In your introductory paragraph you say, “If you go to the golf course and play a round of golf, shop in the store, or have lunch, that money goes into the fund to support the course. The course is supported by the users, not Lafayette taxpayers.” … but then later, in the golf course irrigation description, you say, “Replacement of the Golf Course irrigation system would allow the City to install a more efficient irrigation technology and reduce the number of leaks, water-loss associated with leaks, and the amount of staff-time spent searching for and repairing leaks.” Does that mean taxpayers would be paying for the golf course irrigation upgrade?
This text "Replacement of the Golf Course irrigation system would allow the City to install a more efficient irrigation technology and reduce the number of leaks, water-loss associated with leaks, and the amount of staff-time spent searching for and repairing leaks.” is from the city staff report to the council who know it is funded using a different method than most of our facilities. However the majority of the residents wouldn't know that. That's why I try and point that out when I can, because it makes a difference.
The golf course is still owned by the city and is part of our Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Department. So staff are correct in saying the city would do something but because it was set up as a stand alone entity, unlike the rec center for instance, it has to pay for itself through the money it takes in.
The rec center is subsidized by the taxpayers it is not self supporting, the fees don't cover the cost of operation. But because the golf course is set up as an enterprise fund it has to be run like a business so the taxpayers would not be paying for the irrigation update at the golf course unless they also play at the course. Does that make sense?
I was heartened to learn tat Lafayette taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the golf course. I am a recreational golfer but Indian Peaks Golf Course serves such a narrow and unrepresentative part of our population, I don't support tax payer money (or Lafayette water rights ideally too) going to the golf course.
I agree, we should not be using taxpayer funds for the golf course.
I know the golf course uses untreated water and pays the city for it. But I don't know what rate they pay, I have some info from over a year ago that was sent to me by a resident. There was a study happening at the time and I never got updated info.
Karen –
In your introductory paragraph you say, “If you go to the golf course and play a round of golf, shop in the store, or have lunch, that money goes into the fund to support the course. The course is supported by the users, not Lafayette taxpayers.” … but then later, in the golf course irrigation description, you say, “Replacement of the Golf Course irrigation system would allow the City to install a more efficient irrigation technology and reduce the number of leaks, water-loss associated with leaks, and the amount of staff-time spent searching for and repairing leaks.” Does that mean taxpayers would be paying for the golf course irrigation upgrade?
Thank you for your reporting!
Cindy Beeler
This text "Replacement of the Golf Course irrigation system would allow the City to install a more efficient irrigation technology and reduce the number of leaks, water-loss associated with leaks, and the amount of staff-time spent searching for and repairing leaks.” is from the city staff report to the council who know it is funded using a different method than most of our facilities. However the majority of the residents wouldn't know that. That's why I try and point that out when I can, because it makes a difference.
The golf course is still owned by the city and is part of our Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Department. So staff are correct in saying the city would do something but because it was set up as a stand alone entity, unlike the rec center for instance, it has to pay for itself through the money it takes in.
The rec center is subsidized by the taxpayers it is not self supporting, the fees don't cover the cost of operation. But because the golf course is set up as an enterprise fund it has to be run like a business so the taxpayers would not be paying for the irrigation update at the golf course unless they also play at the course. Does that make sense?
Thanks - you know your stuff! Thanks for being a watchdog for all of us!
Glad that helped. It took a lot of years for me to understand all this so I know how confusing some things can be!
I was heartened to learn tat Lafayette taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the golf course. I am a recreational golfer but Indian Peaks Golf Course serves such a narrow and unrepresentative part of our population, I don't support tax payer money (or Lafayette water rights ideally too) going to the golf course.
I agree, we should not be using taxpayer funds for the golf course.
I know the golf course uses untreated water and pays the city for it. But I don't know what rate they pay, I have some info from over a year ago that was sent to me by a resident. There was a study happening at the time and I never got updated info.
Thank you so much for doing this. Do you know if they have selected the part of town where the 2nd treatment plant would go yet?
Pumpkin, last night this was on the council's agenda: Adjourn to Executive Session
R. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-6-402(4)(a) for purposes of
discussing the potential acquisition of real property in connection with the City's
Water Treatment Plant Siting Study
Glad it's useful! I have not heard anything about a location yet.
Fantastic summary. Thank you so much for writing this up in a way that makes sense and is accessible.
Thank you Donna I am glad it is helpful to you!