Laserfiche WebLink
Executive Summary <br />1 <br />1.Roseville Cedarholm Golf Course (Cedarholm) is a longstanding, highly valued community amenity. <br />2 <br />A.Cedarholm is a community asset providing; <br />3 <br />lifelong fitness andrecreation opportunities <br />4 <br />a niche golf experience for young, older and family golfers that is local and affordable <br />5 <br />a gathering place and sense of community <br />6 <br />the community open, green space <br />7 <br />2.Cedarholm is a metro area leader for rounds played on “like” golf courses. <br />8 <br />A.Play peaked in the 1990s with an average of 41,000 rounds/year. <br />9 <br />B.In the 2000s golf began to experience adecline inplay to an annual average of 33,500 rounds. <br />10 <br />C.Since 2011, play at Cedarholm has been consistently at 25,500 rounds annually. <br />11 <br />Metro-wide, like City/County managed 9-hole courses, average 16,500 rounds played. <br />12 <br />3.Cedarholm Golf Course currently operates as an enterprise fund, directly responsible for generating <br />13 <br />revenues to off-set all operating and capital expenditures. <br />14 <br />A.In earlier years (1990s to mid-2000s) Cedarholm contributed additional revenues to the <br />15 <br />Citywide general fund that was used to minimize the use of tax dollars for expenditures <br />16 <br />outside golf operations. <br />17 <br />B.From the onset, Cedarholm has paid an annual administrative fee to the City general fund for <br />18 <br />insurance, financial services and depreciation. <br />19 <br />C.Current capital needs have increased to levels significant enough to require re-visiting <br />20 <br />Cedarholm’s enterprise fund status. <br />21 <br />4.Following a Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation and City Council approval, the <br />22 <br />Cedarholm Clubhouse Replacement Advisory Team (Advisory Team) consisting of Roseville resident <br />23 <br />volunteers was formed to provide recommendations for replacing the Clubhouse and to explore <br />24 <br />project funding options. <br />25 <br />5.The Advisory Team met on eight agreed upon Thursdays from 6:30-9:00pm, over a 6-month period to <br />26 <br />discuss the following topics; <br />27 <br />A.Cedarholm Golf Course and Clubhouse Background Information and History <br />28 <br />B.Local Golf Industry Professionals Panel <br />29 <br />C.Partnerships and Other Users <br />30 <br />D.Function and Uses <br />31 <br />E.Funding Options <br />32 <br />F.Final Report Group Discussions andDevelopment <br />33 <br />G.Draft Report Review <br />34 <br />H.Report Presentation and Community Input (m <br />35 <br />6.The Advisory Team considered partnerships and collaborations as well as re-thinking usage to <br />36 <br />maximize access and revenues. <br />37 <br />7.The Advisory Team has outlined its recommendations in this report which is to be presented to the <br />38 <br />Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission and Roseville City Council. <br />39 <br />8.The Advisory Team recommends: <br />40 <br />A.Rebuilding the clubhouse <br />41 <br />B.Identified funding options <br />42 <br />C.Planning for current and future site needs and replace/improve golf course supporting <br />43 <br />infrastructure <br />44 <br /> <br />45 <br /> <br />46 <br /> 6 <br />Cedarholm Clubhouse Replacement Advisory Team <br /> <br /> <br />