(Photo by Eli Lucero/The Herald Journal)
The city of Logan, Utah was presented with a total of six options at a public meeting held to discuss ways to stop years of subsidization for the course. Logan River head golf pro Jeff John would be a partner in one of the leasing proposals.
It was standing-room only in a meeting on January 29 to discuss options for potentially privatizing management of the Logan River Golf Course in Logan, Utah, The Herald Journal of Logan reported.
“It was exciting to see a room full of people that really cared about something and were passionate,” said Logan Mayor Holly Daines. “It can sometimes be hard to get people to city meetings.”
Since 2011, the golf course has required a subsidy of approximately $150,000 a year to operate, according to City Finance Director Rich Anderson, The Herald Tribune reported. This is contrary to the enterprise fund under which Logan Park operates, which requires that all costs of the course to be covered by its revenue.
When the golf course was first constructed, the public voted on whether or not the course should be paid for with a general obligation bond, The Herald Tribune reported.
“The public voted no,” Anderson said. “However, the administration felt this was an important enterprise and it could pay for itself, therefore they decided to go ahead with the project anyway with a revenue bond.”
If a revenue bond is used, Anderson said, it is assumed that the business-type activity will pay for itself, The Herald Tribune reported.
“I often get the question: What is the difference between the aquatic center and the golf course?” Anderson said. “Frankly, there isn’t a lot.” The two facilities receive a similar subsidy each year, he explained.
However, when the aquatic center was built, the residents of Logan voted to support it with money from the general fund, unlike they did for the golf course, The Herald Tribune reported.
During the January 29 meeting, six options for the future of the golf course were presented, The Herald Tribune reported. The first was to continue course management as is.
Three of the options were proposals from outside management companies, to whom the city could pay a fee to receive services to help with better management of the golf course. Services such as management, marketing, budgeting, and food-and- beverage operation would be included, The Herald Tribune reported.
“At the end of the day, risk of financial loss remains with the city.” Anderson said. “We would still have the $150,000 operating subsidy in theory.”
Anderson explained that the subsidy would be on top of the management fee the company would charge, The Herald Tribune reported.
“Certainly we don’t have any interest in adding to our expenses,” Mayor Daines said. “I’m not interested in those options.”
The other two management plans were lease-style options proposed by Great Life Golf and Victory Golf. From a financial standpoint, Anderson said these options appeal to him most, The Herald Tribune reported.
The Victory Golf Proposal came from Jeff John, the golf pro at Logan River Golf Course, and his business partner Tom Davidson, The Herald Tribune reported.
“It would be great for all parties,” Anderson said of the lease options. “if this were successful on their part and on ours, if we were to select one of these two proposals, that potentially saves us up to $150,000 [a year].”
The public comment portion of the meeting lasted for nearly an hour, and the majority of those who spoke were in favor of the city maintaining management of the course, The Herald Tribune reported.
Many said the course was a “gem” and worried that privatization of its management could damage what made it work so well. People asked if better advertising and marketing for the course had been considered as an alternative.
Both Daines and Anderson noted that better marketing was an important consideration that needed to be added to the conversation, The Herald Tribune reported. The management proposals that the city received also addressed ways to improve course marketing, it was noted.
Attendees also asked why the course’s operating arrangement could not be changed from an enterprise fund to simply using general fund money, The Herald Tribune reported.
Anderson replied that while the city officials could decide to maintain the course with money from the general fund, which is where the subsidy for it already comes, he does not think this option is appropriate, The Herald Tribune reported.
“Other municipalities have done it, no doubt,” Anderson said. “But their own justification for doing it is, ‘We don’t want to show the losses anymore.’”
The budget should show the losses, Anderson said, and city officials should then decide whether or not they are OK with subsidizing it.
Noticeably absent from the conversation, Anderson said, were the voices of those who supported privatization of course management.
Each year during the budgeting process, Anderson said there are residents who question why golf is subsidized, The Herald Tribune reported. The mayor and council members say they receive comment along these lines during other times of the year as well.
Anderson said he worries that if these people were in attendance, they may have been silenced by the atmosphere in the meeting.
“As loud and as passionate as were the voices [in support of the course],” Anderson said, “the deafening silence of those who have opposed it in the past was also very noticeable.
Mayor Daines said she does not have a specific timeline in mind for making a decision about the course, but noted that it is important to keep the operating dates of the facility in mind, The Herald Tribune reported.
“The golf course starts gearing up for the next season probably by March,” Daines said. “So if we are going to do anything differently, we do need to make a decision fairly quickly.”
Tell Us What You Think!
You must be logged in to post a comment.