Lights to Remain Off at University City Driving Range

City Manager Lehman Walker has decided to keep the lights turned off at the Ruth Park Driving Range, even though it was not one of the recommendations made by the golf committee he requested.

The lights at the Ruth Park Driving Range will not be turned back on, said City Manager Lehman Walker.

The lights have been off for several months. Residents near the University City driving range complained that they were too bright. Walker told University City Patch that he "determined it was in the best interest of the residents who live across the street to not turn the lights back on."  Before the policy change, the range lights would stay on until 9:30pm, weather permitting.

A committee of driving range neighbors and golf enthusiast had been formed at Walker's insistence to look at complaints about the range, including issues with lighting, safety and noise.

The golf committee met last Wednesday to vote on recommendations to send to Walker. A permanent shutdown of the lights was not among the suggestions sent to him. 

When committee member William Field suggested eliminating the lighting at the range altogether, Ewald Winker, the Interim Director of the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department shot it down, saying he didn't see it as an option.

"I was charged with getting compromise. To me eliminating the lights altogether is not a compromise," Winker said.

When U City Patch asked Walker why he implemented an action that was not one of the recommendations, he said "it was a decision that I made," and again reiterated that he believed it was "in the best interest" of the neighbors. He noted that the majority of people using the driving range are not U City residents. Walker said that 77% of the users of the driving range pay non-resident rates. 

The City's official website which until yesterday touted the range as featuring excellent lighting for evening use, now reads "We offer 25 tee spots for use during daylight hours daily."

In an email to University City Patch, Mayor Shelley Welsch wrote:

Mr. Walker always has to consider how his decisions impact our residents.  In deciding to leave the lights at the driving range turned off, Mr. Walker has decided that the negative impact of the lights on the University City homeowners along Groby Road outweigh the benefits of keeping the lights on. 

The Interim Parks Director has considered both the revenue AND the expenses of keeping the lights on and determined that the true revenue from the lights is actually about $11,000 annually, and that 77% of the people using the range under the lights are not U City residents.

Walker’s decision is not “appeasing” a few people. It’s acknowledging valid concerns of some of our residents, balancing all the costs of his decision, financial and otherwise, while implementing all but one of the recommendations of a citizen’s group that recently looked at driving range issues.

In a September 13, 2010 letter, then Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry Nancy MacCartney urged Walker not to eliminate the range lights entirely. She wrote, "there is no light spilling off the range and the increase seen from sidewalk to sidewalk is from a street light on the south side of the street."

MacCartney also listed the following reasons for keeping the range lights on:

1. 7066 transactions took place under the lights. These 7066 customers would be inconvenienced without the lights. This represents 19% of our customers at the range.

2. $27,743.25 was collected for transactions under the lights. This represents 20% of the range revenues. This loss of revenue would reverse the success of having the golf course self sustaining.

3. The driving range was funded primarily by a Municipal Park Grant and the grant covered half the cost of the lights. If the lights were no longer used the Grant Commission could, by the agreement signed by the City, require reimbursement of $39,780.

4. The lights we specified have shields to prevent back spill lighting. We contracted with a lighting engineer to measure the light levels at various locations with the range lights off and on a moonless night September 8th. The engineer noticed that the shields were not properly installed and that the end lights were creating a glare. The next morning I had my staff, using a bucket truck, move the shields into the correct positions and we measured the light levels at various locations that evening.

5. The course had 25,094 rounds in the fiscal year prior to the range opening. For this past fiscal year we had 30,393 rounds played. All the new customers who use the range after work and will now have to go elsewhere to hit balls and if they go somewhere else to practice then they will most likely play at that course.

6. There are new golfers who we have created through instructional programs, such as the “Get Golf Ready in 5 days”, and we have to offer these classes usually from 6pm or later. Without the lights we can’t do this. Approximately 20% of all lessons are provided under the lights. If those golfers go elsewhere we once more lose potential golfers who play the course.

7. Young people we employ now because of this range, we have created jobs for these youth. Some of these youth have a tough time finding jobs after school.

8. The $27,000 revenue taken in from the range, by keeping the lights on, goes towards improving the needs of the course such as cart paths etc.

U City Patch also asked Walker whether his decision would have any impact on the $30,000 the City of Clayton gave to U City  to help fund the driving range. Walker responded that his decision about the lights had nothing to do with Clayton residents using the range. He said the money from Clayton was so its residents could play at Ruth Park for U City resident rates.

The driving range opened in 2008 and operates year round.

Below are other recommendations Walker will implement regarding the range:

  •  Install netting along fairway number 7  to improve safety.
  • Approach Traffic Commission to install no U-turn signs on Groby across from range.
  • Petition Traffic Commission to lower the speed limit on Groby to 25  from 30.
  • Install larger more legible No Parking signs along Groby.
  • Add more trash receptacles to address litter problems.
  •  Contract with Golf Landscape Architect to develop a plan to screen the range, buffer street noise and resolve drainage problem.
Myra Lopez May 05, 2011 at 08:02 PM
Jessica Bueler left this comment on the University City Patch Facebook page. I am confused as to why we build recreational facilities for residents to use, and then make decisions that prevent people from being able to use them. I understand that we have a budget issue in University City, but does a small monetary gain outweigh the overall long-term effects endured by residents? I was under the impression that the goal of balancing this budget was to have "no cuts in services" as clearly outlined by the Mayor in her blog (http://www.ucitymo.com/blog/?p=155). This decision does not appear to be consistent with that statement.
Steve May 05, 2011 at 09:53 PM
Has Mr. Walker adjusted the budget to reflect the loss in income that this will create? Mr. Walker's Office Phone Number is : (314) 505-8534 if you would let him know how you feel about how he is spending your tax money please call.
Jessica Bueler May 06, 2011 at 04:05 PM
This is clearly an issue of community interest vs individual interest. It is hard for me to comprehend why a few individuals' wants outweigh the over benefit that this driving range provides to the entire community. I would assume that the neighbors who are complaining about the bright light could probably solve this issue by purchasing some new, thicker curtains to keep the lights out of their homes. Problem Solved!
Tony May 06, 2011 at 04:56 PM
The machines that dispense the balls do not ask you if you are a resident when you put in your money. To get the resident rates, I think you need to go through the club house which is something many people do not do. I really don't see how the mayor and Mr. Walker can claim that 77% of the customers are non-residents. If they are assessing resident use on the number of people who pay resident rates on a $5 bucket of balls, then the analysis is lazy and irresponsible.
Cindy May 06, 2011 at 06:48 PM
Why did the city manager bother to create a committee to develop recommendations and then make a unilateral decision anyway?
Cindy May 06, 2011 at 08:42 PM
More questions to consider: • Since when does the city manager make policy decisions on community facilities – policy setting has always been the responsibility of the city council • How does the mayor defer this decision to the city manager without any discussion by city council? • How was this decision made without input from the Parks Commission?
Lisa Hummel May 06, 2011 at 11:12 PM
Who cares if they're residents or not? I don't object to my city earning revenue off of nonresidents anyway. We can use the money.
Lisa Hummel May 06, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Our city made an investment and a decision to have a lighted driving range, before you were hired. We have advertised it on our website and in city publications. I don't know if we have yet recouped that investment, but it could certainly continue to be a money maker for our cash-strapped community. What gives you (and a few complainers) the right to single-handedly throw that investment out the window? At the last council meeting, I heard Mr. Glickert inform you that the council had decided that the lights were to be on until 9:30. And how do you justify ignoring a study about the driving range, which I understand YOU commissioned (using MY tax dollars), which showed the lights had no negative effect? It is no wonder several council members voted that they have "no confidence" in you, and it is no wonder that they don't trust you or the mayor who pushed to hire you. I commend them for doing so.
Steve May 10, 2011 at 02:17 PM
" The Deed is Done. " Shelley Welsch e-mail to Lehman Walker This is the first step by a few people to eliminate the driving range. First, they will cut into profit. Next they will say it does not make enough money to support itself. They will then ask it be removed. Do not be fooled by this first step. Also, it is interesting how the Mayor defines revenue. She has revenue and true revenue. She shoul dbe more clear. Revenue is the income brought in before expesnes. Thus, the "true "revenue is $27,000.00. If you take the expenses off of reveune you are left with PROFIT. The Mayor is saying that Mr. Walker has just decided that the City does not need $11,000.00 in PROFIT. Were the votes that the complaining people delievered to the Mayor worth $11,000.00?
Elliot Wilson May 10, 2011 at 10:07 PM
It certainly seems that, based on MacCartney's highly detailed justifications, the golf park lights are worth the minimal (if existent) extra light on neighboring houses. Mr. Walker, especially considering the unusuality of his decision, which went against the advice of a committee he created, should have provided a much more detailed explanation than "It was a decision I made." I also agree with Steve's comments about our Mayor's muddled definition of "true revenue."
Lisa Hummel May 11, 2011 at 01:53 PM
This comment makes no sense, because it is the second half of an e-mail which I sent to Mr. Walker in response to his recent edict to close our night time driving range. The first half of this was removed from the patch because it was decided that I might be libeling Mr. Walker with my statements. (Is it libel if it's the truth?) Mr. Walker told me that the lights would be turned on near the end of April. Was this true? Now he is saying that my recollection of our phone conversation is false. If anything, he is libeling me. I believe the e-mails from his office, in which he claims I was wrong about what he said, are part of public record. His behavior and statements are dishonorable and disrespectful to me.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something