10/21/2003 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/21/2003 only worth $2 million and the rest is for green space. He is all for green space. The issue becomes is it worth $3-$4 million to have that green space? Some might say yes. If it's coming out of his taxes, he would think twice about it. Let's be honest about the issue that we do not have a $6 million golf course. Mr. Dial's comments spazked comments from Council with Mr. McKay noting that, when the golf course was purchased, there was a lazge public outcry for green space in our city. We should not look at it as just a golf course but rather as part of the city's recreational facilities. We have a recreation complex that has been subsidized for at least 20 years. If you look at the whole picture, the city puts a lot of money into recreation which does not come back. However, at some point in time, the golf course is going to start paying for itself and will make money that will come back to the city. Mr. Limpert noted that, if the city had purchased the golf course in the 1970's when the opportunity arose, it would be paid for now. Without the interest and principal payments, we would be having $300,000-$400,000 profit. Last yeaz, we did a major renovation. It takes time for it all to set in-grass, etc. Given the wet nature of this year, he doesn't anticipate that we aze going to have losses for too many years to come. In the long run, believes it will become the cash cow of the Recreation Department if we combine the Recreation Center and that into the same enterprise fund. We need to have vision and foresight. Mayor Boyle made it very clear that homes overall do not make a city money. If that property had been developed into homes, we may have needed a third fire station, more police and services. It wouldn't necessarily be a net gain for the city. Finance Director Copfer explained that about $330,000 is from debt from the 1994 purchase which was bonded out in 1996, and the first payment was made in 1997. She does agree on the principle of the discussion that, if there is a $4 million asset that we purchased, we made $2.5 million in improvements. It was only worth $2 million when purchased. So perhaps of the 1996 debt of $4.2 million, $2 million should be paid off by Springvale and $2 million is recreational use. That is a discussion that some people have had-that it is partially recreational and maybe we do need to acknowledge the green space factor. Joseph Bouman, 23950 Gessner Road, asked if the $90,000 shortfall at Springvale, an enterprise fund, would come out of the General Fund and is the $62,000 the administrative fee. The answer was yes to both questions. Finance Director Copfer said the $90,000 is a projected loss and shortfall that will have to be met by the end of the year-it may be more, it may be less. It is a transfer. By law, no city fund can be in a deficit position. It's not a matter of being an enterprise fund. Because all revenue that isn't designated for any other purpose goes to the General Fund, when there is a shortfall in any of those funds, the General Fund is used. Last year, when funds were paid for Springvale, it was Council's intent that those monies be paid back. As Springvale becomes profitable, we will be looking at the monies that the General Fund has contributed. She doesn't want to speak for Council, but there was discussion regazding that. Legally, it is a transfer. Enterprise funds are not required to stand on their own, it is intended to. Mr. Bouman noted that General Fund money that paves our roads and pays our bills is paying for Springvale's inability to make money, even though it's an enterprise fund and we borrowed that money based on the fact that it could pay its own way. He wondered what the total amount owed was. Mrs. Copfer said the expectation 13