Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03Jun25 Golf Course Committee MinsGOLF COURSE COMMITTEE Wednesday, Tune 25, 201D3 at 6:OID pm Mayor's Conference Raom Meridian City Ha// Attendance: X WQ/t Mow X Chor/ie Rountree x Keith Bird JoAnn But/erg x Tom Funkhouser ~_ Shoron 6o//ivon Jim Johnson Jennifer Lovan-Ho/%woy Dovid Moe X Creg-vtee% BrQC~-Wotson x E/rvy~-/uff x Wi//-Berg Golf Course Committee June 25. 2003 The Golf Course Committee Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 25th, 2003, by Chairman Walt Morrow Members Present: Elroy Huff, Sharon Gallivan, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Tom Funkhouser, Creg Steele, Walt Morrow and Will Berg. Members Absent: JoAnn Butler, Jim Johnson, Jennifer Lovan-Holloway, David Moe, and Brad Watson. Others Present: Nancy Link. Morrow: All right we are going to open our meeting for the golf course ADHOC committee for June 25t". Let the record show that Walt Morrow, Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Tom Funkhouser, Sharon Gallivan, Creg Steele, Will Berg and Nancy Link are president. The topics for tonight's meeting are financing and comments for the rough draft. The first item on the agenda will be the approval of minutes from our last meeting. Are there any questions or any changes to those minutes that anybody has. Gallivan: I had a couple changes. Morrow: Do you have a page? Gallivan: Its on page six. Morrow: Okay. Gallivan: On Charlie Rountree comments. Did you say that you disagree with that or did you say I .don't disagree with that? Rountree: I said I agree with that. Gallivan: So you disagree that is correct? Rountree: No I agree with you're statement. Gallivan: So you don't disagree. Rountree: I don't disagree. Gallivan: Okay that would be the opposite of what that says. Rountree: Right. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 2 of 13 Gallivan: Yeah. Morrow: So the dis should become agree instead of disagree. Gallivan: Yeah and then on page nine. The last paragraph and I think it should be Tom instead of Todd. And just because we have a Tad that's currently involved I thought we might want to clarify that. Do you see that in the third sentence in the last paragraph, based on what Todd told us last time about - Morrow: No it should be Tom. Gallivan: Yeah. Morrow: Okay any others? Gallivan: And then on page 11. We have Mr. Bird asking and answering his own questions. So I'm not sure if that's. Bird: I've been known to do that before. Berg: There might have been a pause there and he answered it. Gallivan: It could be. It also might have been JoAnn said, I think it depends on what judge you get huh? I'm not sure, it doesn't sound like a JoAnn comment but it might have been. Didn't you answer no we have no problem with it so. Bird: I think JoAnn did say on what judge you. And we had no problem. We absolutely had no problem when we went through our - we just didn't offer to payback 20 million dollars in interest. Gallivan: Yeah. Those are then only things that - Morrow: Any other issues? Okay. Anyone else have issues with any of the minutes? If there are none is there a motion to approve the corrected minutes? Steele: Creg Steele makes a motion that we approve the minutes as changed. Rountree: Second. Morrow: Moved and second by Creg Steele and Charlie Rountree to approve the minutes as amended. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Berg: We'll make those changes and have you sign the original copy. Morrow: Okay the next thing that we will do here is is have a discussion we've already talked about a little bit in terms of a plan for tonight. But have a Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 3 of 13 discussion - we are pretty well hammered together in terms of potential capital improvements, potential costs for those capital improvements and the third leg of that triangle is the, how do you pay for it? And throw out a number of options to the Council in terms of paying for it. The first obvious one would be city cash. Cash on hand would be a source. What I wanted to do was do a little bit of brainstorming and have everybody throw out comments that they may have thought of in terms of potential financing and we'll put together that list. JoAnn and I have talked at length before she left and she had interviewed Ryan Armbruster. I've talked with Terry at Farmers and Merchants Bank with a commercial perspective. So lets just start with thoughts that might come in to your minds in terms of avenues of financing. And anything that you? Funkhouser: Not to my expertise so I pass. Morrow: All right. Charlie. Rountree: Not that I don't have any ideas about that avenues of financing. But I'm still unclear, what are we financing? We've seen what it might take to bring the golf course to what I would call a community standard. But we've not necessarily said that's what the standard is. If that's what we are shooting for then fine I'll respond in that way. If what we have now is okay then that certainly gives you a whole different perspective on funding and difficulties and avenues and - Morrow: The answer to your question, our challenge is I think here to -we've identified several things that could be done in determining what the standards going to be. I think the problem that we have now is that there's no measurable standard by which somebody could gauge current facility and current performance. So the challenge in my mind is to identify the things that could be -lend them selves to setting a standard and then which we've done. Identify some cost parameters which we've done and then identify some ways it can be paid for and then the Mayor and Council based on that menu can develop what they want to see as a standard for the golf course in terms of a facility and then they got a roughly operating budget of what its going to take for each one of those things and then they've got a bunch of suggestions as where financing might come from. And so what we're after now is that where that financing may come from. Recognizing that it's up to them to pick -they could pick the option of leaving it exactly as it is today and that would be the standard. Or they could pick some other standard. But that is a decision that they'll have to make so. Does that help? Rountree: Yeah we will go through the whole (inaudible) by the time we are done. So you mentioned city dollars. I'm going to mention bonding or seeking grant from some recreation oriented benefactor whether it be the government or (inaudible) PGA or whomever might have those sorts of things. So we just kind of round out in this (inaudible) quite a while. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 4 of 13 Morrow: (Inaudible) if we listen to you (inaudible). (Inaudible discussion) Morrow: Anything else you can think of? Okay. Keith? Bird: I'll pass on this, thank you. Morrow: Okay. Bird: (Inaudible) Morrow: Elroy where we are is that we've done the minutes, we are also going to have - a lot of folk are out of town are not able to be here. What this meeting is going to be is to try to add the third leg to our challenge and that is recommend sources of financing. We will do that and then we will talk a little bit about what we want or what graph to say between now and the next meeting. We'll have a rough draft done and we'll have it out so everybody can review it. But we will have our next meeting and structure it however the consensus is. So that it's ready to present to the Mayor and Council. So that's where we are at in terms of the discussions. So if you have any thoughts with respect to possible sources of financing for improvements. Huff: I was playing around on the net for grant possibilities. There are grants out there for new construction but not necessarily a lot for renovation. There are a few others and I brought some printed material I'd like to (inaudible) for other (inaudible) golf courses. (Inaudible) programs, things like that. But I couldn't find anything that was golf renovation or (inaudible). (Inaudible). Just kind of go from there and see (inaudible). The State of Idaho (inaudible) golf course (inaudible). I don't have any definitive stuff that says there's any grants out there for a golf course. Most of all these were (inaudible). Morrow: Sure. Any other thoughts? Okay, Sharon. Gallivan: My perspective has always been grants and I know JoAnn has a larger perspective its just that's the narrow area I was cast with. So that always intrigues me and I would love to see what we found here. I guess we'll just have to let JoAnn speak for herself when she gets back. Morrow: Okay, Creg? Steele: Grants but I still think either one of the monies is going to pretty tough to come up with. There's a pretty shallow pool out there on some of this stuff. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 5 of 13 Morrow: Okay I think in terms of what JoAnn and I talked about based on her conversation with Ryan is Judicial Conformation. The discussion was pretty wide ranging, talked a lot about the Boise situation so on so forth. What Ryan indicated is that Judicial Conformation has been difficult for new facilities but one was done very recently with upgrading facilities in the City of Jerome and that there seems to be a major difference between the new and the upgrading. So he felt that was a pretty viable thing from the standpoint of Judicial Review bonds or bonding which would be a different avenue than approaching it from the standpoint of new bonding which has been incredibly tough and both obviously from the standpoint of the voter and from the courts. So that's an avenue I think that is open for the Council to pursue or look at. I think another avenue that maybe open to them but may be difficult is LID's within the subdivision for improvement. I think we can put that on the list for a potential financing source. I think that regardless of what the times are the Council will have the challenge of trying to make a decision as to what it is they want to do. And then work with that within their revenues or potential revenue sources that are out there. Certainly as was done originally a lot fee could be assessed which was part of the original financing of the second nine. That took the cooperation of the development community. So that's an avenue that exists, I don't know how practical it is because I don't know how much dirt is left that could conceivably benefit from the golf course. Conventional banks in my talking with Terry at Farmers and Merchants, they can do financing obviously it has to be tied to a payment source and a value. And clearly that can be done. Once again it'll be the city from the standpoint of opting to borrow the monies to do the improvements and then paying them back from some revenue source. I think off the top of my head there's some issues with respect to one Council indebting future Council and some issues there that need to be resolved. Another source of financing that came to mind was a surcharge on those that play in terms of its collected at the point of the greens fees for the improvement of the course. That's obviously another source of revenues. So those are basically thoughts that I have had and having said that further (inaudible) on that. Rountree: It seems to me that some of those are probably not realistic in (inaudible) not realistic approach is done. I think the leasee is an option if you want to put it on the table. That they finance the improvements another option is a combination or partnership between the city and the leasee. Another option is a partnership between the city, the leasee, and the community in terms of adopt a green, adopt a fairway or those kinds of community based go out and (inaudible) approach. Take place with the ponds in they actually took place somewhere with (inaudible) second nine. (Inaudible). So that one I think probably has some legitimacy. (Inaudible) buy the lease back. Take it over city and run it. I'm sure somebody is going to come out of the woodwork and say get the lease back and sell the golf course. And let a private owner develop the golf course. To me those are options, they may not be acceptable to Cherry Lane Association but I mean they are options and people are going to say why didn't you consider them. You've heard them I've heard them. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 6 of 13 Morrow: Those are options as I see it and just put everything on the table and the Council can make their decisions. One of the things that they have to deal with is that if it's the decision to have the leasee provide funding, how do they make them (inaudible) at the end of the lease. What is the option there? But once again that's an issue they have to deal with and not us? Rountree: There are some borrowing options within the city in terms of revenues that are -and other accounts that could be borrowed with a long term payback based on user fees from the water or the sewer funds. That's been done before. Some kind of a schedule of payback -the market value of interest rates. Morrow: They are all options and that's what we are about. Further thoughts. Bird: I do have one just to touch up on what Charlie just hit and that's the thing that I think the biggest thing you have to look at is what does the contract say? Charlie is 100 percent right there's a lot of people out there that would just love to see us go back and break that contract and I can tell you right now we would have probably five or six offers from existing golf course -that would love to come over and run it. Especially with (inaudible) existing contracts that we've got. So I think that puts something that is probably going to be one of the big deals. On the financing part of it, I don't think we -right now would be (inaudible) like Charlie said going to enterprise. We can't do that anymore unless it's an enterprise project and that is on an enterprise project under the general fund. We found that out with the Police Station that we couldn't use private enterprise funds interest to pay that back with (inaudible). That's all I would say. I think you guys got some good brainstorms out here that you guys as a city have got to look at. I realize the Council and the Mayor got the final decision but we've got to look at as a whole on what's best for the overall community. That's the way I look at it and what's best for the people that have the money invested to this point. Morrow: Okay. Any other thoughts with respect to financing? What I'd like to do now is move forward and have a discussion about what we want in the rough draft with respect to (inaudible) comments. Recognizing that all we are trying to do is prepare the facts and I guess the question is that do we want to include something in the opening in terms of what exists today or a short paragraph on the USGA comments. I think that certainly what we need to do within that document is make the point that's been well made that USGA assessments are based against yourself and not to a fixed standard. There's no fixed standard that exists there and I think the popular concept that most folks have is that USGA has standards that they judge all golf courses by, that's simply is not the case. So it seems to me that there is some that would be appropriate to have some verbiage that discusses that there is not a quote standard that has ever been set for the golf course from day one and it seems to me in my reading of the minutes and of the information from the late 70's and early 80's that this issue Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 7 of 13 came up once before and the Council at that point in time determined that and chose not to set any standards they seem to recognize that there were substantial issues with the construction of the golf course that were not done correctly and they chose to not attempt to revoke the lease and move forward. Unfortunately they didn't set a standard for anything now here we are 20 some years later grabbling with the same issue. So it seems to me that we need maybe a paragraph that talks about the fact that there isn't a standard and that the Mayor and Council should they move forward are going to need to set a standard and then provide the means of obtaining that standard. It seems to me a paragraph that ought to be there. Rountree: If you are talking about format and that. What I would envision is a document that would start as an introduction, which would include the charter of this particular group, which we have kind of a purpose or a goal statement that we've got in some of our minutes. And maybe in that introduction would be a brief history of just the existence of the golf course. The next piece would be either observations or information learned either by paragraph, by narrative, or by bullet point, which would include the point, you made about standards. Points being made that in the early 80's mid 80's they recognized conditions on the golf course and those issues. Recognize the information from the USGA evaluation. Just the kinds of things that we found out go to the next piece that has agroup - set a community standard to try to accommodate those USGA recommendations the committee identified the following capital investments that need to be made to bring it to the standard. Following those recommendations - not recommendations but options that were arrayed that could be pursued to try and accomplish that standard or a portion thereof. Then maybe recommendations from the committee to City Council, one they need to establish a standard for the golf course in concert with the leasee because I don't think they can do that independent of the people who have the lease, it has to be done together. Recognizing the standard once that is set then there has to be negotiations on how to accomplish that standard and if the city recognizes that in that standard they may or may not have successfully attained that standard when they turned the facility over to the leasee then recognize they have an obligation to try to get it to that standard. I would recommend the city recognize the golf course has part of their community and a valuable part of their community and something that they should assist as best they can. I don't think its our point to recommend how they finance how they address it or even what they can include in terms of the community standard. I think we - we looked at one the other end of the community standard is what you have. Somewhere in that range they have to decide, until that's done this issue is never going to go away. About the golf course not performing or performing. Morrow: I agree with that. That's exactly where it is we are headed here. I think that our challenge is to make these observations without bias and that they make their decisions as to what it is they want and the standard has got to be the first decision. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 8 of 13 Rountree: To me that's the compass bearing that the city needs. Without that you know you just got one foot nailed to the floor and you are just going to be circling yourself forever. Morrow: As is the case today because this process went through it in a different format at the end of the 70's early 80's. Rountree: This is nothing new. Morrow: No. Okay, those are great thoughts. Anything further? Rountree: (Inaudible). I haven't really thought about it a whole lot. (Inaudible discussion) Morrow: So the next observation is how would you like to write this thing? Rountree: My fees are probably steeper then the city wants. (Inaudible discussion) Bird: I have a thought on this to concur with Charlie and you did a very good job on - I think Charlie's 100 percent right that we need to decide what kind of standard we want out there. You know there's the USGA that (inaudible) play your tournaments and stuff you know that we receive (inaudible) million dollars from them to get your course in play -lets face the facts Cherry Lane is never going to do that. Then there is publics, which we are not that far from being in a publics right now. To me that looks like the course that we would be more apt to deal and has a committee coming back to the Council I'd feel very good if you guys would arrange these things and point out these deals because this is basically where you pointed this out that we are never going to host a USGA open. We are never going to host an Idaho State open that's a USGA, lets face the facts. So what standard does this committee recommend and like Charlie said until you get a standard you don't know how much you are going to need to finance or what you are going to have to do to bring it up to it. We know there's some things and there's been some real good thoughts thrown out right here but I think as a committee I'd love to see you guys come before us and say you know this is the recommendations and stuff and here's what we can be at. We can be a public's course, which you know that looks like for Cherry Lane that's probably the most popular one. The publics or whatever they call it I can't remember. However, we're never going to be a tournament course, you know that as well as do. We not only don't have the parking but its just not that type of course. That's all I got to say Walt, I think Charlie - we can take off from this and probably write up a rough draft and not have to pay a penny. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 9 of 13 (Inaudible discussion) Morrow: Elroy your thoughts? Huff: I think everybody said it pretty well. Morrow: Sharon. Gallivan: Yeah what I would add is you don't only need to engage the leasee but I think there needs to be some analysis of the lease. Because I think as long as it's out there it's an amorphous type thing where people don't understand what was called for in what order and what standards that we are talking about that were to be met. There is this impression that Cherry Lane may have not met that criteria and I think that there needs to be an understanding of what that lease says. And that needs to be clear. I think that's the only other thing I would add to this is because that lease is a guiding contract and it needs to be dealt with here. And they are talking about breaking the lease and buying the lease back, those may be options is some peoples minds but again this is a legal contract and you can't just say well you know its not performing to what we think it should be right now so we are going to take it back. That isn't the way it works. And for some folk out there they may not understand that and I think that would be something that we need to deal with in our report. Even if its in a very abbreviated form. Rountree: (Inaudible) that it's not the type of instrument that lends itself to breaking but it does lend itself to negotiated settlement. It'll cost somebody something. Morrow: Okay. Anything else? Nancy. Link: I think the people who've spoken tonight have been very succinct. Steele: I have a couple things. One dealing with the issue of them breaking the lease, having, and getting someone else. I mean the Council has to look at on that side is if we do invite others to come in and take a look at what standard are they going to be held to, is the city going to pay for the infrastructure to get it to that because if they are -okay you know Keith is saying no - I'm just saying but these are some of the things that need to be kind of looked at on that side to because even at 60 grand a year someone coming in and having to put a million and a half in there. They are only going to get that thing for 20 years. That's just not probably feasible. Bird: The problem Creg that we hear is on a yearly basis. Go look in and see what Ridgecrest and Centennial golf courses turned back in to the City of Nampa. Lets face the facts over a half million dollars a year has went from those golf courses into subsidized rec center. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 10 of 13 Steele: Right. Bird: And so we are getting the same thing. And lets face the facts. Cherry Lane Golf Course does not even compare to those two as far as playing or will ever compare to those two. But you got people out here that believe within our citizenships it does and that's -and I've told Cherry Lane from day one to make sure that - to look that contract over and don't let that thing get broke because there's people jumping here. This is an every two-year deal. This is an every two deal, every time there is an election for Council or Mayor in Meridian it's the political ballgame. Steele: I understand that but again the public doesn't know what you know Ridgecrest. That's one of the nicest courses in the State as far as public courses go. We can't compare Ridgecrest to Cherry Lane. You said it earlier the same thing with Centennial. Those are a lot newer courses. They were built correctly to begin with. They get he water they are supposed to have. You know and that's - (Inaudible discussion) Bird: Warm Springs is an old course you know and what they've built out there that they - Steele: They just went through I think here a couple years ago and redid the whole water system. Bird: When (inaudible) Boise they just wanted over a couple million dollars. Steele: Right you know. So there is a lot to play in that as far as the public doesn't know and I think that's part of what needs to be in here too is that we bring that to light so that there's that understanding that's out there. Rountree: I guess I disagree with that in terms of that's something we should do. I believe that's something that should be done I think that's a recommendation that we should make but I think that's something that the city should do. Bird: Yes. Steele: Right. May be not us but or even a paragraph to you know shine some light on that part of the recommendation that you know it be brought up or whatever the case. You know and I don't know even something about equipment. You know and again it's not going to be anything that's going to be set in stone. The City Council still going to have to decide this thing but you know these guys can rent equipment from Boise City why can't they from Meridian City? You know to me that's - Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 11 of 13 Morrow: I think the issue there Creg is that that's a Council policy that the Council - Steele: I understand that but that's something that they can look at. Morrow: Certainly. Steele: You know as something that is out there. (Inaudible discussion) Morrow: Any other thoughts? Steele: No. Morrow: All right. Anybody have any follow up thoughts? I think we are in a pretty good sense of direction here. Any last thoughts with respect to the format for rough draft? Okay if there's not then Will can you get us minutes sooner then later so that we can put together a rough draft and then get it out to the committee members so that they have four or five days to look at it before we meet next and then have a final discussion. Everything from grammar to formatting to what's in it. Berg: I can get the minutes out really quick. Morrow: Let's do that. Any other issues we want to talk about tonight. Tom? Funkhouser: No. Morrow: Charlie? Keith? Elroy? Sharon? Nancy? Creg? Will? The proposed title for this document is the "Green Papers" so that's the title that (inaudible) at our next meeting. Having said that the next item would be to schedule the next meeting, which lets see today, is the 25th of June so the next one would be - Funkhouser: (Inaudible). Morrow: The ninth of July. What is everybody looking like for the ninth of July? (Inaudible discussion) Bird: That's our Parks and Rec but that's okay because if it's out this early Walt we would be all right. Huff: That's at seven. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 12 of 13 Bird: Yeah so it starts at seven so if you got is out this early we could - Berg: We could start at 5:30. Bird: Well if we have the rough draft all picked out and everything we probably won't have that long of meeting anyway would we? Morrow: No I wouldn't visualize it unless we really goof up the rough draft. (Inaudible discussion) Morrow: A 30 minute meeting maybe a 40-minute meeting. Rountree: JoAnn isn't here so she can take the minutes and put together a couple page papers out of the minutes. Gallivan: I'll always volunteer the one whose not here. Rountree: She's on tap to pull together the rough draft out of our discussion and the meeting minutes and we will have that on the ninth. Do you want to - earlier's kind of tough. Morrow: Lets just stay with 6:00 and we can get through this thing reasonable shorter because if we all have our copy four or five days ahead we can make our comments and then we can just go around the room one loop with the suggestions that are in final form and then present it. So she's nominated and elected by acclamation. All right. Last item on the agenda is -Will Berg do you have anything? (Inaudible discussion) Morrow: Last issues anything at all, last chance for tonight? Good. Motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Gallivan: Second. Morrow: Moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting all in favor. Opposed? Motion carries. We are out of here. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:48 P.M. Golf Course Committee June 25, 2003 Page 13 of 13 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: f~C~C-~ ~~ ~ (~ i ~ 3 WALT MORROW, CHAIRMAN DATE