If the facts are in question, then further exploration is required. And it is not effective to simply say, “the consultants are wrong.” Unsubstantiated pot shots don’t add to the debate. Our government has paid its consultants for advice. If you think they’re wrong, get your facts together.

I responded as follows  –  If you knew me, you would know that I do not have a reputation for “unsubstantiated pot shots”.   And then went into a rant:  

I do not understand why anyone would put much trust in the current numbers from the LCFPD or its consultants.  Actually, I should take that back – those against the course were elated to hear those numbers and want to believe that they represent the only learned opinion.  When the LCFPD in 2003 wanted to build the high-end course, they and their consultant (the same GRA that has now recanted) said it was a slam-dunk for $14.5 million for the entire Fort Sheridan master plan (GC, ravines, cemetery entrance, trails, exhibits, beach, etc.).  See #1 below.  Now that Bonnie Carter and certain very vocal commissioners do not want to build the course, $25 million for the golf course construction only (sans clubhouse and after a great deal of earth movement has already taken place) supposedly may not be enough.  Is it really my job to get my facts together, or do I as a taxpayer, as a golfer, and as a harmed party not have the right to challenge what appears to be stacked deck and to demand a recount?

Also in #1 below is a quote from Brian Silva.  Did the LCFPD contact him about changes that could have kept the course toward the high-end but “softened” the cost?  As I indicated, the answer is NO.  Do you also view his thoughts as “unsubstantiated”?

#2 below is from a respected architect, who may or may not be interested in getting involved with the politics of the current situation.  His $4-6 million project is so much less than the current LCFPD numbers that you have to wonder who is kidding who?  This architect does not build junk.  His portfolio includes local courses, and he is sensitive to the environment.  Maybe there are enough differences between the Boston project and FS to possibly raise the FS amount to triple Boston.  I believe you can do the math ($12-18 million).  Unsubstantiated?  Maybe, but something to ponder. 

I believe you will recognize #3 as a reply to you on your blog.  Again, looks like an opinion that has some basis to it and is not “unsubstantiated”.  I believe your argument then strategically shifted off the cost of construction aspect, and instead hit on the most recent operating results.  When Ed Brill pointed out that there was a profit before depreciation on the clubhouse, you ignored his point.  Most of that clubhouse burned down in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s and was rebuilt in the grand fashion that it was in the early 20^th century.   Nothing to do with golf regarding much of that decision.  That decision was to make money on major banquet activity (in fact, I paid for two weddings there).  It apparently is still bearing the burden of the grand facility that was built.  With all that said, I’ll bet that Wheeling leaders would do it again because as that depreciation dwindles, the profit will be there.

Lastly, #4 contains some good info that again challenges the cost estimates and construction approaches of the LCFPD.  As yet “unsubstantiated”?  Sure, but I am starting to be convinced that if you would put up the money, we could get someone to dissect the project, try to make it work for all stakeholders, phase in certain aspects, and do so for well below the $25 million amount.  I doubt that you want to pay for that, and neither do I.  I just want to challenge the LCFPD sufficiently to assure that their work, and that of their consultants, isn’t managed to the desired conclusion of the day.  

I do not plan to continue this dialog with you much longer because responding to your sharp comments like the one at the start of this email is getting to be way too great a waste of my time.  I just hope that you will appreciate that I do not just throw out “unsubstantiated pot shots”.  I try to base my comments on facts or on reliable judgments of people smarter than me on the subject at hand.

          Bill      wjlolli@comcast.net

 (1)  From my public comments at the 01/30/09 LCFPD meeting:

It seems that to many laymen like myself that there is a significant disconnect between the estimates and bids received in 2004 and what is being indicated today.  The several budget amounts ranging up to $32 million are confusing compared to less than $15 million of golf-course-only costs five years ago.   I also am very surprised that the Forest Preserve staff and the consultants did not contact Brian Silva, the 2003 master plan architect, as part of this update process.  I did so, and here is what Mr. Silva indicated:

“My only concern would be that an updated construction estimate would not necessarily be accurate as I feel that the initial cost of the course could be “softened” by adjusting the amount of irrigation, drainage and grading work that was contained in the original plans and specs.   These modifications would lower the price of construction and hardly impact the resulting course quality.”

 I do not have any more details than that statement, but I believe his perspective is valuable.

Associated with this dramatic change in the cost of development is the dramatic change in the view of the consulting firms.  Back in 2003, Mr. Slauson, the president of GRA, testified as follows: 

“In sum, our review of our 2001 study and other factors indicates that the proposed redevelopment project remains viable.  Given the probability that the cost of redevelopment may be lower than originally anticipated – due to a lack of golf course construction activity which typically results in more competitive bidding – and the low level of current interest rates, the viability of the project could be even more sound than when our 2001 study was prepared.  As such, we would recommend that the project be initiated as soon as possible.” 

“More competitive bidding because of the economic situation and a very low level of interest rates.”  That sure sounds like an exact description of today (2009).

(2) From a respected golf course architect:

 —– Forwarded Message —–
From:   A Nationally Renowned Golf Architect       To: “William Lolli” wjlolli@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 3:00:31 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: FS Golf Course Mtg – 01/30/09 

>Hi Bill:
Thanks for sending along the information.   I am stunned to see suggestions that building a course would cost $25 million.

I have a course with a pending construction start of late this year – on a former Naval Air Station (interestingly enough) outside of Boston – and we are anticipating building a fully irrigated course for 4 to 6 million dollars.      Thanks for your interest in golf.

(3) From a reply on your blog:

So you are obligated to build a golf course? You needn’t spend $15 million nor pose a hazard to the fragile ecosystem. I suggest adopting best management practices already successfully employed by fantastic golf course supts from around the world. Golf courses are not toxic waste pits. Organic fertilizers and bio-fungicides are applied around the world with great success. Take a look at my friend Matt Crowther’s property on Martha’s Vineyard. It can be done and it can be done well.
http://www.eifg.org/portal/portal/item_download.aspx?item_id=325

By: Allen Parkes on February 7, 2009
PGA Professional / Certified Golf Course Supt
Traditions at Chevy Chase Country Club     Wheeling, Illinois 

(4) From a well thought out email to me, with a specific challenge to the LCFPD estimates:

 —– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Bill Lolli” wjlolli@comcast.net             To:  LF Resident
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 12:38:38 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: NGF Consulting Proposal Revised

Just a quick reply to you to thank you for a very insightful and well communicated analysis of the situation.  Also, a comment on your reference to Shepherd’s Crook. 

Around when the Silva FS GC master plan was being developed (2002?), I played there in an outing involving county/municipal/park district staff and officials.  I spoke one-on-one with the head of the Zion Park District (not sure if he was the executive director or head of the ZPD Board, and he might have been the same person you reference).  Similar to your indication, he made a number of disparaging remarks about the cost of Thunderhawk versus his course.  He warned that FS might result in those same excesses.  At the time, I thought he might just be excessively bragging about what they achieved, and maybe there wasn’t appropriate comparability between the projects.  I now believe he was probably more right than wrong.  Thanks again for reminding me of that conversation.

       Bill    wlolli@chicagogsb.edu

Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 6:09:27 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: NGF Consulting Proposal Revised

Friends of FS,  

I live in LF and have been privileged to be on all the email correspondence of this group since last fall. I attended part of Friday’s meeting. We are golfers, have friends who live in FS, are fans of the mixed use plan that has been developed over many years with many stakeholders.

There seem to be 5 key issues (that I can think of, I’m sure there are more), that a consultant MAY BE able to address:

1.   COST – Is Thunderhawk’s cost the right basis upon which to develop an estimate? I have never heard that it was a great example of efficient design, well controlled designer costs, original thinking on the infrastructure, water management or the usefulness or cost effectiveness of the club house. Shepherd’s Crook (I know everybody will have their own opinion) was developed for about half the cost of TH. The …………. who led that effort has some very choice insights into why TH was very costly for no reason other than poor project management and a lack of imagination. Can a consultant give us a more bottom up estimate? Currently we appear to be using a bad example as a reason not to build FS.

2.   SHARED SERVICES – I see no original thinking on the use of existing LCFPD golf course infrastructure or staff – shared resources, group purchasing, membership levels, shared staff including golf professionals and maintenance costs. Each course is managed as its own independent profit center which sub-optimizes the use of resources and wastes money. Can a consultant provide insight on this? Is something like this useful?

3.   MARKET SIZE – STEADY STATE- We rushed right through the market saturation data. With a reduction to 80,000 rounds of market potential (reduced from previous higher figures) that still represents 2-4 more courses worth of opportunity. If 3-5 courses are potentially closing, that provides even a greater margin of safety. Can a consultant help us understand that a little better? Especially because the answers depend on what price point.

4.   PRICING – We moved quickly through the NEED to develop a premium priced product because it “might” take away from other course – but no data and courses may be closing. Can a consultant help with this?

5.   MARKET SIZE – DYNAMIC STATE – My reading of golf industry strategy is that the experience of the last 10 years has taught the industry that the best strategy is to work on very modest growth goals (less than 1%) in terms of numbers of new golfers and focus more on increasing the number of rounds per golfer. How can LCFPD lead the way in this approach? Can a consultant help us with this? 

Unless we are clear on what we are asking the consultant to do and position it with LCFPD as a good faith effort to come to a good decision, it is a waste of money.

Although I am not a FS property owner, I would be concerned that if we violate the deed restrictions, the Army will reclaim the property and then we (LCFPD, FS, and the surrounding communities) will lose control of its use – a potentially disastrous outcome for all concerned.

 I believe t

“The Fort Sheridan golf course design will integrate with naturalized buffer zones to protect ecologically sensitive ravines and provide habitat for endangered and threatened species. As is the case at other Lake County Forest Preserve golf courses, Fort Sheridan will be managed according to Audubon Sanctuary guidelines that promote wildlife habitat and reduce water, energy and chemical usage.”

“From the moment of its ribbon cutting, ThunderHawk has received rave reviews from the discriminating press and the golfing public. Not only has the course been acclaimed environmentally, it has provided exceptionally enjoyable golf for players of every skill level.  Wildlife, from butterflies to birds to hawks (of course), also thrive in these restored habitats.”

“ThunderHawk also received designation by Audubon International as the first public course in Illinois to be certified as an Audubon Signature Sanctuary. It is the third public golf course in the world to earn this certification for excellence in environmental stewardship.”

The Audubon Signature Program helped to not only incorporate, but also enhance natural landscaping and restore wildlife habitat on site.  Audubon International worked with the forest preserve staff and the design team at Robert Trent Jones II to restore over 60 acres of native Midwestern prairie, to preserve 15 acres of wetlands, and to create an additional 17 acres of wetlands.  More than 900 oaks and maples were planted, to bring the number of forested acres on site to 84.  In addition, the small sundrop  (Oenothera perennis), a state-threatened species found on site, was protected during construction.  A total of 72% of the property remains as natural habitat.

http://www.auduboninternational.org/programs/signature/members/IL.htm

The old course.

The following website link provides some perspective that challenges those who exaggerate the impact of a golf course to the overall ecology and passive open space in Fort Sheridan:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1481693&id=626247843&saved

Putting the proposed golf course in perspective to the surrounding open area is important in this discussion. Its specific acreage would be only about sixty percent of the 259 acre Lake County Fort Sheridan Preserve. It would be surrounded by a tremendous amount of virtually untouched open space.  That open space includes

• the Lake Forest Open Lands 61-acre McCormick Woods Nature Preserve immediately to the north;
• the lakefront and bluffs to the east;
• significant open space in the TFS development (including a meadow, pond and lengthy bioswale);
• the Fort Sheridan cemetery and its entryway;
• the numerous ravines from the McCormick property on the north down to Walker Avenue on the south;
• the recently constructed trails around the parade ground and from Sheridan Road to the lake;
• Landfills 6 & 7 on the Navy property; and
• the proposed one mile of beachfront, bluffs, trails and overlooks that will be part of the Openlands project immediately to the south.

I don’t know how much acreage that adds up to, but it results in the amount designated for the golf course being relative small in comparison.  I contend that no bird, animal or flora will lack for a place to thrive and propagate.