Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03Dec16 Pre-Council Mins~• Nleridian City Pre-Council Nleeung December 16, 2003 Page 1 of 19 Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting D3cemb~r i ~, X003 The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Counci- was called to order at 6:00 P.w?. on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Bill Nary, Cherie McCandless. Others Present: Bill Nichols; Gary Smith; Anna Powell; Doug Strong; Brad Watson; Kenny Bowers; Will Berg Item 1. Roil-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird O Mayor Robert Corrie De Weerd: I'll call the Pre-Council Meeting to order. It's Tuesday, December 16, 2003 at 6:00. We will start with roll. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird Bird: I move we adopt the revised agenda that was revised on December 15, 2003, as published. McCandless: Second. Nary: Second. Bird: Was that Nary or McCandless? Nary: Take a number. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Report by Walt Morrow from The Golf Course Committee: Marrow: I won't take a lot of your time as I know you are really busy this evening. As you well know, you appointed as a committee to look into the Golf Course. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 2 of 19 I he charge from the Council was to make an assessment of the assets that were at the Golf Course, how they could be improved. The challenge to begin with was that in the greatest learning curve for us on the committee was that we anticipated by the USGA report that we would have some sort of standard by which to compare this Golf Course against what it should be. The reality is that a USGA report compares a golf course against itself, so there are no standards out there that are on a regional or a national basis by which you can compare what eve have in the operation of this golf course to. Taking the USGA report and your challenge, we looked at all the facets of the golf course and of the USGA report. We broke them down basically into things that were challenged as personal property and things that were real property and looked at it from the standpoint of a landlord tenant relationship. What we did as a committee, is we took each one of those items where there were recommendations by the USGA report and an example would be the greening of the golf course. Last spring we had exceptional rains and we had a great opportunity to see that the problem with the golf course in terms of the sprinkler systems was inadequate coverage because at one point in time in early spring we had a totally green golf course. That lent great credence to the analysis that this sprinkler system is insufficient. The first nine, or what was historically the first nine now is approximately 25 years old, at its e nd of i is u seful I ife for v arious r easons t he n ew n ine i n m any a reas w ere deficient with respect to coverage. Some of that was due to changing boundaries with respect to subdivision ground that was donated or changed and then so on and so forth. The committee's feeling is that the first main problem to address was the greenness of the golf course and consequently, the sprinkler system. We went down through the menu of issues raised by the USGA report and then had discussions amongst the committee about the importance of each issue in terms of trying to look at the overall picture of the golf course and what our vision, or the Council's vision may very well be in terms of what they want to see. With each of those items and if you look on Page 22 we have addressed the items pretty much in the area of importance, that we felt needed to be addressed. The first thing was the irrigation system. We also then put down approximately the sums of money that we thought that it would take to fix those things at plus or minus ten percent factor. If you will look, the irrigation system, we used 1 to 1:5 million. We assigned that because it is real property and it is a key component in terms of setting the golf course up to whatever the standard that the City Council may want to have with the golf course. The assumption was is that the standard might be that it be green through April through the middle of October in its entirety. In order to do that then the sprinkler system needs to be redone. The number that we assign was 1 million to 1.5 million. That was based on the experiences that some of the members of the committee with respect to golf course and golf course sprinkler systems. A maintenance building was talked about in the USGA report. Once again, that is real property. We felt, in this case, it was a responsibility of the landlord to provide that. In this case, that would be the City of Meridian. We used a 45-dollar square foot factor for that which is a reasonably accurate number for a building of that use is 150,000 dollars. New greens on 1, 6, 7 and 9 again those were alluded to in the USGA Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 3 of 19 report is 8,000 dollars a piece, real property. The original greens apparently ended up with more slope than the USGA thought they should have. That was an arbitrary decision based on the original design probably is more playable for the better golfer, but for what our golfers are today, probably a little too challenging. We showed those at 8,000 dollars a piece. Rebuilding bunkers on the new nines and there was ten of them -- 2,000 dollars apiece -- 20,000 dollars. Then we get down into the things that were truly personal property that should be the responsibility of the tenant. It would be the responsibility of any tenant in a property that you or I might lease on a residential basis and those tended to be maintenance items, cart paths, again that's a real property issue. We a Ilotted 5 0,000 d ollars for that a nd trees, kind of a combination of b oth - obviously, carts, clubhouse maintenance and miscellaneous equipment and equipment rental. That all belongs to the tenant. New restroom there is a need for a restroom. We did some research into through the City in terms of an available sewer and water. We were able to find one location that that would work. We spec that at 75,000 dollars it's a real property issue again. That would be the responsibility of the City. The committee felt that this was a good breakdown and a good guideline based on the types of things that would need to be done to make the golf course come up to whatever standard you as a council set. The feeling is very strong that if you are going to set a standard there has to be a means for a tenant to maintain that standard and know what he or she is working towards. The committee structured this report in that direction so that the City Council would have the standard by which to judge the performance of the tenant. The tenant would have the standard by which he or she had to conform to so going in they knew what was expected of them, with respect to financing; several ways of financing. The general view point of the committee was that should the Council wish to pursue these improvements that the Council would appoint a committee with a council member sharing that committee to research financing and the options that are available to a council or community. With respect to the comparison to other golf courses in the valley. The narrow tightness of this golf course can't compare itself to something like Ridge Crest or Broadmore or one of the golf courses that is wide open. It's more comparable to Indian Lakes or the Plantation, where you have a narrow confined golf course, which makes it somewhat more difficult to play for the average golfer than a wide open golf course. That's one of the things - or one of the issues that we work under and it's a handicap for the general weekend golfer. Part of the challenge on part of the Council is to resist comparisons of this golf course that come from golf courses that don't have the same restrictions with respect to play ability that we do. That's not something that we can change or fix. We have to work with what we have and so the committee's goal was to try to give you the options that were available to you as a council so that you may make a decision in terms of what direction that you want to pursue and therefore, by pursuing that come to the standards that you want and then give the tenant his or her option of being able to meet those standards. Any questions? De Weerd: Council, any questions? • Meridian Cify Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 4 of 19 Bird: I have none. De Weerd: There are no questions. Marrow: Thank you. De Weerd: I think there are a lot of questions, but I don't know if everyone has had a chance to read the report. Shaun, did you get a report? Marrow: We have here in the box. De Weerd: You have one in the box. Marrow: We have a substantial, greater number of reports that were just delivered within the last 15-20 minutes, for those who want more reports or haven't had a report. De Weerd: Okay. Marrow: I think the initial report was just the five of you that received reports. The committee all had two go-a rounds at the first rough draft, the final draft and then the final report. That was open to comment by each of the committee members at all three stages. Our final draft was printed without comment by any members of the committee you have now plenty of reports and we have the avenue now of being able to generate more reports as they might be needed. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I have a question that might not be necessarily just for Mr. Marrow, but what's our timetable here to act. I mean, we have a - - I like the report. I think it has outlined some of the issues that we sort of knew that were out there about the condition, the golf course maintenance, what needs to be done. Obviously, we need to have a lot of discussion about the source of funds and how that was done, but is there a timetable that we need to act. Obviously, status quo isn't going to maintain itself forever. Marrow: No. That decision is entirely up to you. The challenge of the committee was to give you as clearly and concisely as possible what we saw the deficiencies were, the potential ways to resolve those deficiencies and then it's up to you folks to decide how you want to go about it and what you want to do. Nary: Okay. " Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting December 16, 2003 Page 5 of 19 De Weerd: Mr. Strong, do you have any comments? Birci: I know he hasn't seen it. De Weerd: Have you seen it? Strong: I have not. De Weerd: Okay. Well, it likes this is something that we need to set when the new council is on and maybe have aPre-Council or workshop discussion and start exploring some of those. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe that one of our new Council Members coming on was a co- chairman with Walter on this. Marrow: That's correct. Bird: And I did sit on the committee. I was a nonvoting member. De Weerd: Okay. Well, good. You guys can set up a timeframe and lead the discussion. Bird: Okay. We can do it. Marrow: Anything else? De Weerd: Thank you. Marrow: You bet. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay Item Number 4 is the Solid Waste franchise moratorium by Mr. Sedlecek. Oh, by Mr. Freeman. Oh good, an attorney we can (inaudible) time to. Item 4. Solid Waste Franchise Moratorium Discussion by Steve Sedlecek with SSC: Freeman: I got to do something here. I am going to charge him. Madam President, C ouncil M embers. I t i s m y p leasure t o b e h ere t his e vening. You should have all received a copy of my letter that I sent on behalf of my client, Sanitary Service requesting that the City issue a moratorium on the issuance of