Hoolehan said: Brad,
Muni's add value to small towns. Having a nice affordable golf course makes the community more attractive to live in. You may just call a appraiser and get a opinion on the value to the community the golf course adds. You may also have expenses that go indirectly to the town through things like water and sewer fees that equal lost revenue to other city departments. Does your staff assist other departments? Your $50,000 in subsidy may be smaller when you weigh some of the intangibles. Good luck.
Sean
I agree, as long as the golf is affordable. Meaning, they can't be at the same rate as a comparable golf course. If the city feels that the value of the course in the community outweighs the subsidy, then no big deal. But when greens fees are kept too low and the subsidy stretches into the millions over a few year period, something has got to give. We have a very large golf market here locally with very cheap golf. Our muni's are competitive with their pricing. Unfortunately though the courses they are competing against are backed by developers that also subsidize out of their own pocket to aid in selling homes. The city isn't selling homes and not seeing that money return except through taxes. Unfortunately, the city residents that support the course via taxes are a small minority of those that use the course. In our case, the course should have a city resident discount since those residents already support it via taxes. But, like Sean said, our city courses are also dumping grounds for reclaimed water that the city doesn't factor into their budgets. What would the cost be to apply that water to another piece of land? I bet it would almost equal the cost of the subsidy every year.
In my opinion, a $50,000/year subsidy to have affordable golf is a no brainer for the city. But, raising rates even $1/round helps offset this down to where it is not even a problem.