2016_0816_FC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From:Rao Konidena To:*RVFinanceCommission; Chris Miller Subject:Fwd: Cedarholm Clubhouse Advisory Team Date:Saturday, July 16, 2016 8:11:42 AM Hi John - I attended the Golf Course Advisory team meeting on Thursday, July 14 in your absence. For what its worth, these are my comments and observations - I announced myself as representing the Finance Commission, and as such in your absence. The general feeling in the group was, we had low attendance at this particular meeting compared to the past meetings. The major topic of discussion was the draft report to the city council. As a group, we focused on page 7 of the advisory team recommendations. Went thru major and minor points drafted by Jill Anfang as a starting point, and added and deleted words using flip charts. The key takeaway from this exercise from my point of view was - rebuilding Cedarholm clubhouse was the main priority. The golf maintenance/storage facility is secondary.There was discussion around, what if we tied both of them together. However, the cost might balloon. There was also talk about moving away from the word "clubhouse". I raised this point - clubhouse by connotation has a meaning that you either belong to the club or you do not in my mind. Since the advisory team at this stage is thinking about opening up the facility to attract community specifically Roseville Historical Society was talked about a lot, they should have a name that reflects that. The group is certainly familiar with the city budget situation especially in terms of some residents expressing the sentiment of being "taxed out". Hence this advisory team is thinking a non-tax levy solution for the capital project, however, since the City Council has expressed their intention that Cedarholm golf course is a community "jewel", (my words), the advisory team will leave it upto the city council to do as it seems fit. One "aha!" moment for me was - when the chair of this group said, in the past, the golfcourse was profitable, and its funds were allocated/moved elsewhere in the city. I did not know that. Hence the group felt, we are in this situation at present, and at the same time, the group has enough senior citizens to realize that, if a levy goes up, and it should have a date based or a function based "sunset" date. One other key takeaway for me, from the flip chart exercise was, the group was in essence putting together the "must have's" and "nice to have" requirements document for the potential RFP, if the city council decides to move ahead with the advisory team's recommendation. The chair did an excellent job bringing back the decision a level above, if we were getting stuck in the weeds. the future meetings are in the email below. I plan on attending the Finance Commission meetings in Aug, we can discuss more then if you need additional details. Thank You! Rao Konidena 612 594 9257 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Item #4: Attachment A