Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 12 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
City should help golf course
Published Saturday, May 3, 2008
As someone who plays golf frequently at Pebble Lake Golf Course, many will simply dismiss my opinion on the recent request for the city to provide financial help to Pebble Lake Golf Course as biased and selfish, based on the fact that I want a nice golf course in Fergus Falls.
If you feel that way, you can stop reading right now.
That said, here goes: In my opinion, the city ought to provide at least a good chunk of the $138,000 the golf board requested.
Believe me, I get it when many out there will hear about the request and say things like “why should we use our tax dollars so the rich people in Fergus Falls can play golf?” or “if the golfers want a nice course, why don’t they pay for it?”
Facts first: Pebble Lake Golf Course – owned by the city -- has, in essence, lost money over the past five years. The revenue they generate from memberships, greens fees, cart rental and tournaments has been enough to pay the salaries of staff members. But there hasn’t been enough left over to replace equipment.
And as you can probably guess, good equipment -- lawn mowers, brush cutters, earth movers and other vehicles -- is an absolute necessity for a golf course. If the lawn mowers stop working, the fairways, greens and roughs will become overgrown, and in short order, you won’t have a golf course.
If the naysayers question these facts, the course’s revenue and expense statements are public information. I know because, as a member, I was sent the statements.
What options the course has is another matter.
Most would say, if you want to increase revenue, raise rates for memberships (season passes) and greens fees (one-time rates). The board did that last year, raising membership rates about five percent from the previous year.
But economics would tell you raising rates won’t necessarily solve the problem. Unlike paying taxes, if someone feels golf is too expensive, they can choose to not play.
So hypothetically, let’s say a course has 100 members, and golf membership costs $100, generating $10,000 in revenue. If the course management raises the membership rate to $150, but 35 members decide not to renew, the course would collect $9,750 in memberships, $150 less than the previous year.
That decline in membership at Pebble last year is the reason why new members are being offered a discount this year.
The rate for greens fees is particularly dependent on the market, simply because there are a lot of golf courses nearby, and the number of courses has continued to increase in the past decade.
In other words, raising rates is an option, but only to a point.
The other option is to allow only memberships, and charge a membership fee five to 10 times higher than the current one. After all, there’s likely a percentage who would pay a lot more to golf in Fergus Falls. There’s a word for this type of operation: a private golf course. And questions of class aside, whether there are enough people out there who could afford such an exclusive membership and be willing to pay for it is truly in question.
The other option is to reduce expenses. The only way to do that is to reduce greenskeeping staff, or, once a piece of equipment becomes unusable, do without it. And reducing staff time and equipment means eroding the quality of the golf course: the greens won’t be as smooth, fast and nice, the fairways won’t be as lush, the trees will become overgrown, the sand traps unclean.
From a financial perspective, the golf course could probably get away with not being as nice. Avid golfers would continue to be members, and some non-members would continue to play a round or two a year.
But the question is, does Fergus Falls really want a shabby golf course? The local golfers, of course, certainly don’t. However, let’s take the golfers out of the equation.
Pebble Lake Golf Course is a chip in the quality-of-life bucket. When a person decides to take a job in Fergus Falls, or when a business owner decides to locate in Fergus Falls, the quality of life pieces come into play. How good is the community’s school system? Does the community have nice parks? How good is the community’s hospital and clinic? Does the community have a wide variety of retail here?
And I’m fairly certain that some of those prospective residents or business owners ask the question, “How nice is the community’s golf course?”
The bottom line is, in comparison with the cost of other quality-of-life amenities – the school, the proposed hockey arena and a solution to the city beach are a few that come to mind – the golf course board is asking for a paltry sum.
The theme rung by Fergus Falls residents time and again is that we should preserve what we have, rather than building something new. If we’re living by that theme, then helping the golf course should be a no-brainer.
Joel Myhre is The Journal’s general manager. E-mail him at joel.myhre@fergusfallsjournal.com
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on May 5, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the question is, if this has been losing money for years what will change to make this self - sufficent and not having the same request for cash a couple years down the road?
Posted by jafo (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 12:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PLGC has been a "private" club for as long as I can remember. The movers and shakers in town don't like sharing the course with commoners... never have. Now, it seems, they want the commoners to help pay. Neat trick though, they will get funding from the city's residents, and still, the movers and shakers have the course to themselves. Ingenious, really. Hmmm, losing money five years in a row? Sound like management failure. Being it's city/public owned... are the financials available to the public??
Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While I agree the course has a history of being difficult to play if your weren't one of the elite. I think the situation has drastically improved. And just because somebody cussed you out because you were hackin up the course and playing unreasonably slow doesn't mean it's full of "movers and shakers".
Posted by jafo (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I suppose it's possible the atmosphere has changed out there, if so, then maybe if it were more affordable... more people would join, and the money problems would be gone.
FYI, I can hit the ball OK, and I can get around the course pretty quick. You may be assuming too much. ;-)
Posted by BloopTriple (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand your arguments, but the only benefit you cited for the public at large is that it can help recruit workers.
That alone doesn't seem nearly enough to warrant the city plowing thousands of tax dollars into the golf course.
If golfers aren't willing to pay the true cost of their activities through membership, they have voted with their checkbook that the golf course isn't valuable enough to them. And if it's not valuable enough to the people who actually use it, I don't see why the people who DON'T use it should subsidize that activity.
It's about choices. Who would vote to subsidize golf while the pothole in front of their home doesn't get fixed?
And at a time when people are struggling to pay their health bills, electrical bills, heat bills, vehicle costs, and yes, taxes, why would we divert people's money to golf?
Posted by ffresident (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Real Estate isn't doing well... is the city going to help those who can't sell their homes too? What about the real estate agents struggling because of the market?
I have a small business, many people do... could the city help us out too?
How can the city justify giving money to fix up a golf course, when there are several other businesses in town that could equally use the help?
It just doesn't add up.
Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The course attracts tourists!!! If IT does well local business does well, of course the city should help it out.
Hundreds of high school players and their parents will come to Fergus over the next month for competition and thousands of dollars will be raised over the summer from charity events held on the course.
Obviously your "businesses" can't get or keep people coming to this town so why complain about the city supporting an organization that does?
Posted by ffresident (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To follow your logic tippy, why is the city not getting big name restaurants here than? And places to shop? Or, things for kids to do? Why are they not offering incentives to get more businesses or recreation here, so people are drawn in? I understand helping the golf course a little bit, but one has to wonder why the city is choosing to support THIS organization, yet does nothing about anything else. There are plenty of opportunities the city could take to attract tourists - the golf course isn't the only way.
Posted by BloopTriple (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Certainly, the golf course does do good things, and should be commended for the charity events. But if charity is the goal, wouldn't it be more effective for the city to simply take the $138,000 and give it to charity?
And plenty of businesses attract tourists themselves. Red Horse Ranch Arena pulls in tourists, but doesn't get a dime from the city. The geese at Lake Alice draw in tourists to feed them. But if the geese from Lake Alice showed up in council chambers demanding $138,000, would anyone give it to them?
Posted by old46guy (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The argument goes on in every city in the US regarding "city owned" recreation opportunities. When is the last time Lake Alice made money, Grotto park made money, the open hockey rinks in the winter, the Wright Park area, NP Park, the tennis courts at the athletic park, etc. etc. These are opportunites for the residents and visitors to enjoy but they dont all MAKE money, they are there for all of us to use and enjoy, thats why we all pay taxes to keep them running, not to make money off them. Oh yes, lets not forget all the profit that the public beach at Pebble Lake brings in. get a grip!!!!
Posted by tippy98c (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So give incentives to business's, earmark money for Lake Alice, we'll dress the geese in costumes...whatever we gotta do AND help the golf course.
Tourists actually come here to feed geese?
Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sell it to a private investor. Government owned business's almost always fail. No incentive to make money when you know the tax payer will bail it out. Look at our government as a whole. From city to the fed. They could'nt run a lemonade stand. Example : U.S. postal service I believe has been in the red since day 1
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)