I read the letters and stories in The Leader about the city golf course. As I work I have been unable to attend any of the open houses so my knowledge is limited. I have some questions that I hope …
I read the letters and stories in The Leader about the city golf course. As I work I have been unable to attend any of the open houses so my knowledge is limited. I have some questions that I hope will be answered by the city manager herein prior to the council vote so that the readers could have real and complete information.
1) Please define “stakeholder” as used and explain why only one golfer was on the “stakeholder committee” for a golf course?
2) Is there already a grant for the assumed $4 million costs or was that just a lie?
3) How does the city subsidize the golf course to about $48,000 per year, if the city gets 6 percent of the course profits or was that also a lie?
4) The city can’t afford to mow right of ways, has to fix the water main, roads, storm water drainage, etc. How can you do this and still have enough for maintaining a new park, keeping it free from homeless encampments, and a new swimming complex?
5) How will we determine if a “pickleball court,” “swimming complex,” or trails are under-utilized?
6) Who would take on a lease for a nine-hole course even with or without a driving range? If no one, would the city hire someone to manage the course and at what cost to the taxpayers?
7) Why was the survey without a “none of the above” option?
As a math teacher and past city employee
I know how manipulation works. The “survey” was designed to have two options; the one they want and a terrible one. A golf course without a driving range will never be leased and will die – which seems to be what the city council desires. Why note make it a public vote on a ballot?