Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor | How to move forward on Madrona Links
I want to thank Mark Cupit for his Letter to the Editor regarding the Madrona Golf Course. I found his letter very informative.
I was particularly impressed with Mr. Cupit’s background and experience. If Mr. Cupit is going to be actively involved in the operation of Madrona should ZTM get the operating lease, that would certainly make their proposal a stronger one. That said, Mr. Cupit’s experience should not alleviate PenMet’s concerns about putting the lease out to public bid. My suggestion would be to start that process now rather than continuing strained discussions between PenMet and ZTM. With Mr. Cupit, ZTM should make a strong case.
Mr. Cupit’s assertion that PenMet has not put any money, beyond the purchase price, into Madrona appears to be true. And, I agree with him that PenMet’s setting aside $1,000,000 in its capital fund is not an actual investment, but simply a budgetary item. There is also the possible issue of any investment PenMet would have wanted to make being subject to approval by the holder of the operating lease. It would be interesting to know if any of the operating lease holders ever requested capital improvements from PenMet?
Mr. Cupit’s assertion that PenMet has “…a duty to take care of it” is impacted by paragraph 10 of the original lease which states:
The Lessee agrees to keep and maintain the leased premises in good condition and repair, and at the expiration or termination of this lease, Lessee will return the leased premises, together with all structures, facilities and improvements thereto…to the City in good condition and repair, reasonable wear and tear…excepted.
Mr. Cupit brings up the issue of “capital improvements” as did I in a previous Letter to the Editor. Many amendments to the original lease specifically address this issue:
| Document | Paragraph | Terms |
| Second Amendment—1/1/1999 | 1 | In addition, beginning January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2003, Sublessee agrees to invest One and One-Half (1.50%) of the gross green fees…into capital improvements |
| Third Amendment—2004 | Missing page | Authorizing Resolution states: Tyson and JDL agree that 1 percent of gross green fees will be invested in capital improvements… |
| Fourth Amendment—11/2009 | 1 | …Sublessee agrees to invest One (1.0%) of the gross green fees…into capital improvements… |
| Fifth Amendment—1/1/2015 | 1 | …Sublessee agrees to invest One Percent (1.0%) of the gross green fees…into capital improvements… |
| Sixth Amendment—1/1/2020 | 2 | Sublessee agrees to invest One and a Half Percent (1.5%) of the gross green fees…into capital improvements…Sublessee agrees to provide an annual report on capital improvements… |
Accordingly, Mr. Cupit’s comment that the operator “…has no obligation to improve the course…” is not entirely accurate. I think Mr. Cupit, if he were to read all my Letters to the Editor, would realize I am no fan of PenMet’s history of maintaining properties it owns. In fact, it’s a sad record with regard to the DeMolay Sandspit, the Peninsula Gardens, and the Fishing Pier — to name just three properties. I share Mr. Cupit’s concerns about PenMet’s plans going forward.
Here’s my suggestion on how to move forward:
- PenMet develops a plan for Madrona going forward which may include investment by PenMet and/or the operator to bring the course to a better state and announces that plan publicly. In fact, Mr. Cupit hints at a deal that would involve ZTM getting the operating lease “…in consideration for capital improvements…” This would be very similar to the original lease between the City of Tacoma and Denmark.
- PenMet puts the new lease out to a public bidding process now to get that process started. I believe this is a good step to take even if it’s not legally required because there is revenue sharing involved in the high six or even seven figure range. And see point #3, below, which is also involved. Based on Mr. Cupit’s background, it appears that ZTM would present a strong case if Mr. Cupit were to be actively involved in the operations (versus just being a consultant).
- PenMet, as a part of that public bidding process, needs to clearly indicate what improvements are to be made, who is to make them, when they are to be made, and how the cost of those improvements are to be paid (by PenMet, by the Lessee, or, most likely, shared between the two). This will assist in getting informed bids.
- PenMet continues its discussions regarding the alleged breaches of the existing lease.
- PenMet continues its discussions regarding the proper calculations of the “gross green fees” for purposes of determining the accuracy of PenMet’s past share of the revenue generated by Madrona.
PenMet has spent tens of thousands on plans for a Senior Center and the same for an Aquatic Center. It’s also spent tens of thousands on its DeMolay plan and is now doing the same with Peninsula Gardens. Might some of that money and effort have been better spent in dollars and time on Madrona?
Craig McLaughlin
Fox Island
Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of up to 800 words from area residents. Submit them to [email protected].
Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of up to about 800 words. Submit them on the Contact form by selecting “Letter to the Editor” from the Purpose dropdown.