Country Club ‘renovation or rebuild’ needs dose of frugality
Commentary by Tom Stauss
In a decision that did not garner unanimous support, the board of directors in June decided to endorse General Manager Bob Thompson’s proposal on how to proceed with major facilities planning and construction over the next two years. Thompson’s proposed “racking and stacking” of projects places the highest priority on addressing the Ocean Pines Country Club, as opposed to the Yacht Club, which most of last year was the primary focus of OPA attention.
Two OPA directors, Dave Stevens and John McLaughlin, rue the apparent de-emphasis of the Yacht Club in Thompson’s rack-and-stack priority list. But it’s not as if the general manager intends simply to ignore the Yacht Club at the same time he focuses on the Country Club.
Thompson made a persuasive case for why he prefers focusing on the Country Club rather than the Yacht Club in the near term. He believes that it will be easier and less expensive to deal with the Country Club, and that it’s better to focus on one primary project at a time rather than two for a better result. He said that whatever is proposed for the Country Club, it will be accomplished faster than it would be otherwise if two construction projects are managed simultaneously.
In addition, Thompson said that if the Yacht Club is closed for a year or more to accomplish a renovation or rebuild, he wants the Country Club to be able to serve as the community’s primary dining and banquet venue during that period. He thinks that would be more successfully accomplished if the Country Club were rehabbed or rebuilt prior to the Yacht Club’s closure. If indeed OPA members are expected to migrate from one community gathering place to another, then the facility to which the migration is intended must not be the down-in-the-dumps amenity that the Country Club has become.
With the approved change in focus from the Yacht Club to the Country Club, there is much to be done before any decision can be made on whether to rehab or rebuild it. There needs to be a “needs and uses” assessment of the amenity as a first step, followed by an objective evaluation of three options for the Country Club identified by Thompson and his Facilities Planning Group.
The first option is the rehab of the existing building, which would require an engineering study of the building’s structural integrity and obvious defects, including a recently identified mold issue in drop-down ceilings. In the end, much will ride on a subjective judgment: Is the Country Club, with its boxy 70’s architecture and rotting system infrastructure, really worth saving?
The other two options involve tearing down the existing structure and its replacement by either a facility that supports golf and provides a venue for banquets and social events or, alternatively, a facility that only supports golf.
There needs to be a fourth option, a more narrowly tailored facility that supports golf, but that doesn’t include locker rooms and showers. The Country Club’s existing locker rooms and showers have fallen into disuse, and, if Thompson and the planning group want to restore or replicate them in a new facility, they will need to make a convincing case for why they need to be included. Casper Golf personnel and the Ocean Pines golf community need to be consulted here, as well. Let’s not assume they’re needed when there’s plenty of evidence available to suggest otherwise.
While locker rooms and showers may have been a useful amenity 30-plus years ago, golf in Ocean Pines and elsewhere has evolved since then. Most area golf courses don’t have locker rooms and showers for the simple reason that golfers, often pressed for time, don’t demand them or don’t use them even if they are available.
Ocean Pines is becoming increasingly reliant on outside, non-member play as a revenue source. If a decision is made to replace the Country Club with a new building, does it make sense – is it fair and reasonable – to ask property owners to provide locker rooms and showers for a substantial contingent of non-resident/non-member golfers? If members demand lockers rooms and showers it might be easier to justify, but the number of households that purchase annual golf membership is less than 300, closer to 250, in fact. Not a huge number, and it remains to be seen if these members even care enough to demand this particular service.
Whether to provide a separate venue for banquets and other social events at the Country Club under any scenario is another issue that needs careful analysis. Ocean Pines has two other venues for that, the Yacht Club and, to a lesser extent, the Beach Club in Ocean City. While the desirability of providing banquet services seems to be a settled issue – there has been a demonstrated demand for it over many years and decades -- what isn’t settled is how many banquet facilities are needed to serve that need. Three banquet facilities provided by a single homeowners association? It seems like overkill.
By eliminating the locker rooms and showers from either a renovated or rebuilt Country Club, it would seem obvious that space can be freed up for a larger Terns Grill, perhaps large enough to serve as an adequate banquet facility on those relatively infrequent occasions when there is demand for it. It could easily be sized to serve as a replacement venue for banquets if and when the Yacht Club is closed for whatever eventually happens there.
Currently the Country Club features two sets of kitchen equipment, one upstairs for dining or banquets hardly ever used and downstairs in the Terns Grill. Whatever scenario is ultimately chosen for the Country Club, this duplication should be eliminated, both as a cost-saving measure and because it is manifestly inefficient.
Frugality is not a dirty word. Planners need to keep it in mind as they forge ahead with planning on what to do with the Country Club. – Tom Stauss
Uploaded: 7/13/2011
