Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor | PenMet’s big risk on Madrona
PenMet has just authorized its Executive Director “…to negotiate any remaining terms and sign the agreements for the lease of golf course equipment and waiving the competitive bidding requirements due to a sole source of purchase and special market conditions…”
The lease in question has a three year term with payments totaling $451,710. PenMet wants Stutsman out and it’s now addressing its need for equipment.
Let’s see what PenMet is now facing:
PenMet planned to remove Stutsman on 9/1/25 to allow Troon to take over management. Stutsman, however, obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting PenMet from removing him. Stutsman is now seeking a temporary injunction against PenMet that would last until the current lawsuit involving PenMet, ZMT, the Tysons and Stutsman is settled. I believe PenMet may not be able to stop the issuance of the injunction. I believe PenMet did not issue Stutsman a notice of breach or a notice of termination prior to the hearing on the TRO. In fact, PenMet issued a letter confirming Stutsman’s lease.
PenMet has filed a counterclaim against the Tyson family seeking damages, the vast majority of which relates to the cost of capital expenditures necessary to repair Madrona. PenMet believes the capital expenditures are the Tysons’ responsibility. PenMet cannot now hold Stutsman responsible for the same capital expenditures they are suing the Tysons for.
I also wonder if Troon understands that PenMet feels it’s not responsible for any of the capital expenditures? Troon will, undoubtedly, request an infusion of substantial cash to pay for the work that needs to be done.
PenMet entered into a contract with Troon to begin managing Madrona on 9/1/25. If Stutsman is still there, it’s possible that Troon could claim damages for not being able to start managing Madrona on time. They may have committed to hiring people and dedicating other resources to properly commence its own management.
It’s entirely possible that Stutsman would have the right to remain at Madrona until 2028 and yet PenMet has just authorized the Executive Director to enter into the $451,710 lease agreement for golf equipment that PenMet may not be able to use until 2028. Accordingly, PenMet may be forced to spend almost a half million dollars over the next three years while the leased equipment sits in storage. If Stutsman stays, can PenMet avoid paying the $451,710? Maybe, but maybe not! Where will PenMet store the equipment it’s about to lease for the time it takes to get Stutsman out?
Was there some way to avoid all of this? I believe so.
PenMet wants Stutsman gone. Stutsman has indicated he is open to a buyout of his remaining lease term. His attorney mentioned a buyout at the TRO hearing. Much of the equipment at the golf course is leased by Stutsman so he’d obviously also want PenMet to assume those ongoing lease payments. Given that, PenMet could offer Stutsman the buyout he is requesting (the amount to be determined) and assume his leases.
What does this accomplish?
- PenMet gets immediate possession of Madrona
- PenMet gets Troon in as the course manager in a timely manner
- PenMet avoids all or a large part of a $451,710 obligation that might not be necessary if PenMet takes over Stutsman’s leases
- PenMet avoids possible storage charges should the leased equipment need to be stored while PenMet is dealing with Stutsman
- PenMet avoids ongoing and substantial legal fees relating to its eviction process on Stutsman
Remember, these are taxpayer dollars PenMet is playing with here. They just authorized almost a half million dollar taxpayer funded gamble. Would the Commissioners approve this lease if it was their money?
Side Note: PenMet avoided the public competitive bidding process for the golf equipment just like they did for the Madrona management agreement. By avoiding the public bid process on the management agreement, PenMet denied two local groups the opportunity to present their offers. Troon is headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ…so much for helping the local economy. PenMet did the same for the Madrona inspection contract (much of that information PenMet already had due to inspections done by Mark Cupit on behalf of the Tysons for free). In all three cases, they used their favorite “sole source” exemption. It’s amazing how many goods and services PenMet needs that are only available from a single source.
And, didn’t PenMet tell ZTM they couldn’t award a management agreement to them without going through the public competitive bidding process? From the PenMet website:
“Finally, as a public agency, PenMet Parks must comply with competitive solicitation and selection requirements and may not arbitrarily award a contract to a private party. PenMet Parks anticipates using a formal Request for Proposal process to encourage proposals from experienced, professional golf course operators and managers when the current lease nears its expiration in 2028.”
Craig McLaughlin
Fox Island