The document is a memo from Tom Hahn, the Executive Director of the Lake County Forest Preserve District, to the District's Board of Commissioners regarding a request for proposals (RFP) for the development, construction, and operation of a proposed 9-hole golf course at Fort Sheridan Preserve. It outlines key issues that need to be addressed in the RFP process, including required terms ("givens"), financial considerations, and other substantive provisions related to construction, operations, and control reserved for the District. It recommends retaining consultants to assist with drafting the RFP and estimates costs to be between $30,000-$70,000. A timeline is also proposed.

1. Version 6.2.11.1: Comments by Finance and Administrative Committee added after 6/2/2011
meeting.
To: Lake County Forest Preserve District Board of Commissioners
From: Tom Hahn, Executive Director
Date: May 31, 2011
Re: Fort Sheridan request for proposals (RFP)consideration and issues – Fort Sheridan plan
2B – 9-hole golf course
cc: Matt Norton, General Counsel
At the Special Call meeting on June 14, the board will consider the recommendation from the
Fort Sheridan Advisory Committee to issue a Request For Proposal for development,
construction and operation of a proposed 9 hole golf course at the Fort Sheridan Preserve.
Since the District has not issued an RFP for this type of use in the past, I anticipate that there
will be questions from Board members related to the terms and specifications that would be
part of the RFP document. Therefore, I felt it was appropriate to prepare the following memo
outlining the issues that staff recommends be considered during the RFP process, if the board
directs staff in June to begin its preparation. A discussion regarding these RFP issues will be
on the Finance Committee agenda for Thursday, June 2nd at 8:30 and Planning and
Restoration Committee agenda for Monday, June 6th at 1:00 p.m. Both of these meetings will
be held at the new General Offices at 1899 West Winchester Road. The purpose of this
discussion will be to provide the commissioners with an understanding of the RFP process,
items to be considered, anticipated schedule and estimated costs.
If the Board of Commissioners directs staff to prepare a RFP at the June 14th meeting, it is
recommended that staff prepare the RFP (with the advice of a consultant) and bring it back to
the Finance and Administrative Committee for final approval prior to its release.
As noted above, if the District issues an RFP, there are many issues and questions to be
considered as part of the RFP process. A few of the issues are "givens" -- provisions that must
be included in a final agreement because they are required by law. In addition to these
"givens," there are many other questions and issues upon which staff needs direction from the
Board of Commissioners (with the advice of appropriate consultants) so it can prepare an
RFP that is as complete, accurate, and informative as possible. These include "big picture"
issues that probably should be addressed first, financial issues, and other issues that must be
addressed to "flesh out" the substantive provisions of the RFP related to construction,
operation, and maintenance obligations.
I. "Givens"
1) The golf course must be a public course. Generally, that means it must be open to all
members of the publicon the same terms, with no memberships and no preferential treatment.
2) The golf course improvements will be owned by the District.
2

2. 3) The District has the statutory authority to license its land for activities reasonably
connected to forest preserve purposes (such as a golf course). The District generally does not
have the statutory authority to lease its land for golf course purposes. Generally speaking,
with a license, the property owner retains more control over the land than it does with a lease.
Thus, in its agreement, the District must retain sufficient control over the golf course, so that
the agreement is a valid license, not a lease.
4) The golf course improvements will be a public works project. Therefore, in conjunction
with construction of the improvements, the Licensee must (i) post performance security (to
secure construction of the golf course) and a labor and material payment bond (to secure
payment to subcontractors) and (ii) comply with the Prevailing Wage Act.
II. "Big Picture" Issues
1) Is this RFP only for this proposed golf course or would the District consider a larger
management proposal of all the District courses? No
2) Will the RFP be issued before or after the District makes any request to the Army
concerning the covenants in the deeds? The District will vote to issue the RFP prior to
contacting the Army.
3) Will there be a public comment period for the RFP prior to its release and approval by the
Finance and Administrative Committee? The public is invited to attend all meetings where
this is discussed. We will have a 15 day comment period before the final version is released.
III. Financial Issues
4) What role will the District take in financing the golf course improvements, if any?
a. Will the District put in any cash either at the front end or at some percentage of the
completion? No
b. Will the District provide public financing? No
5) If the District provides public financing, will it do so only as a conduit, requiring Licensee
to make all debt service payments for financing and to provide a credit facility to secure debt
service payments? What type of bonding will be required to allow the District to complete the
construction or continued operation should the proposer default. Not applicable since the
District will not finance any of the golf course improvements.
6) Will Licensee be required to construct and operate the course at no cost to District? Yes
7) Will the District set a maximum rate per round? Will discounts for Lake County residents
be required? How much detail will the District provide in the RFP regarding rates? What
about future price increases? The District will provide some guidance on rates in the RFP, but
further discussion with the RFP consultant will be necessary to provide appropriate language.
3

3. 8) Will the District expect some type of financial return? A percentage of net profits (after
operating expenses and debt service is paid.)
9) Will the District be required to pay for the value of the improvements at the end of the
license term? How will those improvements be valued, including the value of any future
capital improvement replacements or modifications? District will rely on RFP consultant for
guidance on this issue.
10) Will Licensee be required to provide a capital replacement schedule and fund it? Yes
11) What type of financial transparency will the District require (e.g., will the District require
audits during the license period)? Detailed financial reports/audits will be required.
12) Will the Licensee assume all legal risks if it is determined that the arrangement between
the Licensee and District is a lease rather than a license -- a determination that could create a
taxable leasehold and that could affect the overall validity of the agreement. Yes
13) What other financial criteria will be in the RFP? District will rely on RFP consultant for
guidance on this issue.
IV. Other Substantive Provisions of RFP
A. Fundamental RFP Terms
14) What is the proposed time period for the license? Is there a minimum or maximum time
period that should be specified in the RFP? District will rely on RFP consultant for guidance
on this issue.
15) When must construction of the golf course commence and be completed? District will
rely on RFP consultant and staff for guidance on this issue.
16) What level of experience does the Licensee need in terms of years of performance, types
and number of golf courses built and operated, and other factors? What type of business plan
will be required as part of the RFP to demonstrate that the proposer has the resources for
initial development and long-term operation? District will rely on RFP consultant for
guidance on this issue.
17) Will the District reserve the right to terminate the license agreement if certain operational
or financial performance standards are not satisfied? If so, what are those standards? Yes and
District will rely on RFP consultant for guidance on this issue.
B. Construction of Golf Course Improvements
18) Will the District allow potential Licensees, in their proposals, to make changes from the
plan recommended by the Fort Sheridan Advisory Committee and if so to what extent? For
example, will the potential Licensees be allowed to propose a totally different plan and
concept or do they have to work within the concept of Plan 2-B? If changes are allowed,
should the RFP and/or the proposals address the following issues:

4. a. Can more of the bluff be used for golf? For open space?
b. How will the proposed trail be integrated within the overall site and in particular, as it
traverses through and near the golf course? Will changes to the trail location be allowed?
c. How will the remainder of the Parade Grounds be used? Will golf holes be required on the
Parade Ground?
For all of Item 18: There will be an overall mission/preamble describing the District’s
philosophy regarding the use and development of the site. The “2B preferred plan” will be
part of the RFP, but minor modifications may be acceptable if the revised plan meets with the
overall goal and use philosophy for the site.
19) Can a permanent clubhouse be constructed? If so:
a. Will the District allow the clubhouse to be used only for golf and not general public use if
licensee requests? District would require a minimum of rest room sharing.
20) How will the management of the clubhouse function? District will rely on RFP consultant
for guidance on this issue.
a. Will a banquet facility within the clubhouse be allowed as part of the license agreement?
How will the profits from this venture be allocated? No
21) Will the Licensee be required to construct the public access portions of the plan at the
time it constructs the golf course? If so, how will these costs be shared and allocated?
District will rely on RFP consultant for guidance on whether this is a reasonable request.
22) What will be the minimum golf course design, materials, and maintenance standards and
quality requirements that the District will accept, such as Audubon design and maintenance
standards, length of course and holes with double tees, condensing area of course, bringing in
topsoil for quality turf, irrigation? Audubon design and maintenance standards; and District
will rely on RFP consultant for guidance on the remainder of these issues
C. Operations and Maintenance Rights and Obligations
23) Will licensee be required to maintain the entire preserve? Or only those portions that are
integral to the golf course that should be under one management entity (parking lots,
buildings, portions of the trail?) Will a joint use maintenance facility be incorporated if the
District has to maintain part of the preserve? To be determined; district will rely on RFP
consultant and staff for guidance on this issue.
24) How will the clubhouse be used outside the golf season and who will operate and pay for
its maintenance? How will the course be used during the offseason? To be determined;
district will rely on RFP consultant and staff for guidance on this issue.
5

5. 25) Will turf management be consistent with District’s specifications used on other golf
courses? Yes and per Audubon standards.
26) How will security on the golf course be accomplished? Will District Ranger Police patrol
the area? Will security calls go to the District, Highland Park, or Lake Forest? To be
determined by Operations and Public Safety Division
27) What are the proper amounts of liability insurance and indemnification protections for the
District? To be determined by the District Insurance Carrier, PDRMA
D. Control Reserved to District
28) What control will the District have on the quality of customer service? To be determined;
district will rely on RFP consultant and staff for guidance on this issue.
29) What is the approval process for any further changes to the plans, after the license
agreement has approved? Will the District have final say in any changes or will the Licensee?
To be determined during the RFP drafting process.
30) Will the District have any say in marketing (e.g., strategy, type, quantity and content)?
Will the District have any responsibility to assist in marketing through the District’s website,
e-newletters and publications, or are these services charged back to the golf course? To be
determined; district will rely on RFP consultant and staff for guidance on this issue.
31) How will the District’s name and logo be displayed and integrated on the golf course
marketing materials and signage? To be determined; district will rely on RFP consultant and
staff for guidance on this issue.
32) Will the Licensee have the right to close down all or part of the preserve (e.g., the
integrated trail area in between the golf holes) from public use for special events? To be
determined in consultation with District’s Operation and Public Safety Department.
33) Who will be responsible for handling complaints from Fort Sheridan home owners or
Preserve users related to the golf course or any other portions of the preserve under the
management of the Licensee? To be determined; district will rely on RFP consultant and staff
for guidance on this issue.
34) Are there legal hurdles if the District agrees to contribute all or a portion of the remaining
funds allocated to the golf course currently held by the District? Not applicable.
35) Will this course be integrated with the reservation system used for the District’s other
golf courses? To be determined; district will rely on RFP consultant and staff for guidance on
this issue.
36) Will the District’s standard construction documents be used for construction of the golf
improvements? To be determined; district will rely on RFP consultant and staff for guidance
on this issue.

6. Potential Time Frame for issuance of RFP: 6
Board determines to issue a RFP – June 2011
District retains consultant to undertake RFP draft – June 2011
Consultant works with staff to draft RFP – July/August 2011
Draft RFP reviewed by District Finance Committee – September 2011
RFP issued – October 2011
RFP informational meeting for interested parties – November 2011
RFP’s response due back to District – December 2011
District staff review and clarification of proposals and preparation for Board review –
January 2012
Committee and Board review – February 2012
Consultants to be retained.
Golf management professional with experience in drafting RFP privatization documents.
Holland and Knight to review the RFP and potential license agreement.
Chapman and Cutler regarding public financing options for the golf course (if any)
AECOM (Golf marketing division) to assist in review of the financial aspects of submitted
RFP’s.
The cost to retain these consultants is difficult to predict. Most likely, it would be in the range
of $30,000 to $70,000, however, that could change depending upon the complexity of the
RFP and/or the license agreement