# Services Committee - September 11, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · September 11, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/150 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/150?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-09-11 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 10,564 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee convened on September 11, 2007, at 11:00 AM with Mr. Ellinger presiding as the meeting's presiding officer. The committee addressed two primary agenda items during the session, focusing on traffic safety improvements and recreational facility updates. The committee took action on the Brynell/Northside Multi-Way Stop proposal, which received approval, while also receiving an informational presentation regarding the Par 3 Golf Course. Throughout the meeting, the committee conducted three formal votes and heard from two members of the public who provided comments on the matters under consideration. The session demonstrated the committee's ongoing commitment to addressing both infrastructure safety concerns and community recreational needs. ## Attendance All committee members were present for the September 11, 2007 meeting. **Present:** • Ellinger • Myers • James • Blues • DeCamp • Beard • Crosbie • McChord • Blevins • Lane **Absent:** None **Late:** None The committee achieved full attendance with all ten members participating in the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took three unanimous votes during the September 11, 2007 meeting, with all 10 members present voting in favor of each motion. **Multi-Way Stop Request** [timestamp: 01:00] CM McChord motioned to request a multi-way stop at Brynell Dr and Northside Dr, seconded by CM Blevins. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays. Voting in favor were Ellinger, Myers, James, Blues, DeCamp, Beard, Crosbie, McChord, Blevins, and Lane. **School Board Agreement Investigation** [timestamp: 02:00] CM Beard motioned to have the administration and school board present to the Council what happened to the $750K agreement, with CM Myers providing the second. The motion passed unanimously with all 10 members voting in favor: Ellinger, Myers, James, Blues, DeCamp, Beard, Crosbie, McChord, Blevins, and Lane. **Par 3 Golf Course Subcommittee** [timestamp: 02:30] CM DeCamp motioned to appoint a Par 3 Golf Course subcommittee, seconded by CM Beard. This motion also passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays. The members voting in favor were Ellinger, Myers, James, Blues, DeCamp, Beard, Crosbie, McChord, Blevins, and Lane. All three motions demonstrated complete consensus among the Committee members, with no opposition or abstentions recorded for any of the votes. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the Committee during the public comment period, both focusing on traffic safety concerns at the intersection of Brynell and Northside. **Amy Harney** [timestamp: 01:30] spoke first, expressing concerns about traffic safety at the Brynell and Northside intersection. Harney reported frequent minor accidents and near misses occurring at this location and emphasized the need for the installation of a stop sign to improve safety conditions. **Michelle Riddle** [timestamp: 01:35] followed with additional comments on the same intersection. Riddle specifically highlighted the danger posed to children who cross at Brynell and Northside, reinforcing the previous speaker's position by voicing her support for installing a stop sign at the location. Both speakers focused exclusively on the same traffic safety issue, presenting a unified community concern about the intersection's current safety conditions and the need for traffic control measures. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on September 11, 2007, featured significant community opposition regarding one major issue. **Meadowbrook Golf Course Sale** The primary contested item involved the potential sale of Meadowbrook Golf Course by the school board, which generated substantial community concern. Residents opposed the sale due to the golf course's dual function as both a recreational facility and a critical storm water retention area for the surrounding neighborhood. Community members expressed concerns about losing this important green space that serves multiple purposes beyond recreation. The golf course's role in managing storm water runoff was highlighted as a key environmental consideration that would be lost if the property were sold and potentially developed. The nature of the opposition centered on the community's desire to preserve the golf course for its recreational value and its essential function in the area's storm water management system. Residents viewed the facility as serving important public purposes that would be difficult to replace if the school board proceeded with the sale. The meeting did not indicate a final resolution to this contentious issue, suggesting that further discussion and community input would be needed before any decision on the golf course's future could be made. ## Brynell/Northside Multi-Way Stop [timestamp: 01:00] The committee reviewed a proposal to install a multi-way stop at the intersection of Brynell Drive and Northside Drive. The discussion centered on traffic studies and community feedback regarding safety concerns at this location. Brad Frazier presented information on the intersection's traffic patterns and accident history. The analysis included data on vehicle volumes, pedestrian activity, and documented safety incidents that supported the need for additional traffic control measures. CM Stinnett and CM McChord participated in the discussion, examining the technical requirements and community support for the proposed multi-way stop installation. The committee considered factors such as traffic flow impacts, enforcement considerations, and the intersection's geometric characteristics. Community input played a significant role in the evaluation process, with residents expressing concerns about safety conditions at the Brynell Drive and Northside Drive intersection. The committee weighed these public safety concerns against the traffic engineering analysis to determine the appropriateness of the proposed traffic control device. Following the presentation and discussion of the traffic studies and community feedback, the committee approved the installation of the multi-way stop at Brynell Drive and Northside Drive. This decision reflected the committee's determination that the intersection met the necessary criteria for this type of traffic control measure and would address the safety concerns raised by area residents. ## Par 3 Golf Course [timestamp: 02:00] The committee discussed the future of Meadowbrook Golf Course and potential alternatives for maintaining a par 3 golf facility in the community. The discussion centered around the school board's consideration of selling the property and exploring options to preserve golf access for residents. Key speakers included Jerry Hancock, Dr. Stevens, CM Blevins, CM Beard, and CM Moloney, who participated in examining various scenarios for the golf course's future operations and ownership structure. The committee reviewed the current status of Meadowbrook Golf Course and discussed potential impacts if the school board proceeds with a sale. Participants explored alternatives that could maintain a par 3 golf course for community use, considering both operational and financial aspects of different arrangements. Various concerns were raised regarding the transition process, community access, and the long-term viability of maintaining golf facilities under different ownership or management structures. The discussion included consideration of how to preserve recreational opportunities for residents while addressing the school board's needs. The agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The committee gathered information and perspectives to better understand the situation and potential pathways forward for maintaining golf facilities in the community. The discussion provided a foundation for future deliberations on this matter as developments with the school board's decision-making process continue. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Request a multi-way stop at Brynell Dr and Northside Dr - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Have the administration and school board present to the Council what happened to the $750K agreement - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Appoint a Par 3 Golf Course subcommittee --- ## Full transcript ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] It is 11 o'clock. Let's begin the services committee. I'll recognize Mr. Stennett and Dr. Stevens to make a quorum. The first item on the agenda was with Mr. Stennett. It is a Brunel Northside multi-way stop. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Everyone should have in their packet a copy of the study pertaining to this intersection. Brunel Drive at Northside Drive. And if Brad Frazier, if you could kind of give us the executive summary of the study and what the recommendation is at this point and what the current situation there is in terms of traffic calming measures that have previously been taken, I think that would be a good start. Thank you, Brad. Yes, sir. Brad Frazier, Traffic Engineering. To summarize the report that's in your packet dated March 12th, a 24-hour study was done within the intersection area of Brunel Drive and Northside Drive. Looking at the peak volumes for the eight-hour traffic for the major approach, which is Brunel Drive in this case, showed 41% of the volume to meet the 300 vehicles criteria for that warrant. And then for the minor, which was Northside Drive, 57 vehicles were recorded, which would be just 28% of the volume required for the other approach. So that warrant was not met at that intersection. We also checked the collision history at that intersection, which was one collision in the past three years of the analysis. Five or more in a 12-month period is the warrant for the Federal Highway Administration, so it was not met. We also looked at the area and noted that there was other multi-way or four-way stops within the vicinity, in particular in proximity of Deep Springs Elementary, which we had one located at St. Anthony's, which was located 350 feet away, and then approximately 800 feet away was also another one, which was Highcrest Drive. Council Member Stinnett also talked about what else had been done in that area. The school zone has a 25-mile-per-hour limit with flashing beacons installed along Burnell Drive within that area. Based on that, the warrants were not met, so therefore the conclusion was to go ahead and leave the intersection as it is at this point. Thank you, Brad. I appreciate your comments and the review of that traffic study. For the council member's benefit, I did pass out a letter from the principal of Deep Springs that is also supported by several of the teachers that live in the area and also have a couple of constituents that have helped spirit some of this effort. If you would like to ask them, make any additional comments. There is support from the school system to add a four-way stop. This is a major intersection where, for nine months of the year at least, children are crossing every morning. And they have around 450 students in the school. More than half of them are walkers. And probably half of that come from that direction to school every day. That is one of the big needs is slowing the traffic down as you approach the school. Now, we did install the traffic beacons a year and a half ago, the flashing yellow lights. That has helped somewhat. But, again, people are not slowing down to the point where they're abiding by the speed limits through there. And there is a need from a pedestrian standpoint to have some other type of control in there. I know traffic engineering, the warrants are not met for volume. But I think if you look between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. and definitely in the afternoons, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., there is a great deal more traffic in those time frames than there is in a normal course of a day. Would anyone like to hear any additional comments from the constituents at this time or other information? Would the constituents like to come to the mic and give any additional information? And if you would, just give your name and your address, please. Hi, I'm Amy Harney, and I live at 601 Northside, which is right on the corner of Brinell and Northside. And there might have only been one accident reported, but we have lived there for two years. And within a three-month period, there were three accidents. So there might have been some unreported accidents to the police department. But there were several minor fender benders. One time a school bus almost got hit. Last week we saw a moped rider who almost got hit. And it's pretty frequent. It's probably about once a week we hear the tires squealing. We live right there on the corner, so we're looking out the window. And there's people who are almost getting hit on a weekly basis there. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi, my name is Michelle Riddle. I live at 605. Again, my just concern is for the children in the mornings and the afternoons. There have been several accidents. I work at the police department, so I'm always going out there and trying to make sure everything is all right. I just wanted to make, you know, clear that we would love to have the stop sign in that position. They have put no parking signs there. But with stuff going on during the schools, people are still parking there. And there's really not much more we can do besides just to ask for that stop sign. Thank you. Thank you. I would add one additional comment. At St. Anthony and Browndale and at Highcrest on Browndale on your map there, there are already four-way stops in place. That adds a little bit to the confusion that there should be one at Northside, but most people think there should be, but then they coast to the intersection. And it does create somewhat of some confusion there at Northside at Browndale. I realize those streets are very close together, but there is a natural tendency to slow down at Northside after having gone through the two previous stop signs, going perpendicular to it. Anybody else? Mr. DeCamp? Do we provide crossing guards at the corner of Northside? Yes. There are currently a crossing guard that crosses students on the north side of Northside Drive from Browndale to the other side of Browndale. But they don't stop the traffic if they're coming down from Deep Springs to Northside and they're crossing over the other way? Right. If they're actually crossing Browndale along Northside side, I don't believe there is a crossing guard there just the other way, just along Browndale. Right. It was my understanding that whether there was a stop sign there or not, the crossing guards were responsible for stopping traffic if there is no stop sign. I'm just curious. I mean, I've heard one thing, and yet I think I've seen in other places where there is not a stop sign, but the crossing guard does stop traffic if they have children crossing. I would be terribly surprised if they didn't do that. I mean, what's the sense of having a crossing guard, whether there's a stop sign or not, that doesn't stop traffic when students are crossing? I just be interested in knowing why, if they don't do it, why they don't do it, because I think that they are supposed to do it. It was my understanding that they did it both ways, but whether there was a stop sign or not. Mr. McCord. Thank you. Since Councilmember Stinnett is not on this committee, I'd like to make the formal motion to add a four-way stop at Brownell and Northside So moved. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Beard. Well, I'm just somewhat curious how St. Anthony is justified, or Highcrest is justified, but not Northside. It seems like St. Anthony even has access out to Brown Station, as does Northside. You would think they'd have the same traffic volumes, essentially. And is it just whoever gets there first gets one? I would favor myself going ahead and installing one at Northside. Thank you. Mr. Berlevin. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Stinnett, are you comfortable that the neighborhood is all right with three straight stop signs along this road? You know, I think if it comes down to safety, absolutely, especially for the kids that live right there and are walking to school every day. Will there be additional frustration? I'm sure there will be, as there are any time a new stop sign is placed in Fayette County. But I think in terms of safety and support from the school system and the parents that live right there, I think I would be in agreement with that. Okay. The neighborhoods and the safety of the school children is all I really need to hear. I would like to ask Mr. Frazier a favor. Here we are again with a collector street with people doing cut-throughs. How many of you, I've been on the council, what, eight months now, and we've had a ton of these. And our only options seem to be install a stop sign over your objections, or we go out and do all the surveys and so forth with the neighborhoods and say, well, do you want speed humps or some other traffic calming thing? But they all have almost draconian restrictions on them. It seems like there's no middle ground for us here. Is there a stop sign or something that doesn't allow buses? Help me out here. Snow plows. Snow plows. Yeah, see, we're all quoting from chapter and verse already. Could we at our next services meeting have you break down what our options are in situations like this? And I would love to see something that's in between a stop sign and something draconian like the curb cuts. Not curb cuts, but. Full belts. Full belts. We can do that. That's not a problem. We're currently working on that. When I first came here, I think it was one of the comments that you had at services committee was that there is no middle ground. So we are looking to list out new alternatives and everything else that could be done to help out with collector roads. That's fantastic. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. We'll put that on for the next committee. Any other further comment, discussion? At this time, would you vote, please? That passes. The next item on the agenda is the par 3 golf course. And this was brought forward by Dr. Stephens. And I think we have some people here to speak. Dr. Stephens? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I move to put this in your committee because of the rather exuberant response I've had from the public with questions about the Meadowbrook golf course. I was a little surprised at the volume of interest in this. I think I received about 12 letters, e-mails, and so forth, and one petition that had 19 names on it. So I thought it was something about which we needed to ferret out the facts, if we could. I'm sorry that nobody is here representing the school board, but Mr. Jerry Hancock, the director of the Parks and Recreation Division, and Mr. Mike Fields, the director of golf for the urban county government, are both here, and they can, I think, tell us their viewpoints on this issue of Meadowbrook golf course. And it's pending sale by the Fayette County School District. Thank you. At the appraised value, I think, which is $2.5 million. Which will result, of course, in the closure of the golf course. Mr. Hancock? Thank you, Dr. Stephens. We're here to talk about Meadowbrook. We didn't know what format would be more appropriate. We have some written remarks that we're going to give to each of you. I can throw them up on the overhead if you'd like, or I can just talk through them at your preference. Probably for the people in the TV audience, you might want to go ahead and put them up and let them see it, too. Bless you. Well, let me begin. We're here to talk about Meadowbrook golf course, which, as you know, has been in the Parks family for about 40 years, and recently the school board announced to us their intention to sell that property. That brought a number of people out to speak to their displeasure at that decision, and so we wanted to share with you some of the facts of who plays there and what our alternatives are. So the first page shows just a brief overview of how big Meadowbrook is relative to the rest of our golf courses. As you can see, we did about 140,000 rounds in the year, ended June 30, 07. Fourteen thousand of those rounds at Meadowbrook, 8,000 at Avon, and Kearney, Picadome, and Tate's Creek do substantially more for a total of 140,000. Our gross revenue in the golf courses last year, excluding food and beverage, was about $3.2 million. And the reason I share that with you is to indicate the relative size of golf and the importance of golf to us in recreation and parks generally. Our pools do about $500,000 a year. We do about $400,000 in recreation, $200,000 in rentals, and another $153,000, for a total of about $4.5 million, of which golf is clearly the largest portion, $3.2 million excluding food and beverage. So golf is important to us. Meadowbrook is a modest piece of that, but it's an important role, as we'll get back to. The next slide shows generally it's important for you to know that golf is down. It's a declining business. It's greatly overbuilt across the country. McKinsey and Company in 1984 or something said this country could open a new golf course every day for the rest of the millennium and the world could absorb it. Well, they were just dramatically wrong. So there's overbuilding all over the country at the same time that golf is perceived as a sport that's expensive to play and it takes a long time. Americans today work more hours, and having four and a half hours to dedicate to a sport is something a lot of folks don't have. So golf participation is down, and golf participation per course is down even more because, as I said, there's a lot more courses. There are ten more courses in central Kentucky than there were ten years ago. Ten years ago we did 55,000 rounds at Lakeside and you had to stand in line for an hour and a half to get on. Today we do 35,000 rounds. The city used to do 200,000 rounds. Today we do 140,000 rounds. So golf is down all over the place. We bought Picket Home in 2000 and brought it from about 8,000 rounds from our previous owner to where we're doing about 24,000 rounds now, and it's a very successful little golf course. The way people play has changed, and again, nationally the game is in decline, in part because of the expense. But primarily on a player per course and a profit dollar per course basis, golf is much less profitable than it used to be. Now let's look at Meadowbrook. Meadowbrook has been operated by us since 1970. We have an operating budget of about $182,000 and our expenses, excuse me, our revenue is $112,000 and our expenses were $182,000 last year. We did about 14,000 rounds, and as I will show you in a minute, that number is down significantly from where it was ten years ago. The role that Meadowbrook plays today is both as a feeder system, it's where people learn how to play the game, as well as a place for seniors to play because it's not as busy, the holes aren't as long. You don't have to walk as far between the tee and the green or between the green and the next tee. So it's a good place for folks to get exercise, and it's operated as a feeder system for us for this whole 40 years that we've had the course. There are a number of very significant positives about Meadowbrook. It's an excellent facility for people to learn. It's not as crowded. There isn't the pressure to hit the ball and move on. There's no ranger behind you to move on. It allows a low impact opportunity for seniors to walk for a couple of hours, and as I said, with a shorter distance between holes, folks don't have to walk as far. It's not as difficult. It takes less time to play. It's affordable. It also offers a short game practice area for guys like Dr. Stevens that need to go and practice once in a while. They can go to Meadowbrook and bone up on their shots. It works in that vein as well. It's not just a practice course or a course for seniors to walk or a course for juniors. It's all of those things. It also contributes, because of our dedicated fee in golf, to the overall golf dedicated fees, which we use to provide improvements that don't come from the general fund. And it's the only affordable Part III in the county. So it has a very real role for us. And it's used by a variety of people across the community. There's a ladies' league that's been there since 1970. We've talked to those ladies, and I'll tell you what their thoughts are on this in a moment. We've got a number of programs over there for middle school people. For five years now, we've been offering a special for youth under 16 to play for free if they come with a paying adult. It's been our strong desire to try and correct the decline in golf by affordably offering golf for juniors. We want kids to learn how to play, and those that pick it up and enjoy it, we hope, will become lifelong game users and course users here in Fayette County. So we have been offering the game for free for young people for five years now. There are some disadvantages to Meadowbrook. To those of you who have been there, it's an old, old building in the classic style. It's not ADA compliant. The rest ways, walkways, doorways are all narrow. It's a very, very modest cinder block building. It's operated at a loss for the last few years. But the loss that we've sustained is really quite modest relative to what we think the value of that course is. It's important for you all to know that swimming pools and many, many, many of the programs and parks don't operate at a profit. So it's not our concern that Meadowbrook loses a little bit of money. Our concern is how are we going to incorporate all the folks that play there and enjoy it. As you can see in the left-hand column, rounds have crashed. They're almost half what they were ten years ago. Our revenues correspondingly have declined in some real measure by us giving away golf for juniors. So we've recognized that. And our expenses have grown a little bit each year as the cost of petroleum-based chemicals and equipment and gasoline and salaries and whatnot have gone up. But our expenses are relatively modest and have increased very modestly over the ten years. The problem is there are fewer and fewer and fewer people playing the course. And the last number that shows a loss of $44,000, we want to point out that to you and to revenue and to budgeting, that that was an anomaly based on every ten years we have 27 pay periods in a year. And we got hit with that last year, which socked another $20,000 or something on to, or not $20,000, probably closer to $10,000 or $12,000 to our payroll. And therefore, our loss is there. Okay. Next page speaks to the issue of what are we going to do. There is no available par 3 for beginners, juniors, or ladies to play in Fayette County. None of the other golf courses that we operate can fill the void without substantial investment or major changes to the course. The other courses are simply too long. Meadowbrook's a little over 2,000 yards. Our shortest other course is going to be 3,000 yards. A senior who's looking for exercise to spend two and a half hours Monday through Friday in the morning isn't going to find that 50% greater length attractive. There's a much longer walk between holes. Even if we put ladies' tees or junior tees or something further down the courses, they'd still have to walk from the green to the new tee. So there's no way to get around having to walk the entire 3,000 yards. So there's not an easy solution for us at any of our existing golf courses. However, closing Meadowbrook is why we're here today. There are a lot of people that are going to find that possibility negative, and we need to work toward seeing what the solutions are. First thing to come to mind is the effort on the part of the Larry Gilbert Foundation over the last eight or ten years to create a learning center. The council set aside on two occasions a two-year reservation on property in the back of Veterans Park for the Larry Gilbert Foundation to try and fundraise and potentially raise the money to build the course. There are 76 acres out there, part of which is in Jesmond County. It has its own water source, has a big pond there. It's an existing park. Some new family homes are creeping up around it. The foundation, the Larry Gilbert Foundation, has found and made commitments with a number of groups, including UK and private philanthropists in the community, to assist in either providing cash or in-kind contributions or professional services. Space also has easy access. There's a big sewer that runs right through it. There's some real positives about it. And it would, if money were free, allow us an opportunity to grow the game, to allow for both junior and senior play and allow us to create a chipping putting area that would allow true teaching, in addition to a lighted driving range that would allow for revenue opportunity at the same time. So there are some positives out there. The negatives are that the land is becoming surrounded. As time goes on, the prospect of us putting up lights for night driving range becomes more and more problematic. The cost was estimated in 2002 to be $3.4 million. There is a strong likelihood that that cost would be higher today. In a down market, as I have explained to you, it's a little difficult to accurately project what the profit might be, what the revenue side of the equation might be. We've done that, but it's some pretty soft stuff at this point. One of the problems here, however, with respect to the seniors is that it's very hilly. It's about 70 feet from the high to the low over there. It's a big bowl, if you will. The prospective location of the learning center would be on top, and no matter how you cut it, folks would be increasingly walking down and then they'd have to walk back. So it's not as flat as Meadowbrook. So it has that impact on seniors and their ability to walk. And the important thing I want to make here now is that the proposed Larry Gilbert Learning Center is in fact that. It's a learning facility. It's not just a par 3. It would involve costs of having teaching professionals, sand traps, different kinds of turf, a true learning facility where the golfer gets lots of different challenges. This is not a plan to build a par 3. So there would be some considerable additional costs to us that don't exist at the Meadowbrook facility right now. So what does all that mean? If you'll turn to the next page, we've got a proforma which was put together in 2002 which shows the construction costs of about $1.1 million, a building and infrastructure for another $1 million, signage, architectural engineering, a contingency, total estimated costs in 2002 at $3.4 million. This number is one that I've said might be different today. There are also opportunities to reduce some of that. It could be designed differently perhaps, have a few fewer elements in it. But nonetheless, let's stick with that number at 3.4 and assume for a moment that it's realistic. We've estimated what our revenues would be at that course. And I've taken year two estimates, not the first year where we're trying to create awareness and bring people to the course and just get started. But in year two, we're estimating a revenue of about $371,000 and expenses which would include a couple of golf professionals and people to maintain the turf and our water and chemical needs and all the rest of that at a little over $600,000 for a net loss of a quarter of a million dollars. Dedicated fees would come out of that which would go to the upkeep of all of the other golf courses of another 40 which show us at this point based on what we know the prospect of a net loss of this facility on an annual basis at about $273,000. The idea of putting a learning course in the ground is not to become profitable but to teach the game, to introduce it to people, allow people to golf, to experience a learning environment. And that typically comes at a loss. If we just stop here for a moment and talk about the Larry Gilbert Foundation. Larry Bunnell is not here unfortunately. Dave Bunnell, excuse me, is not here unfortunately to talk to us about his efforts over the last eight years. There's a lot of support and enthusiasm in the community and has been for eight or ten years since this effort's begun. I can't begin to speak on their behalf but they have raised approximately $700,000 of which we believe $200,000 or so is in cash and the rest is in in-kind contributions. In addition to agreements with the First Tee organization, with the U.K. agronomy folks, a variety of people who have offered to help. So there is some effort afoot and has been to address the issue of the cost. But they're still a good ways away from where we would need to be to comfortably begin. So the Larry Gilbert course has some cost implications on an operating basis. It also has some challenges with respect to finding the money to begin. So we're not there today and we can't stand here and say that veterans is a solution to the current problem at Meadowbrook. It's not. And if it were, it would introduce this question of whether or not we broke even or made money on an operating basis. So there's two real problems. How to fund the construction and do we want to go down the road and knowingly enter into a loss situation that is not modest. Okay? Let's then look at other alternatives. An alternative is to look at the Avon golf course. Avon golf course is in the transition stage, as it has been for several years. We believe we're very close to being offered a lease by the State. We believe that the Department of Defense-based closing commission recommendation has worked its way through the Interior Department and is very close to being in a position where they're going to offer a lease to the county on that golf course. There is room to expand out there. There's an existing course. We've made a lot of improvements to the last several years as the military has restricted our use to certain portions of the space for their avionics training. We've had to move a few holes and done some things. So the course is in pretty good shape. There's a lot of residential growth going out that way in town, which would be a positive to support the potential addition of a learning facility there. There's another piece of land that Parks has not had access to, which has some folks interested in creating a family recreational facility in addition to the golf course out there. We think there's room for adding some putting and chipping, short course kinds of challenges there, in addition to a driving range, which Mike has put in place in the last few years, and there's tennis courts there and a large screen house. So there are some positives about the potential that Avon might be a partial solution to this problem. There are some negatives, however, one of which is it's 15 miles away. People think of it as the other side of the moon, the same way they used to think about Kearney Links as being way out there or perhaps Jacobson Park. Over time, it probably won't seem as far, but it is 15 miles from downtown. We don't own the land. We believe a lease is coming, but we don't own it. And the cost of upgrades, of putting in these putting and chipping and learning facilities, we haven't estimated yet. Mike believes a good bit of it can be done internally with our staff and our knowledge and some of our budgets. So we're not standing here saying this will be an outrageous expense, but it will necessitate some infrastructure and some sewering and irrigation and those kinds of things, which will cost some money. We simply have not done that work, so we can't tell you what that might cost. An alternative solution, in addition to Avon, we took a look at Lakeside. Lakeside certainly is a positive course, one that is well respected in the community. It's a great location. There's plenty of adjacent land. Unfortunately, the adjacent land has a lot of parks facilities on it, and there have to be some compromises made. There is a driving range there. There is, of course, a lot of water there that might reduce our utility costs if we take over the land in 2011, as is proposed. It might offer some opportunities for putting less strenuous facilities in place. The course there is our longest, however. It's what, 6,500 yards? 7,000 yards. So it offers a terrific walking experience, which would not be the favored choice of our seniors. But there is a possibility that we could work something out over in Jacobson, but there would have to be some considerable give and take on shelters. I know there are some people looking at other facilities there. The negatives, again, we don't own the land. There's limitations to the sewer and irrigation facilities over there now. Access to the course creates a problem. There's a dam in the back that might be a problem. And, again, it would require some changes to the way we use Jacobson Park. We're not suggesting that that's a good idea. We're suggesting that it's something we've taken a look at. So, in summary, I'd like to say that losing Meadowbrook is a big blow to several thousand people who use that course on a regular basis and constitute 14,000 rounds a year. There are any number of people who play the course five days a week. We don't have an immediate solution. What the administration has said is that we're going, and the school board has agreed, we're going to stay at Meadowbrook through this year, and we run that facility nine months a year. So we're scheduled to be open and stay open through November. And what we're hoping to do is to continue to dialogue with the golf community and the school board and you all to see what solutions can come forward and be evaluated. And we hope that by the springtime, we would be in a position to either have a resolution with the school board on the sale one way or the other, have an alternative solution somewhere else, or something else that may come up. We simply don't have an answer for you, but we wanted to present to you some facts so that you'd be more knowledgeable about what we're faced with. Are there any questions? Dr. Stevens, do you want to? No. Thank you very much, Mr. Hancock. That was an excellent presentation and a synopsis of what your thoughts, your division's thoughts are about this problem. My thought is that we need to, and I'm sorry the school board's not represented here today because they're really the pivotal figure in this issue right now. And I think we as a council or a government need to approach them and see if we can delay their decision until we have a chance as a government and as Parks Division to resolve this problem. I think today's good information. We might keep this in committee and next committee have them come and speak to us about what their future is. We have some people who have some questions. Mr. Levins. Thank you, Chair. Jerry, what's the current rental fee we have with the school system? On that course? For Meadowbrook. I'm sorry, the lease. What do we pay them to lease the land? I believe it's a dollar a year. A dollar a year. That's what I thought. And I believe we're in arrears on that, but we'd be happy to make that up. Well, here, we'll take care of that right now. I grew up in a family full of real estate agents, and all I ever heard as a kid was location, location, location. And Meadowbrook has that in spades. So I want to think about this problem not just from the golf perspective, but from other perspectives as well. The alternatives you listed, that was a great presentation, all are further away, all of them. So we need to keep that in the back of our minds. The other thing I want to, I've been viewing this problem a little differently, thanks to Council Member Maloney pointing out, the Picadome Golf Course, when we took it over, is not so much a golf course as it is a sanitary sewage pump station that also happens to have a golf course wrapped around it. I would argue that Meadowbrook is a storm water retention basin that happens to have a golf course on it. If we develop that land with houses or anything else, we're going to have storm water problems. So I want to look at this from that perspective as well. And last, of your total round information, Meadowbrook represents about 10% of the total rounds of golf play right now. But I'd argue it's probably about 90 to 100% of the special rounds, the seniors and the juniors that you mentioned. So in looking at this, I believe we have to have a part three course somewhere in town that's accessible to as many people as possible, for all the good reasons you've listed in your report. So with that in mind, I want to explore it a little from this direction. What effect would it have if we were to, let's say we waved our magic wand and we retained Meadowbrook, what effect would that have on the plans for the Larry Gilbert course out at Veterans Park? Would that defer them, delay them, or any effect? What effect would it have from your perspective? Good question. Mike, correct me if I say anything that isn't correct here. But I believe that the Larry Gilbert Foundation looked at Meadowbrook first. That's one of the first places they looked to see whether they could create something there. Their need at any learning facility to have a driving range is greatly impeded by Meadowbrook. It's surrounded by houses that aren't likely to allow lights. It's only 27 acres and it's chock full of 18 part three holes. To add a true learning facility with a number of putting greens and all that would take that down to a nine hole course. Let me interrupt and say what I'm really asking is if we, for some reason, retained Meadowbrook, would it have any effect on the building out at Veterans Park? Just retain Meadowbrook as is with ADA upgrades or whatever we have to do, but retain it more or less as is. Would it have a quieting effect on us wanting to build out at Veterans Park is where I'm trying to get to. My opinion would be no. I don't think so. I think if we retained it as a part three with a modest investment and kept it pretty much the way it is, the Larry Gilbert Foundation folks would still believe that a much different course could and should be built somewhere perhaps at Veterans. Okay. That's what I wanted to get to. Thanks, Chair. Dr. Belais. Thank you. Thanks for that report. I thought it was incredibly useful and comprehensive. This is just one question out of curiosity. When you talk about the walking length at, say, at Veterans Park or potentially at Lakeside, doesn't what I presume is the pretty much universal use of golf carts, doesn't that obviate that, more or less equalize the length of these courses, since you're not really walking them, but riding them? It could. It would increase the cost to play by $11 a round, which is a substantial thing if they're only paying $9 now for the privilege of walking, and they're there in part for exercise and not to spend money. I see. Carts could be made available, but they become an expense item. And you'd have to buy them. They last about four or five years. You have to have a house for them to sleep in. But, yes, it would double or more the cost to play. I see. So on this Part III course, everybody walks? That's correct. Okay. There are no electric golf courses or carts. Thank you. Mr. Beere. Several comments or questions. As you may or may not be aware, Meadowbrook is in my district. In addition to being a flood control situation and a golf course, it is a big portion of the green space in the Fourth District. I guess the first comment, I contacted or my aide actually contacted the school board and asked if they would share their appraisal so that we might get some idea of what they are looking for as far as money is concerned and under what basis or justification it is a $2.4 million piece of property. They refused to share, which I find interesting and also not acceptable. I would think that we would be their first and most obvious candidate to purchase. Is there truly a decline in golfing in general, or is it just that it's being spread over more courses? The number of rounds played is declining and has for 10 years. There's some ñ I understand here, but I'm talking about ñ Nationally, I'm sorry. Nationally. Nationally, numbers are down all over the country by 20 percent or more over the last 15 years. There is some evidence that that may be peaking or tunneling out. We've not seen that. We think ñ we have guarded optimism, but I've had that guarded optimism for a year or so. But, no, it's a national phenomenon. Well, there's some pretty poor businessmen and they're building old silo and Houston Oaks and some of these ñ the bowl, then, because they're pouring money down a rat hole, I suppose. The Larry Gilbert Foundation has raised $700,000 in eight years, and probably much of that came in the first two or three years. How long is it going to take them to raise $4 million? I can't answer that. Well, it's a bunch. It's too long to wait without it being a viable replacement. And once it's built, it's always been my understanding that the course needs to settle and mature a little bit before it's actually playable. You can't put a lot of people playing on it on day one. Generally, greens need to settle in for a couple of years anyway, is what my experts tell me. Is it going to be a par three or is it a hybrid of some sort? It would not be strictly a par three. There would be a variety of different stroke holes. So ñ I'm sorry? I'm sorry. It's all par threes, Mike tells me. It's all par threes. Excuse me. Okay. And then I guess my last question, of the 27 acres at Meadowbrook, how much, do you have any idea how much is in the floodplain? And can that be determined? Can you get that information if you don't know it? I can, indeed. I don't know the answer to that today. Okay. That's all I have, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Maloney? I've got a couple of things. I want to hit first on Meadowbrook, and then I want to hit on Larry Gilbert. First of all, I never did get a report back on the $750,000 that a deal that this city cut with the school back four or five years ago. And I never ñ and there were land swaps for other land, and I think that's the reason why they lowered the price. And it concerns me, and I don't ñ I mean, I can't answer what the previous administration did, but to me, we did give them a deal on those two properties to lower the price for this golf course. I think this city should be ñ the school should come and we should be able to get this for $750,000. And I don't know why no one has tried to follow up with this. And, I mean, to get this land for $750,000 goes back to what you all are talking about, flood plan in that area, which I agree that if that's true, then we should get this land for $750,000. Now, my other question is, did you ñ is this in the flood plan? Because picket home, majority of that was in the flood plan. And I'm just wondering, do you have any property in there that was in the flood plan in this golf course? Do you know? Yes, sir. Some portion of it is. It's in the flood plan? Okay. I don't know whether that's five acres or 12 acres or just exactly how much it is. But a fairly good chunk of it is in the flood plan. And it really disturbs me that no one has come to tell me the correct answer to $750,000. And I think someone needs to come out and tell us why. And also someone from school needs to answer why this deal is mute now. Was there a time limit on why the $750,000? Did we have a year? Did we have two years? Or was there no time limit at all? It sounds like to me with a partnership like this with the government and with the school board, I don't think there really was a time limit on it. And I think to me the $750,000 should be there. And I don't know why and I don't know if this is what our committee is supposed to find out this answers or is this going to be an administration that needs to find out this answer. But to me, I think the public and this council should know why we can't get this for $750,000. Now, that would be my number one option if we can do that, to get it for $750,000. But if there is a legit reason why we can't get it for $2.5 million, I do have concerns about is this property going to be feasible to buy for $2.5 million. And that's something the appraisals need to work out, especially if there is a flood plan in here, then that price should be cut back considerably, like it shouldn't be that much. But if we have another option to go, part three is important, not just for the kids, but for seniors. And I know that the Larry Gilbert Foundation has been having a hard time to get the funding. And to make something like this work, you need a partnership. And to me, the timing is perfect right now for a partnership if we cannot get metal work. Because I think the funding will start coming in because they finally got a land. And we, the city, is going to be able to come in and partnership. The other good news, and I don't know if you brought it up, that Kearney Hills bonds do come in next year. Did you bring that up? No, sir. I did not speak to that. The Kearney Hills bonds will be paid off next year. And to me, that would be a good time to purchase this property and make this the top of the line, part three, which the Larry Gilbert Foundation has been wanting to do, and the partnership with the city to make this work. It will not work in metal work because we don't have a driving range. And this is what these kids need. And to be honest with you, I've had about ten people in the last five months that have come to me who are just retiring and asking to learn how to play golf. And I've sent them out to Man O'War to learn how. And I see a lot of baby boomers that are about ready to turn six to retire. And I think this, I think golf is going to pick back up because this is an exercise sport that part three will be perfect for a lot of these golfers at that age that want to walk but don't want to walk a full golf course. And I think there's all kinds of potential on the net that this is all coming at the right time. But to have a driving range there, and I think Mike can tell you, that would be the bulk of paying off a lot of this debt. I really feel that's going to be your biggest moneymaker there. Now, we lost on picking on, as you can see, $60,000 a year is what you all were telling me. Now, if you had a driving range there, I guarantee you'd make a lot more money and you won't have that. If you had a driving range at Meadowbrook, you wouldn't have had a loss this year. Because especially with the population you're serving in that part of town, there is no driving range over there. There is no golf facility like this. The only closest one, I think, would be Lakeside or Man O'War. And that's still a pretty good drive for a lot of, for a large population that we serve in that area that, I mean, you've got Tate Creek over there with a lot of golfers that don't have a driving range there. This would be right around the street for them to be able to hit the golf balls. And I think this is an opportunity. But I still believe the number one thing we need to do is get real answers why we did not get this property for $750,000. And if we do get this property for $750,000, then maybe we could keep this golf course, which I would like to see. But still not give up on the Larry Gilbert dream that when this bond comes available, when we pay off the debt with Kearney Hill, that we could possibly use $750,000 out of that to pay off Meadowbrook. And then also maybe build a driving range and do a different kind of golf course, maybe a nine-hole golf course out there. We may not need 18 holes or some kind of training facility out there where the partnership can come together. Because I think the timing is pretty good, even though we've run into some problems. But the timing is good. So I don't know what you want to do, how far you all want to go with this. But I really don't know where this committee can come in on answering why we didn't get the $750,000 for this piece of property. And I don't think this is what this committee can do. And I really think maybe out at work session today you may want to put the pressure out that we discussed this. And I don't know what the rest of this council members here feel about it. But I think the administration and this school needs to come in front of this body and the public to say why this deal was not cut for $750,000. And is there language in there to say there's a time limit when we had to pay the $750,000, which I don't know. I mean, if it does, then fine. They have a good argument. But if they don't, then it really disturbs me that this deal was a mute deal after we gave them a deal for a piece of property. But I think we need to continue on this. And I don't know what you all want to do with the committee as we go forward. But I think the part three golf course and the veteran should be discussed. And maybe you just parks and rec may want to go ahead and start planning this with the bonds that are coming available next year, that you all put some kind of numbers together and maybe work with the Larry Gilbert and say, to me, I think the money will come in from the Larry Gilbert Foundation now that they have a partner like the city to make this thing happen. There will be money coming in because they didn't have any partners now that we will be a partner. I think the money will come in. But I don't, I mean, to me, I think there's two issues here that I think the committee needs to decide what direction you all want to go with this. But one of them, I don't think we should, I think the administration and the school board should be out here in front of this body as a council to hold and tell us why this is not a good deal, why the $750,000 is no longer on the table. Thank you. You raised some good questions there. Mr. McCord. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple things. Jerry, thank you. And, Mike, thank you for coming and just putting it in black and white. And I think folks feel pretty emotional about it and sometimes the facts get lost in that. One of the facts that I want to have into the record and for folks to see on television is what is this land currently zoned? AU, I'm told, which is agriculture, urban. I don't know if that's true, that that's what someone has told me. I don't believe that's accurate. And so, you know, one of the things that the school board or any potential buyer has to know is that to develop that, they're certainly going to have to come before the planning commission and this council to get that rezoned. And with the feelings that are shared up here, that is something that has to be looked at. You know, everybody who knows me knows I'm kind of the recreational guy and I want to see everybody in this city of all ages moving and becoming more active. And so I'm certainly obviously very concerned about displacing folks. And I think that cutting through all that has been said today, when I discussed with the school system personally one-on-one, their comments were that they felt like they were going to sell it, they were going to get the money they wanted out of the deal and they had no interest. And I think people, again, need to know that that's their stance, that we have tried in a lot of different ways individually and collectively to come to them and say can we work something out. And at this point in time, that's how they've come down on this thing, is that we believe we've got some people who are going to buy this and they're going to give us 2.4 million. And they're not real interested in a whole lot else. That's their priority right now. And folks need to know that. But one of the things that I would put out there as part of our game plan as we move forward is, if in the event that they don't sell this come next March, that we have a game plan in place to run it, and an agreement with them that we're going to keep running it for a dollar and we can make some changes out there that can kind of shore up some of the losses and things like that. And I'm sure everybody who wants to play there is certainly willing to kind of pitch in with maybe a few more dollars per round or something like that. But I think that at the end of the day, we can talk all day long about this, that and the other, but it's their choice, it's their land, and we are trying every way in the world to talk with them and offer them solutions. But to this point, that's not of interest. My suggestion would be that as this committee moves forward, Councilman Ellinger and Jerry, I think that one of the things we can do as a body is have a game plan for March if that property is not sold. Or if it was sold and then maybe they didn't, they can't get it rezoned or something like that, but we have a game plan for the folks who are going to use this because what your presentation pointed out is we don't have a solution if this thing closes tomorrow. We don't have a place to put those folks. And it is very similar, you all, to when the YWCA closed on Cross Keys Road and displaced 170 swimmers overnight. And those folks had to go and build a bubble on Cumberland Hills Pool and find an immediate solution. So we can talk about a whole lot of stuff, but I just want to make that my recommendation to us as a city, that is something we can do for those displaced workers, those displaced folks who are wanting to see us do something with this course. Let's build a game plan come March that if they haven't sold it, we're ready to do something as we work through some of these other things. So I thank you again for all your work on this, you and Mike. Thanks, Jay. Mr. Beard. Thank you. Just going a bit further with Council Member Maloney's comments about the 750,000, whether it was 750,000 or some other number, it makes no difference. There ought to be somewhere in the law department, in your archives at parks or in the commissioner's general services office, some paperwork on that. It couldn't possibly have been done, just word of mouth and handshakes, I would not think. So maybe a little digging, if somebody would take that under advisement to do so, would be justified. And we keep talking about cost justification on these golf courses. And I guess I have questions about how cost justified is Shillito Park or Masterson Station, either one. I would guess the numbers might be somewhat astounding as to the level of cost justification it has. Parks aren't, we aren't in the money-making business, I don't think, as far as parks are concerned. Why single out and zero in on one or more golf courses that they're not cost justified? And I've heard this now for four years, not just recently, Jerry. So this isn't a shout at you, it just seems to be the way people have thought. I don't know whether golf courses are thought of being something not for the whole populace, but for the more elite or the rich folks that can afford to buy the clubs and all that. And so we're going to make them cost justify. And we really need something for people who aren't really quite that well-off to have a place to go also. I appreciate your observation. We share the frustration that sometimes is pointed at certain aspects of our businesses. So thank you for thinking that through. Thank you. Dr. Stevens had to go to another meeting, but he wanted to keep this committee. But where would the committee like to go from here? Mr. Maloney has some suggestions, but I think there are some questions that we need answered and we need to proceed. There are two directions I see going. First of all, I don't think this committee has a say in where the $750,000. So I would, I mean, I don't know if we need a motion, but to make a motion that the administration and the school board present to the body as a whole what conversation was made in the $750,000 and why it's still not, why it's still not forward, and what reason why we're not being able to continue to go on that track. So I would like to make a motion that we have, that we make the administration and the school board present to the council as a whole what happened to the $750,000. We have a motion to second. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor, please vote electronically. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. A technical thing here. Since Council Member Maloney is not on the committee, can he make a motion? Okay. If you're correct, would somebody like to make that motion on his behalf? Mr. Beard? Second. All those in favor, please vote and say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. I had another idea on the Gilbert. We know that Kearney Hill's bonds are going to be paid off here next year, that I would ask, I mean, that the parks to look at possibly if we do cut it, if we do can get the $750,000 back, which I hope we can, that that be part of the bond in the golf course, I mean, when Kearney Hill comes available next year. And second, that I would like them to work with the Larry Gilbert Foundation with or without either way, if we don't get the metal book, that they go ahead and look at the 18 holes and the driving range and see what the Larry Gilbert Foundation know maybe could show us in that way. They're going to raise some money and maybe we have to come to the table and see what kind of funding that we would both of us could work together on. They already got $700,000, from what I understand. But if we come in with them going out the next year with us saying that we're going to partnership with them and make this golf course work, maybe the funding, I will think, will come in considerable now that they have a location and have a partnership like this. And I think the park to continue to go on that route, to work with the Larry Gilbert, either way, I mean, if we do get the 750, I'd like to have metal book and still have a driving range and a training facility out there at Veterans Park and maybe a little executive course, which is like a nine hole, something that they can ship and play like that. I don't think a motion is necessary. I think you can get that information and get it back to us. I think this is something we'll keep in committee. I will bring this forward to the full council next Tuesday to bring about the motion to require the administration and also the school board to get back with us on the 750,000 so we can figure out where we stand there. I appreciate you coming here and giving us this information. We'll keep this in committee because this has obviously been a big issue. Mr. Beard. One other quick comment. Doing some quick math at the pace at which Larry Gilbert is raising money, it will only take him 45.7 years to get to the $4 million. And by that time it may be $8 million or something. I think Mr. Acamp had a comment also. Yes. What kind of time restraint are we under, Jerry, on this? The time restraint to, I mean, do we have to, is there a certain point we have to come up with some money or do we, you know, bail out or what? I mean, it was my understanding that it's pretty quick here. I think our lease is due, ends in November, is that when we finish up at Meadowbrook and then? It's year to year. I honestly don't know when it ends. It's my understanding they own the property, they've offered it for sale or threatened to do that. It may well be in the hands of realtors today. I don't know that. If anything could sell tomorrow, in all likelihood it will take several months. It's kind of a game changer. But it seems to me that we're kind of under the gun here. And it might be something, Mr. Chairman, you might consider appointing a subcommittee because there were certain issues. I think Jerry brought them forth very clearly today and also some of the other council people about the need, the cost, the floodplain issue or just plain open green space within that area. And it would seem to me that we probably need more going on between now and the time that this committee meets again. And you might consider that because I think there's going to have to be, if we're really interested in retaining Meadowbrook, we're going to have to do a little more pushing than wait just to keep it on the agenda here. Well, if you'd like to make a motion, then I will form a subcommittee that can do that. I would make a motion that we do that. Second. All those in favor, please vote electronically and say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes, and I will have a subcommittee put together to meet in the interim while we are before we have our next services committee. Thank you. Any further business before this council services committee? We are adjourned. Thank you.