersey 14.0 1.0 21.5 36.5 5.5 1.0 1.0 7.5 3.0 0.0 2.0 5.0 New York 20.5 0.5 16.5 37.5 32.5 0.0 1.0 33.5 4.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Pennsylvania 30.0 3.0 18.5 51.5 32.5 0.0 6.5 39.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 11.5 Middle Atlantic 64.5 4.5 56.5 125.5 70.5 1.0 8.5 80.0 18.5 0.0 3.0 21.5 Illinois 51.0 8.5 21.5 81.0 10.0 0.0 0.5 10.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Indiana 51.0 2.0 20.5 73.5 11.5 0.5 0.0 12.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Michigan 83.0 3.0 21.0 107.0 55.0 0.0 3.0 58.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 Ohio 41.5 5.0 29.0 75.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 5.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 2.5 Wisconsin 35.5 0.0 8.5 44.0 36.0 0.0 1.0 37.0 12.5 0.0 1.0 13.5 East North Central 262.0 18.5 100.5 381.0 115.0 1.5 6.5 123.0 42.5 0.0 2.5 45.0 Iowa 19.5 1.5 6.0 27.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kansas 12.0 5.0 15.5 32.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Minnesota 44.0 2.0 5.0 51.0 23.5 2.0 1.5 27.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 5.5 Missouri 31.5 3.0 22.5 57.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 9.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Nebraska 15.5 0.5 7.0 23.0 3.5 0.5 2.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 North Dakota 0.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Dakota 7.0 3.0 2.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 West North Central 129.5 16.5 59.0 205.0 41.0 2.5 5.0 48.5 15.5 1.0 1.0 17.5 Delaware 7.5 0.0 3.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Florida 260.5 9.0 332.5 602.0 54.0 2.0 33.0 89.0 41.5 0.0 18.5 60.0 Georgia 46.0 1.5 55.5 103.0 13.5 0.0 1.0 14.5 12.0 0.0 17.0 29.0 Maryland 24.0 1.0 7.0 32.0 7.5 1.0 2.0 10.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 North Carolina 105.0 1.0 68.5 174.5 31.0 4.0 4.0 39.0 24.0 1.0 2.0 27.0 South Carolina 72.0 1.5 51.5 125.0 30.5 0.0 4.5 35.0 18.0 0.0 6.0 24.0 Virginia 36.0 2.0 30.5 68.5 24.5 0.0 4.5 29.0 9.0 0.0 2.0 11.0 West Virginia 7.0 0.0 2.0 9.0 10.5 8.5 0.5 19.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 South Atlantic 558.0 16.0 550.5 1,124.5 171.5 15.5 49.5 236.5 112.0 1.0 45.5 158.5 Alabama 17.5 5.0 19.5 42.0 16.0 0.0 1.0 17.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Kentucky 25.0 1.0 11.0 37.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Mississippi 20.0 0.0 8.5 28.5 8.0 0.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Tennessee 37.5 0.0 20.0 57.5 5.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 East South Central 100.0 6.0 59.0 165.0 35.5 1.0 3.0 39.5 7.5 0.0 2.0 9.5 Arkansas 30.5 0.0 13.0 43.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.5 1.5 6.0 13.0 Louisana 17.5 2.0 7.0 26.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 Oklahoma 17.0 2.0 11.0 30.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Texas 78.0 5.0 100.0 183.0 21.5 0.0 14.0 35.5 20.5 0.0 15.0 35.5 West South Central 143.0 9.0 131.0 283.0 38.5 0.0 14.0 52.5 28.0 2.5 21.0 51.5 Arizona 94.5 1.0 53.0 148.5 50.0 2.5 1.5 54.0 17.5 0.0 4.0 21.5 Colorado 31.5 12.0 21.0 64.5 7.0 0.0 7.5 14.5 6.5 0.0 6.0 12.5 Idaho 12.5 0.0 6.5 19.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 2.5 8.0 Montana 13.5 0.0 7.0 20.5 5.0 1.5 0.5 7.0 2.5 0.0 2.0 4.5 Nevada 25.5 3.0 9.0 37.5 11.0 3.0 0.5 14.5 6.5 0.0 3.0 9.5 New Mexico 4.5 2.5 8.5 15.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 2.5 0.0 1.0 3.5 Utah 11.5 3.5 6.5 21.5 5.0 0.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 Wyoming 4.5 0.0 4.5 9.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Mountain 198.0 22.0 116.0 336.0 93.0 7.0 12.5 112.5 43.0 0.0 20.5 63.5 Alaska 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 California 83.0 6.5 107.0 196.5 72.5 9.0 13.5 95.0 42.0 0.0 9.5 51.5 Hawaii 8.0 0.0 4.5 12.5 20.5 0.0 2.0 22.5 6.0 0.0 3.0 9.0 Oregon 14.5 1.0 4.5 20.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 13.0 1.0 2.5 16.5 Washington 32.0 0.0 13.0 45.0 7.5 1.0 0.0 8.5 13.0 1.0 0.0 14.0 Pacific 139.5 7.5 129.0 276.0 115.5 10.0 15.5 141.0 74.0 2.0 15.0 91.0 U.S. Totals 1,619.5 100.0 1,232.5 2,952.0 714.5 38.5 123.5 876.5 347.5 6.5 114.0 468.0
26 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Table 17. Golf Accessibility by State/Region – 2018
Total Public Private State and Region 2018 Pop. Per Pop. Per Pop. Per Population Holes 18 Holes Rank Holes 18 Holes Rank Holes 18 Holes Rank Connecticut 3,572,665 2,835 22,684 29 1,638 39,260 40 1,197 53,724 6 Maine 1,338,404 1,809 13,317 9 1,665 14,469 5 144 167,301 45 Massachusetts 6,902,149 5,625 22,087 26 3,636 34,169 31 1,989 62,463 10 New Hampshire 1,356,458 1,629 14,988 12 1,314 18,582 12 315 77,512 19 Rhode Island 1,057,315 864 22,027 27 477 39,899 41 387 49,177 3 Vermont 626,299 1,044 10,798 3 891 12,653 3 153 73,682 16 New England 14,853,290 13,806 19,365 9,621 27,789 4,185 63,885 New Jersey 9,032,873 5,076 32,031 44 2,709 60,019 48 2,367 68,691 12 New York 19,542,209 12,924 27,218 37 9,189 38,281 38 3,735 94,179 30 Pennsylvania 12,807,060 10,962 21,030 24 7,875 29,273 23 3,087 74,677 18 Middle Atlantic 41,382,142 28,962 25,719 19,773 37,671 9,189 81,062 Illinois 12,741,080 10,008 22,916 30 7,416 30,925 25 2,592 88,480 26 Indiana 6,691,878 6,759 17,821 16 5,562 21,657 13 1,197 100,630 34 Michigan 9,998,915 13,725 13,113 8 11,736 15,336 8 1,989 90,488 28 Ohio 11,689,442 11,160 18,854 18 8,469 24,845 18 2,691 78,190 21 Wisconsin 5,813,568 7,713 13,567 10 6,732 15,544 9 981 106,671 36 East North Central 46,934,883 49,365 17,114 39,915 21,166 9,450 89,400 Iowa 3,156,145 4,752 11,955 4 4,059 13,996 4 693 81,978 23 Kansas 2,911,505 3,168 16,543 14 2,277 23,016 17 891 58,818 8 Minnesota 5,611,179 6,849 14,747 11 6,084 16,601 11 765 132,028 42 Missouri 6,126,452 4,887 22,565 28 3,636 30,329 24 1,251 88,150 25 Nebraska 1,929,268 2,862 12,134 6 2,367 14,671 6 495 70,155 14 North Dakota 760,077 1,296 10,557 1 1,188 11,516 1 108 126,680 40 South Dakota 882,235 1,476 10,759 2 1,332 11,922 2 144 110,279 38 West North Central 21,376,861 25,290 15,215 20,943 18,373 4,347 88,517 Delaware 967,171 747 23,305 31 477 36,497 35 270 64,478 11 District of Columbia 702,455 81 156,101 51 72 175,614 51 9 1,404,910 50 Florida 21,299,325 20,268 18,916 19 11,511 33,306 29 8,757 43,781 2 Georgia 10,519,475 6,489 29,180 42 4,050 46,753 44 2,439 77,635 20 Maryland 6,042,718 3,087 35,235 46 1,989 54,685 47 1,098 99,061 33 North Carolina 10,383,620 9,144 20,440 22 6,498 28,763 22 2,646 70,637 15 South Carolina 5,084,127 5,895 15,524 13 4,131 22,153 14 1,764 51,879 4 Virginia 8,517,685 5,418 28,298 40 3,474 44,133 43 1,944 78,867 22 West Virginia 1,805,832 1,584 20,521 23 1,287 25,256 19 297 109,444 37 South Atlantic 65,322,408 52,713 22,306 33,489 35,110 19,224 61,163 Alabama 4,887,871 3,564 24,686 35 2,511 35,039 32 1,053 83,553 24 Kentucky 4,468,402 3,960 20,311 21 2,880 27,928 21 1,080 74,473 17 Mississippi 2,986,530 2,187 24,580 33 1,413 38,045 37 774 69,454 13 Tennessee 6,770,010 4,374 27,860 38 3,105 39,246 39 1,269 96,029 31 East South Central 19,112,813 14,085 24,425 9,909 34,719 4,176 82,383 Arkansas 3,013,825 2,718 19,959 20 1,701 31,892 26 1,017 53,342 5 Louisana 4,659,978 2,079 40,346 47 1,620 51,778 46 459 182,744 46 Oklahoma 3,943,079 2,898 24,491 32 2,205 32,188 27 693 102,418 35 Texas 28,701,845 12,555 41,150 48 8,226 62,805 49 4,329 119,342 39 West South Central 40,318,727 20,250 35,839 13,752 52,773 6,498 111,686 Arizona 7,171,646 6,057 21,312 25 4,671 27,636 20 1,386 93,138 29 Colorado 5,695,564 4,167 24,603 34 3,024 33,902 30 1,143 89,694 27 Idaho 1,754,208 1,719 18,369 17 1,395 22,635 15 324 97,456 32 Montana 1,062,305 1,485 12,876 7 1,170 16,343 10 315 60,703 9 Nevada 3,034,392 1,773 30,806 43 1,476 37,005 36 297 183,903 47 New Mexico 2,095,428 1,350 27,939 39 1,053 35,819 34 297 126,996 41 Utah 3,161,105 1,962 29,001 41 1,593 35,719 33 369 154,200 44 Wyoming 577,737 864 12,036 5 684 15,204 7 180 57,774 7 Mountain 24,552,385 19,377 22,808 15,066 29,334 4,311 102,515 Alaska 737,438 279 47,577 50 279 47,577 45 0 N/A 51 California 39,557,045 15,318 46,483 49 10,179 69,951 50 5,139 138,554 43 Hawaii 1,420,491 1,449 17,646 15 1,125 22,728 16 324 4,975 1 Oregon 4,190,713 2,916 25,869 36 2,340 32,236 28 576 232,817 48 Washington 7,535,591 4,167 32,551 45 3,303 41,066 42 864 235,487 49 Pacific 53,441,278 24,129 39,867 17,226 55,843 6,903 139,351 U.S. Totals 327,294,787 247,977 23,757 179,694 32,785 68,283 86,278
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 27
Z2017000338 Table 18. Golf Accessibility by MSA/Metropolitan Statistical Areas - 2018
TOTAL Public Private Metropolitan Statistical Area Pop. Pop. Pop. 2018 Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Population Holes Holes Holes Abilene, TX 170,219 144 21,277 167 108 28,370 163 36 85,110 157 Akron, OH 703,505 702 18,039 119 459 27,588 152 243 52,111 40 Albany, GA 151,434 90 30,287 270 45 60,574 335 45 60,574 67 Albany, OR 121,336 45 48,534 353 45 48,534 287 - N/A Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 886,188 882 18,085 120 684 23,321 115 198 80,563 139 Albuquerque, NM 910,726 369 44,426 344 288 56,920 324 81 202,384 325 Alexandria, LA 153,984 63 43,995 343 63 43,995 268 - N/A Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 840,550 630 24,016 200 441 34,308 212 189 80,052 136 Altoona, PA 123,457 72 30,864 277 72 30,864 184 - N/A Amarillo, TX 264,925 180 26,493 234 126 37,846 240 54 88,308 171 Ames, IA 97,502 99 17,728 112 72 24,376 126 27 65,001 84 Anchorage, AK 400,888 126 57,270 363 126 57,270 326 - N/A Ann Arbor, MI 367,627 513 12,899 48 423 15,644 45 90 73,525 120 Anniston-Oxford-Jacksonville, AL 114,728 135 15,297 75 117 17,650 61 18 114,728 247 Appleton, WI 236,126 261 16,285 86 207 20,533 90 54 78,709 133 Asheville, NC 456,145 423 19,410 140 279 29,429 169 144 57,018 51 Athens-Clarke County, GA 209,271 99 38,049 325 72 52,318 305 27 139,514 281 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 5,884,736 2,826 37,482 319 1,467 72,205 350 1,359 77,944 131 Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ 269,918 351 13,842 57 279 17,414 60 72 67,480 95 Auburn-Opelika, AL 161,604 135 21,547 174 81 35,912 222 54 53,868 45 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 600,151 567 19,052 132 342 31,587 189 225 48,012 32 Austin-Round Rock, TX 2,115,827 909 41,898 338 522 72,960 353 387 98,411 206 Bakersfield, CA 893,119 261 61,594 366 180 89,312 362 81 198,471 324 Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD 2,808,175 1,170 43,203 341 630 80,234 358 540 93,606 190 Bangor, ME 151,957 189 14,472 65 189 14,472 38 - N/A Barnstable Town, MA 213,444 702 5,473 5 405 9,486 6 297 12,936 5 Baton Rouge, LA 834,159 333 45,090 345 279 53,817 314 54 278,053 346 Battle Creek, MI 134,128 279 8,653 13 225 10,730 13 54 44,709 27 Bay City, MI 104,239 144 13,030 50 144 13,030 29 - N/A Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 412,437 126 58,920 365 90 82,487 359 36 206,219 326 Beckley, WV 118,543 126 16,935 101 126 16,935 57 - N/A Bellingham, WA 221,404 207 19,253 138 180 22,140 106 27 147,603 293 Bend-Redmond, OR 186,875 396 8,494 11 315 10,679 11 81 41,528 25 Billings, MT 170,498 189 16,238 85 108 28,416 164 81 37,888 18 Binghamton, NY 242,217 396 11,010 32 378 11,534 18 18 242,217 337 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,149,807 747 27,706 247 495 41,811 258 252 82,129 147 Bismarck, ND 132,142 144 16,518 92 126 18,877 71 18 132,142 271 Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA 182,993 144 22,874 190 117 28,153 160 27 121,995 259 Bloomington, IL 188,232 189 17,927 115 135 25,098 131 54 62,744 74 Bloomington, IN 167,825 99 30,514 274 81 37,294 237 18 167,825 309 Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA 84,204 90 16,841 97 72 21,051 96 18 84,204 152 Boise City, ID 709,845 441 28,973 256 351 36,402 231 90 141,969 287 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 4,836,531 3,150 27,637 244 1,917 45,413 273 1,233 70,606 112 Boulder, CO 322,514 153 37,943 323 108 53,752 312 45 129,006 269 Bowling Green, KY 174,835 153 20,569 156 99 31,788 192 54 58,278 57 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 266,414 189 25,373 220 171 28,044 158 18 266,414 342 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 949,921 747 22,890 193 243 70,365 349 504 33,926 16 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 423,725 216 35,310 307 162 47,081 280 54 141,242 286 Brunswick, GA 118,119 225 9,450 19 135 15,749 46 90 23,624 8 Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 1,136,856 954 21,450 171 630 32,482 198 324 63,159 77 Burlington, NC 162,391 126 23,199 196 108 27,065 146 18 162,391 306 Burlington-South Burlington, VT 218,395 279 14,090 61 243 16,177 52 36 109,198 231 California-Lexington Park, MD 112,667 54 37,556 320 36 56,334 322 18 112,667 240 Canton-Massillon, OH 399,927 441 16,324 88 351 20,509 88 90 79,985 135 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 739,224 1,521 8,748 14 693 19,201 76 828 16,070 7 Cape Girardeau, MO-IL 96,782 18 96,782 378 N/A 381 18 96,782 202 Carbondale-Marion, IL 125,612 126 17,945 116 117 19,325 78 9 251,224 340 Carson City, NV 54,745 99 9,954 25 81 12,166 22 18 54,745 47 Casper, WY 79,547 81 17,677 111 45 31,819 193 36 39,774 21 Cedar Rapids, IA 270,293 288 16,893 98 252 19,307 77 36 135,147 276 Chambersburg-Waynesboro, PA 154,234 162 17,137 105 126 22,033 105 36 77,117 127 Champaign-Urbana, IL 239,124 198 21,739 176 135 31,883 194 63 68,321 99 Charleston, WV 214,406 117 32,986 292 81 47,646 283 36 107,203 229 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 775,831 639 21,854 180 423 33,014 201 216 64,653 83 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 2,525,305 1,485 30,610 275 927 49,035 293 558 81,461 143 Charlottesville, VA 233,793 180 23,379 198 99 42,508 262 81 51,954 39 Chattanooga, TN-GA 556,548 378 26,502 235 198 50,595 303 180 55,655 49
28 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 TOTAL Public Private Metropolitan Statistical Area Pop. Pop. Pop. 2018 Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Population Holes Holes Holes Cheyenne, WY 98,327 81 21,850 179 81 21,850 103 - N/A Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI 9,533,040 5,823 29,468 258 3,951 43,431 265 1,872 91,664 186 Chico, CA 229,294 90 45,859 347 54 76,431 356 36 114,647 245 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2,179,082 1,809 21,682 175 1,206 32,524 199 603 65,047 85 Clarksville, TN-KY 285,042 189 27,147 240 153 33,534 205 36 142,521 288 Cleveland, TN 122,317 63 34,948 306 45 48,927 290 18 122,317 261 Cleveland-Elyria, OH 2,058,844 1,836 20,185 148 1,359 27,269 151 477 77,692 128 Coeur d'Alene, ID 157,637 225 12,611 46 153 18,546 69 72 39,409 20 College Station-Bryan, TX 258,044 126 36,863 316 54 86,015 361 72 64,511 80 Colorado Springs, CO 723,878 369 35,311 308 216 60,323 333 153 85,162 159 Columbia, MO 178,271 162 19,808 144 108 29,712 171 54 59,424 60 Columbia, SC 825,033 522 28,449 253 297 50,002 300 225 66,003 88 Columbus, GA-AL 303,811 189 28,934 255 153 35,742 221 36 151,906 303 Columbus, IN 82,040 81 18,231 122 63 23,440 116 18 82,040 146 Columbus, OH 2,078,725 1,665 22,473 184 1,107 33,800 208 558 67,056 93 Corpus Christi, TX 454,008 162 50,445 358 90 90,802 363 72 113,502 241 Corvallis, OR 90,951 81 20,211 149 63 25,986 140 18 90,951 184 Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL 271,346 432 11,306 37 351 13,915 32 81 60,299 66 Cumberland, MD-WV 98,837 90 19,767 143 72 24,709 129 18 98,837 208 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 7,399,662 2,835 46,982 351 1,701 78,303 357 1,134 117,455 251 Dalton, GA 144,440 99 26,262 231 63 41,269 253 36 72,220 116 Danville, IL 77,909 72 19,477 141 54 25,970 139 18 77,909 130 Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL 212,628 306 12,508 45 270 14,175 37 36 106,314 227 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL 382,263 468 14,702 71 360 19,113 75 108 63,711 78 Dayton, OH 803,416 585 24,720 213 360 40,171 250 225 64,273 79 Decatur, AL 151,867 72 37,967 324 54 50,622 304 18 151,867 302 Decatur, IL 105,801 72 26,450 232 36 52,901 309 36 52,901 42 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 649,202 684 17,084 104 495 23,607 117 189 61,829 71 Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO 2,888,227 1,566 33,198 295 1,062 48,953 291 504 103,151 217 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA 645,911 567 20,505 153 387 30,042 175 180 64,591 81 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 4,313,002 3,366 23,064 194 2,538 30,589 181 828 93,761 192 Dothan, AL 147,914 108 24,652 211 90 29,583 170 18 147,914 295 Dover, DE 176,824 90 35,365 309 54 58,941 330 36 88,412 172 Dubuque, IA 97,041 126 13,863 58 81 21,565 101 45 38,816 19 Duluth, MN-WI 278,782 468 10,722 29 405 12,390 23 63 79,652 134 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 567,428 342 29,865 266 207 49,342 295 135 75,657 124 East Stroudsburg, PA 168,046 297 10,185 27 252 12,003 20 45 67,218 94 Eau Claire, WI 167,484 180 16,748 95 162 18,609 70 18 167,484 308 El Centro, CA 182,830 18 182,830 381 18 182,830 378 - N/A El Paso, TX 844,818 198 76,802 373 162 93,869 364 36 422,409 354 Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY 150,430 126 21,490 173 108 25,072 130 18 150,430 298 Elkhart-Goshen, IN 205,032 198 18,639 129 144 25,629 136 54 68,344 100 Elmira, NY 85,557 108 14,260 64 90 17,111 59 18 85,557 163 Erie, PA 274,541 369 13,392 53 297 16,639 54 72 68,635 104 Eugene, OR 374,748 216 31,229 281 180 37,475 238 36 187,374 316 Evansville, IN-KY 315,669 297 19,131 135 171 33,228 202 126 45,096 28 Fairbanks, AK 99,703 45 39,881 332 45 39,881 249 - N/A Fargo, ND-MN 241,356 225 19,308 139 162 26,817 145 63 68,959 105 Farmington, NM 126,926 81 28,206 251 63 36,265 228 18 126,926 266 Fayetteville, NC 386,662 180 38,666 327 144 48,333 286 36 193,331 319 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 537,463 423 22,871 189 297 32,574 200 126 76,780 126 Flagstaff, AZ 140,776 180 14,078 60 90 28,155 161 90 28,155 12 Flint, MI 407,385 432 16,974 102 306 23,964 120 126 58,198 56 Florence, SC 205,831 207 17,898 114 153 24,215 125 54 68,610 103 Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL 147,038 162 16,338 89 135 19,605 79 27 98,025 204 Fond du Lac, WI 102,548 90 20,510 155 90 20,510 89 - N/A Fort Collins, CO 343,976 225 27,518 242 171 36,208 226 54 114,659 246 Fort Smith, AR-OK 282,086 171 29,693 260 135 37,611 239 36 141,043 284 Fort Wayne, IN 434,617 459 17,044 103 369 21,201 98 90 86,923 166 Fresno, CA 989,255 198 89,932 375 108 164,876 377 90 197,851 323 Gadsden, AL 102,755 72 25,689 227 54 34,252 211 18 102,755 215 Gainesville, FL 284,687 90 56,937 362 36 142,344 374 54 94,896 195 Gainesville, GA 199,335 99 36,243 312 99 36,243 227 - N/A Gettysburg, PA 102,336 180 10,234 28 162 11,371 16 18 102,336 213 Glens Falls, NY 126,152 234 9,704 22 216 10,513 9 18 126,152 265 Goldsboro, NC 124,172 90 24,834 214 72 31,043 186 18 124,172 262 Grand Forks, ND-MN 102,414 135 13,655 55 117 15,756 47 18 102,414 214
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 29
Z2017000338 TOTAL Public Private Metropolitan Statistical Area Pop. Pop. Pop. 2018 Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Population Holes Holes Holes Grand Island, NE 85,045 126 12,149 42 108 14,174 36 18 85,045 156 Grand Junction, CO 151,616 108 25,269 218 90 30,323 179 18 151,616 300 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 1,059,113 1,161 16,420 90 936 20,368 86 225 84,729 155 Grants Pass, OR 86,352 63 24,672 212 63 24,672 128 - N/A Great Falls, MT 81,654 72 20,414 151 54 27,218 150 18 81,654 144 Greeley, CO 304,633 198 27,694 245 144 38,079 242 54 101,544 211 Green Bay, WI 320,050 396 14,548 66 360 16,003 50 36 160,025 305 Greensboro-High Point, NC 761,184 639 21,442 170 495 27,679 155 144 95,148 196 Greenville, NC 179,042 108 29,840 265 72 44,761 270 36 89,521 176 Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC 895,923 666 24,214 202 387 41,671 255 279 57,801 55 Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS 394,232 333 21,310 168 297 23,893 119 36 197,116 321 Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV 265,498 126 37,928 322 108 44,250 269 18 265,498 341 Hammond, LA 132,497 18 132,497 379 18 132,497 371 - N/A Hanford-Corcoran, CA 150,101 36 75,051 372 18 150,101 375 18 150,101 297 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 571,903 396 25,996 228 306 33,641 206 90 114,381 244 Harrisonburg, VA 134,442 126 19,206 136 108 22,407 108 18 134,442 275 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,210,259 1,053 20,688 158 765 28,477 165 288 75,641 123 Hattiesburg, MS 148,877 90 29,775 262 54 49,626 296 36 74,439 121 Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC 366,534 333 19,813 145 243 27,151 149 90 73,307 119 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Beaufort, SC 215,302 1,071 3,619 1 576 6,728 2 495 7,829 3 Hinesville, GA 80,400 54 26,800 239 36 40,200 251 18 80,400 137 Homosassa Springs, FL 145,647 306 8,567 12 216 12,137 21 90 29,129 13 Hot Springs, AR 98,658 162 10,962 31 90 19,732 80 72 24,665 9 Houma-Thibodaux, LA 210,512 72 52,628 359 54 70,171 348 18 210,512 329 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 6,892,427 2,205 56,265 361 1,143 108,542 368 1,062 116,821 249 Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 356,474 216 29,706 261 153 41,938 260 63 101,850 212 Huntsville, AL 455,448 243 33,737 299 126 65,064 342 117 70,069 111 Idaho Falls, ID 145,643 99 26,481 233 81 32,365 197 18 145,643 290 Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN 2,028,614 1,737 21,022 164 1,305 27,981 157 432 84,526 154 Iowa City, IA 171,491 162 19,055 133 153 20,175 84 9 342,982 352 Ithaca, NY 104,802 99 19,055 134 63 29,943 174 36 52,401 41 Jackson, MI 158,640 369 7,739 9 342 8,349 5 27 105,760 226 Jackson, MS 578,715 342 30,459 272 198 52,610 308 144 72,339 117 Jackson, TN 129,235 126 18,462 125 81 28,719 166 45 51,694 38 Jacksonville, FL 1,504,980 963 28,130 249 576 47,031 279 387 69,999 110 Jacksonville, NC 193,893 117 29,830 263 99 35,253 217 18 193,893 320 Janesville-Beloit, WI 162,309 207 14,114 62 171 17,085 58 36 81,155 141 Jefferson City, MO 151,465 162 16,829 96 117 23,302 114 45 60,586 68 Johnson City, TN 202,053 99 36,737 315 54 67,351 345 45 80,821 140 Johnstown, PA 133,054 135 17,741 113 99 24,192 124 36 66,527 92 Jonesboro, AR 131,269 72 32,817 291 45 52,508 307 27 87,513 168 Joplin, MO 178,507 126 25,501 224 108 29,751 172 18 178,507 313 Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina, HI 166,348 261 11,472 39 234 12,796 27 27 110,899 236 Kalamazoo-Portage, MI 338,338 459 13,268 52 396 15,379 43 63 96,668 201 Kankakee, IL 109,605 135 14,614 67 117 16,862 56 18 109,605 233 Kansas City, MO-KS 2,128,912 1,503 25,496 223 1,053 36,392 230 450 85,156 158 Kennewick-Richland, WA 290,296 162 32,255 287 144 36,287 229 18 290,296 348 Killeen-Temple, TX 443,773 162 49,308 355 144 55,472 319 18 443,773 356 Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 306,659 252 21,904 182 180 30,666 182 72 76,665 125 Kingston, NY 179,417 153 21,108 165 117 27,603 153 36 89,709 179 Knoxville, TN 877,104 603 26,182 230 459 34,396 213 144 109,638 234 Kokomo, IN 82,363 90 16,473 91 72 20,591 91 18 82,363 148 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN 136,934 153 16,110 83 117 21,067 97 36 68,467 102 Lafayette, LA 491,558 189 46,815 350 153 57,830 328 36 245,779 338 Lafayette-West Lafayette, IN 219,239 189 20,880 160 180 21,924 104 9 438,478 355 Lake Charles, LA 209,357 126 29,908 267 108 34,893 214 18 209,357 328 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ 207,200 207 18,017 118 207 18,017 63 - N/A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL 686,483 810 15,255 74 603 20,492 87 207 59,694 63 Lancaster, PA 542,903 306 31,935 286 225 43,432 266 81 120,645 257 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 477,656 495 17,369 107 468 18,371 68 27 318,437 351 Laredo, TX 274,794 54 91,598 377 36 137,397 373 18 274,794 344 Las Cruces, NM 215,579 99 39,196 329 81 47,906 285 18 215,579 330 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 2,204,079 1,062 37,357 318 882 44,981 272 180 220,408 333 Lawrence, KS 120,793 63 34,512 304 36 60,397 334 27 80,529 138 Lawton, OK 127,349 72 31,837 285 54 42,450 261 18 127,349 268 Lebanon, PA 139,754 135 18,634 127 117 21,501 99 18 139,754 282 Lewiston, ID-WA 62,920 72 15,730 80 54 20,973 95 18 62,920 75
30 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 TOTAL Public Private Metropolitan Statistical Area Pop. Pop. Pop. 2018 Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Population Holes Holes Holes Lewiston-Auburn, ME 107,651 162 11,961 41 162 11,961 19 - N/A Lexington-Fayette, KY 512,650 513 17,988 117 378 24,412 127 135 68,353 101 Lima, OH 103,198 144 12,900 49 126 14,743 39 18 103,198 218 Lincoln, NE 331,519 306 19,501 142 216 27,627 154 90 66,304 90 Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR 738,344 648 20,510 154 369 36,017 224 279 47,635 31 Logan, UT-ID 138,002 81 30,667 276 63 39,429 247 18 138,002 280 Longview, TX 217,481 108 36,247 313 63 62,137 338 45 86,992 167 Longview, WA 106,910 72 26,728 237 54 35,637 220 18 106,910 228 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 13,353,907 2,808 85,602 374 1,800 133,539 372 1,008 238,463 336 Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 1,293,953 945 24,647 210 594 39,211 245 351 66,357 91 Lubbock, TX 316,983 153 37,292 317 99 57,633 327 54 105,661 225 Lynchburg, VA 261,254 180 26,125 229 153 30,736 183 27 174,169 312 Macon- Bibb County, GA 228,914 162 25,435 222 90 45,783 275 72 57,229 53 Madera, CA 156,890 90 31,378 283 72 39,223 246 18 156,890 304 Madison, WI 654,230 711 16,563 93 585 20,130 83 126 93,461 189 Manchester-Nashua, NH 409,697 288 25,606 226 234 31,515 188 54 136,566 279 Manhattan, KS 98,080 117 15,089 73 81 21,796 102 36 49,040 35 Mankato-North Mankato, MN 100,939 72 25,235 217 54 33,646 207 18 100,939 209 Mansfield, OH 120,589 189 11,485 40 171 12,694 26 18 120,589 256 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 860,661 270 57,377 364 207 74,840 354 63 245,903 339 Medford, OR 217,479 126 31,068 279 99 39,542 248 27 144,986 289 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,348,260 729 33,290 297 396 61,285 337 333 72,879 118 Merced, CA 272,673 54 90,891 376 18 272,673 380 36 136,337 278 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 6,158,824 3,771 29,398 257 1,602 69,200 347 2,169 51,111 37 Michigan City-La Porte, IN 110,029 135 14,671 70 99 20,005 82 36 55,015 48 Midland, MI 83,411 54 27,804 248 36 41,706 257 18 83,411 150 Midland, TX 170,675 153 20,079 147 54 56,892 323 99 31,032 14 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,576,236 1,260 22,518 185 936 30,312 178 324 87,569 169 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3,600,618 3,096 20,934 162 2,529 25,627 135 567 114,305 243 Missoula, MT 117,441 135 15,659 79 117 18,068 64 18 117,441 250 Mobile, AL 413,955 180 41,396 337 153 48,701 288 27 275,970 345 Modesto, CA 547,899 135 73,053 371 90 109,580 369 45 219,160 332 Monroe, LA 178,445 99 32,445 288 54 59,482 331 45 71,378 113 Monroe, MI 149,649 396 6,802 6 396 6,802 3 - N/A Montgomery, AL 373,903 243 27,697 246 153 43,989 267 90 74,781 122 Morgantown, WV 138,709 135 18,495 126 99 25,220 132 36 69,355 106 Morristown, TN 118,081 135 15,744 81 117 18,166 65 18 118,081 253 Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA 125,619 108 20,937 163 81 27,915 156 27 83,746 151 Muncie, IN 115,184 135 15,358 76 99 20,943 94 36 57,592 54 Muskegon, MI 173,693 279 11,206 34 243 12,866 28 36 86,847 165 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC-NC 464,165 1,584 5,275 4 1,431 5,839 1 153 54,608 46 Napa, CA 140,973 135 18,796 130 72 35,243 216 63 40,278 22 Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL 372,880 1,548 4,336 3 279 24,057 122 1,269 5,289 1 Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 1,903,045 1,026 33,387 298 639 53,607 311 387 88,514 173 New Bern, NC 124,864 144 15,608 78 108 20,811 92 36 62,432 72 New Haven-Milford, CT 860,435 459 33,743 300 288 53,777 313 171 90,572 182 New Orleans-Metairie, LA 1,275,762 468 49,068 354 342 67,145 344 126 182,252 315 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA 20,320,876 7,866 46,501 349 3,708 98,645 367 4,158 87,969 170 Niles-Benton Harbor, MI 154,259 279 9,952 24 198 14,024 35 81 34,280 17 North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 804,690 1,440 10,059 26 864 16,764 55 576 25,147 10 Norwich-New London, CT 269,033 252 19,217 137 162 29,893 173 90 53,807 44 Ocala, FL 354,353 468 13,629 54 396 16,107 51 72 88,588 174 Ocean City, NJ 93,553 171 9,848 23 108 15,592 44 63 26,729 11 Odessa, TX 157,087 45 62,835 369 45 62,835 339 - N/A Ogden-Clearfield, UT 665,358 405 29,571 259 351 34,121 209 54 221,786 334 Oklahoma City, OK 1,383,737 801 31,095 280 540 46,125 277 261 95,430 199 Olympia-Tumwater, WA 280,588 153 33,010 293 117 43,167 264 36 140,294 283 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 933,316 846 19,858 146 657 25,570 133 189 88,887 175 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 2,509,831 1,800 25,098 215 1,440 31,373 187 360 125,492 264 Oshkosh-Neenah, WI 170,414 198 15,492 77 162 18,935 73 36 85,207 160 Owensboro, KY 118,376 117 18,212 121 99 21,523 100 18 118,376 254 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 854,223 504 30,508 273 333 46,174 278 171 89,918 180 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 589,162 432 24,548 209 342 31,009 185 90 117,832 252 Panama City, FL 199,723 90 39,945 333 63 57,064 325 27 133,149 273 Parkersburg-Vienna, WV 90,898 117 13,984 59 99 16,527 53 18 90,898 183 Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 487,784 243 36,132 311 225 39,023 243 18 487,784 358 Peoria, IL 372,427 396 16,929 100 297 22,571 109 99 67,714 96
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 31
Z2017000338 TOTAL Public Private Metropolitan Statistical Area Pop. Pop. Pop. 2018 Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Population Holes Holes Holes Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,096,120 3,303 33,221 296 1,728 63,501 340 1,575 69,670 109 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 4,737,270 4,014 21,243 166 3,150 27,070 147 864 98,693 207 Pine Bluff, AR 90,963 45 36,385 314 27 60,642 336 18 90,963 185 Pittsburgh, PA 2,333,367 2,403 17,478 110 1,737 24,180 123 666 63,064 76 Pittsfield, MA 126,313 252 9,022 15 180 12,631 24 72 31,578 15 Pocatello, ID 85,269 54 28,423 252 36 42,635 263 18 85,269 162 Portland-South Portland, ME 532,083 639 14,988 72 522 18,348 66 117 81,859 145 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA 2,453,168 1,125 39,251 330 828 53,330 310 297 148,677 296 Port St. Lucie, FL 473,429 1,062 8,024 10 450 18,937 74 612 13,924 6 Prescott, AZ 228,168 243 16,901 99 171 24,018 121 72 57,042 52 Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 1,621,122 1,242 23,495 199 747 39,063 244 495 58,950 59 Provo-Orem, UT 617,675 234 47,513 352 198 56,152 321 36 308,838 350 Pueblo, CO 166,475 99 30,268 269 81 36,994 234 18 166,475 307 Punta Gorda, FL 182,033 360 9,102 17 306 10,708 12 54 60,678 69 Racine, WI 196,071 153 23,067 195 117 30,165 177 36 98,036 205 Raleigh, NC 1,335,079 711 33,799 301 459 52,356 306 252 95,363 197 Rapid City, SD 146,850 162 16,317 87 144 18,356 67 18 146,850 292 Reading, PA 417,854 333 22,587 187 261 28,818 168 72 104,464 222 Redding, CA 179,921 108 29,987 268 72 44,980 271 36 89,961 181 Reno, NV 464,593 297 28,157 250 207 40,399 252 90 92,919 188 Richmond, VA 1,294,204 846 27,536 243 468 49,777 297 378 61,629 70 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 4,580,670 3,366 24,496 207 1,980 41,642 254 1,386 59,489 61 Roanoke, VA 314,128 252 22,438 183 135 41,884 259 117 48,327 34 Rochester, MN 218,280 360 10,914 30 342 11,488 17 18 218,280 331 Rochester, NY 1,077,948 1,323 14,666 69 1,026 18,911 72 297 65,330 87 Rockford, IL 338,291 279 21,825 178 216 28,191 162 63 96,655 200 Rocky Mount, NC 146,738 117 22,575 186 99 26,680 144 18 146,738 291 Rome, GA 97,613 45 39,045 328 18 97,613 366 27 65,075 86 Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA 2,324,884 1,017 41,148 335 702 59,612 332 315 132,851 272 Saginaw, MI 191,934 252 13,710 56 234 14,764 40 18 191,934 318 Salem, OR 424,982 216 35,415 310 153 49,998 299 63 121,423 258 Salinas, CA 437,907 423 18,634 128 297 26,540 143 126 62,558 73 Salisbury, MD-DE 405,853 648 11,274 36 576 12,683 25 72 101,463 210 Salt Lake City, UT 1,203,105 513 42,214 339 441 49,106 294 72 300,776 349 San Angelo, TX 119,535 81 26,563 236 45 47,814 284 36 59,768 64 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 2,473,974 846 52,638 360 612 72,764 352 234 190,306 317 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 3,337,685 1,557 38,586 326 1,107 54,271 316 450 133,507 274 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA 4,727,357 1,341 63,454 370 765 111,232 370 576 147,730 294 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,998,463 576 62,452 368 378 95,165 365 198 181,678 314 San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA 283,405 234 21,800 177 216 23,617 118 18 283,405 347 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 275,897 108 45,983 348 108 45,983 276 - N/A Santa Fe, NM 148,750 117 22,885 192 72 37,188 236 45 59,500 62 Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA 448,150 261 30,907 278 171 47,174 281 90 89,630 177 Santa Rosa, CA 504,217 261 34,774 305 180 50,422 302 81 112,048 239 Savannah, GA 387,543 378 18,454 123 216 32,295 195 162 43,060 26 Scranton--Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, PA 555,426 630 15,869 82 387 25,834 137 243 41,143 23 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,867,046 1,386 50,221 357 927 75,088 355 459 151,649 301 Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL 154,383 378 7,352 8 99 28,070 159 279 9,960 4 Sebring, FL 102,883 270 6,859 7 252 7,349 4 18 102,883 216 Sheboygan, WI 115,344 225 9,228 18 207 10,030 8 18 115,344 248 Sherman-Denison, TX 131,140 108 21,857 181 90 26,228 142 18 131,140 270 Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 440,933 234 33,918 302 162 48,993 292 72 110,233 235 Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ 124,756 99 22,683 188 99 22,683 110 - N/A Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 168,618 315 9,635 21 279 10,879 14 36 84,309 153 Sioux Falls, SD 259,094 279 16,716 94 234 19,930 81 45 103,638 220 South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 321,815 333 17,395 109 252 22,987 112 81 71,514 114 Spartanburg, SC 334,391 225 26,751 238 171 35,199 215 54 111,464 237 Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA 564,236 306 33,190 294 279 36,402 232 27 376,157 353 Springfield, IL 208,697 216 17,391 108 180 20,870 93 36 104,349 221 Springfield, MA 631,652 603 18,855 131 495 22,969 111 108 105,275 224 Springfield, MO 462,369 279 29,830 264 153 54,396 317 126 66,053 89 Springfield, OH 134,557 189 12,815 47 162 14,951 42 27 89,705 178 St. Cloud, MN 197,759 243 14,649 68 225 15,821 49 18 197,759 322 St. George, UT 165,662 225 13,253 51 189 15,777 48 36 82,831 149 St. Joseph, MO-KS 126,935 90 25,387 221 72 31,734 190 18 126,935 267 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,807,338 2,079 24,306 204 1,431 35,312 218 648 77,982 132 State College, PA 162,660 144 20,333 150 108 27,110 148 36 81,330 142
32 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 TOTAL Public Private Metropolitan Statistical Area Pop. Pop. Pop. 2018 Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Holes Per 18 Rank Population Holes Holes Holes Staunton-Waynesboro, VA 121,999 90 24,400 206 72 30,500 180 18 121,999 260 Stockton-Lodi, CA 745,424 297 45,177 346 198 67,766 346 99 135,532 277 Sumter, SC 106,847 90 21,369 169 54 35,616 219 36 53,424 43 Syracuse, NY 654,841 1,053 11,194 33 846 13,933 33 207 56,943 50 Tallahassee, FL 382,627 171 40,277 334 108 63,771 341 63 109,322 232 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 3,091,399 2,268 24,535 208 1,467 37,931 241 801 69,470 108 Terre Haute, IN 169,965 189 16,187 84 171 17,891 62 18 169,965 310 Texarkana, TX-AR 150,355 126 21,479 172 81 33,412 203 45 60,142 65 The Villages, FL 125,165 567 3,973 2 207 10,884 15 360 6,258 2 Toledo, OH 603,668 468 23,218 197 342 31,772 191 126 86,238 164 Topeka, KS 233,149 243 17,270 106 189 22,205 107 54 77,716 129 Trenton, NJ 374,733 207 32,585 290 135 49,964 298 72 93,683 191 Tucson, AZ 1,022,769 765 24,065 201 549 33,533 204 216 85,231 161 Tulsa, OK 990,706 567 31,451 284 378 47,176 282 189 94,353 194 Tuscaloosa, AL 242,799 144 30,350 271 81 53,955 315 63 69,371 107 Tyler, TX 227,727 162 25,303 219 63 65,065 343 99 41,405 24 Urban Honolulu, HI 988,650 621 28,657 254 495 35,951 223 126 141,236 285 Utica-Rome, NY 293,572 585 9,033 16 495 10,675 10 90 58,714 58 Valdosta, GA 145,437 108 24,240 203 81 32,319 196 27 96,958 203 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 445,458 162 49,495 356 144 55,682 320 18 445,458 357 Victoria, TX 99,646 45 39,858 331 9 199,292 379 36 49,823 36 Vineland-Bridgeton, NJ 152,538 18 152,538 380 18 152,538 376 - N/A Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,725,246 1,134 27,385 241 837 37,102 235 297 104,560 223 Visalia-Porterville, CA 464,493 135 61,932 367 99 84,453 360 36 232,247 335 Waco, TX 268,696 117 41,338 336 99 48,854 289 18 268,696 343 Walla Walla, WA 64,614 63 18,461 124 45 25,846 138 18 64,614 82 Warner Robins, GA 191,779 135 25,571 225 135 25,571 134 - N/A Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 6,216,589 2,619 42,726 340 1,539 72,709 351 1,080 103,610 219 Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA 169,892 270 11,326 38 225 13,591 30 45 67,957 98 Watertown-Fort Drum, NY 114,187 216 9,516 20 216 9,516 7 - N/A Wausau, WI 135,732 117 20,882 161 81 30,163 176 36 67,866 97 Weirton-Steubenville, WV-OH 118,250 189 11,262 35 144 14,781 41 45 47,300 30 Wenatchee, WA 118,478 171 12,471 44 153 13,939 34 18 118,478 255 Wheeling, WV-OH 141,254 180 14,125 63 126 20,179 85 54 47,085 29 Wichita Falls, TX 151,230 72 37,808 321 54 50,410 301 18 151,230 299 Wichita, KS 645,628 477 24,363 205 315 36,893 233 162 71,736 115 Williamsport, PA 113,841 63 32,526 289 45 45,536 274 18 113,841 242 Wilmington, NC 288,156 252 20,583 157 144 36,020 225 108 48,026 33 Winchester, VA-WV 137,887 72 34,472 303 45 55,155 318 27 91,925 187 Winston-Salem, NC 667,733 477 25,197 216 351 34,243 210 126 95,390 198 Worcester, MA-CT 942,475 828 20,489 152 648 26,180 141 180 94,248 193 Yakima, WA 250,193 144 31,274 282 108 41,699 256 36 125,097 263 York-Hanover, PA 446,078 351 22,876 191 279 28,779 167 72 111,520 238 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 541,926 801 12,178 43 711 13,720 31 90 108,385 230 Yuba City, CA 173,679 72 43,420 342 54 57,893 329 18 173,679 311 Yuma, AZ 207,534 180 20,753 159 162 23,059 113 18 207,534 327 Total 279,632,728 183,339 125,010 58,329
2019 GOLF FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 33
Z2017000338 WE BELIEVE IN CREATING A SMARTER, MORE-ENERGIZED GOLF INDUSTRY. People join the NGF because they believe in being smarter about the golf industry. They want to stay on top of trends and have access to the industry’s most accurate and objective measures of the game’s vitality. Joining the NGF means connecting with a community of like-minded individuals who support the NGF’s efforts to influence golf’s long-term success. Memberships underwrite the many research projects and publications that NGF produces on behalf of the industry.
NGF EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
ConcertGolf Partners
®
®
®
2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VICE CHAIRMAN SECRETARY/TREASURER CHAIRMAN DAVID JOE LOUIS JOE CHIP BILL BRADLEY A. TIM JOHN K. ANNIKA DICK ABELES BARROW, JR. BEDITZ BREWER III GOLDEN HAMILTON SCHANTZ SOLHEIM SORENSTAM SULLIVAN CEO & PRESIDENT FORMER CEO PRESIDENT & CEO PRESIDENT & CEO PRESIDENT GROUP VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT & CEO PRESIDENT PRESIDENT & CEO PRESIDENT & CEO
THESE INDUSTRY LEADERS ENSURE THAT NGF’S MEMBERS AND CLIENTS ARE GETTING THE BEST THINKING IN THE GAME.
FOSTERING THE GROWTH AND VITALITY OF THE GAME AND BUSINESS OF GOLF
MEMBER RESOURCES • RESEARCH • CONSULTING • DATABASE SERVICES 501 N. HIGHWAY A1A, JUPITER, FL 33477 • TOLL FREE (888) ASK-4NGF • WWW.NGF.ORG This publication and any part thereof may not be published or reproduced without written consent of the NGF. © 2019 NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
Z2017000338 Wall Street Journal – January 10, 2019 – Golf-Home Owners Find Themselves in a Hole
Lawsuits pile up and fairways fall into disrepair as younger Americans shun golf, leaving behind homeowners who paid a premium for life on the links By Candace Taylor Jan. 10, 2019 10:46 am ET When Mitch Steller first moved into his house on a lush 117-acre golf course in Southern California, “this was like the Garden of Eden, having a golf course in my backyard,” he said.
Today, his Poway, Calif., home overlooks dry, dead grass in place of a once-verdant fairway. The golf club closed in 2017. “The fairways are brown, the greens are gone, the buildings are being vandalized,” says Mr. Steller, a 70-year-old maritime- management consultant.
Forty years after developers started blanketing the Sunbelt with housing developments built around golf, many courses are closing amid a decline in golf participation, leaving homeowners to grapple with the consequences. People often believe a course will bolster their property values. But many are discovering the opposite can now be true—and legal disputes are erupting as communities fight over how to handle the struggling courses.
“There are hundreds of other communities in this situation, and they’re trapped and they don’t know what to do,” says Peter Nanula, chief executive of Concert Golf Partners, a golf club owner-operator that owns about 20 private clubs across the U.S. One of his current projects is the rehabilitation of a recently acquired club in Florida that had shut one of its three golf courses and sued residents who had stopped paying membership fees.
More than 200 golf courses closed in 2017 across the country, while only about 15 new ones opened, according to the National Golf Foundation, a golf market-research provider. Florida-based development consultant Blake Plumley said he gets about seven phone calls every week seeking advice about struggling courses, from course
Page 1 of 6
Z2017000338 Wall Street Journal – January 10, 2019 – Golf-Home Owners Find Themselves in a Hole owners or homeowners’ associations. He said most of those matters end up in court, and predicted that the U.S. is only about halfway through the number of golf-course closures that will eventually occur.
When a course closes, prices for nearby homes typically fall about 25%, Mr. Plumley said. Prices can plummet 40% or 50% if a contentious legal battle arises, as potential home buyers balk at the uncertainty accompanying litigation.
In the 1980s and ’90s, developers flooded the market with golf-course communities, offering not just golf but manicured grounds, a resort-like feel and an instant social life. The country now has about 3,800 private golf clubs. Of the roughly 1,200 private clubs with homes within or adjacent to the gates, some 950 were built between 1970 and 2010, said Jason H. Becker of Golf Life Navigators, a company that helps home buyers find clubs. The communities are structured in a variety of ways: some golf clubs are owned by a homeowner’s association, while other communities border separately-owned courses.
But golf’s popularity has declined in recent years, as younger generations haven’t taken to the game with the same level of enthusiasm as their predecessors. Golf participation peaked in 2001, when nearly 30 million people played more than 500 million rounds; in 2017, that figure dropped to nearly 24 million people playing about 450 million rounds, according to the National Golf Foundation. In 2005, there were more than 16,000 golf courses in the U.S.; in 2017 there were fewer than 15,000.
In the early 2000s, as golf communities starting feeling the strain, many clubs began requiring all of their home buyers to become members. Designed as a way to guarantee more cash flow for clubs, so-called mandatory membership can end up harming home values by narrowing the pool of potential buyers. “What we are consistently seeing is that those properties, all else being equal, are selling way below what they should be selling for,” says Ken Johnson, a real-estate economist at Florida Atlantic University.
Page 2 of 6
Z2017000338 Wall Street Journal – January 10, 2019 – Golf-Home Owners Find Themselves in a Hole
In Lake Worth, Fla., the Fountains of Palm Beach community in the early 2000s made it mandatory for all of its homeowners to become members of the Fountains Country Club, located within its gates. As the original owners of homes in the Fountains started dying or moving out, mandatory membership made it difficult to sell their homes, says Fountains homeowner Sharon Harrington, who also works as a real-estate agent in the area.
“The younger people are not interested in golf,” Ms. Harrington says. “They avoid these communities altogether.” Values started going “in the toilet,” Ms. Harrington said. “People just needed to get out.” Homes that had previously sold for around $400,000 traded for than less than $200,000, she said.
Meanwhile club fees were rising; Ms. Harrington said by 2016 her dues had climbed to around $24,000, up from less than $5,000 when she first joined. Feeling that the costs were unjustified, she stopped paying her dues. A number of other residents also stopped paying, and the club filed lawsuits to get them to pay. In 2016 the club closed one of its three golf courses at the site, and in 2018, the members voted to sell the club to Concert Golf Partners. The Fountains no longer has mandatory membership, and home prices are recovering, said Mr. Nanula. He said Concert also paid off the club’s debts and has made capital improvements to its facilities, and is in process of preparing the now-closed third golf course to be redeveloped as housing.
Ms. Harrington said the suit against her was dropped after Concert’s purchase, as were others that hadn’t already been dismissed or resolved. While she still owns her home at the Fountains she is no longer a member of the Fountains Country Club, and now belongs to another nearby golf course.
Other clubs have held on to the idea of mandatory membership. In Boca Raton, Fla., a new 10-story condo called Akoya Boca West is under construction in the Boca West gated community. Buyers must become members of the Boca West Country Club, which requires an initiation fee of $70,000, plus monthly dues of roughly $1,000.
Page 3 of 6
Z2017000338 Wall Street Journal – January 10, 2019 – Golf-Home Owners Find Themselves in a Hole
Roughly 40 percent of the project’s units remain unsold after three years on the market, says Robert Siemens of Siemens Group, the project’s developer. With sales lagging early on, he said Siemens redesigned some of the units in response to feedback from potential buyers. But he doesn’t believe the club’s mandatory membership is a deterrent to buyers, for whom prices now start at around $1 million. “These are highly successful people with a lot of disposable income,” he said. “If they want to live in Akoya, that $70,000 is not going to stop them.”
Among the buyers at Akoya are Phil Kupperman and his wife Jill, who are in contract to buy a three-bedroom apartment there. Currently residents of another development within Boca West, they are downsizing from a roughly 4,000-square- foot house.
Mr. Kupperman, a self-described “golf fanatic,” said Boca West’s amenities— including four golf courses—more than justify the cost. He said he views mandatory membership as a positive, providing funds to keep the clubs’ infrastructure up-to- date and ensuring that “the people coming here are the people you want in your community,” since they are vetted by the country club before being allowed to join.
The Kuppermans have faced difficulty selling their current Boca West house, which they bought for $1.175 million in 2005. After hitting the market about three years ago for $1.575 million, the house is now priced at $999,999. The Kuppermans blame market softness.
When a golf course closes, it causes distress for people who live on the course, many of whom paid a premium for a location overlooking the links. “We all paid more money to have a golf course lot, and to have that taken away just doesn’t seem right,” said David Jacobson, who owns a home on Edmond, Okla.’s now-closed Coffee Creek Golf Course. After the public course was sold and closed in 2017, the Coffee Creek homeowners association filed a lawsuit against the new owners claiming that they have a duty to continue operating a golf course on the site. The suit is ongoing.
Page 4 of 6
Z2017000338 Wall Street Journal – January 10, 2019 – Golf-Home Owners Find Themselves in a Hole
“They hadn’t made money at that golf course in years,” said Kyle Copeland, who bought the property with partners in 2017 and plans to develop it, noting that it is zoned for single-family residential. “The thing is going to be redeveloped—it’s not ever going to be a golf course again.”
The city council in November denied Mr. Copeland’s initial plan for a mixed-used development on the site of the former course. He now plans to build single-family homes there instead.
At Mitch Steller’s California home, which overlooks the brown grass of the now- closed StoneRidge Country Club, the golf course isn’t coming back any time soon. Longtime resident Kevin McNamara recently acquired an option to purchase StoneRidge from current owner Michael Schlesinger. Mr. McNamara is a former member of the club, which he says had been struggling financially for years amid dwindling membership. When contacted by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Schlesinger requested a list of emailed questions but didn’t answer them.
After signing the option agreement, Mr. McNamara said he asked consultants about the feasibility of reopening the course, but “they just laughed at me,” he said, adding: “The economics just don’t work anymore.” Instead, he’s planning to build an “agrihood” development on the 117-acre parcel, with 162 homes and about 40 acres devoted to agriculture, such as a butterfly farm. Mr. McNamara’s plan has to be approved by local residents through a citywide vote.
For some, it is paradise lost. Lou Altieri, a 68-year-old who paid more than $1 million for a house at Kensington Golf & Country Club in Naples, Fla., in 2005, likened his initial experience of living in a golf community to being “on a cruise ship all the time.” When he joined the club, he said he was told he’d get a partial refund of his $45,000 initiation fee if he left. But when he decided to resign from the club several years later, he was told there were about 60 people ahead of him on the “resign list,” each with a membership that had to be sold to a newcomer before Mr. Altieri could receive his refund.
Page 5 of 6
Z2017000338 Wall Street Journal – January 10, 2019 – Golf-Home Owners Find Themselves in a Hole
Unwilling to accept this, Mr. Altieri stopped paying his dues, and the club sued. The two parties eventually settled in arbitration and Mr. Altieri left the club, selling his house at a loss in 2011.
Kensington’s General Manager, Dave Krzywonos, said the club has since changed its rules to give members more options for resigning, and says “refundable memberships” like Mr. Altieri’s are no longer sold. Members who join now can quit after a year-long waiting period, but those who resign must maintain a social membership for a reduced fee as long as they live in the community.
Mr. Krzywonos acknowledged the problems facing the golf-club industry. “They built so many clubs,” he said. To ensure financial stability, he said, Kensington and other clubs have little choice but to institute rules such as the social-membership requirement. “A club cannot exist in a gated community if you don’t have 70 to 80 percent of the members supporting it,” he said.
Page 6 of 6
Z2017000338 Ellison Hersch
Subject: FW: Calusa: Eddie Barrios e-mails
From: Eddie Barrios
Dear Franklin Gutierrez, I have made about 3 attempts to contact your office and it has been over two weeks and I still have not had a response from you to my email. Please have my name removed from the petition to Say No To Breaking the Calusa Trust. I did not sign this petition.
Thanks, Eduardo Barrios (Eddie Barrios)
From: Eddie Barrios Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 4:24 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Franklin Gutierrez, How are you? I hope this email finds you well. I was told to email you because there is a confusion on the Petition to say no to breaking the calusa coventant. I am emailing you to have my name and my information removed from your list because I did not sign it. So please remove me Eddie Barrios or Eduardo Barrios at 9901 West Calusa Club Drive Miami, FL 33186 with this email [email protected]. I tried to call you on friday 3/13/2020 but did not reach you and I was unable to leave you a message and I have been working so I haven't been able to email you until now. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Best Regards, Eduardo A. Barrios
1
Z2017000338 Maimi-Dade Board of County Commissioners
March 8, 2017
Invocation as provided in Rule 5.05(H)
Swearing in of Witnesses and Interpreters…
Mr. Attorney: Ok, the only item on this agenda is this application, so there isn’t another item that would be subject to reasonable opportunity?
Mr. Chairman: Very well. Alright, what’s next?
Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, good morning, and members of the board, Mark Warner, Assistant Director for Planning. We are going to have Jerry Bell make a brief presentation, staff presentation on the application first before we go to the applicant.
Chairman: Okay, very well, so before we do that….
Mr. Chairman, a point of order pleases.
Chairman: Yes.
Applicant: Uh, this matter was continued to today based upon a polling of the commission to which 12 members indicated they would be here today. It was deferred at the last meeting. One of the reasons articulated was there was only nine members here. I need seven votes in order for me to transmit and, once again, I would need a unanimous vote of those members present. I believe that as part of the Citizen’s Bill of Rights and due process, I am entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be successful before a body and with seven members here, I would need a unanimous vote, which I think is an undue burden and not contemplated and I would respectfully suggest and request a continuance of this matter until we can at least have ten members of this commission present to hear this item.
Chairman: Okay, Mr. Attorney are you going to guide us here, we have eight members present.
Mr. Chairman. Brian May representing the opponents.
Chairman: Yes.
Brian May: I just want to say that we do not concur with deferring the item. I’ve got all these people behind us, now this will now be the forth public hearing. They’ve had to take time out of their busy schedules to come down to County Hall and we all know the traffic that they have to fight through to get here. We would….
1
Z2017000338 Chairman: Yes, okay guys, wait, let’s not, understood, let’s not start the food fight just yet. So, Mr. Attorney if you could please guide us.
Mr. May: It’s their due process.
Attorney: Sure, Mr. Chairman, this is a Master Plan is a normal legislative item, even though it is done on a different day. I don’t believe that due process entitles an applicant to a particular configuration of this board, it just entitles them to be heard by this board which is a quorum of seven members and by my count there are eight, so it doesn’t have to be a unanimous to transmit today.
Mr. Chairman: My understanding is that we have two more commissioners on the way, so we will have ten here. Commissioner Monestime and Barreiro are on their way. So, with all due respect, we will continue and….
Mr. Commissioner?
Chairman: Yes Mr. Clerk.
Clerk: We also have the gentleman address the record.
Chairman: He’s going to come back up.
Clerk: Okay
Chairman: Yes, he will be coming back up. Commissioner Suarez. Well, this is your district and I think it is appropriate for you to kind of guide us on how you would like to proceed.
Suarez: The only thing I was thinking about Mr. Chairman and I was going to ask counsel about it, the two that are on their way, would they need to be listening while we are doing in order to be able to …
Attorney: This is a legislative item, so unlike zoning, it’s possible for them to vote even if they had not heard the entire presentation
Suarez: Then I think we should proceed.
Chairman: Okay, so with that, if you could go ahead and make your presentation
Good morning, my name is Jerry Bell and I will be presenting the staff report and recommendation for Application number 7.
Mr. Bell: The subject property you can see on the map there is the former Calusa Golf Course site. It is located in the Kendall area. It’s in between SW 88th Street,
2
Z2017000338 Kendall Drive and Killian Parkway/104th Street and it is in between SW 27th Avenue and SW 137 Avenue. It is about 168 acres in size, so the applicant is requesting to amend the Landy’s plan map to go from Parks and Recreation to low density residential. Um, and that’s actually a revision from the original request, the original application they were requesting to go to low medium density residential, they changed that to go to low density residential on December 2nd, 2016. The original application also was requesting to add some language to the Parks and Recreation text of the CMP. Umm, that portion of the request was withdrawn by the applicant in November as was a request to release an existing Declaration of Restrictions; but the applicant is, in addition to the Landy’s plan map change, asking…they have proffered a Declaration of Restrictions, which I will talk about on the next slide.
So the current use of the property is an abandoned private golf course, the Calusa Golf Course that I believe it was in 2011 when it stopped being an operation as a golf course. The requested use by this application is for single family residential. As I mentioned, they have proffered a Covenant; that Covenant would limit the number of units on the property to 670, and it would also provide a minimum of 50 percent recreation open space, including a 100 foot minimum buffer, which you can kind of see on the map there.
So, our staff analysis, just some of the key points from that—there is a zoning covenant on the property that requires that 75 percent of the surrounding homeowners approve it, approval that the properties to be used for other than a gold course or country club, that that zone and covenant would remain in place and nothing in this application releases that covenant; so, that is a zoning covenant. We did analyze the impacts that would result from the maximum development on the levels of service standards in the plan, none of the adopted level of service standards would be violated or exceeded by maximum development. That said, however, we do…we did identify that the plan has two points of access and that it could have some impacts on the internal circulation of the surrounding neighborhood. The application we didn’t identify any impacts on historical or archeological resources. There are specimen trees on the site however that would need to be preserved and they would need to do an endangered species survey.
Other points of our analysis, the two access points to the proposed development are more than a half mile away from transit, therefore it would not meet our definition, CDMP definition, as a transit supported development and the CDMP also includes some interpretative text that requires that the development plan for the long-term uses of privately owned golf courses, designated as parks and recreation, must provide no less than 50 percent of the land as parks, recreational and open space.
So our initial staff recommendation and this was back in November was to deny and not transmit this application. Community Council hearing was scheduled on November 28, 2016. That Community Council did not have a quorum. The planning advisory board met on or held their hearing on December 7th, 2016 and they recommended deny it and do not transmit.
3
Z2017000338
Okay, the staff has revised the initial staff recommendation. That occurred in January 2017. The current, revised staff recommendation is to transmit with a Declaration of Restrictions. It is notable that this is a recommendation to transmit only; it is not recommending to adopt or deny, just basically to transmit it to the State and other review agencies in order to receive their formal review and input. This gives us more time as a staff to work with the applicants to address the outstanding issues and concerns prior to making a final recommendation.
The principal reasons for this staff recommendation, some of the issues that form the principle reasons for our initial November 2016 recommendation to deny and not transmit have been addressed by the applicants, amendments to and withdrawals of portions of that application and they have also been addressed by the proper January 6th covenant and conceptual plan. The covenant requires a minimum of 50 percent parks and recreation and open space in accordance with the CDMP requirements for the redevelopment of privately owned golf courses; the maximum number of residential units has been reduced to 670 from 1100 units which is the 40 percent reduction, which is going to be less intrusive on the surrounding neighborhood. The covenant requires the property owner to provide to the County an assessment of the potential impacts to endangered species. Other reasons, the applicant is continuing to work with state to identify measures to mitigate projected impacts of the tranquility and character of the neighborhood, including the traffic impacts on the internal circulation. The applicant has demonstrated an ongoing effort to reach out to the neighbors and the surrounding community.
So the next steps for the application if it’s transmitted, it would be reviewed by the State in the thirty day period and if transmitted, then the adoption hearing would be scheduled after, probably in the summer.
That concludes the staff report. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much. So let’s kind of devise a game plan here and how to proceed with time factors concern. How much time you think you are going to need and I am also going to need some guidance as far as how much time on counter argument and rebuttals; so if we can kind of get an idea.
Applicant: We probably will need about 45 minutes to an hour sir.
Opponent: We will need about 40 minutes.
Chairman: 40?
Opponent: 40.
Chairman: In your 45, do you want to reserve time for your rebuttal?
4
Z2017000338 Applicant: I would.
Chairman: okay with that, please state your name and address for the record and let’s proceed.
Applicant: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Stanley Price along with my partners Albert Dodson and Brian Adler, and my colleague Leah Anderson. We are representing the applicant, Kendall Investments and we have been working on this project now for well over three years and I have been asked repeatedly why we haven’t filed one process versus another and I would like to get into that in a moment.
What we hope to do today is outline some of the historical facts of this case which are somewhat different than what you heard at the last hearing. It is very frustrating to be the applicant and go second because of the way the case is phrased is totally different than the applicant going first. Mr. Bell has outlined what our application is about. Our application is totally consistent with the language of your park and recreation provisions of the code. It is compatible. It meets each and every standard of concurrency, level of service and the like. Even at the initial filing of 1300 units met all of those standards and the only nebulous issue remaining is the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood, which we understand is very important. But that statement could be made of every neighborhood in Dade County. There is too much traffic. We understand that. We have analyzed that, the staff has and the district commissioner has gone over and over again—we’ve got to solve the problem. We have suggestions we’ve given to staff and you will hear about those during our presentation.
We have had a series of public hearings. We have had a series of meetings with individual commissioners and the staff. We have had numerous meetings with our neighbors and during that period of time, we have offered and modified the application, trying to address as much as the concerns as possible. To some people, one unit on the property would be deemed inappropriate and we understand that. We started at 1300 units, we are down to 670, we have discussed possibly going down lower than that based upon certain scenarios, but I would like to take the opportunity today to go over some of the salient facts of why we are here, why we are before this body today versus some other project that we may have been able to deal with. One of the things that I have learned in my too long career in this area of growth management and land use is that this process continues to evolve and applications continue to evolve and they are altered in order to address concerns raised at the various levels of discussion.
Over three years ago we approached Dade County in terms of dealing with an issue of a golf course, which was no longer economically viable and to go through a process repeatedly, repeatedly we were told that you cannot file a zoning application with the County unless and until you produce 75 percent of the signatures of neighbors who will reside within 150 feet. Every time we tried to file an application, we were rejected. That left us no alternative but to initiate litigation both against the County and our neighbors in regard to several issues, one of which was whether the covenant is a viable covenant and still in force and effect. That litigation is still pending. We believe the covenant is
5
Z2017000338 invalid as a matter of law, but, in any event, that is not before this board today and this board—this board will not be asked to make that decision today. In fact what this board is being asked to has nothing to do with whether the covenant is valid or invalid. If the covenant is valid, then we cannot proceed with any application until we comply with the terms of that covenant. The frustration that we have had as a result of this culminated in a decision of the Third District Court of Appeals in which we were prosecuting a somewhat sophisticated martyr argument, which is the marketable record titles act seeking to void the covenant of record. We were successful in the Circuit, but the Third District believed that this regulation was not subject to martyr, but was in fact a governmental regulation that fell outside the parameters of martyr. However, the Court finally adjudicated one significant issue and that is contained at footnote 12 of the Court opinion, and the Court said, and this is very important because we keep on asking Commissioner Cava, Cava asked why don’t we just go in and get a zoning hearing; and the fact is we couldn’t get a zoning hearing. The Court read as follows:
“We do not quarrel with the trial court’s implicate determination that given the County’s unbending construction of the subject restrictive covenant, it would have been futile to require owner to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the instant lawsuit. While we express no opinion on the issue remaining in this case, we are puzzled that the County did not process owner’s re-zoning application and conduct a quasi-judicial hearing” (I am omitting citation). Issues still pending before the Circuit Court might have addressed as matters preliminary to a proposed rezoning.”
And they outline several of the arguments that we have advanced to the court. So the answer is why didn’t we file a zoning application and go through the process, which is an alternate process, which is contained in the parks and recreation element of the comprehensive plan, is because the County wouldn’t let us do that.
In trying to bring the issue to before the County Commission, our initial application had a provision in there that we would modify language that would remove the covenant of record. We were then told that that also is not permissible and what has evolved is the application you have before you today.
I wanted to address a somewhat historical fact, not to void the ordinance, I’m sorry, the covenant restriction of record. It’s a restriction. It’s not a covenant. And we go back to 1967 and there was a two part application. The first part was an unusual use to permit to a golf course on this property. This property, not the Ring Road property, but this property. A second companion request was to re-zone a district boundary change for the Ring lots which surround the golf course. They were separate and distinct features, they had separate and distinct legal descriptions, and there were separate and distinct zoning resolutions. What is interesting in the 1967, at that time the zoning appeals board had original jurisdiction over unusual uses, but in regard to district boundary changes, they only make recommendations to the County Commission. So at these hearings, the zoning appeals board voted to approve the golf course and recommended to the County Commission that they approve the district boundary change for the Ring
6
Z2017000338 lots road. The County Commission did that two months later. With regards to the golf course, and if you look at the formal records of the golf course, and Commissioner Sosa was very exercised about how can the property owner now ignore a County dictated restriction. The fact remains that when the motion was made to approve the golf course, a proposed second was made by one of the board members to require that a restrictive covenant be place of record that this golf course would be used as a golf course in perpetuity. The second did not get a second and the zoning appeals board voted 5 to 1 to approve this golf course without the restriction that it be used in perpetuity as a golf course. Now what happened? A year later, a someone who must have purchased the golf course, came into the County and apparently, based on conversations, submitted the restriction of record, not required by the zoning appeals board, but voluntarily submitted a restriction, which included two elements. One, that the property would be used as a golf course for 99 years and, secondly, that the neighbors who live within 150 feet would have the right to consent if the golf course is not used for a golf course, and ancillary uses thereto. Not imposed by the County, this gentleman, whoever he was, put it on the property, and for purposes of discussion, we don’t think that covenant is valid today, but the covenant we cannot move until we get a declaration from a court of competent jurisdiction that the covenant is no longer valid.
So we filed this application and in recognition of that, both courts that have already reviewed this case also noted that the Ring lot owners having no obligations to support, maintain, or otherwise financially contribute to the golf course, they are a beneficiary at best. It is not within their recorded deeds, it is only on the golf course property. It is not on their golf course. Now they argue that they are third party beneficiaries and that is an argument that has obviously won over the County Attorney at this point in time, but, in the event that this covenant is invalidated by the court, those rights will dissipate and no longer be in effect.
For the purposes of today’s hearing, we take the position, and I believe it is a correct position, that no matter what this County Commission votes today in regard to our application, if it approves our application for transmittal, that is not an approval, that is a transmittal, but it has zero impact on whether the existing restriction is valid or invalid. Zero.
Now Mr. Gibbs, in a letter to Commissioner Suarez, which has become a public record, indicated that we are doing this solely because we want to show a change in circumstances. That does not constitute a change in circumstances under the law. A change in circumstances is whether a use once established and is no longer economically viable, that is a change in circumstance, not whether we are entitled to a planning category. We are entitled to a planning category because your master plan provides that we are entitled to develop with consistent with surrounding area, and the surrounding area has always been interpreted as a section of land in which the property is located.
Now over the last ten years, this County has seen at least six golf course go out of business. I have handled five of these and I have had to appear before this County
7
Z2017000338 Commission each instance—Fountain Blue East and West, Williams Island, Presidential, Westview, California Club, all have restrictions on them. Some of the restrictions have expired, some didn’t expire, and in each and every instance, there was a finding by this Commission that the golf course was no longer an economically viable use and, therefore, to require a property owner to maintain a use, which is no longer economically viable was unfair and inappropriate.
We produced expert testimony; and we have furnished it to the County by Henry Fiskind who is one of the foremost economists in the State. The staff recommendation recognizes this is no longer an economically viable use and the Circuit Court specifically said that the golf course use was no longer economically viable. That’s their verbiage. So, we are now in a situation, we come before you, we have over 50 years in which this covenant has been in effect, this restriction, excuse me., and we have 49 years to go. And the question I think everyone with common sense must ask, does anybody believe a court of competent jurisdiction is going to require a property owner to sit on a piece of property in which they do not have an economically viable use, and just have them sit there with that golf course. I know if I was a neighbor to the golf course, that probably would be a very good result, but that’s not reality and it has not been reality to this point in time in Dade County on similarly situated golf courses.
Two things that are somewhat unique about this kind of restriction, which is not in the other restrictions of the golf courses you had issued. Number one, the restriction was for 99 years. In the early 1970’s, this County through policy, eliminated 99 year restrictions in all of their restrictive covenants and limitations. They went to the State statute and that’s why in all the covenants you see proffered to the County, they are for 30 years with automatic 10 year renewals. I don’t know of one instance where a 99 year covenant has been imposed on a property owner since the early 1970’s. Secondly, it requires the consent of 75 percent of neighboring property owners to consent to a change in use. As the Circuit Court indicated, that gives them a blank check. There are no criteria which they must use, they can just sit there and veto any application, and we suggest, and once again, this is not before this body, that it is inappropriate for a governmental entity to delegate voting authority to third parties and not to themselves.
Let’s talk about the merits of the application and the issues that we have in regard to why we meet every single criteria and I would like to call forward Mr. Guillermo Amadeo (sp?) on the deal who is former director of planning and zoning for this county and serves in a similar capacity for the City of Miami and is a well-respected planner in our community.
Mr. Amadeo:
Good morning Chairman, chair member of the board. ___ for the record, 6840 SW 130 Terrace, Miami, Florida.
8
Z2017000338 This is, and Stanley went through a length presentation. This is a land use plan amendment, nothing else. This is what is in front of you; this is what the records reflect. I will take you a little back in history—I’m sorry Commissioner Moss is not here because he would be the most senior among you, and he went through this initial battle, but the growth management bill, what dictated what you must have in the comprehensive development master plan, is an anti- sprawl legislation. It was promulgated that way, it was fought through the 17th legislature, it became law in the mid 80’s and it dictated that County Commissioners and County Commissioners were the last gate for the urban development boundary. That was the initial philosophy of the comprehensive development master plan act, the growth management act. Sprawl is defined as development characterized by the low density and leap frog development. That is, skipping areas without development. The reasons stated were that sprawl caused premature depletion of land supply. You can talk to Manny O’Mara (sp?) who will give you all the figures about land supply and demand. Because of the threat to environmental sensitive lands and because it creates traffic, one of the biggest caused of traffic is sprawl because you cannot use mass transit when you have low densities. It is an absurdity. A car is needed to make every errand because there is no compact development, there are no corridors with high density, and therefore, mass transit is a failure when you don’t have densified growth. The urban development boundary established to provide a ten to a fifteen year supply of land. When you look at MSA 6.1, 6.2, the depletion here of single family is around the corner. Again, you have your resources, don’t take it from me, Manny O’Mara is here, he can tell you what the supply and demand situation is in that area in 6.1 and 6.2.
The County Commission is the only manager of the urban development boundary. The other communities frankly don’t have the impact; oversee the impact of the urban development boundary. I can tell you, you know, some of the instances that this, the previous commissioners, have said that we want to take control of the urban development boundary. When anybody incorporates into the new city that touches on the urban development boundary, this commission and previous commission have said, we want to keep the urban development boundary under our jurisdiction; we don’t want to give it away to those cities. When there is an annexation of cities, the same condition is placed on that annexation.
I will tell you from personal experience, citizens don’t manage the urban development boundary because it is not in their interest. Twelve years ago, 13 years ago, I went in front of the city commission, the Miami City commission, representing the developer for the Coconut Grove Metrorail Station, a high density project there approved by the County, approved by the RTDIC of the County, went in front of the City Commission, the people from the Globe showed up, and I got zero votes from the City Commission.
One of the caveats of the comprehensive plan is that we were going to pack densities along the transit quarters. That is not really happening. The commission has to plan the use of the land—this commission, inside of the unity efficiently. Any use that is expansive, any use that is inefficient, should be eliminated as the time goes by and it is up to this commission to it.
9
Z2017000338
Let me talk a little bit about standards because people say some standards, they cite standards, one of the things that this county should have learned, I know it learned, was from the only point case and you can ask your attorney, but in essence the only point case said county use zoning code less standards and there had to be a settlement and there was some standards included in the zoning code. Now, comp plans, comprehensive plan have some measurable standards in they are called level of service standards and they are written in the code, in the comprehensive plan and they are for roads, parks, fire, police. So, you have measurable standards in the comprehensive plans. The application, and you can ask staff, meets every level of service standard contained in the comprehensive development master plan. Additional measures of standards are contained in Chapter 33 use zoning code. That’s where you deal with set-backs, building envelopes, buffers, noise, and tranquility. They’re measurable, but they’re measurable in the zoning code. This is not a zoning exercise. This is a comprehensive plan in exercise. We are talking about the future land use of this property.
Compatibility is controlling three ways only—by density, it’s in the zoning code; by intensity, it’s in the zoning code; by buffering, it’s in the zoning code. Those standards are all in the zoning code. Again, don’t believe me, go to your staff and ask them. These are issues that have to be addressed through a zoning process. We are not there yet. In order to get there, we have to go through this step. The neighborhood, and Stanley mentioned this because it has to be clear on the record, the comprehensive development master plan defines the neighborhood as a section of land, where compatible as to density, as to intensity with the neighborhood as defined in the comprehensive development master plan.
Now redefine what a neighborhood is, and then I think you need to go to the plan amendment process and change the language there, but the language that is there today defines a neighborhood as those…that area contained within the section of land which is 640 acres. If you have any questions, obviously I am available, but it’s land use exercise, nothing more.
Stanley Price: I am going to save you a lot of time and hearing technical testimony. I am ready to talk about the traffic and what the methodologies that we have used over the last several months and, more particularly, the last couple of weeks.
Traffic seems to be the controlling aspect of this neighborhood as most neighborhoods and we were challenged by County staff and with the conversations with the district commissioner that it is not enough to identify what the problems are, but to come up with come solutions. So we have gone through that and I want to explain the methodology that we used so you would understand. We hired the well-respected traffic engineering, David Plummer & Associates, Tim Plummer is the principal. I have Juan Espinoza here who is prepared to answer any technical questions you may have, but we instructed them to do a thorough analysis and come up with concrete solutions that could be utilized. We utilized drones to fly the property 24/7. We did this over a
10
Z2017000338 couple week process. We distributed to you a copy of the photographs of some of the major intersections coming in and out of this section of land. I also have given you the actual traffic counts that were conducted at all of these intersections and I have given you another sheet showing what our suggested solutions are for that problem. We have shared that with the County. We had a meeting earlier this week with Mr. Warner and Mr. Bell as well as representatives from the traffic department of the county and they are in the process of reviewing these. Let me tell you what the findings were.
There is no question that between the hours of 7 and 9 in the morning that this neighborhood is inundated with traffic. We don’t dispute that, it is very, very clear from the drones and from observations and the counts and we asked Mr. Plummer why in this section, which is predominated by a golf course, why is there such heavy traffic. And the analysis lead by the traffic counts clearly indicate that this whole section of land is a cut-through neighborhood from areas to the south and from the west and during this peak period in the morning, 2300 trips, 2300 trips come into this section of land and uses this as a cut-through area to try to wind its way without using Kendall Drive, wind its way east to get on the Turnpike. We have traced a lot of the routes that were used. Obviously a lot of people now have Ways, which is a rural device you put on your phones---what’s the fastest way for getting from point A to point B, and we were able to track this. We said to Mr. Plummer, how do we resolve these issues and on the sheet that you have, we have suggested a whole series of transportation improvements, which we have given to the County and we have assured the county that they will be included in the covenant if we are fortunate enough to get transmitted today, and these include a whole series of no left turn lanes, but most importantly, most importantly, we have agreed to permanently fund the enforcement of those no turn lanes between the hours of 7 and 9 in the morning with the hiring of off duty police officers for enforcement.
(crowd laughing)
Chairman: Excuse me, excuse me folks, let’s be respectful. Thank you, please proceed.
Mr. Price: We have also suggested to the County staff widening of certain intersections, additional turn lanes, a traffic signal at 127th Avenue and 97th Street. A series of left turn improvement lanes and right turn lanes on major section line roads in order to address the additional traffic along these routes. As I indicated, staff is reviewing these and we have agreed to make those improvements at no expense to the County.
I would like to, an integral part of our covenant that we have submitted to the County, is a, what we call “bubble plan”. The County wanted to ensure that if we were dedicating 50 acres of land or 50 percent of our property to open space, the County wanted to be assured of where we would locate that space. I would like to have Kevin Rattery of GL Homes to come forward. We have a couple of slides we want to show you what we are proposing and hopefully it will take five minutes Mr. Chairman.
11
Z2017000338 Mr. Chairman, I said 45 minutes to an hour, you gave me 45 minutes. Could we possibly have 15 more minutes? I don’t think I will use all of it….
Chairman: I would leave some banked for ……. Name and address for the record please.
Rattery: Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Kevin Ratterree, 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise, Florida 33323. I am vice president with G.L. Homes and I handle the entitlements for the company.
I want to spend a little time with you going through the issues of open space. My job from the beginning of this project was to listen, was to learn and try to understand what some of the issues of the neighboring residents were and to make some suggestions to our principal development team as to ways that this plan can address some of those issues. I am reminded through this process in having met with most of the owners that an old joke that marriage is without compromise. I am a dog person; my wife is a cat person. We compromised and got a cat. It’s been very difficult for us throughout this process. (laughing). We’ve made some suggestions, we have done our best to try to address some of those issues, so I want to spend some time and go through them.
This is, this is the plan that Mr. Bell brought up a little earlier. I am going to remind everybody in looking at it north would be to your right on the plan. As you will notice, we’ve got 168 acre site, over 84 acres of that site is designated in the green and blue areas on the plan, which constitutes 50 percent of the site as designated as open space. The principal component and I just learned by the way that I can’t point at anything, so you will have to bear with me when I describe something. I apologize.
If you notice on the perimeter site, the site itself, remember it is 3 ½ acres, 3 1/3 miles in perimeter. We have designated a 100 foot wide minimum perimeter of open space corridor that surrounds the subject property. There are certain areas on the corners where that width goes well over a football field, but we have tried our best to try to create and deal with the issue of peace and tranquility and vistas and views in developing the plan. Remember also that right now this is private property. There is no benefit to the adjoining adjacent property owners other than that view and vista, so we are trying to utilize this open space to create a usable amenity for the area residents. We also wanted to make sure that the area residents understood that any amenities that were built within these open space areas would be the obligation of the Association of the new community to maintain. It would not be something that would be an obligation on either Miami-Dade County or the residents. So we have created this 100 foot buffer. We suggested splitting that buffer into two pieces. A 50 foot area which would be closest to our homes, which would be utilized as a berm and landscape area and then 50 foot closest to them which would be utilized for open space amenities, which I will go through in a minute. That berm would be a minimum of three foot height. The planting material would be 12 foot at height installation; so you would have 15 foot of material growth at the time of installation. What does that look like, well these are some pictures of some our properties up in the Palm Beach County market. This is our
12
Z2017000338 Canyon Isles project. On your left hand side would be 100 foot berm buffer that was plant 100 foot buffer area. This is a berm of approximately the same height and the vegetative material that we are proposing, this material has been in the ground for about 10 to 12 years, so you get an idea of scale and scope; and as you will notice in that picture, it creates a very visually opaque barrier. Again, on the right hand side, another example of a berm in another community of similar size scale and scope as that being proposed. You have with this picture on the right and left side, a similar width berm landscaped scope to what is being proposed.
So, again, minimum of 100 feet in width. The idea is, and one of the comments that I heard which is very telling to me at the last public hearing, was young lady who stood up and said I’m scared to walk my dog in my own neighborhood because of the amount of traffic and the issues we have in the neighborhood, the proximity of that sidewalk, so we have brought forth a concept and idea for discussion with the neighbors about using that 50 foot width area and those larger areas for amenities that can be utilized by the neighborhood and one of those is a walking/bike path. Some of the homeowners adjacent to the golf course said they don’t want anything in the open space, well actually they said they don’t want anything, but if they get beyond they don’t want anything, they don’t want anything in that area, but here are some concepts that we presented to them. It can be utilized for walking and biking, benches, playgrounds, dog parks, community gardens, pocket parks, picnic pavilions, fitness park, hammocks areas, Zen gardens, putting greens. How does that look? Well, this is a 100 foot section. The area on the top of the screen would be a 50 foot landscaped berm and buffer and the area on the south could be a pedestrian and walking trail, which would be open to the residents of the adjoining community and the residents of our community to be utilized free of charge. This is a concept of what this can look like with regard to the pedestrian scale. The walkway and the berm to the right. In the larger areas, which are highlighted with the red asterisks, we suggested quite a few things. They can be utilized for play lots, picnic pavilions, they can be utilized—there is a rendering of that, of what that can look like, to be utilized as a dog park—small and large dog areas designed—again, a rendering of what that can look like, and then a fitness park. Again, the idea here is we are trying to offer some suggestions and ideas to the adjoining community of ways that this perimeter open space area can be a viable usable amenity for everybody in the area.
I think I am going to leave it at that due to the shortness of time. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Price:
Let me close this portion of the presentation with why we believe it is important for this commission to transmit.
1. It is consistent with well-established policy of this commission to permit urban infill and not to create pressures on the urban boundary line. The truth of the
13
Z2017000338 matter is in the statistical minor area 6.1, 6.2, we ran out of single family supply at the end of 2016 and we are going to be out of supply of multi-family in 2017. In this statistical area.
2. Secondly, a transmittal will permit continued dialogue with the neighbors. It would take about three months to go through the State process, give us more opportunity to try to reach some satisfactory conclusions, but in the meantime, it would give Staff the opportunity to further study our traffic suggestions and whether this is a benefit to the community.
3. If we don’t transmit, the 2300 cars that constantly come into this neighborhood as cut-through will continue to occur. There will be no traffic modification of that. The County has advised us to this point that they do not have enough money to police that system and, more importantly, the County just last year suggested to this neighborhood several traffic calming systems in terms of circles in this area, which were rejected by a vote of this neighborhood.
4. It will ensure that the open space, which we are proffering, could be used by the general neighborhood. We have no obligation to make that proffer to the County. The code requires that if we override the restriction in any fashion that we must set aside 50 percent of our land as open space. It does not make any requirement to dedicating that to the public or for the public to use. It is solely for the benefit of the people in our community. Under the proffered covenant we have as part of this application, we have agreed to permit to the general neighborhood around here to utilize that 50 acres and the question you have to ask yourself is what it would cost the County to buy 50 acres of land in this area of west Kendall to build a park. I suggest we are talking in the neighborhood of $200,000.00 an acre in that range.
5. It would leave the validity of the existing restriction to the courts to resolve the issue. It will take it out of the political forum, put it in the courts where it belongs and we will either get a vote up or down in regards to our theory of the case.
6. It will ensure the private property rights are appropriately addressed, and the issues of illegal restraint and alienation of property, changed circumstances, and inappropriate delegation of authority are separate and distinct from the land use planning aspects of this application.
7. Finally, it would avoid an unnecessarily challenge to whether the County has the ability over 15 years after a restriction was placed of record to change the rules of the game to require a 50 percent set aside of open space when that was never contemplated when the restriction was proffered to the County in 1968.
14
Z2017000338 We are asking to separate the legal issues from the planning issues. From a planning issue, this really is a non-event. We meet all of the requirements of your code and the only reason to deny this application is because we have perhaps angered a community, and I recognize that; as I’ve said, I’ve done five golf courses before this one—it is not an easy process, but this is not a situation where someone is a bait and switch that comes in and asks for a golf course and five years later has asked to change that. This has been in existence for 50 years, which far exceeds the life of most of your covenants, and we just want to be treated fairly under your planning code.
I would like to reserve some time and I think I made it within your time constraints.
Chairman: You did. Thank you very much. Okay, so we will leave a couple of minutes – five or ten for some rebuttal.
Mr. Price:
Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you, thank you for your presentation.
Gibbs: May I have a little bit of time to set up?
Chairman: Yes, yes of course. Could you like us to play some interlude music while you are doing this?
Gibb: Mr. Chairman, we are ready.
Chairman: Name and address for the record. We’ll put 45 minutes on the clock.
Gibbs: We may need a little more time. We’ll try to make it quick. My name is Tucker Gibbs. My law offices are at 3835 Utopia Court in Coconut Grove. I am here today representing Kathleen Winters and Save Calusa Trust and before we get started, I want to let you know our program and that is I will be followed by Mike Alvarez who is an urban planner who will talk about the issues of the comprehensive plan and urban planning issues. He will speak for about 10-15 minutes. Miles Moss will also be following. He is a traffic engineer and will speak about traffic issues in the neighborhood. Brian May will complete our presentation.
My individual client, Kathleen Winters lives at 13300 N. Calusa Club Drive. She is right there. She is right on the golf course, and right on Calusa Club Drive and adjacent to the golf course. The Save Calusa Trust represents a group of the adjacent property owners, so it’s the people I represent. My clients urge you to deny and not transmit to the State. This is a land use change from parks and recreation to low density residential.
15
Z2017000338 We have two reasons for asking for this and requesting this. The application should be rejected because the CDMP, comprehensive plan, requires the location for residential development on a golf course restricted by a covenant that requires consent of adjoining property owners to meet specific conditions. Given what Mr. Price has told you already today, that is a very important distinction to make, and I want to say it again, you’re comprehensive plans, like a constitution of planning and zoning, everything that you do in zoning must comport with that comprehensive plan. It says when you have a golf course, just like this one that is subject to a covenant that requires a number of people, property owners to agree to amend it. This is the process you undertake if you want to do residential development. This is the process we are talking about. This application fails to meet those requirements in your comprehensive plan. The application is also inconsistent with the ability requirements of the comprehensive plan, despite the statements of the applicant.
So let me talk first about the County Commissioners’ decision to amend the comprehensive plan, and to create a process in the comprehensive plan to allow the residential development on golf courses such as this one, and, as I said, where the property is subject to a covenant requiring 75 percent consent of the property owners. And Mr. Price talked about the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision. He talked about footnote 12. Footnote 12 has a long list, relatively long, of zoning provisions that relate to an application, a zoning application. The Court correctly said for a zoning application, you need to do all these things. The Third DCA never mentioned the comprehensive plan. I don’t know if they addressed the comprehensive plan, if they had any idea about the provision in the comprehensive plan, but that’s a red herring, that particular aspect of this is a red herring. This comprehensive plan provision applies, your County staff says it applies, and the County staff has been trying to get this applicant to follow that particular provision.
Now that process, dealing in the parks and recreation element requires that the applicant’s residential development plan meet these conditions. Number one, the first condition of the comprehensive plan is they have to get the written consents from adjoining property owners and it has not met this requirement under the comprehensive plan. Number two, the applicant must show the residential development will replace an area that is in “prolonged disuse or disrepair to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood”. I’ll let you all be the deciders of that because Mr. Price has said so, he has presented evidence and he has said that’s what it is. This we might disagree with. Number three, it provides for compatible development with adjacent properties. Your planning staff has said it still doesn’t meet that requirement.
In the latest recommendation from your planning staff that was submitted back in January, they still say it does not meet those requirements. It provides by restrictive covenant that no less than two-thirds or 50 percent with City Commission approval of a new development shall be maintained as parks and recreation and open space. Here the applicant seeks the City Commissioner, County Commissions’ approval of the 50 percent. Also, this is a requirement, it provides a mechanism for financial support to maintain the parks and recreational open space, and it has a plan for that.
16
Z2017000338
Finally, and probably most importantly to the people who live in this neighborhood, the last requirement that residential density shall not exceed (let me put these up because these are my visual aids).
These are copies of a PowerPoint that Mr. Alvarez will be showing to you and explaining probably, but it says very simply that the residential density shall not exceed the lesser of, excuse me, the lesser of gross existing density of the original development related to the golf course, which are the homes and golf course that were approved in 1967. I am going to point out the one for you.
Chairman: there’s a mike down here, right there.
Mr. Gibbs: It’s the original development and this is the original development—the golf course and the abutting residential properties. In addition, the gross density of all parcels immediately abutting the entire park designated land and that is the parcels abutting the dedicated of….the land is this, in lime green. That’s the area and it is to be the lesser and if you see here under the original ownership parcels, that’s 2.15 dwelling units an acre, the lesser is .64 dwelling units an acre, which is for the entire original development. It does not meet this requirement by a lot. They are asking for 670, maybe a little less that does not go to those numbers; those numbers are in your comprehensive plan. Your planning department and staff report has explained that this provision is applicable in your determination of the application’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. That means all the conditions need to be met. The conditions that they have met are the 50 percent and if you want to throw them a bone, you can also say that the development, the residential development, and if you want to throw them a bond, that is that the property is to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. That’s not all the standards, all the conditions in your comprehensive plan provision.
Now the applicants talk about other golf courses and you all know I was here several years ago to talk about the Westview Country Club. It doesn’t apply because that was not subject to a covenant. It was not subject to a covenant unfortunately.
The applicant talked about the California Club. Now when I looked up the California Club, I found some very interesting information. Mr. Juan Mayol (sp?) represented the California Club and the application was approved and when they approved that application, they got the 75 percent. There was a covenant on that property. They got 75 percent. They didn’t make a land use change, they followed this process and the California Club was approved. It’s a beautiful site.
Here the staff continues to state that, and fine, that the applicant does not meet the provisions for the requirement of neighborhood compatibility. The revised staff report you have before you today, the staff said the proposed density is 670 units, only begins to address concerns regarding compatibility and it then says “however, the applicant still needs to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that the projected impact of
17
Z2017000338 tranquility and character of the existing neighborhood, which is part of compatibility is, including traffic impacts on internal circulation including, not only, including traffic impacts on internal circulation, are identified and adequately mitigated. One of the reasons I am sure they put the word “including traffic” because at the end of the days, it’s all about density. It’s all about the number of units and your comprehensive plan tells you it’s the lesser as I spoke before. According to this section, it requires two things that encourage neighborhood compatibility—the comprehensive plan does, that 50 percent of the property must be used for parks and recreation or open space, and the developer wants the maximum. They want that 50 percent. The fact is the comprehensive plan says 33 percent. What they get is 33 percent. They can ask for 50 percent. So, that’s a concern. So, according to this section, density allowed the remaining 50 percent of the property, using their numbers, used for residential development shall not exceed the less of the grossly existing density. That was the basis of the golf course approval, which is .64 dwellings an acre. What’s the number? And you will be shocked at the number. The number is a very low number. It’s 54 dwelling units on 84 acres. It’s a lot different than 1,000. It’s a lot different than 670. But, that is what your comprehensive plans says. And it says, the other density, the gross….the lesser of that or the gross existing density of the ownership parcels, right next to the golf course, which is 2.15 dwelling units an acre and that would be 181 dwelling units on the 84 acres allowed for development. Under this provision, the developer may not be able to build more than 54 units on the 84 acres and the developer is proposing 670.
So, the CDM provision is for the purpose of regulating the repurposing and redevelopment of golf courses, subject to restrictive covenants requiring neighborhood consent. It applies here, but the applicant wants the commission to ignore the requirement for neighborhood content and for the….and bypass the requirement for a compatible development, which reflects the abutting density as originally approved by the County Commission. That is why it is a covenant. For this reasoning, applicant’s request to change the land use should be denied and not transmitted.
Even if you look at this land use application, amendment application, without considering the comprehensive plan’s golf course redevelopment provisions, the application should still be rejected and not transmitted. The facts underlying the original staff recommendation as denial and do not transmit should remain the same. The application as it is presented to you is inconsistent to the plan and it is inconsistent…and inconsistent with the policies regarding compatibility. This is important because this is the crux of all of this. Land use policy 4C says that the residential neighborhood shall be protected from intrusion of uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety and tranquility character and overall welfare of the neighborhood by creating noise, impacts, light impacts, glare, odor, vibration, dust, or traffic. This policy imposed on the County a duty to protect residential neighborhoods against the negative impacts of their character, to their character, health, safety and tranquility. Land use policy 4A says when evaluating compatibility among neighboring units, the County shall consider factors such as noise, lighting, access, bulk, traffic and other issues. According to the staff report as revised, the application still does not
18
Z2017000338 demonstrate how the proposed development at 670 units on the golf course will maintain the tranquility and character. Note the staff’s language about that it only begins to address compatibility. So, it is inconsistent with policy for 4A and 4C, the applicants have not addressed the negative impacts of additional traffic and the statements that they made today still do not address the issue of density. Yes they say well we can mitigate this traffic. Well, yeah, they can mitigate it, they can squeeze a balloon, the air doesn’t change, it just moves somewhere else and that is what they are talking about doing—squeezing the balloon. None of those proposals can guarantee that this neighborhood is going to be protected. It can’t. They do nothing to protect the residential neighborhood in Calusa Club Drive, therefore, are inconsistent with policy LU4C and these impacts show the application is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, these increased traffic impacts will result in a significant degradation of the tranquility and character of the neighborhood and make only worse existing morning and afternoon traffic congestion. Because of this incompatibility, it is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and should be rejected and we urge you to deny the application and not transmit it to the State.
And now Mark. Oh wait, I have a couple of things I wanted to address quickly and that is dealing with the third—the one thing I wanted to say is the Third DCA also did not say that they were entitled to this application, for your approval of this application. They are entitled to ask for it and you all have the right and, we believe, the obligation to say no.
Mark Alvarez: Good morning, my name is Mike Alvarez, I am a professional planner. My address is 8000 West Drive in North Bay Village.
I was asked as a professional planner to review this application for the Save Calusa Trust and by Kathy Winters and I have a presentation to show you, what my findings are.
First I would like to start, we understand that there is a change in the economic issue, the business issue of golf courses and nationally golf courses are closing all over the country the last approximately two decades due to demographic changes and a number of issues. We recognize this and in fact it provided a lot of information, background information as planners, we tend to actually look at what other areas are doing, so I did that and there were three particular cases that we can look at and in most cases golf courses are public lands and when the reuse issue is upon the jurisdictions, the main thrust of that effort will be first it’s a public process, is all about charrettes and visioning and so forth and that the basis is the community, what the community’s needs are, and the outcomes are universally for public lands that it stays in parks and recreation and open space use. There is another case, a third instance and actually this happened in a County called Maynard Massachusetts where the County had fortunately bought the golf course and turned it into public land and then went through their visioning public process to retain it as recreation and open space. And there is a third possibility and this is the one we have here where it is private land and it is a little more complicated, but here, the main issues are one, that we have to look at the documents of the comprehensive plan for guidance as well as Covenants and Deed restrictions. But,
19
Z2017000338 most of all, that it’s no longer just about community need, both the local community and the larger community, but it becomes about balancing act against the private owner’s need for economic return from the property. And that is the critical question to us today. We are in a planning—this is about planning, this is about comprehensive planning and whether to change the comprehensive plan land use. The question that is really central to this is whether the change in business or the viability of using this property as a golf course necessitates a change in the land use map. Mr. Price says there is no viable options for them, but yet the comprehensive plan under parks, I’m sorry, in the recreation and open space land use category does allow other uses besides golf courses and it allows viable uses, viable economic uses and, in fact, as I will point out in the next few minutes, the CDMP even anticipated the situation to provide a mechanism that when a golf course closes, it can stay in recreation and open space land use category and still have a viable economic use for the property owner that balances the community need and the private property owner’s need. That is the central question.
Reuse is a common ground nationally and what we are looking at today of course are those that are recreation and open space, conservation uses, and, again, in the case of private lands, residential uses that are compatible, and, again, those are always guided by the comprehensive plan. In speaking of that, I want to remind this Board that this is not a small scale amendment, this is 168 acres and I just want to make a comment, Mr. Almadeo made some comments about sprawl and I want to talk about that and borrow somebody’s board.
I just want you to look at land use, the land use map and notice we are talking about the big green shape that’s in the middle of yellow. Mr. Almadeo mentioned that sprawl was about…one of the indicators of sprawl is when you have a stepping stone pattern where you go through a low density and to a high density. We don’t want that. And your own staff said that this is too far from the transit station in Kendall for the Kendall KAT to be a transit oriented area, more than half a mile and that’s as a the bird flies. The walking patterns, because it is not on a ______grid is even longer. This area is not appropriate for higher density and we would be putting a higher density inside of a lower density without any direct access to main, to arterials, other than through the local roads. So, in fact, in sort of way, the sprawl argument should be applied here because this is really a wrong place and if we consider that it is 168 acres and not a small scale amendment, we should also consider a sort of a wider scope than just to look at a statistical area and if we step back and think where should we have 600-700 residential units, should we have them in the middle of this neighborhood or should we be looking by Metrorail stations or where the Kendall KAT stops. There are better places if we step back and look at this in a larger scope like it should be for 168 acre change.
Now there’s a little diversion, I am going to go back to my main point. I said that the CDMP balances the issues. Of course land use policy LU-4C as Mr. Gibbs talked about, this provides the protection for the neighborhood. It says we have to look at the tranquility and character of the neighborhood against such things as excessive density and this is exactly what we have here. So this is one aspect of the CDMP protecting the neighborhood, but then the CDMP has a special compatibility. It is in the interpretation
20
Z2017000338 of the land use plan, pages I-51 and I-52 under parks and recreation. There is a special compatibility section for the conversion of golf courses and this is much more specific. I’m sorry but the TV is in my perfect blind spot. This talks about the special compatibility and, first of all, there are conditions and Mr. Gibbs talked about this, about required written consents obtained; that didn’t happen. And the condition to make a change that has to be, we have to determine that this has already degraded to the point where it is to the detriment of the neighborhood and it may be or may not be, but there is no evidence in this file that says that it is.
A more important point is coming up. First of all, that section provides that it needs to be – the yellow highlight seems to have slipped down, but it needs to be compatible to surrounding area, right. And it says surrounding development and not neighborhood. Mr. Price talked about the one mile grid. Typically when we look at compatibility in this County, the neighborhood, and I would put in quotation marks, is especially defined in the CDMP meaning the one mile section and normally we would look at that, but not here. In this special compatibility for the conversion of golf courses, we would look at the adjacent development and there are two things that it goes on to say, there are two possible cases and I’m just going to skip to these. First is that we look at the original development, which in this case is 230 acres—that would be the 148 EUM homes around the golf course and the 168 acre golf course and it says—we look at that and we determine what the density of it is and we would not go beyond that. And then it says, we also look at this. We look at the just the surrounding lots, just the 146 homes and look at the density of that. And that special compatibility says here’s the mechanism— the circles and highlighting slipped around these. You take the lesser of those two and that is allowed to be developed in recreation and open space. That’s it, they can develop it. They can put houses and I don’t believe they even have to come here, and they can put 36 homes in there because they are restricted to one-third of the property. All that’s eligible, it says you must leave two-thirds in recreation and open space. Or, by your decision, they can go up to 50 percent of it and develop it at the lesser density of those two criteria, in which case they can develop 54 homes. So, the answer to the big question is, there is no need to change the land use plan, absolutely none to satisfy the business needs of this property owner. Yes the golf course is not viable, but this comprehensive plan anticipated this, it left options. It can be developed for other parks and recreation, it can have revenue or it can be developed for homes; not a lot of homes, not maybe what they want, but that’s not the issue. It can be developed viably and for the price that they purchased the property it is very viable whether its 40 homes or 54 homes.
That is the end of my presentation. I would say in my opinion that there is no need for the comprehensive plan amendment because it is not motivated properly by anything— there is no necessity for it and it would just be doing something that has not been shown to be needed or it has not been demonstrated that will not have impacts to the surrounding community. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you.
21
Z2017000338 Miles Moss: Good morning. My name is Miles Moss. My address is 12900 SW 84th Street in Miami. I am president of Miles Moss & Associates Consulting Engineers. I will try to be brief. I have a few displays and things to talk about. I am, of course, as you anticipate, going to be talking about traffic.
Just to leave some photos up of some of the traffic congestion that was described earlier. Sorry about the logistics here.
Again, I will try to be brief.
Chairman: I see you have a very high tech presentation there.
Miles Moss: We have very good help here.
Chairman: The budget is what the budget is.
Miles Moss: I have been involved in conducting traffic engineering and safety studies for over 47 years. I have a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering. I worked in consulting engineering for many, many years. I worked for 12 years at the Department of Transportation in the County. Which, as you can see here, of course, on the far right is the turnpike, Kendall Drive, 104th Street on the south side, 137th Avenue, 127th Avenue. As Mr. Price indicated and I fairly agree, this area is inundated with traffic and most of the communities in the area in the morning peak hour everybody is flowing to the turnpike and conditions have gotten worse and worse. The conditions—the roadways cannot handle the traffic. It’s like having a glass of water that is overflowing and what happens when you add more density to it, you are just adding more water to an already overflowing glass of water. What happens, the people will take off and try to find short cuts as was described. Shortcuts through residential areas. The area of Calusa just south of it is the Crossing. People from the Crossing are coming through. People from Calusa and the other areas are coming through the Ken lands (sp?) and trying to bypass. Just to the north of here is a community of Winston Park. Winston Park is a 1481 single family community. I am president of Winston Park Homeowner’s Association and have been so for several decades. Same problems in Winston Park. People are cutting through the community. We have tried all different ways to try to stop that, but the problem is the roadway is over capacity and no matter what you do to restrict the traffic, you still are creating the congestion and the delays of trying to get out. What happens when you have delays like this when you have impacts of cars trying to get out? They then start taking chances. They pull out when it is not safe to pull out. The conditions leading to delays, the delay now just coming out of the Calusa community, the delay studies that have been sampled, show 25 to 30 minutes just to pull out to make it to the turnpike. Your department of transportation and public works has done some sampling during the morning peak hour and determined it takes 110 minutes to go from this area to the government center. The conditions are not only bad in the a.m. peak hour, but they are bad in the p.m. peak hour and the biggest problem is there are more house of the day that this traffic congestion is existing and it even carries over into the weekends. So, you try to get out on a Saturday or Sunday morning and
22
Z2017000338 you have the same problems. What happens when you have cars pulling out and taking chances pulling out, it leads to accidents. I spend the majority of my time in the past several years analyzing and reconstructing traffic accidents, determining what happened in the accident, what was the cause of the accident, what could have been done to prevent the accident from occurring. In my opinion, this additional density will add to the traffic congestion, will create hazardous conditions beyond what exists today, the statistics from the county shows the area in 2014 of the Calusa area had 633 traffic crashes and in 2015 it increased to 713, in 2016 724 accidents. So, the number or collisions per year taking place is increasing. The additional density will lead to cars taking changes pulling out and, in my opinion, will lead to a hazardous condition beyond what exists today.
So, in my opinion, this additional density is something that is a condition that will create more delay and create more hazards for the residents on the roadway, no matter what you do to try to stop the cut from traffic. You still have the same problem. People will find other routes to Kendall Drive. Kendall Drive will still back up. You will still have the same delay to get out of there. It will take two hours to get to downtown Miami. It is not reasonable and those conditions will probably exist. This will just add to that condition.
Thank you.
Brian May: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. Brian May. I will conclude the presentation on behalf of the opponents and I am going to be brief.
Chairman: Put your address on the record please.
Brian May: My address is 235 Catlonia Avenue, Coral Gables.
First I want to submit into the record the names of 1723 neighbors in the surrounding community who have signed a petition asking you, the Commission, to please deny this application and not transmit it to the State of Florida for further consideration at this time.
Commissioners, this morning you’ve heard all the technical arguments and they are all valid. Mr. Price makes some good argument, he always does. I think we also offered you a different perspective that really rings more true to this current situation, but I would ask you this morning and tell you that the property owner and G.L. Homes are not the victims here with regards to what’s going on. They have actually been the aggressor against the sentiments of the neighborhood by seeking what is really an unreasonable density on the golf course for quite some time now. I would also submit to you this is not a game changing project. It would be in terms of the traffic impacts that present to the community, but it is not producing jobs, it doesn’t offer any meaningful public benefit to the surrounding community. The people behind me are legitimately concerned with the density being proposed. You have heard loud and clear the existing traffic problems in the area. These people were concerned with the impacts of the initial application, which was 1100 homes and after three public meetings with
23
Z2017000338 G.L. Homes, since your last hearing on this item and two negotiation meetings with the Save Calusa Trust, I would tell you they are equally concerned with the 670 homes that are being proposed. They are definitely concerned with the additional traffic congestion that will be caused by another 670 homes and over an additional 1000 cars that have to find their way in and out of an already congested bottlenecked area. For the last six years, the applicant has literally stopped at nothing in order to lift a covenant and build a very dense project for the surrounding area. That is simply not compatible.
They first offered abutting homeowners actual dollars in order to get a release to pursue their development, which started at, I would submit to you, as an ALP, an assisted living community, and then wharfed into a residential community of 1100 homes. They then stopped operating the golf course and threatened the community with a blighted site. They then filed a lawsuit against the abutting homeowners, all 140 of them personally, to lift the covenant and so far that has not been successful and it is still ongoing. So now they are trying to use a comp land amendment change to be the impetus to lift this covenant. Their initial application would have allowed them to build 1100 residential units, that was shot down by staff and failed at the PAB, they amended the application to 670, which is still not acceptable to staff and it certainly is not acceptable to the surrounding community. The only thing the owner hasn’t tried is the one thing that would allow them to actually succeed in lifting the covenant and that is to come to the table with a reasonable plan and covenant that would dramatically reduce the number of units allowed on the property. Something far less than 670 units and much more compatible with the existing neighborhood.
So, I would ask you commissioners, please don’t prematurely transmit this application. The owner is trying to suggest to you that if you transmit the application, you will be forcing the homeowners in surrounding community to come to the table and work with the developer. Trust me when I tell you there could be nothing further from the truth. As Mr. Gibbs indicated in his letter, if you transmit this application and eventually approve the application, the property owner will be able to go back to Court and improve their argument under the guise of changed circumstances and literally tell the Court, look Judge, even the County Commission changed the land use and has implicitly determined that the golf course is not a viable use. If you transmit this application, I submit to you, you will do nothing but further infuriate the community and send a very mad message to these homeowners and the community. Please don’t send that message and please don’t let this applicant put you in that position. The only thing that will get the community on board is a reasonable plan for development from G.L. Homes. It is the only way the covenant will be lifted and I say to you until the owner and G.L. Homes do that, there is no good reason for you to go down the road of a land use change and rezoning of the property, so I would ask you to please deny this application and not transmit it and in doing so ask the developer to come back to the community with a reasonable plan with much less density and much less impacts on the community.
Thank you.
24
Z2017000338 Chairman: Very well. I take that concludes your presentation? Stan you wanted some time for rebuttal?
Mr. Price: Yes sir. Probably not to exceed five minutes.
Chairman: Five minutes? Very well, you’re recognized.
Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, it has been stated here on three occasions that the staff is recommending denial of our density. Unless I am misreading the recommendation…can I ask you through the Chair…find out if the staff is recommending denial of our proposed density?
Chairman: We will the commissioner of the district ask that question.
Commissioner Suarez: What is the department’s recommendation?
Mr. Warner: The staff’s recommendation on this application, to be very clear, is simply to transmit it at this point. We’ve had discussions with the applicant on a number of issues with this, they have made some improvements. In terms of the density, we are still looking at that and evaluating that. I am not sure that 682 is going to get it, but you know we need to keep looking at is from a compatibility standpoint.
Mr. Price: I didn’t ask whether they are recommending approval. I am asking if they are recommending denial. It has been said three times today…..
Mr. Warner: Obviously a recommendation to transmit is to neither deny or adopt.
Mr. Price: Correct. You are not denying?
Mr. Warner: We are not denying the actual….we are not requesting to deny the application.
Mr. Price: Let me briefly reflect what with Mr. Gibbs and his planner—they are not reading the comprehensive planning correctly. The language they are reading from parks and recreation deals with property that which the golf course would use as part of the computation of open space and was a part of an integrated plan. That was not the case here.
The Ring Road homes were never part of the golf course, never had any benefits of the golf course, never required to pay for the golf course, had not rights of membership in the golf course, and, therefore, if you look at the language in the comp plan, it specifically says that is not such property where it is served by the open space. The Ring Road homes are not served by the open space, it wasn’t provided for their benefit. It was a separate and distinct use and, therefore, that whole second paragraph of parks and recreation which they have stated here today, is a totally erroneous reading of that section. And if you look at i51 of the comp plan, it is very clear when that section
25
Z2017000338 applies and that, like Fountain Blue, the Fountain Blue golf courses were part of the open space for the overall development. That required the 50 percent set-aside, which it did. This is not that instance.
Just a brief statement, and Mr. Gibbs thinks it is nothing important, but the Petition forms which they submitted talk about townhomes and zero lot line homes. We have a covenant for single family homes in our thing. I am sure they may be able to get the same 1100 signatures, but it is not an accurate Petition.
When we sat down with staff, we analyzed what was the immediate area and we always have used the section. The section, this section is developed at a density of 5.1 units per acre. We are asking for four. We are asking less than the average density of this section and that’s what your comp plan talks about, not what they indicated.
Mr. Gibbs argued today we want you to eliminate the 75 percent. We don’t want you to eliminate the 75 percent, we will eliminate the 75 percent by our actions in court. We are asking you for a master plan amendment. We are not asking you to change the covenant. We are not asking for zoning approval. Whatever you do here today, we have to come back through a zoning hearing, which we will ultimately have to demonstrate the compatibilities and everything else. They are asking us now as part of a master plan process, and we have cooperated with them as much as we can, given them the bubble plan, they asked us to set aside the buffer area, we’ve agreed pursuant to staff that we make it available to the community, which is private property—all that goes away if we are successful in court. Finally, Mr. Gibbs loves to quote from the comprehensive plan about tranquility of neighborhoods. I suggest to you when you put one more house in any community, you are upsetting someone’s tranquility and peace and bother. Everyone would love to live on the section of land by themselves and don’t want anyone around them. I understand that. Its human nature, but you have rules and you have to apply the rules in a fair way. What the planner suggested, Mr. Gibbs’ planner suggested, Mr. Alvarez, excuse me, is that the county buy this property and this way everybody can be assured that it will be used for a peace and tranquility. I assure you that the uses suggested by Mr. Alvarez will also be rejected because they are going to bring traffic to the area. You are going to need parking for that use and the like. So, are we going to please everyone? The answer is no. There is a famous sign that used to be in the County budget office, Dennis Carter used to be the budget director who is a great man, he used to say “budgeting is equal distribution of dissatisfaction”, and that is what I do for a living, that is what, unfortunately, you get to vote on, but the fact remains tonight and today is not the end of this case. We hope you transmit, we hope you continue with the dialogue. Mr. May who has on a 100 times that I have been here has sat on my side of the table and basically he never told you and no one has ever told us, what is a satisfactory number for the neighbors. He said renegotiate it. We were told 100 times when we met with the neighbors, don’t say we are negotiating, we don’t want them to think that we are working something out with you, but they can use the word “negotiate”. We have met with them to discuss what we would like to do here and what was in their best interests.
26
Z2017000338 I thank you. Sincerely thank you for your time and I hope you transmit this application.
Chairman: Okay, very well. Thank you and thank you everybody for your patience on this matter. Commissioner Suarez you are recognized and I have Commissioner Sosa in the batter’s box.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Martinez: If I may make a comment right before you do?
Suarez: Sure, it’s up to the chairman, but I have no problem.
Martinez: It’s just, I want everyone to remember, and this isn’t the western most part of your district. This affects my district completely. It is in your district, in name and number, but I will have some _____ with you and the rest of the members because if it affects anybody, it affects the residents two blocks west where that application ends and everything else. Thank you.
Suarez: Duly noted.
Chairman: Commissioner Suarez you are recognized followed by Sosa and then Heyman.
Suarez: Thank you Mr. Chairman and I want to thank my colleagues for making this effort to be here on a specially scheduled commission meeting. We’ve had already this week, this is the second plan recession of this board and we have been going at about eight per month, so almost every week we have at least two meetings, and I am not including committees. It makes me wonder why we get paid $6,000.00 a year, but that’s not a pitch to change that, I am okay with that, I accepted it when I ran. And I want to thank the community.
The way this is supposed to work is not the way it has worked unfortunately. Some years ago this board saw fit to create community councils; it was based on an outcry from the community and the County as a whole in unincorporated areas to give people and their neighborhood a say as to zoning matters and planning matters only they are familiar with and that is based on a principle, which in political philosophy is called a principle of subsidiarity and it means that you try to do things as they affect the people closely involved in that decision.
Unfortunately the community council did not get quorum, but you did have a hearing before the PAB, which has recommended a denial. Let me clarify that, that presently proposed application—that hasn’t changed right?
Mr. Warner: That is correct, we are recommending transmittal prior to some changes that they made, we did recommend deny, do not transmit.
27
Z2017000338 Suarez: And I want to note that our Sergeant at Arms asked that we deliberate things in a spirit of togetherness, which is a little tough here on this one because we have diametrically opposed sides, but that he added in the betterment of our community and, of course, our community there is defined, I think, properly as the neighborhood affected. Again, under the principle of subsidiarity. The convoluted nature of the procedural aspects of this, given this covenant and the court decisions related to it, is something that causes me to apologize to all of you for what we lawyers have managed to do with this situation. It reminds me of a quote, a famous quote from Shakespeare, actually attributed to a butcher, and I won’t quote it exactly because I will use a more euphemistic, but first thing we will do is we will get rid of the lawyers. Actually he said something a little more stronger than that, but I don’t want to use that word, that’s the media report that I am saying something about killing lawyers, which begins with me as Commissioner Monestime is reminding me of it.
If you read the court decisions, there is confusion everywhere. Again, I don’t want to criticize the Third District Court of Appeals for misunderstanding the process that we are in as not being exactly quasi-judicial, it’s not really zoning, it’s a planning decision at this point. How they even came up with the term quasi-judicial is beyond me. I think if Thomas Jefferson was alive, he wouldn’t be happy. Something is either judicial or it isn’t. If it is vested in the legislative branch, then it is not judicial. But, anyhow, they did that and we have to live with it. As we read the Third DCA opinion, and as I read the letters, comments, made at the prior session of this board where we took public input, my staff has counted as to the letters including one I received today, um not including one I received today, which is signed by Vivian Suarez and Peter C______. Let me clarify, I am not related to Vivian, though she has a great last name. We received 484 letters from neighbors and constituents, etc. 480 of the 484 mention the covenant and so when you hear both side saying that the covenant is not the issue before us, all I can say is, folks I wish that you would get the issue of the covenant resolved and there are two possibilities that are left open by the Third District Court of Appeals as to arguments that would be made at the trial court, maybe there is more, I can think of a couple, but I am not going to throw them in and not try to help either side—I am not being paid to argue the case, but I am being paid as are all of here to try to figure out why it is that most of you that are out there and certainly all of the opponents believe and your counsel believes that there is a covenant in place and that it must be obeyed and that failing 75 percent approval of the people in the immediate perimeter, there is nothing for us to do because we cannot remove the covenant. I think despite whatever the trial court may have said that a Summary Judgment could be obtained on at least two of the issues that are presented, one of them is perfect for Summary Judgment and that’s the one on restrain on alienation, the other of change in circumstances, maybe the court will want to hear form this board, but it seems like it still is putting the cart before the horse. And so, for those reasons alone, I am inclined not to recommend to my colleagues that we move forward with this, but I do want to get into the merits of it briefly.
Two issues at stake here—transportation and density, and they are very related. Tucker Gibbs used the metaphor of balloon. I think of this neighborhood as being surrounded by what looks like a noose and if you saw, as I think by the way the
28
Z2017000338 applicant has done extremely well—a lot of the traffic issues as people try to cut through the neighborhood—you saw a problem of a noose when you pull on it and tighten it from the outside, but you haven’t solved the problem of a noose that is tied around the neighborhood that if it grows, automatically tightens the noose. So, from the inside, you have that problem and it has been acknowledged by the applicant—there would be increased traffic in an area that is already under heavy siege as far as traffic going through.
On the density side, this gets really complicated my colleagues. I hear from the applicant saying that as of right, without even having to get a change in the master plan, they would be able to build somewhere between, as many as 2.15 x 168 acres. The applicant says no, it would be really a lot less than that, somewhere between 50 and 150 units and, of course, we have to apply the principle of compatibility and the principle of compatibility has led our department to say that we are already within what they consider to be, you know, fairly compatible at 670 units. I am not convinced of that myself and I don’t know how my colleagues feel until they speak on it. I do want to say to the opponents, we are getting close to the point which if we deny totally this matter going forward, we could be in a situation going forward they would say that we violated the standard, that we have to apply, which is that we have acted capriciously, unfairly and capriciously---arbitrarily and capriciously, so I warn you of that, so don’t take my motion and my recommendation to this board as being total success. I would strongly recommend that you continue to negotiate and based on all those, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, rather than denying, I would move to transfer this matter to the next cycle. The applicant is not going to be happy with that because they have been at this for a fair amount of time, but it gives them an opportunity to go back to neighbors and find something that is agreeable to both sides and also, more importantly, from our perspective, get the court to make some decisions. Either this covenant is in place, in which case you have to get 75 percent or it’s a covenant between private parties of which the county is not particularly….I don’t know what they are going to argue in court frankly because the covenant looks like it is valid and I don’t want to give my opinion on that, but I think a court should rule on that before this board is required to rule on this matter. So that is going to be my motion and I caution both sides that at some point or another, you should get to the bargaining table and try to come up with something that is agreeable or otherwise our decision might very well be very dissatisfying to both sides.
I thank all of the people that have given us input, but I never met so many times and analyzed so many documents in my, I think in my entire life, except maybe a couple of major projects when I was in the City of Miami, and so I have given this my utmost consideration and as things now stand, I cannot move to transmit this so I am suggesting the alternative Motion to Transfer to the next cycle and see what my colleagues say about it.
Chairman: Very well. Commissioner we have Sosa, Heyman, Martinez and Barreiro in the que. Commissioner Sosa…
29
Z2017000338 Sosa: Thank you Mr. Chairman. To the attorneys. Is there a covenant in this land?
Mr. Attorney: There’s a zoning covenant.
Sosa: Okay, zoning.
Mr. Attorney: And they would need to do through the zoning process to change that covenant and then there’s the litigation around it that has been discussed.
Sosa: Okay so if we have a covenant and they say that the covenant is invalid, then what is the validity of our vote in this table.
Mr. Attorney: This is a different process. You’re at the planning level.
Sosa: Understand, I understand the covenant, but let’s say we are in the signing level right now to deal with the covenant, then if someone says that a covenant that was voted by us to be placed as a zoning approval in 1968
Mr. Attorney: 67-68 – It was 67 when the resolution was done
Sosa: The one who were seated here voted for that and it’s there. Okay, I understand. So someone comes and says that’s invalid, then who is going to trust us. What is the validity of us sitting in the s…..
(audience applauding)
Chairman: Excuse me, excuse me, wait commissioner. I just want to remind everybody, I know it is an emotional issue and our rules are sometimes are kind of quirky, but if you can refrain from applauding; you are allowed to do thumbs up, hand shaking and all that, no middle fingers, we appreciate not middle fingers, but if we can just abide by that, then we can get through this thing in an orderly fashion. You are recognized Commissioner.
Sosa: Thank you. That’s my concern. Even if we want to abide by the covenant, which we have in the Youth Fair, because there is a contract there for X amount of years like there is a contract here for X amount of years. So, I am concerned that if someone is telling me that something that is voted in the table is invalid, but they want to reverse it, then what is the validity of us reversing something you don’t trust. What we are doing, that’s my main concern in legal terms.
Mr. Attorney: Let me try to answer it this way. A covenant as a legal instrument, there are certain challenges that can be made in court to a covenant. Just like there are challenges that can be made to a regulation. It doesn’t mean that it is going to succeed. One case that have as an example, the Sunland case and I think that relates to one of the projects that was referenced here before, what the court did in that case is it said
30
Z2017000338 these are the different factors that you look at and what’s the court’s equity jurisdiction where it’s not money, its fairness. Where the Court looked at it and said these are the factors—unreasonable restraint on alienation is one, changed circumstances is another, and the court looked at it and said, we are going to do this analysis, but we find that because it was a zoning covenant and because it was, it looks like it continued to protect the neighborhood, we find that it fails under those factors. We are not going to modify it and we direct the parties to go back through the zoning process prior to modifying.
Sosa: So it came back to us so the trust is placed on us.
Attorney: Correct, the decision was left with you. That was the one reported case that seems closest to this.
Sosa: So that clears it up. Okay, has the required 75 percent consent been obtained which requires residents from 155th of the golf course to sign.
Attorney: Not at this time.
Sosa: So that is one of the requirements. Was the new owner of the golf course, the owners, whoever bought this property, did they know about the covenant and the requirements before they bought the property as required by disclosure by law?
Attorney: Um, between the recording and the public records and the zoning resolution, even if they didn’t actually know, they were deemed to be on constructive legal notice, so they were obligated to know.
Sosa: Because it’s fair that if they were buying a property, they knew about what it says there before because if not, it will be totally unfair to the new owners not to know that there was a requirement there. So, the two parts have to be respected in this case.
When Fountain Blue happened, it was half my district and half Commissioner Soto’s district, but we didn’t have a covenant like we have now and we decided to tell them sit and reach an agreement. If you don’t reach an agreement, nothing will happen. So at the end of a long time, Commissioner Suarez, the residents of Fountain Blue and the ones who wanted to develop, they reached an agreement and they came together in front of us and that was the moment that we approved. We never approved before without the consent of the resident because at the end of the day, progress is beautiful, it is necessary, many people say not in my backyard because I want to keep it this way, but when there’s a contract and there’s a covenant there, some respect to be given there before, and at the same time the quality of life of the residents of this great county needs to be taken into consideration, so Commissioner Suarez, I will support you not to transmit this application in the hope that if something happens in the future where both parts can reach an agreement, I will be more than glad to listen. Thank you.
Chairman: Commissioner Heyman, followed by Martinez.
31
Z2017000338
Heyman: Thank you Mr. Chair. Well, I had a better understanding of the issues but who I listen to counsel from both parties today, so I’m actually going to seek some clarify if I can. The only thing I am still certain of is the area before us is in the infield, it doesn’t go pass the UDB, so I think that is the only clear point I have.
First of all to our counsel, this is only about planning, so to hear some representation about 75 percent of the owners and covenant and everything else like that, that is not what we are here about today. It’s only about the BCC. Is that correct as it relates to planning?
Mr. Attorney: That’s correct.
Hayman: Okay, thank you. And as it relates to planning and the Burt Harris issue, if we are go keep this as it is and stay it again, we’ve heard this three time here in our chamber, if that’s a suggestion of transfer to the next cycle instead of transmit or kill it, transmit to the next cycle is us again. Is that correct?
Mr. Attorney: That’s correct.
Heyman: So, with a guise of suggesting that because parties are close, since I have been sitting here and this is my two and a half time on the board time cycle, I haven’t seen anything closer from the commissioner on this district. I see concessions, but the bottom line is, one side wants a golf course, and the way it’s been with a covenant and the other side says, we are not going to operate the golf course, we’ve stopped it since 2011 and we want to make some change. So there have been some concessions, but it’s still change. So, I guess it begs to say to hear it one more time here isn’t realistic to think if it comes back in a month, two months or whatever, that it’s going to change anything on the planning side of things. We can’t compel anything other than buy our vote. Is that correct?
Mr. Attorney: Um, yeah if you forward it today, there’s the other half of the process when it comes back to final adoption. If you transfer it to the other cycle, then you have the transmittal period again and then transmittal and possibly final adoption. It gives you more time.
Heyman: And not action?
Mr. Attorney: I think that is correct.
Heyman: Okay. Alright thank you for that clarification. As it relates to Bert Harris Act in taking, but I hate that term, if this issue stays as it is, as a non-operating golf course, we are not moving anything forward. Does the County have an issue—do they have a Bert Harris issue?
Mr. Attorney: Anybody can bring a Bert Harris action.
32
Z2017000338
Heyman: Anybody can sue also. I’m asking specific to the Berg Harris issue.
Mr. Attorney: In my own view, there are other uses that are available and we’ve made this argument in the trial court and before the third district. They’re not wedded to solely a golf course. There are country club uses. So, for example, signature gardens could be developed here without needing to go back for any further zoning approval. Um, so I would—they probably disagree, but they bought what they paid for, or they got what they paid for. Their predecessors committed to a golf course, that’s what they bought, and so my own personal view is a Bert Harris can be weak, but I can’t make any commitments or guarantees on that.
Heyman: Okay, well, you never can predict what happens in a court of law. Um, let me tell you a perspective that I am coming from and for anybody who knows my history here, I think one time in 15 years now I supported moving the UDB line and it was with a lot of concessions and conditions, so I’m delighted to see one more option for infill. I come from an area and I like that people raise the issue of the Williams Island/California Club and that was called Aventura Isles Golf Course and inherited that as a state representative, and it was a problematic parcel of land that wasn’t successful and the people who were the principals wanted to change it and it got held up with my predecessor who is a commissioner and then I inherited it and instead of really trying to work it out, it was a steadfast. We have a golf course, we want a golf course, or we want nothing else, so leave it green space and it sat in disrepair, it looks nice on your picture since 2011, but in my old district and now commissioner Jordan’s district, it sat in disrepair and it was a problem with code enforcement and the neighborhood for years and it compromised the area and what was intended to be a nice area with no more than 50 percent development and a horse path and bike and everything else, it has now turned into 1000 units, the are fighting to have an open park, it’s residential with no ___, no horse path, no everything else in Aventura Isles and I am also dealing with another one in Presidential where someone bought up the land and it’s a golf course that isn’t working and wanted to put up high rises. Well years later now, it’s a concession, but it is for townhomes facing I-95. So everything that is held up, like Mr. Price said, he’s been at it for four years, I think half of them are golf courses, half have been in my district at one time. It just seems evident that people who came in under the planning aspect of this, they want what it was and where green space, nothing at all, which I would like to have if I live there, but the reality of land use and letting people take a look is very real. The last thing is I think record shows that I’ve pretty much always supported transmit, even if I had great hiccups, or flat out said, I’m not going to vote for this in the end, there’s something problematic or, in this case, the covenant that clearly speaks for itself and as far as I’m concerned, is a legal document that people relied on and I don’t support breaking the covenant. But, to transmit, Mr. Attorney, if it goes to Tallahassee, it does not change the status of leave it as it is until you get a report from the State putting eyes on it and giving thought and perhaps recommendation. Is that correct? Nothing they say is binding, it just puts other eyes at a different level on possibilities.
33
Z2017000338 Mr. Attorney: That’s correct.
Heyman: Okay, and it’s about three months. Right? Is that the standard time now?
Mr. Attorney: If it’s standard application, about 45 days.
Warner: Yes.
Heyman: Alright, a month and a half. So, transfer to the next cycle to leave it here when the wiggle room has not moved that much, the balloon has not been choked that much or the other clichés we have, and it’s the same that says we want golf course or green space and nothing else and abide by the covenant versus other eyes on it and then coming back to us and seeing where we stand, either way, it is time permitted, correct? 45 days versus the next cycle. Is that correct Mr. Warner?
Mr. Warner: Moving it to the next cycle, yes the answer to your question is yes. It would still come to you for a transmittal hearing ultimately and you would get the 45 days again, and, so, you know, you are talking about another ten months in the process if it is transferred to the May cycle I believe.
Heyman: If it is transmitted to Tallahassee, it goes up. What happens then? And I am going to say transmit without recommendation as I’m not for approval of this, as it stands right now. Transmit to take a look at it instead of sit here and let’s look at it again with the same body, the same population, probably the same council, and then the same dialogue for the fourth time or fifth time.
Mr. Warner: Exactly, so, again, you transmit it, it takes about 30 days to 45 days to get comments back and then we would pick up again with scheduling a final adoption hearing.
Heyman: And would the public as a whole know what is asserted by the State and everybody else instead of one side versus the other side, an impartial body that doesn’t have a dog in the fight?
Mr. Warner: Absolutely. Any comments that we receive from any State reviewing agencies and the regional counsel would be published on our web site. Everybody would be informed, including the board, as to what those comments are.
Heyman: Okay, well I always like more information than less, even if I don’t agree with it, but I’m not seeing what the harm is to the commissioner of the district. Leave it here for one more CDMP cycle as far apart as they all are with no action versus transmitting with no recommendation because I don’t support approving it right now, I’m not sure with the covenant I will ever support approving it, but transmitting it to put different eyes on it instead of the same set with the residents with a great emotional and financial investment in the area, that’s nonbinding also, and giving it time, and getting another perspective on it without something that is binding to you. This is the first time
34
Z2017000338 I’ve ever heard that I can recall, but other people have better recall perhaps, to transfer it one more time back to CDMP, which is our next cycle for the same series again when something is that far apart, we’ve seen some movement, but we haven’t seen any movement since the last time we met, so I’m not sure what is the angst on transmitting with no recommendation and then viewing that perspective shared by all that is not binding for anything and then we have further discussion because it comes back to this body instead of it stays here with no motion, movement I mean. If I might Mr. Chair, explain the transfer to the next cycle so its CDMP back again, same as the game.
Chairman: You are recognized for your clarification.
Suarez: the problem with transmitting is it sends two messages to two constituencies which are problematic. One is to the opponents certainly that we are accepting a recommendation of our staff as to 670 units, even though we are transmitting without recommendation. And the other one, frankly, is the court might consider that to be an analysis of changed circumstances. There is some movement commissioner. I don’t want to state it publicly, but I’ve heard some movement on both sides. I am hoping this might bring them to a settlement of some sort. Failing that, as I said, if it were presented back to us exactly the way it is right now, I would move to deny.
Heyman: Okay. Mr. Warner, if I might, on staff recommendations, the staff recommendations right now are, I thought you said, to transmit? Not approve, but just transmit?
Mr. Warner: that is correct.
Heyman: So that would be information that would be out there anyways whether we do another CDMP meeting or it goes up to Tallahassee and they read it there. I don’t want to guess what a court will do, but I think the information, if anyone read it, I’ll assume that people up in Tallahassee read the information, will do---I’m going to listen…I’ve got to tell you, you say there is movement and I doubt a time gap is going to move to a meeting of the minds here. It’s going to be a challenging difficult decision for the commissioner of the district, but that’s what we do. Neither one is binding, I mean nothing we have done yet is binding. To transmit wouldn’t be binding. It would still give you more time and people can continue on both sides to negotiate. Does anything stop them or chill it from occurring if it is transmit without recommendation to proceed and allow them to continue…..
Mr. Warner: To transmit would not hinder or prevent them from continuing to discuss the issues.
Heyman: and would it leverage one side or the other to a better advantage considering…
Mr. Warner: No.
35
Z2017000338
Heyman: Nothing happens but a viewing and eyes on coming back?
Mr. Warner: No.
Heyman: Okay.
Suarez: Mr. Chairman may have one more answer, I forgot the most important one.
Chairman: Yes, and then we will go to commissioner Martinez.
Suarez: Thank you. The most important reason commissioner, I forgot to mention, is, of course, that it might be time for the parties to get a legal determine inquiry as to whether the covenant can be enforced.
Heyman: In due respect, if I might follow up to that, the one thing I took the time to do is qualify with our attorneys today, nothing about this today deals with zoning and the covenant. So, instead of asking you as a commissioner attorney, I asked the county attorneys, so Mr. Attorney nothing would deal with the covenant as far as the planning questions before us today and CDMP or the transmittal.
Mr. Attorney: That’s my view, that’s correct.
Heyman: Okay so we are not dealing with the covenant anyways. That is a whole separate thing that I already said that is a strong factor for me to not move ahead on final plans, but I don’t mind asking someone else to take a look at this, especially if it is nonbinding. Allow them sitting here fourth, fifth, sixth time on the same thing when there is no meeting of the minds. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez followed by Commissioner Barreiro.
Martinez: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I only have one question for you guys and the rest will be comments and statements. How many homes can actually be built now as a matter of right?
Mr. Attorney: As a matter of right, none because of the covenant. They have GU zoning, which would allow, assuming that they got the covenant removed without a further zoning hearing, the GU zoning would give them I think 30 some odd, 37 houses. We looked at at some time. And then there is…
Martinez: 1 per five acre right?
Mr. Attorney: Yes, it’s one per five. And if they were to travel under the parks and recreation designation, get rid of the covenant, file a zoning application to another
36
Z2017000338 district that I think, there is a disagreement between the between the applicants and staff as to how many homes they could seek with the district boundary change.
Martinez: Alright, thank you. I don’t agree with shipping it off to another CDMP, we re-sat through this twice and this is just kicking the can down the road, but I will go with the majority of the people here that they may want to do it. I have been hearing about this, even though I hadn’t sat on this board for four years, for a long time, and I am very, very well versed in this case.
I used to play at Calusa. It’s great that it only had one water, so I only lost X amount of balls. Now it’s Micasucan, you have to buy them by many. But, I understand these people purchased their homes the same as the company that bought this golf course knowing full well there was a covenant. They bought their home with the assurances that this board, not these members, but this board gave them and attorneys on both sides here, Mr. Price, Mr. Gibbs I am going to say this in a very loving way, you’re Don Quixote. You take these…fight these windmills, but at this time I am on your side. They all accepted covenants and we sit on zoning here and CDMP and everything and in order to appease both sides, especially when we approve charter schools, they always have a covenant and we expect them to live by it. While in 1967 this board gave these people an assurance, which we may break, but I hope we don’t. I really, really hope we don’t because people bought that home with the covenant. The owners of this golf course bought it knowing there was a covenant and I am not going to ask you whether it’s good in court or not because I don’t want to weaken your case in case it is or strengthen, but we are not going to do that. ______, many of you know, united home. Manny Sota’s right hand woman, twice they had to get 75 percent signatures by the target in my district and it was a golf course. Twice. One time during Christmas and they did it. They got 75 percent of the owners to go ahead and sign to waive it. Your nodding your heads because that is exactly what occurred one time during Christmas, and they did it. That was their negotiation with the owners. They made a proffer, they accepted it, they got their signatures. They were able to do it. ______same way. So don’t tell me that this is something that cannot be done from their side. It can be done.
There has been a lot of talk about this isn’t really zoning, and technically in your book and what we are doing, I agree. It’s not, but in perception, it is, and I liken to the FIU case where they took it to a vote to get the offer out and the presumption is that this board approved the vote and the people voted for it, everybody wants FIU to take over and kick out the Youth Fair. I’m not talking about the merits of that case, I would love if FIU expand and all that, but that’s not this. But it gave the perception in this arena, in the political arena because this is quasi-judicial. Commissioner Suarez who made it up either, but it sounds kind of cool.
In this arena it does matter. If we decide to transmit, even if it is with a denial with whatever it might be, the perception is that we do approve of this and I have always liked to transmit to get information. This one has a covenant. It has our word. No wonder people don’t trust government. We sometimes break our word and I get the feeling from what I’ve heard that that is not going to be the case, but the covenant was
37
Z2017000338 put down. How many covenants have we done? Now we have term limits. Do you want somebody in eight years down the road to break your covenant? If they break mine, I guarantee I will be in that pit complaining about it. Sosa will too and a lot of you will. You believe in having word. Well, this is a word of a body, not individuals, but it is the word that this body gave and if we allowed them to go ahead and negotiate with these people, and if they can, let them. I’m good with that. I’ve always liked the development part and, but, this is a different one. They knew what they were buying. They knew there was a covenant. The people who bought the homes knew or thought or think. You know what, let’s give it the benefit of the doubt, they know that we have their back and that we are not going to break our word to them and let them negotiate.
So I wish we can take it up today and decide, but if Commissioner Suarez you decide to go ahead and punt and then get the ball back and later on find out, that’s your decision and I will support it this time, but don’t forget, this really has four commissioners involved. Soto to the north, Moss to the south, and I take the whole west side. Everybody who comes to 8A and 104, and my bad, people from district 11 due cut through Calusa, I’m pretty sure they do, because they have to come through there. This completely impacts my district and they gave some suggestions for traffic, but it is not a traffic solution. Looking to put one home is going to bring one to three cars. You can business, isn’t going to do it. So, anything you put there is going to bring traffic. We have to understand it and we are trying to deal with it with the leadership of the Chairman and the transportation committee. We are trying to deal with it alright and God willing we will this time, but this is not a traffic solution. This is not and more importantly, this is basically principle. This is our word. This is government. We gave you our word and now we have to back it up.
Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Barreiro followed by Diaz and then Jordan.
Barreiro: Thank you Mr. Chair. Looking at this issue, we…the issue of density, which is the hardest, you know, South Florida and in particularly the three counties, they are surrounded by water. I live in a single family house but, realistically, that is going to be a thing of the past in 50 to 100 years from now. We are basically, we are not New York, we are Manhattan with a New York. Florida doesn’t understand that. That’s what’s coming. New York is 500 years older, a lot older, but I feel that in this particular case, more information doesn’t hurt. So a transmittal, I will support.
Now the issue of what’s proposed right now and talked about, that’s not going to fly. Six hundred plus homes, who knows…under any….I don’t see that happening under any circumstances. I think we are, you know, this is a long, long way from getting any approval of zoning. I strongly feel that rejecting or not transmitting, then they will continue negotiations….is not really going to resolve the issue, expedite it or delay it. What it is going to cause is more bureaucracy. I think getting this more information from the State and then hopefully more communications between the two parties, would
38
Z2017000338 come to a meaningful conclusion. The issue of the covenant is going to be decided by the Courts, but also this commission always has the power, in my opinion, recreate the ordinances that say well you have to get 75 percent of signatures and so forth. We create all those rules…are created, amended, their changed, modified, as the process goes. So, you know, I’ve always said that since I’ve been here. So I think this is a long way and I think I will support the Motion.
Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Diaz followed by Jordan.
Diaz: Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is always difficult when you have so many people, so many people that it touches their lives on a daily basis and everything that is part of their life. I met with several and I understand wholeheartedly, it’s very simple to understand and anybody who travels the area understands how difficult it is. I will take Commissioner Martinez’s comments almost to a T and accept them as mine too. I think that that is very important when we do give our word and when we do things up here, that we keep them. At the same time, I do understand the commissioner of the district and what he is trying to do. And even it’s very clear and I don’t think not too many people heard him, but he said very clearly, that if it comes back to any other level of the process, he is denying it. That’s pretty straight forward. I don’t think that, you know, past that, if any of you, and I know must of you are, I guess 90 percent of you have never sat here and done any of these types of procedures, but it is a give and take and it has to be a balanced give and take because if it isn’t, then a court and you didn’t hear that part either, the court has then authority to mandate a say see fit based that there wasn’t a give and take procedure or balance. That’s the truth. I think pretty much all of you understand that and anything.
Reality is, you don’t want to hear about this anymore. You want it just to end and go away. But, this is a very big piece of property. Commissioner Martinez said he played there many times. I played there once or twice and I never wanted to go back because I lost so bad. I’m not a good golfer, but I would tell you that is a prime piece of property and I would tell you that at the same time it isn’t because there is a covenant and that covenant is very specific. Stated against by Commissioner Martinez.
My problem is here, my problem is here that we need to try to find a way to hear all objectives. I’m going to tell you right now, I’m not in support of this. I am not in support of this because of all the reasons I that have been said. Now if you hear both attorneys as they are arguing the points, to be honest with you, there were times there I didn’t know which application was what, and what we were doing because everybody has different ___ saying for different reasons and so on. The one constant that these gentlemen have to look at and really have to decide on is to do the fairest and most balanced situation and that is what we are going to try to do here today.
Being the commissioner of the district is something we always try to do is the person who has the knowledge of the area and we try to respect it to the most highest level
39
Z2017000338 here. He stuck with the decision that is not an easy one. I guarantee that 100 percent. Commissioner Martinez is two blocks away. Was this at one time your district? It was one time your district, it got changed over. So, he knows the area extremely well, but he’s even said, respectfully, he will go with the decision, at least this one time with the commissioner of the district. I follow suit.
Now, I will be very clear to everybody sitting here, if this comes back before in any other process, just like the commissioner of district said, I will not be in support of it. Is that clear? I respect all you sitting here and I know how hard it probably is and I know how hard this fight has been, but I also know that there’s a chunk of land people want to do something there, it’s very valuable, in the middle of Kendall, and somethings got to go there sooner or later. Now what it does and how it does, you have a covenant, thank God, because if not, it probably would have been different a long time ago. With that, I’ll be the same to commissioner of the district and I will be supportive of what he does, but I want it to be real clear with everybody sitting here, if it comes back before, just like Martinez said, the commissioner of the district said, and I’m going to say, I am not going to be supportive of this going forward. But, the staff said they want to see certain things, they have four or five reasons as to why and I think they were repeated by the commissioner of the district. So, I will be supportive of the commissioner of the district here whatever the State says, but know my vote will be in the future. It is not going to be positive towards this Motion.
Thank you.
Chairman: Commissioner Jordan followed by Monestime.
Jordan: Thank you Mr. Chair. You know I think if I am not mistaken, and the County attorney can look it up later, that I’m the one who sponsored the legislation that required a super majority to break a covenant. Is that correct Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Attorney: That’s my recollection.
Jordan: the reason I did that was because I saw so many communities come down upset because we were breaking covenants on a regular basis and the home, your home, when you are buying your home, that’s your life, that’s your everything, your children are raised there, your building memories there, and you buy in a community for a reason; and to me it is sacred and I wanted it to be difficult to break covenants. I also believe that covenants that were done in say ’67 and we have the one, like you mentioned Commissioner with the Youth Fair, it’s a 90 year covenant, and our forefathers did not see what was going to happen to golf courses over the years or whatever, and plans were made and covenants were given and it’s a good thing you had it because I have three golf courses right now in my district. Sally was so gracious that when we had redistricting the problems that she had with the California Club, she passed along to me. She is such a sweetheart. And I had the Williams Club. I really want to walk you through what’s going on with three different ones because I think that you still could be at risk based on what may happen in court, I don’t know, but with the
40
Z2017000338 California Club, as Sally stated, nobody wanted to get any kind of development going there. They wanted it basically for park land. Let me tell you what has happened and we did the redistricting how many years ago? About five years ago? Four years ago? What has happened is that the land was sold to a developer. She paid $800,000.00 for it. She wanted to do an equestrian center along with some homes, about 700 homes, and paid about $800,000.00 for it. Well, two years later, she sold it for 19.1 million. That land has not been developed yet because of a disagreement between the developer and the land owner. You have rack homes out there, you have all kinds of animals that are running around, it’s grown up. I’ve basically requested a meeting with the owner so we could see where we are going with that. That’s one of the golf courses.
The other golf course I inherited from my predecessor and pretty much the negotiations had already been done and the development is a beautiful development and there were a number of acres that were set aside for public use for a park. Well once the development is done, the residents who are owners, they don’t want the public coming into the park and they are calling the police all the time saying that people that they don’t know are walking around and breaking into their homes or whatever, and wanted to take over the park themselves. So, we are allowing them to take over the park with the conditions that it remain public access. Public access, I think we poled that item about a month ago.
The third one is a public golf course that is basically underutilized, underutilized, and the residents love the fact that it is underutilized, but because it is a public golf course, we are maintaining it and it is for public use and it is still being used, but it is really not making any money, the County is supplementing the golf course. So when the gentleman stood up here and said what’s going on with golf courses around the country, I knew he was speaking the truth. That is why I am saying you need to be very, still be concerned, because what could happen in court could take it out of your hands in a way and I am telling you these stories because it may encourage you that if it does take it out of your hands, get the best deal that you can in terms of negotiating and I think that is what Commissioner Suarez is saying that he wanted to get together or maybe you can reach some agreement at some point. I just want you to recognize that you mentioned the other golf course, Westview. That’s another one and I think that is in Commissioner Monestime’ s district and when they came to negotiate with Westview, had they not negotiated for an area of strength that this commission supported, they could have ended up with over 5,000? 3000 homes within the area. So I don’t want you to walk away from here thinking, okay we’re fine, because the courts may see that golf courses are on the decline and may rule in their favor. I don’t know. I don’t know, but I do support the commissioner’s decision to delay until the next cycle comes around and, you know, I am a firm believer that I know when I bought my home, right now, I was encouraged years ago by my mom, why don’t you move. My memories are there, my children were raised there, and it means everything to me, so I know when you are buying your home and there is something you buy in a community you feel you want to live in the rest of your life and you want to be able to do that and at least you have a covenant or something to make that happen.
41
Z2017000338
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Chairman: Very well. Commissioner Monestime followed by the vice chair.
Monestime: Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question for Mr. Price. Possibly Mr. Gibbs wants to answer the same question. Just one question.
How far are you into negotiation? How the parties into negotiation, how far are you?
Price: I cannot tell you because I am not part of those meeting sessions, no attorneys were permitted at those sessions. I know what my clients discussed. I could not tell you if we’re a handshake away. I don’t think we are. We keep on making proposals and we don’t general get any counters.
Monestime: Okay. Mr. Gibbs, are we making any progress?
Gibbs: As Mr. Price said, I haven’t been present at any of these either, but from what I understand, the parties, my clients are in a very interesting position because their position with the covenant is that they are going to have to vote on it and that means 140 some people are going to be voting on this. So, at this point, my understanding is the presentations made by G.L. Homes have not gotten traction I would say in the community.
Monestime: So, how long has this….I know Commissioner Martinez says that this has been going on for a while. I’ve been here a little over six years. How long has this dealing been going on?
Price: Well there was a previous set of negotiations with the then owner……Can I please have…..
Monestime: Yes, yes.
Price: Bill Walker from G.L. Homes address that.
Monestime: Name and address for the records.
Norwalk: Dick Norwalk, 10228 NW 66th Drive in Parkland, Broward County. So we’ve had to date is we had I guess a meeting before your first commission meeting where me, one other guy from G.L. Homes sat with six or seven people from the community and Brian May and at that point, we kind of showed the open space that we were talking about and, you know, kind of present it, what we are doing. Subsequent to that, we sent out our invitations to the three big meetings we were going to have. So we had one meeting where we invited the 144 and then we had two meetings where we split the land section in half and invited the north half and the south half and we sent the leadership a letter saying here is what we are doing, we didn’t want anybody to think we
42
Z2017000338 were trying to sneak something in there; here is what we are doing, and there’s always an open invitation for us to meet again. So then we had a second meeting where it was just me, Mrs. Winters and Mr. Kabasi. So we had a lunch time meeting and sat and kind of walked through, and, at that time, each of them said listen, these aren’t negotiations, what we are doing is listening.
Monestime: So what you are telling me you’re not making progress?
Norwalk: No, no, let me take it all the way through. So, again, because to date, until I heard them say there were negotiations, then I’m saying okay, I wasn’t free to say, you know, what was said there. So, in the second meeting, we presented to them and they said you’re not even close. In the third meeting we said we understand that we are at 670 per this, but to be consistent with your community, we will put bigger lots around the outside and put smaller lots in the middle and that brought us down to somewhere in the mid 500’s and at that time, they said listen, there are some numbers that we would accept, but they did not commit to anything, but they did say in one point in the meeting, we are not as far as part as you think. So, what I’m saying is I don’t know if there’s progress because I can’t get into the other side….
Monestime: Okay, but let me ask you a question. How long are the parties in court?
Norwalk: Um, we’re not, we are the contract purchaser on the land. The previous owner I guess has been in court for, Mr. Kurbol, is it two years…..
Kurbol: I believe it was filed in 2012
Norwalk: Four years.
Monestime: Most of the audience is saying four or five years.
Norwalk: Okay
Monestime: Thank you for your interest. Thank you very much.
It was interesting for me to hear that the opposition was recommending ______in all this and I know they don’t do this lightly and I assume when I heard that the administration was recommending transmittal, is because, you know, like attorneys like to say, and I am not one, there’s recourse. Maybe in between the courts will make a decision, maybe because it’s going to come back here to make a final decision to either approve or deny, so that’s why I thought it was ummm. This is something that was thoughtful. However, in hearing the district commissioner make a motion to defer this to our next cycle, I was not predisposed to hear such a motion. I thought it was going to either be transmittal or denial and I turned to my staff and said, mmm this is a clever motion. It gives both parties time to see if they can work out something better, but I will caution the…well let me say this first, if I were a homeowner there, I promise you I would this imposition that the homeowners have, like Commissioner Jordan just said,
43
Z2017000338 and if I am able to purchase the home next to my neighbors on the right and my neighbor on the left and the property behind me so that I can have more space and feel more comfortable. Even though there is traffic, there may be traffic in the neighborhood, I would feel more at ease because my park would be in my backyard if I have these three properties adjacent to me, but that is not the case. I would, because of the most recent change of use for a golf course was in my district, I want to suggest that the homeowners really get on negotiating table with the other party because that is the best alternative, that is the best way. My feeling is when there is no negotiation, one party may lose 100 percent and we don’t want to see that up here. If it is negotiated, somewhat everybody’s going to lose some, but everybody’s going to win some. So, I suggest that we get to the negotiating table.
This is planning, this is why I thought that it was going to be more comfortable decision to transmit because I understand it is not zoning, it’s planning. This not being the motion before I, I think there is a tendency of propensity for this board to follow what the district commissioner suggests; however, what I want to be careful about is the issue of the covenant that has been addressed. A covenant signed in 1967. I clearly was not here. I wasn’t here. So, but, I am looking at the demographic of this County, after World War II, the population of this County was approximately less than 400,000 people. In 1967, it was approximately a million and here we are today at basically well over 2.7 million and I wonder why there is not a huge need for golf courses anymore down here. It’s because its only Martinez that plays golf on this board. So what I am trying to say is we are bringing more people with this County and we all are so proud of what a beautiful County we have today, but where are they going to live? We definitely are not going to move the UDB. Okay, I’ve been here six years. I think this board has turned down every decision that has been before it in regards to the UDB. So, and the reason why less people are playing golf is definitely because more people in this County now enjoy basketball, soccer, tennis instead of golf and baseball. This is a fact, otherwise if the demand was for golf courses, we would have been…you know, this discussion would not be before us. Okay. I still need to learn how to play golf by the way, I don’t know where I’m going to play, but I’m saying don’t do that to myself. Okay, so, I lost a couple hundred dollars already for lessons.
So, that’s exactly why I think it’s important for the homeowners to negotiate and for the owner of the site to negotiate and for all parties to be willing gain something and also lose something, otherwise I don’t want to be sitting here making a tough decision of seeing one party leaving this chamber having, when having won nothing; having won nothing. And, the last thing I am going to say, I think one of the reasons why, and I am going to say clearly, I know I’ve seen some hand being waived earlier in support of the statement I just made, which I appreciate honestly, but there’s a statement I’m not going to get support for. The reason why I was in a position to support transmittal is because at the end of the day, when we don’t make decisions to build within the urban core, it’s a prescription for ______in my neighborhood because what I’ve been seeing lately is people who are losing for homes that are more financially affluent when they cannot get it, they come to a neighborhood like mind where people are less sophisticated, and they get a premium for their properties and they sell without knowing that they cannot buy
44
Z2017000338 somewhere else, and I don’t like to be in that position, I don’t like to be in that position, and what happened, I’ve been seeing smaller homes in my neighborhood being purchased, okay, now down, to build larger homes that people in my neighborhood cannot, or more expensive homes, that people in my neighborhood cannot purchase. So, because at the end of the day, as the world considered to come here, as we want to build a nicer greater, better community, we have to find space for these individuals to live. That is exactly why I don’t live in condominium or are we going to find land where we can build for them. So, Commissioner, I think this traction for your motion, I will support the motion, but I really hope that by the time this comes back here, both side have reached a position where there some level of comfort, more comfort than disagreement, that something be put together that they can live with. Otherwise, one party may end up being a big loser and the other being a big winner and we don’t know how that’s going to go.
Thank you so very much Mr. Chair.
Chairman: Thank you Commissioner. By Chair you are recognized.
Vice Chair: I think everyone knows how I stand when it comes down to the UBD. I do not believe in building outside of the UBD, which leads me to the policy of this County, and as to permit urban infill. Now this, Mr. Attorney, because I am hearing different things, this is not about the covenant, correct?
Mr. Attorney: That’s correct.
Vice Chair: Okay, it’s not about zoning?
Mr. Attorney: Also correct.
Vice Chair: It’s about planning?
Mr. Attorney: Yes.
Vice Chair: Okay, so, I keep hearing all of us talking about the covenant. So, what exactly are we deciding on? For the record.
Mr. Attorney: You’re deciding and I will defer to the planning director, ultimately, on the substance of the application, but you are deciding the base line land use designation that will control what they could apply for for zoning in the future. What they want to do is remove what’s currently the parks and recreation designation and they want to amend that land use plan map to low density residential.
Vice Chair: Okay, now if we were to transfer to another cycle, does that mean we would have to have another public hearing?
Mr. attorney: Yes.
45
Z2017000338
Vice Chair: We have to go through all this all over again?
Mr. Attorney: It would.
Vice Chair: Okay, number two, if we were to, because I think everybody thinks I’m going one way when I’m going another way. If we were to transmit and it came back, would it have to go through another public hearing?
Mr. Attorney: That’s correct. There will be one more public hearing before this board.
Vice Chair: So regardless of which way we go, it’s going to have to go through this again unless we deny?
Mr. Attorney: That’s correct.
Vice Chair: Okay. Ugh. You know I would have preferred going through a transmittal process, but I’m hearing all my colleagues here saying that they prefer the transfer, which even if we transfer, it’s all the same thing. There’s no difference and transmitting or transferring because as it stands now, I would not support this item the way it is now, but I was willing to have it transmitted and transmitted because that gives us another perspective from a different body on which way to go. You know we’re hearing what someone else has to say. By transferring, we don’t get that other perspective. So, I’m just looking at it from both ends and trying to decide. I mean I heard Commissioner Bruno Barreiro, Pepe Diaz and everybody saying well they will go along with the transfer, but I think we need to try to weigh the various consequences on what we are doing. If we transfer, we don’t get to hear another body. If we transmit, we do get to hear another body and what they have to say and that’s something we need to take into consideration.
??: Can you field the ____
Vice Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Barreiro: My understanding was that it was going to be a Motion to Transmit. That’s why I said
Vice Chair: No, Motion to Transfer
Barreiro: That’s why I want to clarify … That’s why I said what I said that I would go along with the commissioner, but just for clarification purposes..
?? There’s an echo on this side of the room.
Barreiro: You want to yield to Commissioner Suarez?...
46
Z2017000338
Vice Chair: He’s the district commissioner so, yes, I will definitely hear
Chairman: You need to clarify what your thoughts are?
Suarez: Yes. Actually I am going to make a different Motion and I’m going to withdraw my prior Motion so if Commissioner wants to continue along that….
Mr. Chairman: Hold that thought and let us continue.
Suarez: Yes.
Vice Chair: I hope I’m not changing things, but….
Chairman: Commissioner that’s called a tease and….
Suarez: Okay, having heard at least two other commissioners that want to deny and, then more importantly, having heard the County Attorney and planners or whoever over there, I think the Attorneys, telling me if we deny, they then come back on the same time scale, time table, as a transfer to the next cycle. They would come back, they would be able to reapply and come back in the same time table, correct?
Mr. Attorney: They would have the ability to reapply.
Suarez: Then I don’t think it makes all that much sense to simply transfer to the next cycle. It might save them a little bit of money, but the wrong message is sent and I will be inclined as soon as the Vice Chair has completed her inquiry, etc., to move to deny and see where we are.
???: Second.
Chairman: So Commissioner…settle down everybody, settle down.
Vice Chair: I’m not finished. So what was the Motion?
Chairman: The Motion was to deny and it’s been said.
??? And I second it. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair: I guess I don’t get to finish all my land of love. (Laughing).
Chairman: That’s called stealing the thunder there.
Vice Chair: Yeah, he stole my thunder. Alright, but that’s find, it’s been moved and it’s second, that’s fine.
47
Z2017000338 Chairman: Okay, I’m glad you made that Motion. I want to say that some out there may question, you know, what is a commissioner from the north have anything to do with what goes on in this district. I just want to be clear that many of those homes in that Calusa area, when I was 16 years old, I was on my knees putting on linoleum floor, which I hope by now have been paved over with tile, but I learned so much about linoleum floors back then that I hope I never ever see a linoleum floor ever again and my brother happens to be the vice principal of the Calusa Elementary, so I am very familiar with the area, understand….I did just have….never mind, I don’t have a question. When I look at this application and the reason I was going to, regardless of what your motion was, vote no towards a denial, a vote for denial was that, you know, I look at—there’s only two roads that seem to go into this property. You know, East Calusa and SW 130 Avenue and, you know, regardless of the technicalities of what we are doing, transmitting, not getting input, whatnot, it all comes down to planning at the end of the day and to put, in my estimation, 670 homes and using Commissioner Martinez’s analogy, two cars per home, three cars per home, you are looking at anywhere from 1500 to 2000 cars in an area. Folks, that’s an impact. That’s an impact. So perhaps something lesser impact I would be much more amicable to that, but I just did want to put on the record.
Okay, vice chair you are recognized and then we will vote on this.
Vice Chair: Okay, just one question to, I guess staff or attorneys. When we vote to deny, the applicant can come back again and this time if they come back with the right plan, will the community still have to participate with those there?
Attorney: Yes, they would just start over with the process. They would file a new application, pay a new filing fee, and they go back to community council.
Vice Chair: What if the Judge determines that the covenant should be released or?
Attorney: That doesn’t affect the planning process. If the covenant is released, if the Court decides to release the covenant, what that controls is what they can apply for at zoning.
Vice Chair: That controls what they can apply for?
Attorney: Yeah.
Vice Chair: Which means if there is a minimum or I guess a maximum amount of, I’d say, homes that they can put on their property, they can just go ahead and put that on there without going to the community?
Attorney: Let me clarify that. Um, I misspoke. When I said it controls, the comp plan controls the density they can apply for. So right now they have parks and recreation and, you heard the exchange before about the planning director, whether it’s 50 years…
48
Z2017000338
Vice Chair: Right, but if the Judge releases that covenant?
Attorney: What that means is they still have to apply for a zoning district that’s consistent with the comp plan. It just means that they don’t need the approval of the neighbors to finalize it.
Vice Chair: That’s my question and with that questioning, I need for the neighbors to realize that they can lose out on this with the denial, so that is something that you need to think about and realize because something will eventually, even if it is 40 years from now, it’s going on their property. Something is going on it. I just want to make that clear.
Chairman: Okay, Commissioner Sosa, and we are ready to vote?
Sosa: I want to thank Commissioner Suarez because sometimes we come here and it’s an incredible amount of residents taking part in this process, expressing their opinion and we have analyzed every corner. Things can happen before us. Notice we have Commissioners here who see the importance of keeping a word that was given, so the trust can be placed in this table, it’s important to us. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. Okay we have a motion and a second. Mr. Clerk call the role.
Clerk: Commissioner Barreiro
Barreiro: No.
Clerk: Commissioner Diaz?
Diaz: I wanted to say a statement before.
Chairman: I apologize, I apologize.
Diaz: No, the simple statement was, basically I heard and I thought it was a judgment to get the information by Commissioner Edmonson, and I thought that we would gain by just getting into a process and at least have more perspective and have that balance that we discussed. But, in denial, this puts us back in the same position where they can reapply and then come right back and we will be in the same position again, I don’t, I don’t, that’s not what we want. I just want to hear opinion and I was very clear in saying in the future I was not going to vote in favor. And, now, to just deny it, puts it right back into another perspective. That’s why ____. I thought if we have information from the State, which is what our staff recommended, what the applicant asked for, what we will get and, I think, it was very clear what several people said here. Sosa, I’m just trying to make my comment if you don’t mind please.
49
Z2017000338 Chairman: No, I tried to get his attention beforehand. He didn’t get my attention, so we’ll give him the leeway. Thank you.
Diaz: So this is where I’m at right now because in the interest of the peoples sitting there, I understand what they want and I am supportive of what they want, but I wanted to get that other information so we can feel we have a balanced issue here, so moving forward. Now we can’t get that information from the State unless it’s transmittal. Or it’s denial. One of the two.
Diaz: So it puts us in an awkward position. I say no.
Chairman: That’s your conscious on this obviously. Okay.
Clerk: Commissioner Diaz?
Diaz: No.
Clerk: Commissioner Heyman?
Heyman: No.
Clerk: Commissioner Jordan?
Jordan: No.
Clerk: Commissioner Martinez?
Martinez: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Monestime?
Montestime? No.
Clerk: Commissioner Sosa?
Sosa: Yes.
Clerk: Commissioner Suarez?
Suarez? Yes.
Clerk: Vice Chair Edmonson?
Vice Chair: No.
Clerk: Chairman Bovo?
50
Z2017000338
Chairman: Yes.
Clerk: Motion results in a tied vote.
(Many people talking)
Chairman: Settle down, settle down. Let’s go to the attorney first and then we’ll….Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Attorney: That results in no action, so you haven’t determine what you want to do with the application.
Chairman: Very well. Okay. I saw this movie, I think it’s called “The Okay Corral”.
???? Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Chairman: Let me go to the commissioner of the district please. Commissioner…
Diaz: It’s really just a point of clarification. Folks, we went through this exercise, you heard the vote, the fact of the matter is the Motion is made now to approve and they don’t get….two-thirds would be of ten, that should be simple, shouldn’t it?
Attorney: No, you need seven affirmative votes to transmit.
Diaz: Exactly right, so it’s not too____ on this case, it has to be a little bit more than two-thirds. It sounds like it’s going to be a six-four vote. So, it would not be transmitted and then we’re back where we were. So, if that helps in anyway.
??? But ….
??? It’s just sort of predicting the future.
??? Vote of order Mr. Chair?
Chairman: Vote of order Commissioner Martinez.
Martinez: By the way you are correct, we are allowed to stand before we vote and I was going to make one, but since it dies anyways, thank you very much for your courtesy.
Sosa: Point of clarification
Chairman: Point of clarification and then Commissioner Barreiro.
51
Z2017000338 Sosa: Mr. Chair, question. Sometimes we go against our colleagues because we really believe in our district, but the dynamics change sometime and I see that now we are not a body more or less by those rules to support the commissioner of the district. I did supported you, but is there any alternative to that option, to do something, because then the neighbors are going to be here again. Can a Motion to not transmit, but to allow them to come at another time will solve the situation? Or, where do we stand from today? Do we have to come back here and start all over again and these people will have to skip their jobs and everything to be here? What are the options?
Attorney: Commissioner, the options under the code are to transmit with no recommendation, transmit with a recommendation of approval, transmit with a recommendation of denial, deny and not transmit, which is the Motion we just heard, or transfer to another cycle. And then if you transfer to another cycle, they start over from the beginning because that is how the code currently reads.
Chairman: Okay, Commissioner Suarez, so you want to go ahead and defer to your colleagues on this?
Suarez: Yes, please, I would go back to the initial Motion just simply to get out of this, but I want to hear what the other Commissioners…
Chairman: Very well. Commissioner Barreiro, Heyman, Martinez.
Barreiro: Thank you Chair. Having the prior explanation that Commissioner Edmonson had said, was answered, that whether it’s transmitted or reapplied, or a, for a lack of a better term, a deferral to transfer to the next cycle, there are still going to be public hearings. They are still going to go through all the process. Any way is going to buy more time to get; whether also the courts opine on the whole issue of the covenant, or we get more information to process. I would suggest transfer with no recommendation and…..sorry, sorry, transmit with no recommendation and, you know, it is going to bring back more information from another agency and it’s still going to have the public hearing, it’s still going to have all that stuff. I would basically suggest that and I will be glad to make that Motion.
???? Suggestion, just for a clarification Commissioner?
Barreiro: Transmit without recommendation.
??? Without recommendation.
Barreiro: Without recommendation.
Chairman: Okay, very well. I’m sorry, are you done?
Barreiro: Yes.
52
Z2017000338 Chairman: He hasn’t made a motion yet, he said he would be willing to make a motion.
????: Willing, willing, willing. So we may be coming back to him.
Barreiro: This is why I say folks, obviously the Commissioner of the district is in a very difficult position. Plain and simple. We know a golf course is not going to be there. There’s going to be some housing, some development. So, whether it’s one per five acre, or, you know, there’s going to be something. So I would suggest that we get more information before making any final determination and that is why I say transmit to get more information.
Chairman: Thank you. Commissioner Heyman followed by Commissioner Martinez.
Heyman: Thank you, and as we, I just want to make clear, its transmit, not transfer because we are getting sort of semantics and regardless of what no final decision will come for land use change today, whether its transfer and we come back here or transmit up to Tallahassee and let another set of eyes and recommendations come back, Mr. Attorney, there will be no action on land use change today, whether it’s transfer to the next CDMP with the same body and the same group and couple months to figure out what they want to do or weeks, or to Tallahassee, transmit, no land use change, just another recommendation coming back here for us to vote off of? Is that correct?
Attorney: That’s correct.
Heyman: Okay, let me tell you where I am on this to my colleagues and people say whether someone says you don’t live there, it’s the furthest….well you know something, I represent northeast Dade as a district that votes for me, but at the end of the day, as a voting member of this body, I represent all of Miami-Dade County so whether I have the express concern about our Everglades, our Aquafer, our other parks in one end of this county or another, it goes to the sum total of the County as a whole and since I have been here, I have championed and, as I said, I think recall is only once did I vote to move beyond the UDB based on the express use of the land, which would have hurt environmental or Aquafer or other structures to our eco system, and I think that is over a 15 year period. As long as we stand to keep inviting people and if you want to come to my district, we don’t go out in the acreage, we go up in floors 20, 30, 40, 50 and now our top one is 60 floors high because there is no land. I have two parks in my entire district of any size because that is a realty of us inviting people to come, but not putting them on the water and not intruding over beyond our UDB. I am going to prioritize, as I have before, the willingness to support infill working on the planning level to get input and then come back and trust that in separate dialogue, separate sessions, with everything pertaining to covenants, restrictive use, traffic, mitigation if infer structure and everything else that has been applied from the far ends of northeast Dade to northwest Dade to downtown south Dade, you have to trust that that would bring the people together for some consensus on proper land use; but the bottom line is I am going to
53
Z2017000338 support this because it is a development question, change of land use, whatever, that’s infill. So for that, I want to put that in, infill first.
Chairman: Very well. Commissioner Martinez.
Martinez: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I respect everybody here, your right to vote as you see fit and I’ve always had that. I don’t take it personal. I did at the beginning and then this politics kicked me into shape and I don’t take it personal anymore. There are regional items—airports, seaports, Everglades; different items that do affect the County as a whole, and I will accept that, but this one. You can disguise it anyway you want, it’s a zoning issue and it does affect district specific. Those of you who live in other areas don’t have to travel through here; don’t have to accept that. So this is a zoning issue, I don’t care what’s on the piece of paper, and it does have to do with the covenant. We just approved two bridges that were built in the Chairman’s district and in District 12. Upon looking at it, I was in agreement with it, but you both said I know my district, everybody making a left turn not to go in further and you said, and I’m going to open one ___ in the future. You know what, you should know your district and you should, so I supported it because that is why we have single member districts. Well in this particular case, it affects the west end of Kendall district. Damn I should have said that (crowd laughing).
(crowd laughing- talking, laughing)
Martinez: Alright, are we good now, are we good now?
???? The west end, is that what you said?
Martinez: I sided with you before, let me ….
???? More crowd laughing and bantering
Martinez: Way out there…..west Kendall
(Crowd Laughing)
Martinez: It affects that area, I mean it affects Commissioner Moss’s district, it affects Commissioner’s Sosa’s district, it affects that. So, all I am asking you is the decision that was originally made by the district Commissioner Suarez and that I was very happy to second because we do know our districts, and we know the traffic that goes through it. Again, I respect your votes. Go ahead and do it for whatever reason you think, but what I am telling you is you have your own coming up sometime and we respect it. I have to understand, you know I have to understand that you should know your district and I should respect it, unless it is a countywide issue. If it’s a countywide issue, then okay.
Vice Chair: Point….no, when you are finished.
54
Z2017000338
Martinez: ____ I don’t know what you’re going say, I’ll yield
(laughter)
Martinez: I’ll yield Mr. Chairman, ___, she’s done this to me before
(laughter)
Vice chair: I wasn’t gonna say west end.
(Laughter)
???? Point of clarification Mr. Attorney. The options that you laid out in terms of what we didn’t put as a motion would be to approve to transmit without recommendation or to defer to the next cycle. Correct?
Mr. Attorney: There were several permutations of transmittal. You could transmit with no recommendation, you can transmit with recommendation of approval, you can transmit with recommendation of denial, or you could transfer to the next cycle and then the Motion that was just tried, which was deny do not transmit.
Vice Chair: Can we take a straw vote on those?
Mr. Attorney: That would be at the discretion of the chairman.
Vice Chair: The reason I am asking Mr. Chairman is I want us to get through with this.
Chairman: I understand and I appreciate your gesture, but I do have members that want to speak on this and we are going to finish with Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Sosa is in the que, Commissioner Barreiro wants to get back on, so there may be a change to ask that straw vote after all.
Martinez: Thank you Mr. Chairman and getting back on the track of thought, I do hope for the rest of the colleagues, either Commissioner Suarez, myself, have earned your trust and the knowledge that we have of what affects our district, and that is all I am asking for from you. Let me ask you Mr. Attorney, if there is a Motion to transmit and it fails, is it dead? The answer should be yes, but go ahead.
Mr. Attorney: Well if it’s titled the Motion fails….
Martinez: And then what happens?
Mr. Attorney: But then you have, because you have other options, I’m not sure that disposes of the application before you.
55
Z2017000338 Martinez: I will let it go for now, but can you look it up just in case.
Mr. Attorney: I will.
Chairman: Commissioner Sosa
Sosa: Mr. Chair
Chairman: followed by Barreiro
Sosa: What Commissioner Martinez was talking, you took a hit the other day when the bridge in your district came. I am taking a hit for opening 82nd and 7th from my residents. If we allow them ____ of density on areas that can come to that area and make it worse? Why am I going to take a hit then on my district to help when we are making things worse for other areas? Then sit back, don’t do it and then proceed. Because that is a reality. No one wants anything open because more is going to come through. We do it thinking countywide, what is going to help everyone, but if at the same time, even we go against the wheel of the commissioner of the district to control this growth until we find big solutions to the mess that we have in transit in Miami-Dade County. You know, it’s, it gives me concern. I think that we need to sit down everybody and say let’s see how we do it, what are the priorities at the steps that need to be taken because the reality is the ideal situation would be for both parts to come together like they did for Fountain Blue for us, but at the same time, they bought the house knowing what existed and the owner bought the land knowing what existed, so they have to come to an agreement at some point in the future. Right now, the reality is that if we transmit the application, the neighbors are going to feel that we are sending an approval up to a point, even if we send it without recommendation, and I don’t think that, for what I have heard from the commissioner who represents the area, he is trying to do his job to try to bring together everybody, which is his job, but at the same time if we take steps that are too fast, then it will lead to other problems in the future. Commissioner, I continue to supporting your position at this point to not transmit and to allow them the opportunity to really work together, because that is what this County is all about.
Chairman: Commissioner Barreiro.
Barreiro: To the issue of, uh, I strongly, zoning, when it comes down to X amount of homes, you know, are issues of the commissioner of the district. When we have a large mass, this is something else. I know like all of us, we’ve taken very difficult positions in our own districts. I have a City of Miami Beach that is extremely divided on convention center. Some people would like the convention center to go away, plain and simple; to alleviate their traffic and so forth. I’m not in that position, I think the convention center for the entire region is a very important center/facility that has to happen. It creates jobs. We had a mayor who ran on that issue. He got elected on that issue. Very divided race.
56
Z2017000338 So we all take very difficult positions. I just want to put that very clear and another thing, this is transmittal—this will be transmittal. My recollection, I have not voted against any commissioner in a zoning application. When it comes down to zoning and this, that will be further down the road, because that is where the rubber meets the road in terms of what density and what impact it really has. So, I just put that on the record.
Chairman: Okay, very well. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Diaz before Commissioner Suarez.
Suarez: One asked a statement in observation on two issues – actually two. It is not point correct to say that we have not done anything about urban infill in transit oriented projects as my good friend and former planning director of my city, Mr. Amadeo stated. I checked with my staff. Just the four projects that are ongoing, financed, approved in my district on U.S. 1, 27th Avenue, 37th and Ponce, add up to over 2000 units of housing and a billion dollars I might add to our tax base. The other thing that concerns many of us who have served on the South Florida Regional Planning Board, including those of us who have served until recently, and those of us like the Chairman who has agreed, I think along with Commissioner Diaz, to now it’s sort of going to South Florida Regional—whether this goes to at some point, the State doesn’t have any more powers to really do much with this. You know, they will make comments, but they won’t approve or disapprove. So, in any case, those are the reasons and I think Mr. Chairman at some point, it might behoove us to take a vote and I don’t have any problems with my colleagues if they vote to transmit if they think that’s the correct thing to do, if it fails six to four as I kind of anticipate that it will, then I guess the only thing at that point, unless he has a better solution to it…
Chairman: He does
Suarez: Okay, then I won’t mention what I would be willing to do at that point.
Chairman: Okay folks, we are at the portion of the program now that we’ve got to come up with an answer or solution one way or the other, so I don’t know how much more we can keep adding to this.
??? Mr. Chairman, we are still waiting for an answer from you.
Chairman: Commissioner Diaz will speak after the attorney and then Stan you wanted to add something, so let me kind of get through this here. Commissioner Diaz you want to go after the attorney? Mr. Attorney, you are recognized.
Mr. Attorney: Thank you Mr. Chair. To answer Commissioner Martinez’s question, I think if this board—you can go to several permutations of the Motion, but in the end, in the end, if the Board can’t reach a Motion, I think the item is just denied, so the application would be denied.
57
Z2017000338 ??? So, just for further clarification on that, in the status that we are now, in the status that we are now, okay, it is a tied vote on a denial. If nothing else happens, the application is denied.
(talking)
Chairman: I’ve got a lot of buzz here Mr. Attorney. You are recognized on point and clarification.
Vice Chair: The motion was for denial. It was tied. Once it’s tied, it goes the other way. So since it was tied, you cannot say it was denied. More so it was approved.
Mr. Attorney: Madam Vice Chair what it means is that the Motion failed on a tied vote. If the board ultimately…..
Vice Chair: The Motion was for what?
Mr. Attorney; The motion was to deny.
Vice Chair: To deny. So, therefore, it’s not denied. You’re saying that it’s denied.
Mr. Attorney: What happens is the board doesn’t ultimately make a Motion that’s approved, then the item has to be resolved in some way and so if there isn’t a Motion to Approve…..
Vice Chair: but don’t say it was denied, because it was not denied.
Mr. Attorney: Yeah, you’re right. I misspoke. What I mean to say is
Vice Chair: …clarify that
Mr. Attorney: Yes, if the Board does not make a motion, it will have the effect of denying the application if there isn’t another motion.
Chairman: Okay. Vice….
Vice Chair: If there isn’t another motion, then it’s denied. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Attorney: Yes.
Vice Chair: Even though the motion was to deny.
Chairman: It dies a happy death.
Mr. Attorney: Yes, that’s correct.
58
Z2017000338 Chairman: It dies with a smile.
(laughing)
Chairman: Commissioner Diaz, is there anything else you want to add to this at this point?
Diaz: I just, I should get paid more.
(laughing)
??? You really got it cleared there for a second.
(laughing)
Diaz: With that said and done, um, you know I heard a couple of comments that kind of bothered me a little bit and I want to get them clear because we’ve all in our districts have had messed up applications. Applications that have two sides and two passionate sides to an issue, and to say that oh we should maybe avoid doing something or not, that’s irresponsible. I think we want to do the best that we possibly can up here and to support the commissioner of the district, Commissioner Martinez you are absolutely correct. We try to, you know, traffic and everything else within our district, but what I think Commissioner Heyman is saying also that we have the same issues pretty much in all our districts in the County. It might be a little different, but pretty much traffic is major traffic, home problems are the same with other people, she had the golf course a long time ago, Donna, she inherited. You know, we have many issues on moving the line. We had issues back and forth, which a couple of times I think you and I were the only ones that voted a certain way, and you were the commissioner and I was a commissioner at that time that nobody supported. So, you know, colleagues support depending on the way they think things happen at the end of the day and when it comes to total zoning, that’s not where we’re at right now, and that’s what I think Commissioner Barreiro is saying. I thought this was just simply to get some info. Now I get it. You guys want to kill it, so it doesn’t come back, but it could come back no matter what, and then it comes back. You know, so let it come back. So, based on that, I just wanted make sure we had some more information, but I think the gentleman from Harvard who has already done the math, and no matter how he plates it, it’s going to be a negative and eventually it’s going to end up….how did you say it…happy death, which I don’t know how happy death is, but….I think that death is death. So, take it and vote it up or down. I tell you that I would really have liked to hear from the State and just after that this was going to die no matter what the way I look at it….
Chairman: Mr. Attorney at this point, because you have a tie-tie vote, will there have to be some type of either do it again or would there have to be a reconsideration of what was voted on?
Mr. Attorney: The item is still before you, so another motion can be made.
59
Z2017000338
Chairman: Okay, very well. So Commissioner Suarez, whenever you are ready to make a motion, we are ready to hear your motion. As you walk back, for point of clarification, you know there have been application where we’ve had very emotional arguments on both sides. I do want to be clear on this one though. This is an emotional side, which is the residents and the developer. Different animal. I respect all those that are abdicating, they do a very, very good job of what they do, but, again, what is being asked of us, I think is trying to fit a round piece in a square – is the other way around the square in the round piece. So anyways, it doesn’t fit…..
???? A square peg in a round hole
Chairman: That’s what I was trying say, it doesn’t work. Okay, yes.
Vice Chair: Thank you. One last thing before we go through Commissioner Suarez’s last thing because there’s a lot of emphasis that’s been put on the commissioner from the district. A bit of irony. We have two people and Commissioner Martinez says he borders up to one side, two people who are absent, border up on two other sides, and so if this is a better understanding of your own ______interest and understanding the consequences of traffic cut through or infrastructure or something like that, that might want to be something you weigh into it because I am not sure the amount of number is, I think you have to have a minimum of 7 to move it one way or the other, is that right?
Mr. Attorney: You need seven to transmit.
Vice Chair: Or otherwise something else to, a simple majority….so I’m not thinking I see seven here but maybe something to allow this to have more time to have a meeting of the minds….
Oh you don’t want to hear from colleagues that live on the bordering of your areas and represent the same type of community?
Chairman: Commissioner, are you ready now to make a motion?
Vice Chair: Okay, go ahead.
Chairman: Let me go to Commissioner Suarez for a Motion. You are recognized.
Suarez: Mr. Chairman, I really don’t have a motion to make because my motion resulted in a tied vote and the result of it from a legal standpoint of the County Attorney is the same as the intention of the motion, so in case you as Chairman feel that we ought to take a vote on a Motion to Transmit to reflect what we think is going to happen happens, six to four, the only thing I want to say to my colleagues is I don’t for one moment feel in any way that you are disrespecting me among other thing for what you stated and what Martinez stated. We have three other commissioners in the area and, frankly, I’ve gone against the recommendations of the district commissioners because
60
Z2017000338 sometimes I feel, you know, my view, is slightly different, plus these affect the whole County. Commissioner Barreiro said that, he has his bunch of units.
Chairman: Chairman, then perhaps your motion should be to adjourn.
Suarez: That’s it.
Chairman: We have a motion….
Suarez: That’s brilliant.
Chairman: Motion to Adjourn. Do we have a second.
Jordan: I don’t know.
??? Commissioner Jordan has something to say
Chairman: Point of Order
Jordan: Mr. Chair. I just wanted to put on the record that if your Motion was to bring it back, the first Motion that you made initially, I’d support that. You know, I think the fact that to deny was killing it, that it still lives and it has another opportunity to come back, but for your first Motion to be to deny, then I think you can get more votes if you make your initial first Motion is my point instead of transmit because to transmit, you are right, it’s delay.
Suarez: I respect your opinion, but I have to stick with what I’ve done so far.
Chairman: Okay, let’s get to a vote here because this is getting ridiculous. So you’re recognized Commissioner.
???? : ______
????: Mr. Attorney I want to hope that we get this right and my understanding as I’ve heard from your office before and I may be wrong, on a tied vote, the issue is still up for a decision an alternative decision. It basically, since we don’t have a motion to table as part of our rules, basically the motion that ends up in a tied vote, basically tabled the issue. So I am hearing that the decision, the tied vote, is a denial. Well, if that’s ______, I don’t have an issue, but I want to know if there’s a precedent in us reaching a tied vote and
???? inaudible
???? Yes and the issue and the item goes away with the motion and never comes back. I don’t think….I think it’s basically tabled issue, maybe it comes back to the next meeting….I don’t know. I may be wrong.
61
Z2017000338
Chairman: Stan I don’t want to leave your stranded. If someone calls you up, then we will have you come up.
(people talking over each other)
??? Just answer my question.
Mr. Attorney: Using the board’s normal Tuesday agenda as an example because this is a legislative act, if a Motion results in a tie, that Motion fails and if you move to the next item before another Motion is made, then the item fails. What’s before you today is there isn’t another item on the agenda to move to.
?? ___, it’s still on the table?
Mr. Attorney: So as long as the meeting is going, I guess the answer to your question Commissioner, you can make additional motions, but if the meeting adjourns without the item being resolved, it is as if you have moved to the next motion on your normal legislative agenda and it dies.
???? It’s on life support that’s what they are trying to say.
Chairman: Do we have a Motion?
??? No.
Chairman: We have a Motion to Adjourn, do we have a second?
Vice Chair: Second.
Chairman: All in favor of the adjournment, say Aye.
Response: Aye
Chairman: Against
Response: no one
Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.
62
Z2017000338
63
Z2017000338 Lots With Consents - Calusa Club Estates All Lots Except "Spur" Lots and M/B Lots - Plat Book 100, Page 41 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County "Spur" Lots - Plat Book 162, Page 76 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County NK is Nathan Kogon, SF is Susan Furney, CH is Carl Harrison and MC is Maggie Cabrera Batch refers to the package of consents submitted to the County on October 29, 2019
BATCH, SUPPLEMENTAL LOT # OWNER NAMES PROPERTY ADDRESS FOLIO NUMBER RECORDED or RECORDED 1 Alain J. Morot-Gaudry and Roswitha Morot-Gaudry 12980 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0010 Batch 2 Christine Brennan 12970 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0020 Batch 3 Elizabeth Martinez and Ricardo Martinez 12960 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0030 Batch 4 Javier W. Cabassi and Marilin Cabassi 12950 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0040 Batch 5 Jose R. Fontane and Marta Garcia 12940 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0050 Batch 6 William Goncalves Cortezia and Luziany Maria Guedes 12930 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0060 Batch Cortezia 7 Douglas Portillo and Pilar Portillo 12910 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0070 Batch 8 Huber M. Ramirez, a single man, and Rosa Evelyn Alonso, a 12900 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0080 Batch single woman as Joint Tenants with the right of survivorship
9 Francisco Javier Alonso and Melissa Alonso 12850 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0090 Batch 10 Manuel Rosado and Marlene A. Rosado 12840 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0100 Batch 11 Orlando Lozano 12830 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0110 Supplemental Submitted email 10/23/20 9:19am to CH, SF, NK and MC 12 Herbert E. Hering and Waltraud E. Hering 12820 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0120 Batch 13 Pedro A. Cirera and Maria Villar Cirera 12810 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0130 Batch 14 Rajesh Melwani and Monisha Sabnani Melwani 12800 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0140 Batch 15 Diane M. Barrett, Trustee of the Diane M. Barrett Revocable 9000 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0150 Recorded (Supplement 10/29/19 ORB 31668 Pg 4942 Intervivos Trust dated 04/26/91 Submitted email 10/10/19 9:41 am to SF and NK)
16 Leonardo Gonzalez and Ligia K. Pacheco 9010 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0160 Batch 17 Joseph T. Brendecke and Nikole G. Brendecke, husband and 9100 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0170 Batch wife, and Josefina Girado, a single woman, joint tenants with rights of surviorship 18 Alexander D. Steuben 9110 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0180 Batch 19 Miguel Zarate and Anne De Pontalba 9120 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0190 Batch 20 Justin Cook and Vanessa Cook 9200 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0200 Recorded 11/28/12 ORB 28376 PG 2089 21 Angelo Patrizio 9210 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0210 Batch 22 Javier Ordieres and Rose Ordieres 9220 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0220 Batch 23 Terry Glen Gega Trust Agreement 9300 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0230 Recorded 10/03/12 ORB 28297 PG 4404 25 Hector L. Vazquez and Nayvi Vazquez 9400 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0250 Batch 26 Esteban Hurtado and Carlos Hurtado 9410 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0260 Recorded 11/28/12 ORB 28375 PG 2059 27 Carlos Gonzalez and Mayra Gonzalez 9500 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0270 Supplemental Submitted email 2/7/20 5:42pm to SF and CH
28 Oscar Rodriguez and Veronica S. Rodriguez 9510 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0280 Supplemental Submitted email 2/7/20 5:42pm to SF and CH
30 Herman S. Cheung and Marilyn C. Cheung 9610 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0300 Batch 31 Bill F. Southern, Jr. and Carol N. Southern 9620 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0310 Batch 32 Armando Salazar and Rebeca Vazquez 9700 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0320 Batch 34 Rafael E. Fernandez and Maria De La Cruz Fernandez 9720 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0340 Batch 35 9800 Calusa Club Drive, LLC 9800 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0350 Recorded 10/29/18 ORB 31199 PG 866 36 Home at 9810 LLC 9810 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0360 Recorded 10/29/18 ORB 31199 PG 874 37 Thomas Muro, Jr. and Maureen Farren 9820 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0370 Supplemental Submitted 2/11/20 5:57pm to CH and SF 38 Eduardo Rodriguez and Mabel Rodriguez 9900 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0380 Batch 39 Franklin Davila and Ines Stankiewicz 9910 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0390 Batch 40 Mariano F. Soria and Lissette Paulo 9920 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0400 Batch 41 Ali F. Alvarez and Carmen Sofia Gomez 9930 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0410 Batch 42 Boris Rodriguez and Larisa Zamora 9940 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0420 Batch 43 Yaima Delgado 9950 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0430 Batch 44 Gerard Anthony Samaroo and Ivonne Fernandez 10000 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0440 Supplemental Submitted e-mail 10/20/20 7:37am to SF and CH
45 Luis Garcia and Suzanne Swersky Garcia 10010 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0450 Batch 46 Mario D. Miranda and Annette P. Miranda 10020 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0460 Batch 48 Ernest Corzo and Maria Corzo 10040 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0480 Batch 49 Orlando E. Rodriguez and Martha L. Rodriguez, as co- 10050 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0490 Batch Trustees of the Rodriguez Living Trust, U/A dated December 5, 2012 50 The Maley Family Revocable Trust dated the 29th day of 10060 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0500 Batch March, 2019, Joseph Vincent Maley Jr. and Betty Maley, Trustors and/or Trustees 51 David C. Behney and Maritza C. Behney 10070 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-052-0010 Recorded 07/21/20 ORB 32014 PG 2283
7381555.V8 Page 1 of 3 10/23/2020 : 4:40 PM
Z2017000338 Lots With Consents - Calusa Club Estates All Lots Except "Spur" Lots and M/B Lots - Plat Book 100, Page 41 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County "Spur" Lots - Plat Book 162, Page 76 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County NK is Nathan Kogon, SF is Susan Furney, CH is Carl Harrison and MC is Maggie Cabrera Batch refers to the package of consents submitted to the County on October 29, 2019 54 Alan W. Erickson and Tomiko Erickson 10100 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0540 Recorded Supplement 10/29/19 ORB 31668 Pg 4930 Submitted email 10/10/19 9:41 am to SF and NK 55 Cristophe Meray and Emmanuelle Meray 10110 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0550 Batch 58 Eduardo Bencomo Alermo and Zenia Mascaros 10140 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0580 Supplemental Submitted email 2/7/20 5:42pm to SF and CH
59 Jorge V. Garcells and Ana B. Quincoses 10150 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0590 Batch 60 Marjorie Chace Jewett, as Trustee of the Marjorie Chace 10160 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0600 Recorded Supplemental 10/29/19 ORB 31668 Pg 4936 Jewett Revocable Living Trust, dated March 24, 2008 Submitted email 10/10/19 9:41 am to SF and NK
62 Rashel Diaz 10180 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0620 Batch 63 Mary Figuer, a single woman, and Jaime A. Colon, a single 10190 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0630 Batch man, as joint tenants 64 Leonardo Alvarino 10200 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0640 Batch 65 Jorge L. Palmer and Ana Juliette Palmer 10210 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0650 Recorded 10/03/12 ORB 28297 PG 4413 66 Victor Saliba, Jr. and Monique Saliba 10220 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0660 Batch 67 Lawrence M. Kaplan and Pamela Ierna Kaplan 10230 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0670 Batch 68 Teresa Abreu 10240 East Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0680 Batch 69 Roberto S. Schaps and Amalia A. Schaps 12801 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0690 Batch 70 Mauro R. Olivieri 12811 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0700 Batch 71 Elena Ubals-Stroud, as Trustee of the Nicholas L. Stroud 12821 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0710 Batch Trust 72 Sean E. Gilley and Karina G. Gilley 12831 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0720 Batch 73 Robert K. Sakowitz and Grace A. Sakowitz 12841 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0730 Batch 74 Vivian G. Camps 12851 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0740 Batch 75 Rolando Vicens and Maria T. Vicens 12901 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0750 Batch 76 Jorge Salabarria and Maritza Salabarria 12911 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0760 Batch 77 Nicolas F. Izquierdo A/K/A Nicolas Francisco Izquierdo 12921 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0770 Batch Lamela and Silvana M. De Izquierdo A/K/A Silvana Migone De Izquierdo 78 Marisa Marie Alvarez Martinez 12931 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0780 Batch 79 Anaely Pardo and Evelio Pardo Jr. 12941 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0790 Recorded 10/15/12 ORB 28312 PG 528 82 Juan R. Garcia and Gladys Garcia 13011 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0820 Batch 83 Paul M. Marolf and Lizette Marolf 13101 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0830 Batch 84 Mario H. Ego-Aguirre and Carolina S. Barriga 13111 South Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0840 Batch 85 Maria Teresa Zelaya 10021 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0850 Recorded 09/24/13 ORB 28835 PG 3802 86 Jose A Delgado 10011 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0860 Batch 87 Nerida Parra Leyton 10001 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0870 Batch 88 Bilal Karakira and Susan Karakira 9921 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0880 Batch 90 Thomas A. Baker and Eduardo A. Barrios 9901 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0900 Batch 91 Joseph Lawrence Wagner 9821 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0910 Batch 92 Katherine Perez and Florian Marcel Jozef De Clercq 9811 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0920 Batch 93 Robert Rogers and Theresa Rogers 9801 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0930 Batch 94 Ramon E. O'Neil and Cynthia S. O'Neil 9731 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0940 Batch 95 Andrew E. Austin and Mara G. Austin 9721 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0950 Batch 96 Alan K. Luedeking and Claudia Luedeking 9711 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0960 Batch 97 Michael C. Humphreys and Julie A. Humphreys 9701 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0970 Batch 98 Joel Luis Tabares Herrera and Yurizan Ramon Ferie 9651 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0980 Batch 99 Matathias E. Frances and Zora K. Frances, as Co-Trustees of 9641 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-0990 Batch the Frances Family Trust under unrecorded Trust Agreement dated the 10 day March, 2016
103 Luz P. Arango-Madrid 9601 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1030 Supplemental Submitted email 2/7/20 5:42pm to SF and CH
104 Edward Dopazo and Doris C. Ruiz-Dopazo 9521 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1040 Batch 105 Edwardo E. De La Campa and Lisset De La Campa 9515 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1050 Batch 106 Eveling T. Perez Bermudez, Arling V. Bermudez and Lisbeth 9501 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1060 Supplemental Bermudez 2/18/20 4:15pm to SF and CH 107 Annette Armand, a single woman and Ismael Pabon, a single 9431 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1070 Batch man, as joint tenants with right of surviorship 109 Vinicio A. Ruiz-Gomez and Carmen C. Ruiz-Gomez 9411 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1090 Recorded Supplement 10/29/19 ORB 31669 Pg 422 Submitted email 10/10/19 9:41 am to SF and NK 110 Ramon J. Moral and Alicia Moral 9401 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1100 Batch 111 Eileen F. Sonsa, a married woman 9311 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1110 Batch 113 Ingvi Tomasson and Kristin Gunnarsdottir 9221 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1130 Batch 115 Larry Cohn and Susan Cohn 9201 West Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1150 Batch
7381555.V8 Page 2 of 3 10/23/2020 : 4:40 PM
Z2017000338 Lots With Consents - Calusa Club Estates All Lots Except "Spur" Lots and M/B Lots - Plat Book 100, Page 41 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County "Spur" Lots - Plat Book 162, Page 76 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County NK is Nathan Kogon, SF is Susan Furney, CH is Carl Harrison and MC is Maggie Cabrera Batch refers to the package of consents submitted to the County on October 29, 2019 Oscar Alberto Camargo and Ari Yuri Camargo 13400 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1160 Supplemental Submitted 116 e-mail 10/21/20 12:42pm to SF and CH 117 Michael A. Caselli and Karen A. Caselli 13350 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1170 Batch 118 Ivan Villalobos and Lazara Pinera Villalobos 13340 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1180 Batch 119 Ana Alvarez 13330 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1190 Batch 120 Jorge A. Castanon and Tania R. Castanon 13320 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1200 Batch 121 Osvaldo Barreto and Marielena Barreto 13310 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1210 Batch 122 Kathleen A. Winters and Ray W. Winters 13300 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1220 Batch 123 Franco Escudero and Lourdes Escudero 13260 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1230 Batch 124 Jorge Luis Molina 13250 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1240 Batch 127 Ricardo Fernandez and Ileana M. Fernandez 13220 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1270 Batch 130 Andrew J. Ewen and Loretto R. Ewen 13130 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1300 Batch 131 Lazaro A. Leon and Martha M. Leon 13120 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1310 Batch 132 Robert Infiesta and Maria Cristina Infiesta 13110 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1320 Batch 133 Ariel Manduley and Maria C. Manduley 13100 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1330 Batch 134 Jorge E. Capra and Adriana Capra 13070 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1340 Batch 136 Diovanni Meller and Adriana D. Soares 13050 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1360 Batch 137 Harley Stock, a married man and Matthew Stock and 13040 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1370 Batch Danielle Stock, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship 139 Malcom Brown and Cristina Pardo Brown 13020 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1390 Batch 140 Felix O. Infiesta, as Trustee of The Felix O. Infiesta Revocable 13010 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1400 Batch Living Trust, dated July 31st, 2017 and Maripili Infiesta, as Trustee of The Maripili Infiesta Revocable Living Trust, dated July 31st, 2017 141 Julian Chavez, Jr and Nancy Chavez 13000 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-002-1410 Batch M/B (0) Carlos Ignacio Pereira and Elena Mackenzie Pereira 12998 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-000-0070 Recorded 11/19/12 ORB 28364 PG 2377
M/B Maureen Samaroo, an unmarried woman and Gerard 12990 North Calusa Club Dr. 30-5902-000-0040 Batch Samaroo, a single man, as joint tenants with rights of surviorship Spur Lot 1 RG0305 LLC 30-5902-052-0010 Recorded 10/03/12 ORB 28297 PG 4395 Spur Lot 2 RG0305 LLC 30-5902-052-0020 Recorded 10/03/12 ORB 28297 PG 4395 Spur Lot 4 Calusa Club Point Estates, Inc. by Andres Stefano, President 30-5902-052-0040 Supplemental: Submitted e-mail to CH, SF and NK 10/06/20 at 12:19pm
Spur Lot 5 RG0305 LLC 30-5902-052-0050 Recorded 10/03/12 ORB 28297 PG 4395 123 TOTAL
7381555.V8 Page 3 of 3 10/23/2020 : 4:40 PM
Z2017000338 Filing # 97689054 E-Filed 10/22/2019 03:44:01 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
Complex Business Litigation Section
CASE NO. 12-33641 CA 03
ST. ANDREWS HOLDINGS, LTD. n/k/a FORT DALLAS GOLF CLUB, LTD., a Florida limited partnership; and NORTHEASTERN GOLF LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALAIN J. MOROT-GAUDRY, an individual; et al.,
Principal Defendants,
and
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Nominal Defendant. /
JOINT MOTION TO ABATE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiffs, St. Andrews Holdings, Ltd. n/k/a Fort Dallas Golf Club, Ltd. (“St. Andrews”)
and Northeastern Golf LLC (“Northeastern”) (together, the “Plaintiffs”), Nominal Defendant
Miami-Dade County (the “County”), and those Principal Defendants participating in the Save
Calusa Trust (the “Trust Defendants”) (all, collectively, the “Parties”), by and through undersigned
counsel, hereby move to abate (but not dismiss) and stay this proceeding pending final, non-
Z2017000338 CASE NO. 12-33641 CA 03 appealable action by the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (the
“Commission”). In support hereof, the Parties state as follows:
1. The Parties are pleased to announce that, following approximately two years of multi-party collaboration and negotiation, a comprehensive settlement agreement (the
“Agreement”) with the potential to fully resolve this action has been executed by and between the landowner Plaintiffs, the trustee of the Save Calusa Trust (the “Trustee”), and non-party Kendall
Associates I, LLLP (the “Developer”).
2. The Agreement was timely and duly approved by the Trust members on September
25, 2019 and now requires the scheduling of one or more publicly noticed public hearing(s) before the Commission on Plaintiffs’/Developer’s already-filed application for partial release of the
Restriction that is the subject of this action (the “Application”).
3. The settlement is conditioned and depends upon Commission approval of the
Application, as well as the expiration of all applicable appeal periods.
4. Thus, the Parties jointly seek an order abating (but not dismissing) and indefinitely staying this proceeding until (i) the Commission approves the Application (and all appeal periods close) and this proceeding is dismissed, or (ii) the Commission denies the Application and the
Parties report, through the filing of a joint status report, that the Agreement has terminated pursuant to its terms and the litigation should proceed. See Dussich v. Dussich, 449 So. 2d 395, 395 (Fla.
4th DCA 1984) (construing an order of abatement as “granting an indefinite stay rather than a dismissal” and approving the order); In re Peck’s Estate, 336 So. 2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA
1976) (trial court erroneously construed order of abatement as dismissing the proceedings; an
“abatement ordinarily suspends an action until the complained of defect [or specified contingency] is remedied [or occurs]”); see generally 1 Fla. Jur. 2d Actions § 90 (West, updated Sep. 2019) 2
Z2017000338 CASE NO. 12-33641 CA 03
(“[A] motion to abate . . . seeks to halt the proceedings pending some event or action intrinsic or extrinsic to the action.”).
5. Florida courts are empowered to abate and stay proceedings to allow a parallel proceeding involving the same parties and subject matter to proceed, where resolution of the parallel proceeding may impact the disposition of the abated/suspended proceeding. Cf. Paino v.
Great West Life Assurance Co., 622 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“When an action is filed involving the same parties and the same cause of action as an action pending in another court of like jurisdiction, the usual practice involves suspending the proceedings until the first action is determined.”); e.g., Hessen v. Schimmel, 182 So. 3d 1, 2-3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (parties were entitled to stay of court proceedings pending resolution of arbitration proceedings); Feigin v. Hosp.
Staffing Servs., Inc., 569 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (trial court could stay depositions, pending determination of motion to dismiss); Doan v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 727 So.
2d 400, 401 & 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (stay of insured’s bad faith claim was proper pending resolution of coverage dispute); see generally 1 Am. Jur. 2d Abatement, Survival, and Revival § 4
(West, updated Aug. 2019) (noting trial court may abate claims where “resolution of [a] threshold issue” might defeat plaintiffs’ entitlement to assert them and “the interest of sound judicial economy dictates that the resolution be reached before the effort and expense of [further judicial proceedings] are undertaken”) (citing Domizio v. Progressive Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., 54 S.W.3d 867
(Tex. Ct. App. 2001) (“[A] trial court has the discretion to abate an action so that claims may be presented in an orderly fashion.”)).
6. Entry of the relief sought herein is necessary to allow the Commission approval process to proceed and, thereby, to enable the Parties to accomplish the Agreement’s conditions
3
Z2017000338 CASE NO. 12-33641 CA 03 precedent without needless expenditure of time and resources in litigation. See Paino, 622 So. 2d
at 633; Hessen, 182 So. 3d at 2-3; Feigin, 569 So. 2d at 942; Doan, 727 So. 2d at 401 & 403.
7. In addition, the suspension of these proceedings is essential to preserve the Parties’
respective positions and the status quo in the unfortunate event that the Agreement’s conditions
are not satisfied. See REWJB Gas Invs. v. Land O’ Sun Realty, Ltd., 643 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla.
3d DCA 1994) (analogizing the granting of a stay to a temporary injunction); City of Sunny Isles
Beach v. Temple B’Nai Zion, Inc., 43 So. 3d 904, 905-06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (describing the
“purpose of a temporary injunction” as “preserv[ing] the status quo . . . to prevent irreparable harm
from occurring before a dispute is resolved”).
8. Given the number of Parties, the complex underlying merits, the size of the subject
lands, the number of parties, and the logistical complexities undergirding the successful
negotiation and drafting of the Agreement, as well as the amount of trial and appellate court
resources already expended, an abatement (but not dismissal) and indefinite stay of these proceedings is necessary and justified.
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Joint Motion to
Abate and Indefinitely Stay Proceedings, enter an Order abating (but not dismissing) and staying
this action until (i) the Commission approves the Application and this proceeding is dismissed, or
(ii) the Commission denies the Application and the Parties report, through the filing of a joint
status report, that the Agreement has terminated pursuant to its terms and the litigation should proceed.
4
Z2017000338 CASE NO. 12-33641 CA 03
Respectfully submitted,
SHUBIN & BASS, P.A. LEHTINEN SCHULTZ RIEDI 46 S.W. First Street CATALANO DE LA FUENTE PLLC Third Floor Sabadell Financial Center Miami, Florida 33130 1111 Brickell Avenue Telephone: (305) 381-6060 Suite 2200 Facsimile: (305) 381-9457 Miami, Florida 33131 [email protected] Telephone: (305) 760-8544 [email protected] Facsimile: (305) 356-5720 [email protected] [email protected]
By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Bass By: /s/ Claudio Riedi Jeffrey S. Bass Claudio Riedi Fla. Bar No. 962279 Fla. Bar No. 984930 Katherine R. Maxwell Fla. Bar No. 99869
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL FOR TRUST DEFENDANTS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Stephen P. Clark Center 111 N.W. First Street Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 Telephone: (305) 375-5229 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
By: /s/ Dennis Kerbel Dennis Kerbel Fla. Bar No. 610429 Lauren Morse Fla. Bar No. 97083
COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY
5
Z2017000338 CASE NO. 12-33641 CA 03 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via electronic mail and U.S. mail1 this 22nd day of October 2019 upon all parties identified in the
Service List attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
/s/ Jeffrey S. Bass Jeffrey S. Bass
1 In compliance with Rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, attorneys have been served by email at the address designated by the attorney or at the address on record with the Florida Bar (if any). As of the date hereof, no unrepresented parties have designated an address for e-service; accordingly, unrepresented parties were served by U.S. mail pursuant to Rule 2.516(b)(2), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.
6
Z2017000338
Exhibit 1
Z2017000338
SERVICE LIST
Lorenzo Jackson, Jr. Michael P. Bonner Jackson Law P.A. Falk, Waas, Hernandez, Cortina, Solomon, & Huntington Square III Bonner, P.A. 3350 S.W. 148th Avenue, Suite 110 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 500 Miramar, Florida 33027 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: (954) 662-1681 Email: [email protected] Fax: (866) 773-9215 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Telephone: (305) 447-6500 Manuel and Marlene A. Rosado Fax: (305) 447-1777 (Ring Lot 10) Attorneys for Defendants John F. Bonner & Esperanza M. Bonner (Ring Lot 80) Lilian V. Avellan CT Corporation System Lilian V. Avellan, P.A. 1200 South Pine Island Road 9950 SW 107 Avenue, Suite 204 Plantation, Florida 33324 Miami, FL 33176 Registered Agent for Defendant Email: [email protected] Impac Funding Corp. d/b/a Impac Lending Telephone: (305) 459-1075 Group (Ring Lot 106) Fax: (305) 675-5926 Attorneys for Defendant Teresa Roedenbeck (Ring Lot 90) Robert L. Schimmel Dennis A. Kerbel Schimmel, P.A. Lauren E. Morse 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office Miami, Florida 33131 Stephen P. Clark Center Email: [email protected] 111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810 Telephone: (305) 907-6012 Miami, Florida 33128 Fax: (305) 675-3946 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants James Email: [email protected] Raymond Ritter, Jr. & Sarah Le Blanc- Email: [email protected] Ritter (Ring Lot 125) Email: [email protected] Telephone: (305) 375-5229 Fax: (305) 375-5634 Attorneys for Nominal Defendant Miami- Dade County
Z2017000338
Claudio Riedi Lehtinen Schultz Riedi Catalano de la Fuente PLLC Sabadell Financial Center 1111 Brickell Avenue Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 760-8544 Fax: (305) 356-5720 Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants participating in the Save Calusa Trust as individually identified in the Notice of Appearance dated June 25, 2013 and the Supplemental Notice of Appearance and Joinder in Answer dated July 8, 2013: Alain J. Morot-Gaudry & Roswitha Morot-Gaudry (Ring Lot 1); Christine Brennan (Ring Lot 2); Manuel R. Garcia-Tunon & Helin T. Garcia-Tunon (Ring Lot 3); Javier W. Cabassi & Marilin Cabassi (Ring Lot 4); Jose R. Fontane & Marta Garcia (Ring Lot 5); William Goncalves Cortezia & Luziany Maria Guedes Cortezia (Ring Lot 6); Douglas Portillo & Pilar Portillo (Ring Lot 7); Jose Correa Lima & Sheylla Lima (Ring Lot 8); Francisco Javier Alonso & Melissa Alonso (Ring Lot 9); Manuel Rosado & Marlene A. Rosado (Ring Lot 10); Alexander Assaad Mowzoon & Fetneh Mowzoon (Ring Lot 11); Herbert E. Hering & Waltraud E. Hering (Ring Lot 12); Pedro A. Cirera & Maria Villar Cirera (Ring Lot 13); Diane M. Barrett, Trustee of the Diane M. Barrett Revocable Intervivos Trust (Ring Lot 15); Alejandro A. Diego Duffilhot & Maria M. Tejado Otalora (Ring Lot 17); Alexander D. Steuben (Ring Lot 18); Miguel Zarate & Anne De Pontalba (Ring Lot 19); Angelo Patrizio (Ring Lot 21); Javier Ordieres & Rose Ordieres (Ring Lot 22); Hector L. Vazquez & Nayvi Vazquez (Ring Lot 25); Herman S. Cheung & Marilyn C. Cheung (Ring Lot 30); Bill F. Southern, Jr. & Carol N. Southern (Ring Lot 31); Joan C. Nateman (Ring Lot 32); Rafael E. Fernandez (Ring Lot 34); Carlos Zerpa & Jeannette Zerpa (Ring Lot 35); Alberto J. Marino, Sr. & Ivette C. Marino (Ring Lot 36); Ali F. Alvarez & Carmen Sofia Gomez (Ring Lot 41); Boris Rodriguez & Larisa Zamora (Ring Lot 42); Luis Garcia & Suzanne Swersky Garcia (Ring Lot 45); Mario D. Miranda & Annette P. Miranda (Ring Lot 46); Orlando Fernandez-Bello & Consuelo Fernandez-Bello (Ring Lot 47); Ernest Corzo & Maria Corzo (Ring Lot 48); Orlando E. Rodriguez & Martha L. Rodriguez (Ring Lot 49); Joseph V. Maley & Betty Maley (Ring Lot 50); David C. Behney & Maritza C. Behney (Ring Lot 51); Alan W. Erickson & Tomiko Erickson (Ring Lot 54); Christophe Meray & Emmanuelle Meray (Ring Lot 55); Barry Schimer as Trustee of the Barry Schimer Revocable Trust Under Agreement Dated 9 Sept, 2010 (Ring Lot 57); Kevin R. Greenwood & Blanca T. Greenwood (Ring Lot 58); Jorge V. Garcells & Ana B. Quincoses (Ring Lot 59); John S. Jewett & Marjorie Chace Jewett (Ring Lot 60); Eddy Fernandez & Janet Armendariz (Ring Lot 62); Jaime A. Colon & Mary Figuer (Ring Lot 63); Wesley McKelvey & Eslia K. McKelvey (Ring Lot 64); Victor Saliba Jr. & Monique Saliba (Ring Lot 66); Lawrence M. Kaplan & Pamela Ierna Kaplan (Ring Lot 67); Teresa Abreu (Ring Lot 68); Roberto S. Schaps & Amalia A. Schaps (Ring Lot 69); William M. Abraham &
Z2017000338
Kay M. Abraham (Ring Lot 70); Nicholas L. Stroud (Ring Lot 71); Sean E. Gilley & Karina G. Gilley (Ring Lot 72); Robert K. Sakowitz & Grace A. Sakowitz (Ring Lot 73); Vivian G. Camps (Ring Lot 74); Maria T. Vicens (Ring Lot 75); Jorge Salabarria & Maritza Salabarria (Ring Lot 76); Nicolas F. Izquierdo & Silvana M. de Izquierdo (Ring Lot 77); Marisa Maria Alvarez-Martinez (Ring Lot 78); Juan R. Garcia & Gladys Garcia (Ring Lot 82); Paul M. Marolf & Lizette Marolf (Ring Lot 83); Mario H. Ego-Aguirre & Carolina S. Barriga (Ring Lot 84); Jose A. Delgado (Ring Lot 86); Nerida Parra Leyton (Ring Lot 87); Bilal Karakira & Susan Karakira (Ring Lot 88); Joseph Lawrence Wagner (Ring Lot 91); Hanadi Ghafir & Maher Ghafir (Ring Lot 92); Theresa Rogers & Robert Rogers (Ring Lot 93); Ramon E. O'Neil & Cynthia S. O'Neil (Ring Lot 94); Mara G. Austin & Andrew E. Austin (Ring Lot 95); Alan K. Luedeking & Claudia Luedeking (Ring Lot 96); Michael C. Humphreys & Julie A. Humphreys (Ring Lot 97); Sandra Fancher (Ring Lot 98); Matathias E. Frances & Zora K. Frances (Ring Lot 99); Edward Dopazo & Doris C. Ruiz-Dopazo (Ring Lot 104); Eduardo E. De La Campa & Lisset De La Campa (Ring Lot 105); Maria Claudia Monserrat (Ring Lot 107); Vinicio A. Ruiz-Gomez & Carmen C. Ruiz-Gomez (Ring Lot 109); Ramon J. Moral & Alicia Moral (Ring Lot 110); Eileen F. Sosna (Ring Lot 111); Raquel Tennen (Ring Lot 112); Ingvi Tomasson & Kristin Gunnarsdottir (Ring Lot 113); Larry Cohn & Susan Cohn (Ring Lot 115); Michael A. Caselli & Karen A. Caselli (Ring Lot 117); Ivan Villalobos & Lazara Pinera Villalobos (Ring Lot 118); Efrain H. Logreira, Jr. & Lynette M. Logreira (Ring Lot 120); Osvaldo Barreto & Marielena Barreto (Ring Lot 121); Kathleen Winters (Ring Lot 122); Lourdes Escudero & Franco Escudero (Ring Lot 123); Jorge Luis Molina (Ring Lot 124); Ileana M. Fernandez (Ring Lot 127); Loretto R. Ewen & Andrew J. Ewen (Ring Lot 130); Lazaro A. Leon & Martha M. Leon (Ring Lot 131); Robert Infiesta & Maria Cristina Infiesta (Ring Lot 132); Ariel Manduley & Maria C. Manduley (Ring Lot 133); Diovanni Meller & Adriana D. Soares (Ring Lot 136); Harley Stock, Matthew Stock, & Danielle Sanders (Ring Lot 137); Michael A. Rosenberg & Nancy G. Rosenberg (Ring Lot 138); Malcolm Brown & Cristina Pardo Brown (Ring Lot 139); Felix Infiesta & Maripili Infiesta (Ring Lot 140); Julian Chavez, Jr. & Nancy Chavez (Ring Lot 141); Maureen Samaroo (Ring Lot 143) Calusa Club Point Estates, Inc Julio A. Irizarry & Dolleen Viguie 11350 SW 95th Street 10170 E. Calusa Club Drive Miami, FL 33176 Miami, FL 33186 (Spur Lot 3 & Spur Lot 4) (Ring Lot 61)
Z2017000338
George Moussa & Josephine Moussa Maria Teresa Zelaya 13001 S. Calusa Club Drive 10021 W. Calusa Club Drive Miami, FL 33186 Miami, FL 33186 (Ring Lot 81) -and- 10125 SW 88th Street Miami, FL 33176-1718 (Ring Lot 85) BIMIJA Limited Partnership Raul Fernandez & Vilma T. Fernandez 11636 N. Kendall Drive 13060 N. Calusa Club Drive Miami, FL 33176 Miami, FL 33186 (Ring Lot 114) (Ring Lot 135) Carlos Ignacio Pereira & Elena Mackenzie de Pereira 12998 N. Calusa Club Drive Miami, FL 33186 (Ring Lot 142)
Z2017000338 Filing # 98486638 E-Filed 11/06/2019 03:31:49 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2012-033641-CA-01 SECTION: CA03 JUDGE: Jennifer D Bailey
St Andrews Holdings (ltd)
Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner(s)
vs.
Morot Gaudry, Alain J
Defendant(s) / Respondent(s)
______/
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO ABATE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion to Abate and Stay Proceedings (the “Joint Motion”), and the Court having considered the Joint Motion and being fully advised in the premises, hereby grants the Joint Motion as follows:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. The Joint Motion is GRANTED.
2. The parties to this proceeding have provided the Court with serial updates of the consistent work expended by a vast team of people and professionals in order to reach an agreement that would result in the settlement and dismissal of this action (the “Agreement”). The Court is mindful of the number of parties to this litigation, the degree of difficulty of finding an acceptable compromise where so many different parties are involved, and the Court is keenly aware of the fact that the Agreement is conditioned upon final, non-appealable action by the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (the “Commission”). The Court
Z2017000338 CaseNo: 2012-033641-CA-01 Page 2 of 3
understands that Commission action can take considerable time.
3. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that a suspension of these judicial proceedings in order to afford the Commission time to act on the approval described in the Joint Motion would promote settlement, avoid the needless expenditure of time and resources in litigation, and preserve the status quo in the event the Commission approval-related conditions of the Agreement are not satisfied.
4. Therefore, this action shall be abated (but not dismissed) and stayed until (i) the Commission approves the Application referred to in the Joint Motion (and all appeal periods close) and this proceeding is dismissed, or (ii) the Commission denies the Application referred to in the Joint Motion and the parties report, through the filing of a joint status report, that the settlement agreement has terminated pursuant to its terms and the litigation should proceed.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 6th day of November, 2019.
2012-033641-CA-01 11-06-2019 3:26 PM Hon. Jennifer D Bailey
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Electronically Signed
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION
CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT
Copies Furnished To: Andrew Rodriguez , Email : [email protected] Andrew Rodriguez , Email : [email protected] Andrew Rodriguez , Email : [email protected]
Z2017000338 CaseNo: 2012-033641-CA-01 Page 3 of 3
Andrew Rodriguez , Email : [email protected] Ceci C Berman , Email : [email protected] Ceci C Berman , Email : [email protected] Claudio Riedi , Email : [email protected] Claudio Riedi , Email : [email protected] Claudio Riedi , Email : [email protected] Dennis A Kerbel , Email : [email protected] Dennis A Kerbel , Email : [email protected] Jeffrey S. Bass , Email : [email protected] Jeffrey S. Bass , Email : [email protected] Jeffrey S. Bass , Email : [email protected] Katherine R Maxwell , Email : [email protected] Katherine R Maxwell , Email : [email protected] Katherine R Maxwell , Email : [email protected] Kevin C. Kaplan , Email : [email protected] Kevin C. Kaplan , Email : [email protected] Kevin C. Kaplan , Email : [email protected] LILIANA V AVELLAN , Email : [email protected] LILIANA V AVELLAN , Email : [email protected] Lauren E. Morse , Email : [email protected] Lauren E. Morse , Email : [email protected] Lauren E. Morse , Email : [email protected] Lorenzo Jackson Jr , Email : [email protected] Lorenzo Jackson Jr , Email : [email protected] Lorenzo Jackson, Jr. , Email : [email protected] Michael P Bonner , Email : [email protected] Michael P Bonner , Email : [email protected] Michael P Bonner , Email : [email protected] Michael P Bonner , Email : [email protected] Michael P Bonner , Email : [email protected] Michael P Bonner , Email : [email protected] Robert Lee Schimmel , Email : [email protected] Steven L Brannock , Email : [email protected] Steven L Brannock , Email : [email protected]
Z2017000338