May 16, 2008

CHRONOLOGY OF INFORMATION

PROVIDED TO VARIOUS RESIDENTS

OF THE ANNAPOLIS ROADS COMMUNITY

REGARDING A POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF

THE ANNAPOLIS ROADS GOLF COURSE

BY THE CITY OF ANNAPOLIS

In late April, 2008,  a resident of the Annapolis Roads community was informed by Bob Agee, Chief Administrative Officer and acting Director of Public Works for the City of Annapolis, that the City was purchasing the Annapolis Roads Golf Course to preserve the Golf Course and use a portion of the 6+ acre “Club House and parking” parcel for a City Water Tower.  The City’s intended use of a part of the Golf Course for a Water Tower was later confirmed by County Councilman Cohen.  A resident of Annapolis Roads was  informed the “purchase”  by the City was “far down the road” and had the support of Mayor Moyer and the City Aldermen.

Despite weeks of effort, no confirming information of such a purchase by the City of Annapolis could be obtained by residents of Annapolis Roads, other than a brief mention to the Aldermen by Bob Agee at the end of a City Budget Retreat at St. John’s College in November, 2007. To our knowledge, this item had not even been placed on the Agenda and some Aldermen had left the retreat prior to the discussion.  Since that time, this topic has not been discussed in any public forum by the City Administration except for an article in the Capital on May 8.

No briefings or public hearings were held.  No mention was made by the Mayor in her Budget address.  No obvious Budget line item can be located and the available $1. 5 million in the Program Open Space [POS] account is not sufficient to purchase a golf course for $4.2 million. 

During a meeting with the County, residents of Annapolis Roads then learned that the City had apparently failed to comply with the official process for using POS money.  The County stated that under State law, POS money was allocated to the County and the City had no entitlement to that money.  Any allocation to the City is at the sole discretion of the County.   In the past the County and City had worked together to develop their joint plan for use of the POS money.  Purchase of the Annapolis Roads Golf Course was NOT in the City’s plan.  The County was never contacted by the City  to alter its POS plan to include the Golf Course. 

In addition, the residents of Annapolis Roads were told by various reliable sources that 

[a]  the City had never previously used POS money to purchase land in the

County;

[b]  POS money could not be used to purchase an ongoing business;

[c]  POS money could not be used if the Contract involved an installment

Purchase  in which payments would be stretched out for 10 years; and

[d]  POS money could not be used to purchase land for a Water Tower 

We understand the County removed the allocation of unspent POS money from the City.  An Attorney General’s opinion has been sought by the City; however, the County strongly asserts the City has no entitlement to the POS money and certainly does not qualify for this taxpayer funded State allocation since the required process was not followed.  Based on this information, we believed the City’s purchase could not go forward.

On April 16, a resident of Annapolis Roads was contacted again by Bob Agee.  Much to our surprise, he stated that the $4.2 million Contract had been signed by the City.  An application had been sent to the Board of Public Works on 4/14 for final approval.  We were incredulous since the purchase had never been brought before the City Council for a vote. 

In another conversation with a resident of our community a week later, Bob Agee then stated that “based on new technology” the City MAY not need to place a Water Tower on the Golf Course “Club House” property after all.  He stated the City was interested in the Golf Course because it was historic.  The goal was to “turn the golf course back to its original grandeur and splendor’ and add a public swimming pool.  Three appraisals had been completed, as well as a financial proforma on the viability of the Golf Course. 

Bob Agee also stated that the City Administration had “intentionally kept information about this project from the City Council; so they don’t know about it.” 

He asked to meet with a small group of residents from Annapolis Roads to “explain” the City’s plan to purchase the Annapolis Road Golf Course.  He asked that ARPOA establish a small “committee” of ARPOA residents to work with the City in development of the Golf Course property.

On April 29, the President and several residents of Annapolis Roads met with Bob Agee.  At that meeting Bob Agee provided the following information.  All assertions below are attributed to Bob Agee.  The questions and notes are from residents of Annapolis Roads.

1.  The golf course is the last large parcel on the Annapolis Neck Peninsula.  Citizens would want it to be preserved.

QUESTION:  Why would the City of Annapolis want to purchase land in Anne Arundel County to preserve it as Open Space, rather than purchase land within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the City?

2.  That the City:

A.  “intended” to keep the golf course as Open Space but could not commit on  future administrations or City Councils which may attempt to alter the zoning or use.

QUESTION:  Since the City already owns Eisenhower Golf Course which it leases to the County, why does the City believe it is important to purchase a second golf course?

B. would restore the original design – make it a show case – use native plants, and would try to irrigate the course by bringing gray/tertiary-treated water from the County/ City Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The City had not reviewed this concept with the County.

QUESTION:  Where in the Budget is the project & money located to

achieve these 2 goals?  What is the estimated cost?

C.  would like to add a Club House (for use by Golfers, the general public, and the AR community) and also a swimming pool (for public use, like Truxton Park’s pool).  The pool would be developed in the future, not immediately, i.e. in Phase 2.

QUESTION:  Where in the Budget is the Project and money to build a new Club House?  What, other than a swimming pool, is planned for Phase 2?  Where in the Budget is the appropriation for Phase 2?

D.  did not intend to put a Water Tower on the site at this time; but gave NO

guarantees about future attempts to build one.

QUESTION:  Then why is there a separate Capital Budget item [CIP 713] which is funded in 2009 in the amount of $2.4 million for construction of a Water Tower stating in the description of this Project that the funds for purchase of the land for the Water Tower “are provided”?  Where in the Budget are the funds provide to purchase land for a new Water Tower?  On what land does the City of Annapolis plan to locate the Water Tower?  Is the location consistent with the study performed by the City Public Works Department?

E.  had POS money in the City Budget to acquire the Golf Course.  If the POS

 money falls short – We will “buy it and pay off the note.” 

QUESTION:  Yet, on April 22,  the County had emailed a copy of a letter to Lee Ann Plummer, City Director of Parks and Recs, seven days prior to the Annapolis Roads meeting with Bob Agee on April 29.  This letter by Frank Marzucco, County Director of Parks and Recs states that

[i] “the  AR Golf Course lies outside the boundaries of the City,

[ii]  is already protected from development by restrictive covenants, and

[iii] using the criteria . . . for prioritizing the use of POS acquisition funds, the AR Golf Course is protected from development and, therefore, does not rank high enough to be acquired within the limits of available County POS funding”.

QUESTION:    Where is the required funding in the Budget if the “POS money falls short”?

F.  did not use Cash Flow analysis to arrive at the price to be paid by the City for

the Golf Course.

NOTE:  No documents outlining the basis of the $4.2 million Contract were provided.  It is our understanding that the City did not have access to the Books and Records of the Golf Course.  In addition, a copy of the Contract of Sale was not provided.

G.  there were 3 appraisals – 2 from the County and 1 from the City.

The Appraisals were done on the ultimate (future and intended) revenues as a golf course, and not the customary cash flow analysis for a business.

QUESTION:  Where in the Budget is the Project and money to restore the Golf Course to its “original grandeur & splendor to achieve the “ultimate revenues”?  What is the estimated cost?

NOTE:   No copies of the purported appraisals were provided.

H.  the City believes “we can make enough money on the Golf Course to offset

 operating costs.  There is a market for 9-hole courses”.  When asked, “What

green fees, debt service, etc is that conclusion based on,”  Agee did not know the

answer but said the County had done a study of all of that in addition to the

appraisals.  Agee could not remember any of the details of the study. 

QUESTION:  The County denies very strongly that any such “operating study” was done. 

NOTE:  No documents were provided to substantiate this conclusion. 

I. the Application for approval of the purchase had been filed with the State Board

 of Public Works.

NOTE:  No copies of the Application were provided.

J.  The City Council does not have to approve the Contract of Purchase but does

 approve the appropriation of funds.  The Contract Price was stated to be $4.2

million with a downpayment from the POS Budget item and the remaining

balance paid to the City over a ten year period.

NOTE:   The County stated that POS money cannot be used to purchase property based on an installment plan since future allocations by the State could not be guaranteed.

K.  the 6+ acre “Club House” parcel which supports the Golf Course is

“allegedly”  divided into 3 parcels.  A provision in the contract with the owner of

the Golf Course provides the City may sell the 3 lots on the Club House lot.

QUESTION:  The 2 appraisals done by the County clearly assert the 6+ acre “Club House” parcel is limited to a single 6.75 acre lot with the Critical Area RCA designation restricting the impervious surface lot coverage to not more than 15% of the site area. “   AND  . . . due to the site’s inclusion within the RCA Critical Area designation, the 6.75 acre lot is not capable of further subdivision. 

This statement contradicts these 2 appraisals.  What is the basis for the provision in the Contract stating the “Club House” parcel is comprised of 3 lots?

QUESTION:  The City asserts it is purchasing the Golf Course property to preserve it; but then states it plans to sell a portion of the property??  These 2 statements are contradictory.

L.   three potential sources of funding are possible:

a.       General funds

b.      POS funds – would try to fund entire purchase using POS funds.

c.       Bonds

QUESTION:  Again, where is the purchase price appropriated in the current 2009 Budget?

M.  there are no thoughts on annexation at this time.   “Maybe, in the future.  I

 cannot give assurances.” 

N.  POS funds will keep the golf course as Open Space.  Agee said he could not

assure what a future Council will do. The City would probably NOT put

 restrictions on the “ultimate use” of the property as a Golf Course, e.g. “in

perpetuity.  After all, Nothing is perpetual

NOTE:   A 1987 Circuit Court Order approved strict permanent restrictive covenants on the use of the Golf Course property.  These restrictive covenants were recorded.  The covenants were recently challenged and fully upheld by the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County in 2006. 

QUESTION:  What if POS funds are not used to purchase the Golf Course?  How does that impact both the Golf Course and “Club House” parcels?