Save Miramar Golf Club's existing Front 9…

Ball Escape 2nd Hole

Hi Everyone

It is important that we all understand the argument around ball escape on the 2nd hole and what we could do to mitigate what’s happening.

• The Facilities committee recommended to the Board 2 years ago, a shoot restricting what shot can be played with a lowered back Tee block. This would take away the option of the high draw shot and the big slice, from many right handers as has already been proven by the use over the lower tees for the last couple of months.
• An improved landing area completely taking out the first grass bunker and resculpturing the hill area.
• Introducing a number of sand or grass bunkers along the tree line, in the major second and third-shot-hitting zones will significantly improve the ball escape in these areas. Review where we need to replace and introduce new screens.
• Now that the trees have overgrown, some of them rendering them redundant.

The facilities committee were also majorly concerned that reversing 2 and 5 would enable big left-handed slicers and big right-handed hookers of the ball, to hit a golf ball in southerly conditions over the trees would introduce even more ball escape to the residents along the boundary who had never experienced it before.

There is an historical argument with regard to infill housing along the 2nd boundary and as the golf club was here first, the infill housing has magnified the problem. If we make the changes proposed ie change the directions of 2 & 5, we risk having made the change pushing ourselves into a corner where we have no options left.

We need to learn from the lessons of Chamberlain Park, where they had to close 3 holes in 2021 and manage the concerns of the neighbours. This is something which we have not been doing recently and has a number of neighbours pretty upset.

Changing the direction should be the last option not the first!

Nga Mihi,

LET'S GET MIRAMAR MOVING  

Morena Evan 

We have asked for some time now for a detailed breakdown of the $4.064m.

But what you provided yesterday which split out the $4.064m was a summary of costs that did not provide the detail requested. The amount of professional fees seems excessive and consent costs seems inordinately high.

1. Can you please advise what these fees are for and why they are excessive?  

We have been given no indication as to the level of disruption to the course and the playing of golf.

2. What levels of disruption do the Board anticipate and when can the members expect this to happen?

We have been advised separately that the Forsyth Barr funds will be drawn down to meet payments as they fall due. There has been no mention of that in any communication from the Board prior.

3. Will any of the Forsyth Barr funds be drawn down to meet payments? What levels of approval are needed for this to happen?

We want things to happen promptly and believe that the reshaping (with all those costs involved) of the front nine is unnecessary.

4. If the motion is rejected by the members on Monday, what is your alternative plan and would the board consider leaving the front nine intact as it is? 

I believe that most of the members would vote for a resolution that:

• Essentially leaves the existing front nine intact and excludes the proposed Par 3 course and outdoor café area;
• Provides for a two-tee option on each hole;
• Provides for two temporary greens (at little cost) to enable 18 holes to be played for the period up to 31 August 2024 or when WIAL take possession of the entire back nine on 1 January 2025;
• Leaves the existing 2nd and 5th holes in their existing direction and resolve the ball escape by other means which are available;
• Provides for water storage and pump house on the MGC remaining land;
• Utilises as much of the existing irrigation piping that remains in good condition as inspected and confirmed by Peter Grant from Parkland;
• The Course Upgrade & Redevelopment costs less than the $4.064m as currently indicated.   For that reason, I will vote against the existing proposed redevelopment. I would fully support something simpler and with less disruption.  

Many petitioners that I have spoken to are not opposed to the construction of a driving range and clubhouse extensions however this will again be determined once more detailed business cases are presented.

I have added this to the comments in the "Save Miramar Golf Club's existing Front 9..." petition https://www.petitions.nz/save_miramar_golf_clubs_existing_front_9
and am now asking that the Board answers the four questions and responds via email to all MGC members before 5pm Friday the 4th August. This is to ensure we all know what is being voted for this Monday night and is a fair and reasonable request.

Nga Mihi,

IMPORTANT: PLEASE DO NOT CAST YOUR VOTE UNTIL AN UPDATE IS PROVIDED

Due to many questions received from people who have signed the Petition, as well as those that have not, there is still a lot of confusion on what is being voted on at next Monday nights SGM.

I would ask for everyone to hold off voting until the weekend if they are not attending as there will be an update provided toward the end of the week.

Thanks

RE: Meeting Held Tuesday 25/07/23 at Deloittes Office concerning the future of MGC

Kia Ora Evan,

Thanks for the opportunity of meeting with us last Tuesday at Deloittes Office concerning the future of MGC and particularly the proposed SGM that members have now been notified is being held in a couple of weeks’ time.

I would like to summarise what I believe was discussed and agreed as the way forward being:

• The meeting was held so that yourself, Doug Pollock, and Thomas Pippos (Chair of Deloittes and Member of MGC) could run through the financial scenarios for MGC’s future direction as well as answer any questions those invited may have. The members who attended were myself, Charles Purcell, Tony Short and Nick Hearn.
• Thomas introduced himself and that his role in this exercise was to provide advice from a Financial perspective and confirm that Deloittes had been engaged to investigate the future business proposals MGC were considering.
• Charles first raised his concerns of how the information provided to members keeps changing and saw it particularly confusing when it required Members to vote on the next steps MGC is to take. Case in Point includes from MGC AGM December 2022 where Option 2 was voted in to further investigate the business ventures of what had been presented to members in September 2022 being a shortened 9 holes, 6 Hole Par 3 Course, Driving Range, WETA Adventure Golf Facility, Café and Bar upgrades. Then on 12 June 2023 a Presentation held at St Patricks College showed some changes to this where the Par 3 Course was now 9 holes, the Driving Range had changed in length and orientation and the WETA Adventure Golf Facility had mysteriously disappeared, not to mention the offer to buy the Front 9 from a Property Developer.
• Then as received last Sunday 23 July 2023 advising Members of a Special General Meeting to be held Monday 7 August. The scope requiring voting had changed to only include the upgrade of the Front 9 holes and infrastructure, as well as to change rule 31c (a).
• From this it was agreed that an Appendix be sent to Members explaining in more detail what they are voting on and clarifying that decisions on the Clubhouse Upgrade, Par 3 Course and Driving Range are still being investigated, including WIAL’s own investigation, and further SGM’s would be held when information on these was confirmed.
• Tony suggested that Course Plans were included with the voting paper to show exactly what course configuration is being voted on ie as indicated in the Presentation as ‘Disrupted, re-routed 18 holes available’
• The inclusion of 2 or 3 new or temporary greens mentioned on the ‘Implementation – Short Term Plan’ within the SGM Notice needed to be clearer, ie are they new or temporary, and explained to voters. Discussions on this were had with different opinions however it was agreed that the proposed new greens could be used when MGC loses access to the back 9 in 2025 and be used to vary the course length or revitalise other greens meaning the existing Front 9 length will not change but have variation to how it is played. It was also agreed that this will mean the Par 3 Course could not exist and possibly mean the outdoor Café area is not possible.
• The costings on the Course upgrade were questioned and discussion included - is the $700k that was explained in the FAQ’s as being ‘allocated to the design and costing project just completed’ included within the ‘Redevelopment Costings’ also indicated in the FAQ’s totalling $3M and Doug confirmed that it was not meaning the total Consulting Costs amount to $3.7M. Also, the Course Upgrade costings include $1M Professional Fees for what essentially is a $3M upgrade meaning a 33% Fee. This was seen as not realistic and only a way of spreading the Fees amongst all works, including Clubhouse and Range therefore should be realistically changed on the Voting Papers and ensure no misinterpretation. A full schedule supporting the $4,064,853 will be provided. Lastly do the final figures include or exclude GST and Doug suggested included however some confirmation should be included on the figures provided.
• WIAL’s interest and due diligence investigation on the purchase of the Clubhouse and Carpark was discussed. MGC original concept of running the Café, Bar and Conference Facilities seems to have disappeared for perhaps good reason so how realistic is it that WIAL will see any difference? Yes they are wanting the Driving Range to be built but as Thomas mentioned further analysis of the driving range was being completed by Deloittes and MGC will be notified of these in due course.
• There was no discussion as to how the proposed works were to be funded if they require payment prior to the receipt of the next instalment from WIAL. 
• Charles also suggested that the ‘What 2025 could look like’ be removed from Notice as apart from the course and infrastructure upgrade proposed, the other outcomes are speculative and present very confusing and possibly wrong outcomes.

Once again thanks for this opportunity and I hope that in the long run MGC Members will be more certain as to what they are voting for, and the realism of proposals being voted on.

Feel free to respond.  

Nga Mihi,

Further to the Miramar Golf Club Members Presentation - Monday 14th June

Hi Everyone

Thanks to all the 82 confirmed members of the Miramar golf club who have signed the petition. Please feel free to send it along to any other members who has the best interest of the club at heart.

I would like to thank all the signees of the petition who also came along to the Presentation on Monday12th June and asked questions, I have to say there were more questions than answers. In an effort to use this area as a forum to discuss what is happening we will from time to time keep you updated with what some of us are working on and if you feel there is something you would like to share or contribute please feel free to do so buy using the petitions contact area.

Please see below the following for your information:

• One Members take on the Presentation.
• A more in-depth look as to why we should retain the front 9 footprint but rework the problem areas to minimize ball escape, upgrade the irrigation /water storage and build additional tees blocks ensuring a first-class 18 holes course.
• Copy of Letter Sent to MGC  Board of Management arising from Members Presentation - Monday 14th June

One Members take on the Presentation

1. The future of golf, along with other sports, showed that there is a market for what is proposed within the MGC ‘Master Plan’ based on Golf NZ’s presentation.
2. The Design of the Course and the Clubhouse had reduced in scope mainly the reduced length of the Driving Range (105m!), no WETA Adventure Golf and no addition over the existing Toilets for the originally intended Virtual Golf and Administration Offices, however the Bar and Café have stayed the same.
3. The Project Manager went through the expected Programme finishing all works by October 2025 (32 months away). Although not detailed it looks as though the new Front 9 will start along with the Clubhouse alterations from September 2023?
4. The Driving Range will not start until September 2024 once the Clubhouse and new Front 9 are completed?
5. The expected cost for this work (including a projected $1.8M deficit) as indicated in Deloitte’s Cash Flow Analysis is $23.9M and includes 10% Contingency and Possible Inflation.  Does this include the $1.8m deficit…if so I think we should put in?  
6. The ‘Essential Upgrade’ Option is expected to cost $9M, plus Contingency and Inflation.
7. Wainuiomata, Karori and Otaki are offering MGC reciprocal rights to their course for casual and competition golf.
8. Thames Pacific Developers have now offered MGC with an offer of $50M to purchase the remaining front 9 course although A Deed of First Refusal between WIAL and the Club, under the WIAL have first rights to this land.

A more in-depth look by another member as to why we should retain the front 9 footprint but rework the problem areas to minimize ball escape, upgrade the irrigation /water storage and build additional tees blocks ensuring a first class 18 holes course.

The proposed length of the new 9-hole course is under 2500 metres and even when played as 18 holes, this will be under 5000 meters which is 600-700 meters shorter than the existing 18-hole course.

The constraint of having to play 18 holes as 2 rounds over 9 holes on a shorter length layout will limit the capacity of how many members and green fee players can play in one day, whereas a longer 9-hole layout will increase capacity allowing us to retain more members and also earn a larger revenue.

The reason given for having a shorter length 9-hole layout is to allow room for a par 3, 9 hole course jammed in between the driving range and the front 9. What is the expected revenue of the pitch and putt course and will this revenue offset the lost revenue by having less capacity on a shortened 9-hole layout?

The recommendation of the two governing bodies of golf [USGA and R&A] have indicated that the average golf course length in Australia and new zealand should be 5977 meters, so why would you want to shorten our front 9 to a distance under 2500 meters? We currently have 9 holes that are 3000 meters; enabling us to play 18 on the 9 as a competitive length course.

It is very obvious to many of us that we are going to lose many senior club members when the Board are only offering the members a junior/beginners length course of under 2500 metres? Proposing that if the members want to play 18-holes, they must travel 2-3 hours to another golf course.

Copy of Letter Sent to MGC  Board of Management arising from Members Presentation - Monday 14th June

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Evan

Thank you for your presentation last Monday and have to say it has left most of us with more questions than answers. In an effort to gain more clarity I have collated a number of questions from the “petition group” and ask that they be included in the FAQ page the board is compiling together with the responses.

1. The new venture is to provide a sustainable future for the Club so what is the income each business unit will generate and under what underlying assumptions?
2. What is the predicted turnover and net income under the new subscription regime, for the nine-hole course, for the bar and restaurant, the driving range, virtual golf and the par three course?
3. How long will it take to recover the expected costs through these new business ventures?
4. There is reference to present annual visitations to the Club of 54,000 increasing to 102,000…what arrangements have been made with WIAL for access and parking?
5. If  WIAL provides the parking, how much will it cost MGC?
6. Will the full sub of $998 entitle free play at Wainui, Karori or Otaki?
7. What is the cost from these clubs to Miramar?
8. There have been a lot of questions around clarification of the 9/18-hole matter, mainly will we be able to book & play 2 consecutive 9-hole rounds to hand an 18-hole card in?
9. Can we have a cost breakdown of the ‘Essential Upgrade’ as well as the ‘Redevelopment’ across its component business units including The Scott Mcpherson Front 9 Design, plus the Nine Hole par 3 course, water storage and irrigation?
10. If the Driving Range and 9 Hole Par 3 course were seen as not financially feasible then what impact would this have on the Café and Bar Proposals and would there be any need for the proposed redevelopment of the front 9?
11. Under the sale Agreement to WIAL,  the full $21M owed to us by WIAL is payable when they occupy the back nine. How will the board “cost” any deferral of the final settlement monies?
12. Two Construction Project Managers raised their concerns of only a 10% Contingency being used and mentioned that based on their experience and depending on the documents priced from they have used between a 20 – 30% contingency so what has the 10% contingency been based on?
13. If the Grand Proposal of the Course is approved, how can we play Interclub during the alterations?
14. Can we have an analysis of costs across the various professionals so that we can see how much has been spent on getting the project to the position it is at now?
15. The matter of expansion was first raised at the AGM in December 2022…when will draft minutes of that meeting be posted?
16. You have committed to providing a quarterly financial update…when will the financials for the quarter ended 31 May and revised projection to 31 August be released to Club members?

We would appreciate these questions being answered within the next 2-3 weeks as they do have a direct bearing on the immediate future of our club. All of us offer our continued support and if there is anything that we can do to help or assist with please do not hesitate to ask.

Kind Regards
Mike Hinton

PS. I have also posted these questions and other information to the announcement section of the petition which is available for all members to sign at Save Miramar Golf Club's existing Front 9...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Once again a big thank you for all your support and loyalty to the Miramar Club and let us hope that we can get some cut through with the questions we have asked.

Good Golfing Mike Hinton

Save Miramar Golf Club's existing Front 9 Petition

Hi Everyone,

I would like to thank all of you who have signed the petition showing your support. I can only say the texts and words of support from many of you have been greatly appreciated.

Our job is not done and I would like to ask each and every one of you to attend the Golf Club meeting at St Pats next Monday. I know many of you will have questions for our board, but if doing so at such a meeting isn’t your thing, please feel free to email through your questions and I will collate and ask on your behalf.

Further to the club information sent out recently, I include the Miramar Golf Club Board Minutes dated 08/05/2023 View Here for your reference. Unfortunately the minutes of the Board Meeting of 17th April which disbanded the elected Facilities Committee and Governance Committees are unavailable.

I truly believe that the very survival of the Miramar Golf Club will be determined by preserving the existing Front 9 (2,990m) ensuring all MGC Members have the option to play either 9 holes or 18 holes with two Tee Blocks and multiple Tees on every hole making a truly competitive 18 hole course.

I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Kind Regards
Mike Hinton

Share this petition

Help this petition to reach more signatures.

How to promote a petition?

• Share the petition on your Facebook wall and in groups related to the topic of your petition.
• Contact your friends
  1. Write a message where you explain why you have signed this petition, since people are more likely to sign it if they understand how important the topic is.
  2. Copy and paste the web address of the petition into your message.
  3. Send the message using email, SMS, Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Skype, Instagram and LinkedIn.