Golf Course Committee Townhall - October 28, 2015

The chair (Rick Stewart) started the meeting by reading bios for each of the committee members. Committee members have diverse backgrounds and many have been owners of companies and/or worked in executive level positions.

Purpose of the committee in 2012 was to shed light on financial issues surrounding the golf course. There has been some controversy over the years over how money was spent. They spent a considerable amount of time going through the numbers and presented their findings to residents. Feels that was successful.

This time around the committee was to look at an alternative to the golf course that was presented by Rob Crawley. Spent a lot of time reviewing the option presented to determine if it was viable and preferable to running the golf course.

Mark Webb went over the financial review presented in 2012 and discussed what was researched this time around. Here is the info from his PowerPoint presentation (and I apologize some are blurry):

Option B wants to create additional parks. Comparison shows there is not a savings for converting to parks. High likelihood that parks would be more expensive to maintain.

Question was asked if golf course was causing a significant burden on residents. Looked at property tax table in the State of the City from last year, which shows our property tax burden is about average for Utah County. We are the lowest of those with median income similar to Cedar Hills. Determined the golf course was not an excessive burden on the city.

This shows history of the golf course debt:

Revenues from the rental of the Vista Room and Community Center are not included in the golf financials. Those are shown in a separate fund, but the city is making a profit from Vista Room rentals.

David Driggs discussed the final report put together by the committee. They met with the city's legal counsel and staff and continued research until everyone on the committee felt they had discussed everything that needed to be discussed. David started working on the report at the end of September. The report includes legal analysis from counsel, Rob Crawley's proposal for closing the golf course, and the committee's findings and votes. Unfortunately, the public comment given at each meeting is not included but can be found in the audio files from each meeting, which are available on the city's website. 

Committee voted on these questions:

1. Do you believe Rob Crawley's Option B solution as outlined in this report is a viable plan? 7 said no, 3 said yes. 
2. Do you recommend Rob Crawley's Option B proposal be adopted by the city council? All 10 said no.
3. Do you believe the current economic status of the golf course is sustainable? All 10 said yes.
4. Do you believe that, for now, barring any significant change in economic status, the best course of action for the city council is to fully support and promote the golf course and make reasonable efforts to improve its financial viability going forward? All 10 said yes.
5. As a member of the Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee do you feel you have been given enough time and opportunity to fully express your point of view, share your facts and express your opinions? All 10 said yes.
6. Even though you may agree or disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of this committee, do you believe that our treatment of the issues has been completely transparent, that there has been no effort to deceive in the presentation of the financial and legal information, and that nothing we know of has been hidden or kept from the public? All 10 said yes.

Here are the recommendations from the committee:

The entire report can be found at www.cedarhills.org/sites/default/files/golf-course-finance-committee-report-2015-10-13.pdf.

Those who spoke during public comment all expressed appreciation for the work done and supported the findings of the committee. 

Remarks from the committee members:

Priscilla Leek - Appreciates opportunity to serve on committee. Feels they were able to learn, understand, and discuss information. She doesn't agree with everything in the recommendation, but wholeheartedly supports the recommendation to support the golf course and that we appreciate it as an asset. Feels citizens should do all we can to make our city successful, and this includes the golf course. It will now go to the Council as they are the representatives elected to make decisions.

Rob Olsen - Appreciates serving on the committee. It's been a thorough process. Appreciates everyone from the community who has been involved throughout this process. Wishes we could get more involvement from throughout the community. It's important for all of us to be involved in the process, and not just for the golf course, but in the general direction of the city.

Brent Aaron - Appreciates being a part of the committee and the integrity of the committee members. Was one of the few dissenting votes on question #1. There are times something might be feasible but doesn't mean that is the path that should be pursued. Wants to give credit to CM Crawley's significant research.

Trent Augustus - Thanked the committee members for their work and their time and effort. There has been a tremendous effort to be diligent and genuine. Nothing was left undone. He used to be the HOA president for the Cedars and has been involved for some time. Wishes more residents attended tonight but thinks most are fine with the status quo.

Rick Stewart - Feels that if the city were in a financial crisis then we would have to look at selling some of our land and making sacrifices. That is not the case. The city has been good with its finances. Per median income, we do pay less compared to other cities like ours. Feels it would be a sad thing to lose nearly 50% of our open space to new construction. Feels we would be sacrificing big things for small things because return to citizens would not have a significant impact. There would not be a significant financial benefit to residents to implementing Option B. Saying we are replacing the golf course with parks is not true as we are selling off big chunks for development and only leaving some portions for parks. The big issue for him is that 25% of our citizens live near the golf course. Those who fight tooth and nail to keep certain things from being built in our commercial zone don't have same cares for what is built on our open space. The only reason to implement Option B is if the city is financially hurting.

Gary Gygi - Thanked Rick Stewart for chairing the committee. He has been told for many years that there are many residents who want to shut down the course. The committee spoke with one voice that we should continue with the course. The residents who came to the meetings and gave public comment said we should keep the golf course. Thanked residents for coming to meetings. When the Council hears from residents, it means a lot.

Mark Webb - Thanked everyone on the committee. They had their battles but reached a good conclusion. The city is great and can be even better but needs a broad vision. The vision to eliminate the golf course to get something else is narrow. There is no reason the golf course has to go away if we need more park space, if that is a problem that needs to be solved. He voted against the golf course many years ago. We find ourselves with a golf course and it's clear the best course of action at this point is to continue with it. Commends city staff for doing excellent job with limited resources. The burden from a tax perspective is very small. 

David Driggs - When he was asked to be on the committee, he believes he was asked because there are many land use issues and he serves on the Planning Commission. Thanked the Council for approving the release of all the legal documents, it shows a willingness to be transparent. One thing that has been said is that this committee is biased. He doesn't golf and isn't biased towards golf. The goal of the committee was to meet until all facts were assessed and discussed. During public comment they were asked to get this out before the election. They barely made it, but now voters can make an informed opinion. There is a lot of information being tossed around. Encourages everyone to read through the report and make an informed decision. Some will continue to say this committee didn't do enough. He feels they did an excellent job. He wasn't biased at the beginning but is biased now against closing the course. This was after reading through the legal analysis and going through the financials. Hopes the community can move forward trying to make the golf course a success. 

Rob Crawley - We all want peace in the city. They made a lot of strides over the past few years. Bad information was given to residents in the beginning so there are residents who are upset with that. The appearance of not being open with the numbers made more angry feelings. There is a group in the city who don't live near the course and doesn't benefit from it. Understands those who live near it will be most impacted, but there are more who don't live near it and don't benefit from it. We need to see the perspective of both sides. Learned a lot about the legal ramifications. He believes there is a viable option. His analysis shows the land in Highland being sold for $50,000/acre and he's been told that is a fair price. All legal opinions we got said this can be done legally. All promises made to residents in the past should be looked at again. Doesn't feel we have a social contract to keep the course open. He doesn't feel the City Council should make a decision to close the course, but that residents should decide through an initiative process or vote. Until that happens he will be a golf course supporter. Feels the report is biased in how it was written and would like to change it, but may do this on his blog. Would like to see the city come together and either accept the golf course or want it to be parks.