San Clemente committee votes to recommend comprehensive RFP for municipal pro shop, keeps key revenue streams with city
November 25, 2025 | San Clemente City, Orange County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The San Clemente City Golf Course Committee voted to recommend that the City Council issue a comprehensive request for proposals for the municipal pro shop and related services, with specific exclusions and a requirement that the committee participate in developing and evaluating the RFP.
Samantha Weatherly Beach, Parks and Recreation director, told the committee the staff report outlined three paths: issue an RFP, use a hybrid model, or move operations in‑house. She said maintenance of the golf course would remain with city staff and that green‑fee revenue is currently retained in full by the golf enterprise fund, a point staff recommended preserving in the procurement process. "We cannot continue to renew the existing contract," Weatherly Beach said, describing a need to rebid the expired agreement if the council chooses that path.
Public comment strongly favored retaining the Cook family, which has run the pro shop for decades. Mark Olsen, a member of the San Clemente Men's Club, said he has "known Dave Cook and his crew ever since I came to San Clemente in 1998" and added, "I just wanted to throw my support to them." A letter read on the floor described continuity: "Dave Cook's family has run the pro shop at the Muni since 1966... The Cook family takes great pride in running the Pro Shop," the letter said on behalf of the San Clemente Women's Golf Club.
Not all public remarks supported immediate change. John Adams asked, "Why?" and said one word came to mind about the city's approach: "greed," pressing the committee for a clearer explanation of why the long‑running arrangement was being reconsidered.
Committee discussion focused on the RFP's scope and evaluation standards. Some members warned against splitting operations across multiple vendors, saying a single contractor is easier to hold accountable. Others pressed staff and future proposers to show community value in addition to price. The committee also questioned financial assumptions in the staff analysis, noting a projected driving‑range revenue figure that exceeded recent historical averages and asking for assumptions behind that projection.
A member of the public‑facing staff clarified procurement constraints and fiscal context during the meeting: the only legally required step is to rebid the expired contract under state bidding laws, and the golf enterprise fund must remain separate from the city's general fund. The staff member also flagged rising operating costs, including projected water costs ("we buy our water for about $1,395 an acre‑foot; they've indicated by 2029 that will go up to 2,170... about a 56% increase"), as fiscal pressures shaping the discussion.
Committee Member (Speaker 11) moved to recommend an "all‑inclusive" RFP covering the service areas listed in the staff's Table 2 but excluding four items the body had discussed — driving range, golf lessons, cart operations, retail sales and equipment repairs — and to require that the committee participate in both RFP development and the evaluation process. The motion included an addendum that RFP results return to the committee before council action. The motion was seconded with "Mandy Second" recorded; the chair called the vote and announced, "Motion carried." No roll‑call vote totals were recorded in the hearing; the committee voiced unanimous assent.
The committee also received updates on the master plan process, which staff said will provide cost estimates and environmental analysis to inform future decisions and potential negotiations with any selected operator. Staff said any planned driving‑range improvements could be the subject of separate negotiations or contract amendments if the council approves construction.
Next steps: the committee's formal recommendation will go to the City Council for consideration. The master plan and related environmental review are expected to continue in coming months, and staff said it will bring RFP language and a draft evaluation plan back to the committee prior to issuing the solicitation.
Note: Quotes and attributions are taken from committee proceedings and public comments recorded at the meeting.
Samantha Weatherly Beach, Parks and Recreation director, told the committee the staff report outlined three paths: issue an RFP, use a hybrid model, or move operations in‑house. She said maintenance of the golf course would remain with city staff and that green‑fee revenue is currently retained in full by the golf enterprise fund, a point staff recommended preserving in the procurement process. "We cannot continue to renew the existing contract," Weatherly Beach said, describing a need to rebid the expired agreement if the council chooses that path.
Public comment strongly favored retaining the Cook family, which has run the pro shop for decades. Mark Olsen, a member of the San Clemente Men's Club, said he has "known Dave Cook and his crew ever since I came to San Clemente in 1998" and added, "I just wanted to throw my support to them." A letter read on the floor described continuity: "Dave Cook's family has run the pro shop at the Muni since 1966... The Cook family takes great pride in running the Pro Shop," the letter said on behalf of the San Clemente Women's Golf Club.
Not all public remarks supported immediate change. John Adams asked, "Why?" and said one word came to mind about the city's approach: "greed," pressing the committee for a clearer explanation of why the long‑running arrangement was being reconsidered.
Committee discussion focused on the RFP's scope and evaluation standards. Some members warned against splitting operations across multiple vendors, saying a single contractor is easier to hold accountable. Others pressed staff and future proposers to show community value in addition to price. The committee also questioned financial assumptions in the staff analysis, noting a projected driving‑range revenue figure that exceeded recent historical averages and asking for assumptions behind that projection.
A member of the public‑facing staff clarified procurement constraints and fiscal context during the meeting: the only legally required step is to rebid the expired contract under state bidding laws, and the golf enterprise fund must remain separate from the city's general fund. The staff member also flagged rising operating costs, including projected water costs ("we buy our water for about $1,395 an acre‑foot; they've indicated by 2029 that will go up to 2,170... about a 56% increase"), as fiscal pressures shaping the discussion.
Committee Member (Speaker 11) moved to recommend an "all‑inclusive" RFP covering the service areas listed in the staff's Table 2 but excluding four items the body had discussed — driving range, golf lessons, cart operations, retail sales and equipment repairs — and to require that the committee participate in both RFP development and the evaluation process. The motion included an addendum that RFP results return to the committee before council action. The motion was seconded with "Mandy Second" recorded; the chair called the vote and announced, "Motion carried." No roll‑call vote totals were recorded in the hearing; the committee voiced unanimous assent.
The committee also received updates on the master plan process, which staff said will provide cost estimates and environmental analysis to inform future decisions and potential negotiations with any selected operator. Staff said any planned driving‑range improvements could be the subject of separate negotiations or contract amendments if the council approves construction.
Next steps: the committee's formal recommendation will go to the City Council for consideration. The master plan and related environmental review are expected to continue in coming months, and staff said it will bring RFP language and a draft evaluation plan back to the committee prior to issuing the solicitation.
Note: Quotes and attributions are taken from committee proceedings and public comments recorded at the meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
