No caddie needed: City to manage Northwood G.C. in-house in 2025

The long-term future of Northwood Golf Club remains uncertain but the Rhinelander Common Council has determined that the city-owned course will be managed in-house for at least the next year.

Just over three weeks after directing city administration to pursue a one-year contract with Oliphant Haltom Golf Management — the outside firm that currently manages the course — the council voted Tuesday to return management of the course to the city and proceed with the posting of job descriptions.

The 7-1 vote came at the end of a 17-minute special meeting scheduled because the city’s contract with Oliphant is set to expire on Dec. 31.

On Nov. 11, the council directed the administration to pursue a one-year contract extension with Oliphant but two weeks later the group reversed course. The panel’s Nov. 25 discussion began with a motion from alderman Tom Barnett to move forward with the one-year deal with Oliphant as discussed during the Nov. 11 meeting.

Alderman Gerald Anderson seconded the motion but then asked if the city could take over management on Jan. 1.

“I know I made the motion to do this at the last meeting (on Nov. 11), but I just, I still have questions in my mind and I have not pursued it in the meantime, but is it, would it really be impossible for us at this point in time to take it over in the city, as a city, first of January or sometime earlier in the year?” he asked. “To be honest, I think we would prefer to do it in-house if we had a choice.”

He then referenced remarks made by ad hoc golf advisory committee member Erik Matson during the public comment portion of the meeting regarding the committee’s recommendation to return management of the course to the city.

 “I agree with what the speaker said earlier and there are other things we should do with that money that we pay the management company,” he said.

“A significant reason for the committee’s recommendation that the city take over management on Jan. 1 was the roughly $90,000 a year that Oliphant has been paid to manage the course separate from the city already paying the salaries of the golf course workers,” Matson explained. “The two most significant maintenance items that we ran across on the golf course committee that need to be made as soon as possible are a rough mower for next year, and a new truck with a snow plow on it, so you can plow the parking lots and whatnot. Which together cost right around the $90,000 figure. We felt that using the $90,000 to purchase these two pieces of essential equipment for the city was a better use of the money than giving it to Oliphant to do what our own people can already do.”

At that point, city administrator Patrick Reagan was asked whether he, finance director Wendi Bixby and human resources manager Rachel Pearson can handle the added work.

“It’s completely doable,” he responded.

As the Nov. 25 discussion continued, alderman Steven Jopek brought up the status of the current staff. He was advised that club manager Keith Staron and longtime course superintendent Joe Anderson are contracted employees of Oliphant not the city of Rhinelander. 

“With regard to turnover, as was mentioned earlier we have a suitable staff that are already out there and operating (the course). Is there any potential that if we weren’t to pursue this contract (with Oliphant) that any of those would, any of those folks that are managing the course now would walk?” Jopek asked. “Because like he said, they’ve been running it just fine, everything’s been awesome. It probably falls mostly on their own prerogative if they want to stay or go, but I guess I just wanna see it. Is there anything in the crystal ball to like suggest that they’d want to stay?”

In response, Mayor Kris Hanus remarked that he would “assume” that the current staff is committed to the course but then noted the inherent danger in making assumptions.

He also noted that it’s unclear whether Staron or Anderson would be subject to any type of non-compete clause.

Reagan also noted that the city would have to post the positions to the general public as well. 

“It’s not just a, hey, you currently have this position with Oliphant, congrats, you’re now working for the city kind of scenario,” he explained. “We would have to actually post the positions that we need to fill and those folks that work out there currently would need to apply and we’d go from there.”

At that point, Barnett asked for some reassurance that the council has not closed the door on the possibility of selling the course.

“I wanna know that we're still committed to at least looking into the possibility of selling to a private owner,” he said.

A potential sale was first mentioned during an October meeting of the council where Barnett offered his assessment of the city’s 35-year involvement with the course.

“I have yet to see any kind of payback on it,” he said, referring to the course. “I think it used to be a good asset to the city. I do not think it is anymore. We have been putting money out toward that golf course year after year after year after year to not see much in return. If anything, I talked to our finance director and if we were to sell the golf course, it would go back on the tax roll, which would effectively decrease the taxes on our constituents. We would also not have to be borrowing money at this point. And there’s a lot of other benefits that go toward it. If a private owner owns it, then they are going to put the money into a golf course to make it much more spectacular than it is now. And it will bring it back to its former glory, which would not hurt (tourism) any because they would still be coming here to play golf.”

Barnett’s question remained unanswered as Hanus noted the topic on the agenda was the proposed one-year contract with Oliphant, not the long-term future of the course.

As the discussion continued, city attorney Steve Sorenson clarified that a vote to reject the one-year contract with Oliphant means, as of Jan. 1, the city will have not have a contract with any entity to run the course.

“Right now, you have a contract that goes through Dec.31,” he explained. “Part of that contract is for them to prepare for the coming year. I mean, if anybody knows anything about golf courses, you know that during the months of October, November, and December, you're looking at the months of April, May, and June. I mean, I don’'t know that any of you have ever managed a golf course yourselves or managed a golf course contract, but you don’t, there’s not a stop and start date. I mean, you don’t, on Jan. 1, suddenly start all over again. You’re planning the coming year already, and I’m sure Oliphant’s already made plans for the coming year, but those plans are all gone if you terminate this contract, which means that somebody’s gonna have to get, if you’re gonna have a golf course next spring, somebody’s gonna have to take charge. So you’re gonna have to put that on your agenda for the next meeting to figure out who’s gonna run that golf course, because it doesn’t run itself. Things don’t just appear come April.”

Ultimately, Barnett cast the lone vote in favor of the one-year contract. The other seven alderpersons dissented. 

Before moving on to other topics, it was explained that a special meeting would be scheduled so that the council could come up with a plan for the management of the course in 2025.

That discussion took place Tuesday evening.

It began with the distribution of a packet of materials from Bixby and Pearson regarding the timeline for and transition to in-house management.

After receiving the materials, alderman Bob Lueder made a motion to bring management of the golf course in-house for 2025 and direct the administration to post the job descriptions and proceed with interviews.

The course would be considered a separate city department with the manager reporting directly to Reagan, it was explained.

As the discussion continued, a question was raised as to whether talk of a potential sale might deter potential applicants.

Reagan stated that he has no way of knowing how potential applicants might feel about taking any of the positions. If the council is set on returning to in-house management, he has to focus on the details of making that happen, he stressed.

“I’m honestly at this moment not thinking about the long-term of it,” he said. “I wanna focus on getting it done right. I’m sure there's gonna be a lot of obstacles. There’s gonna be a lot of stuff that Rachel and I are gonna need to figure out as we go, if this is the way that council would like to go...”

Others noted that there’s a certain level of uncertainty in offering and accepting any position of employment as no organization can be sure of its future trajectory.

As the discussion continued, alderman David Holt stated that his “read” of his fellow alderpersons “is that there’s a lot of support for going ahead and running (the course) and having it as part of the city.”

He then reiterated a comment Hanus made during the Nov. 25 meeting regarding the value of a municipality owning such a substantial amount of greenspace.

“This is not gonna come around again if we let it go,” he said.

At that point, Barnett, who was a few minutes late to the meeting, joined the discussion.

He noted that the city chose to hire an outside management company because in-house management was unsuccessful. 

“What’s going to make this time different?” he asked. “That’s what I would ask. I have a fear that it will fail again, and I’m pretty sure it will, and it has nothing to do with the employees, has nothing to do with the management. It has everything to do with it’s not going to make money.”

He then referenced the city’s budget issues, as expressed during the November budget meeting. 

“I’m really concerned about this that we’re more concerned about a green space than we are about our budget, and we’re gonna keep throwing money at this,” he continued. “I don’t get it. I understand that I’m completely alone on this, and that’s fine, but I know I have to say my peace about it so that people can know that there are other options and that the sale of the golf course will bring down property taxes, it will do a lot of good for the community, but we want to keep it as an asset, then we’ll see how it goes.”

It should be noted that while Barnett indicated he believes he is the only alderperson interested in exploring a potential sale there are alderpersons who have not addressed the  topic one way or the other.

In response to Barnett’s question, it was noted that the city did not have a full-time administrator or a human resources manager when the course was last under in-house management.

Hanus also stated there would be a net reduction in costs because the city would be not paying the $90,000 management fee.

Jopek argued the motion on the floor was the right move at the moment.

“I do think that in the immediate, this is the right step forward regardless of what we end up doing,” he said. “I think Mr. Barnett has a good point in the sense that we should look at the past, history teacher here, look at the past and try and figure out what happened the first time and either A, don’t make those mistakes again or B, is it worth, you know, exploring selling. But I think all roads in this case we’re in our best position by bringing it in-house and then pursuing whatever we pursue.”

Based on the information provided by Bixby and Pearson, he said he was satisfied that city staff is prepared to take on the additional duties. 

When the question was called, Barnett cast the lone dissenting vote on the motion to reinstate in-house management.

After the alderpersons indicated there would be no other motions on the topic of the golf course, Hanus adjourned the brief meeting. He did indicate that the council can expect to receive an organizational chart of the golf course management team at its next meeting on Dec. 9.

Those interested in the golf course issue are strongly encouraged to watch the Nov. 11, Nov. 25 and Dec. 3 council meetings. The meetings are available  at www.hodagtv.com.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].