Auroraadvocate.com - Other city courses operate differently than local plan

by Ken Lahmers

Editor

Aurora -- The city is not alone in its quest to become the owner of a golf course.

Three nearby cities already own such properties, and their courses reportedly operate at a nearly break even point in terms of revenue.

At City Council's March 9 meeting, an ordinance calling for the purchase of Aurora Golf and Country Club will be on second reading.

Plans are to buy the 226-acre facility which surrounds Trails Run on the near east side of town for $3.1 million, plus $200,000 in real estate taxes and closing costs and associated fees.

Mayor Lynn McGill told Council on Feb. 23 the city would take out notes to buy the property and would lease the course and its facilities to a management firm.

McGill told the Advocate the city would not subsidize the operations and any risk would be on the lessee.

"The city would be responsible for some capital expenditures such as heating-air conditioning of the clubhouse and improving cart paths, parking lots and the irrigation system," he said.

"All of those expenditures would benefit the city even if the property is not successful as a golf course and could be used for other purposes."

He compared the city's responsibility for the facilities to that of Aurora Library, which is owned by the city and operated by the Portage County District Library.

"We want the course to be available to the public and hope that it will be successful," McGill noted. "If the purchase is approved, we hope the course will be open for the coming golf season."

Other municipal courses

Three nearby municipally-owned courses differ in the way they are operated than what McGill is proposing in that workers are all employed by the cities or the courses themselves.

Hudson has operated Ellsworth Meadows Golf Club since 1998, when 160 acres were purchased for the same reason Aurora officials have cited -- to keep the property as green space.

In a recent story in the Hudson Hub-Times, City Manager Anthony Bales noted, "We didn't buy a golf course to have a golf course; we wanted to preserve the land."

Hudson Councilman John Jeffers said if the city had not purchased the golf course, a housing development would have likely been built and burdened the school district.

However, although officials said Ellsworth Meadows is managed well, it is not hitting revenue projections estimated at the beginning of each year.

The course generates about $1.2 million a year, according to city finance reports, and costs the city an average of about $50,000 more each year.

For each year in the next five, the golf course is expected to operate between $45,000 and $55,000 in the red, with a negative balance of $53,830 in 2009 increasing to $256,331 by 2013.

Recently, Bales proposed subsidizing Ellsworth Meadows to keep the course operating in the black, and that suggestion is being discussed.

Bales said the quality of the course would drop if the city doesn't subsidize it.

Ellsworth Meadows, formerly Big Springs, was purchased by the city with a voter-approved bond issue. The city paid $2.4 million for the 100 acres of Big Springs and $878,000 for an adjacent 60 acres.

The course employs five people full-time and 47 seasonally. Bales said it is being maximized with the highest number of customers and best services for them.

Bryan Mineard, manager of Gleneagles in Twinsburg, said the course employs about the same number of people as Ellsworth Meadows and the city has had to spend under $100,000 each year for the past few years from its general fund to operate it.

Operations cost and revenue has been similar to Ellsworth Meadows at just over $1 million a year.

The city acquired Gleneagles in 1996 and continues to pay off a loan which was obtained to fund the purchase.

Mineard said at least one Council member suggested recently that the city look into leasing out management.

Meanwhile, last November Solon residents voted 68 percent to 32 percent to change the city's charter and make Grantwood Golf Course a city department. The city has owned the property since 1972.

Supporters then had said it might have been the only way to save the financially struggling golf course.

Previously, the course operated independently from the city, could not use taxpayer money and was governed by a board of trustees.

Before last fall's vote, Grantwood reportedly had owed the city $1.76 million in three loans used to improve the course.

After the vote, Council "forgave" the loans, allowing the city to transfer money from its capital improvement fund to the earned interest and general funds.

Course director Gary Mazzeo said Grantwood is alive and well, and the city plans to spend up to $500,000 this year on capital improvements.

The figure is so high, he said, because a lot of improvements which have been neglected for years will be made.

"Once you get to the point where equipment is updated, the expenditures are not as much each year," he said.

Mazzeo said the golf course has spent and brought in about $1.4 million each year over the past few. He admitted golf participation has fallen in recent years, and "this year could be a bad one for golf."

E-mail:

klahmers@recordpub.com

Phone: 330-688-0088 ext. 3155

3.	Posted by Ken Holeski March 10, 2009
	No personal offense to you, CCCraves, but the City needs to operate and own party centers and pools and gyms as much as it does a golf course. I'm lost on why it should be the obligation/responsiblility of city governments to provide entertainment for residents. There seems to be some comfort in the suggestion that a private company would be willing to operate a business that is expected to generate losses. And if their contract is a "net" contract where they are paid only a fee and the income or in this case LOSS would flow to the City, it would create a new expense. This acquisition would INCREASE the need for cash by the City of Aurora. I would not generate cash. If the City is going to get into the entertainment business, why not try and buy some of the old rides from the Sea World or Geauga Lake. Why not go completely into the business and offer all kinds of new and fun activities. In my opinion, city government's mandate should be to provide utilities, security and schools and that is it. Those items are utilized by virtually all residents at some time in their life living in a community. Entertainment should be left to the individual resident to choose what they want to enjoy at their own expense. Not at the expense of the taxpayer. I would encourage all residents that are opposed to the acquisition of the Aurora Country Club to contact your Councilman and the Mayor. They should hear from you before the third reading of the acquisition is made. I have recently learned that it may be only the fact that an IRS regulation related to the borrowing of money by a City is preventing the acquisition. It is important to let you opinion be know before it is too late. Ken Holeski

1.	Posted by Ken Holeski March 5, 2009
	The City of Aurora should NOT acquire the failed Aurora Country Club. Neither the Mayor or any Councilman has indicated that the property will add revenue to the budget of the City. Accordingly, the City of Aurora is considering the acquisition of a property whose only benefit will be that of a money pit for the benefit of green space. All of the discussions with other cities indicate a negative cash flow, but that doesn't take into consideration the equipment that is acquired to maintain the golf courses. Equipment is thought of as a capital investment by cities and not as an expense since they don't pay taxes. To the Community that provides the funding though it is a USE OF CASH that must be obtained by TAXES if the project does not PROVIDE CASH. The Aurora Country Club would NOT PROVIDE CASH. What company would agree to OPERATE AT A LOSS knowing that its golf course will ALWAYS LOSE MONEY and/or REQUIRE CASH forever. No city needs to look for more ways to waste taxpayer dollars, particularly in this day and age of deficits and rising taxes. The green space is stuck in the middle of the city surrounded by a few subdivisions. It is not in the city center adjacent to roadways where all residents may benefit from the luxury of the green space. It is an isolated piece of property that would be a complete luxury for the City to own at a cost. The cost being more employess, more funds used for the purchase of equipment and ultimately the need for new and higher taxes. When will it stop? Lastly, the price that is being discussed is well above that which was "shopped" around before the city got involved in the discussion. Isn't it interesting how when it is "other people's money" or not a "businessman's money" involved how the price is so much higher? Before any deal is made, and I hope no deal is made, an appraisal should be obtained by third parties to determine if the price is right and the residents of Aurora should have a final VOTE on the acquisition. Phone your Councilman or the Mayor at (330) 995-9123 and tell them that you are OPPOSED to the acquisition of the Aurora Country Club. To his credit, Mayor McGill answers his own phone. Ken Holeski