Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGolf Board Minutes - July 8, 2025 1 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Golf Board Minutes – July 8, 2025 Council Members: Karl Boehm Paul Sorensen Brian Parkinson Eva Wright Non-Voting Members: Board Chairman Johnson Matt Nielson – City Finance Officer Colin Erickson – City Council Member Brent Mendenhall – County Commissioner Spencer Rammell – Attorney Cameron Garn – Golf Pro Seth McFarland – Golf Ground Greg McInnes – City Parks Manager Justin Beard – City Engineer 4:30 P.M. Golf Board Meeting Roll Call of Board Members: Attending: Eva Wright, Karl Boehm, Paul Sorensen, Brian Parkinson and Chairman Jon Johnson. Absent: 1. Review Prior Meeting Minutes and approval (Action Item): a. June 10, 2025 Board Member Boehm moved to approve the Golf Board Meeting Minutes for June 10, 2025; Board Member Wright seconded the motion; Board Chairman Johnson asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Board Member Wright Board Member Boehm Board Member Sorensen Board Member Parkinson Board Chairman Johnson The motion carried. 2. Financial Report a. Review Financials – Matt Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Budget Report for the Golf Courses. The forecasted carryover increased again, which is a good sign, especially on the Legacy Golf course side. He reported that Staff Accountant Phethean had found an issue with the software which resulted in some of the cart fees going to Teton Lakes when they should have gone to Legacy. That explained the low cart revenues at Legacy. The issue has been corrected. Finance Officer Nielson said the Legacy Golf course is performing very well. The total revenue forecast for Legacy was about $310,000. In comparison, the previous year was $281,000, and the year before that was $242,000, showing a consistent upward trend. Board Member Boehm noted that you could drive by the Legacy and see that it was usually well attended. Finance Officer Nielson explained the strong performance made the FY26 budget even more conservative, which was considered a good approach. He preferred to forecast conservatively and then potentially exceed expectations. At Teton Lakes, he saw a significant bump in daily fees compared to the previous month. The daily totals increased notably, with numbers reaching the 400s—a level not seen before. This category was being 2 forecasted strongly. Cart rentals were also performing well, especially in comparison to the last two years. Season passes and family passes both saw impressive growth. Finance Officer Nielson noted that a contribution of $4,500 was received this year from ICCU for range balls, with another $4,500 expected the following year. This was reflected in the financial reports, which showed a total contribution of $14,500. Total revenue for Teton Lakes reached $1.4 million, compared to $1.32 million the previous year, indicating a strong performance. At the start of FY25, there was a carryover of about $602,000. For the following year, the carryover was projected to be about $205,000. Excluding the carryover, total revenues amounted to approximately $1.7 million. He remarked that 10 years ago, they would never have imagined reaching $1.7 million in revenue. 3 Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Legacy expenses. The budget was about $253,000, and actual spending was expected to be around $280,000. Most of the increase was due to the rebuild of the main line, which was viewed positively as more of the project was being completed. Operationally, they were on target with the budget and doing well. Finance Officer Nielson reviewed the Teton Lakes expenses. The irrigation grounds repair costs are trending upward, consistent with previous years. Supplies were also higher than usual this year. In the following section, expenditures on irrigation repairs were notably high, matching the total of the past two years already. They expected to spend $50,000 to $60,000 easily on that category. Equipment repairs, especially on golf carts, also increased. The increase made sense, given the higher number of carts in operation. Board Member Boehm asked about any damage to the golf carts. Golf Pro Garn responded nothing major, although some individuals 4 continued to adjust the speed governors on carts. There were no serious accidents or pond incidents reported, though some tampering was attributed to younger users. Finance Officer Nielson mentioned there was a loss of liability, which is not typical, but they did experience an incident involving the deck, which cost $10,000 in deductible payments. The individual responsible did not have insurance. However, this was still preferable to the estimated $35,000 repair cost. Finance Officer Nielson also mentioned the recent purchase of a $21,000 mower, referred to as a "fairway mower" but more accurately described as a trim mower. Grounds Manager McFarland said the mower could be adjusted to operate at pond level, along fence lines, or around trees. The new equipment would allow them to maintain pond areas more effectively. Discussion regarding the autonomous lawn mower. City Attorney Rammell asked what kind of area the mower would cover, and it was explained that it could cover about six acres, depending on how frequently the user wanted to mow. The technology had progressed beyond wire grids. It was confirmed that everything now operated using geofencing with GPU and GIS-based systems. Finance Officer Nielson asked if the mower ever got stuck. Grounds Manager McFarland clarified that it didn’t get stuck in the traditional sense of being immobile. However, if the blade hit something, it would stop. Despite that, it wasn’t likely to get stuck due to its weight — about 200 pounds—so objects like bottles didn’t affect it much. He said he expected people to mess with the mower more, but so far, that hasn’t happened. The only downside noted was that the mower couldn’t see golf balls, so it might run them over. Since it was low to the ground, it might just push them around instead. They expressed hope that the next mower model would have the capability to detect golf balls. If it could, then it could operate safely during the day while golfers were on the course without interfering with play . Golf Manager McFarland mentioned that the mower docked itself and could be sent out as needed . 5 Finance Officer Nielson reported the clubhouse remodel at Teton Lakes has been completed. Golf Pro Garn noted that he has observed some issues with the doors. He mentioned that many of the bathroom doors had started to stick, possibly due to heat expansion, and that the hardware also appeared to be affected. He suggested that this might require a follow-up visit from the contractor. Finance Officer Nielson agreed and asked Golf Pro Garn to call the contractor to explain those issues. Finance Officer Nielson shifted back to reviewing the budget report for the Teton Lakes total expenses. He noted that they were clearly over budget. The budget had been approximately $1.38 million, but they projected actual spending to be closer to $1.5 million. Looking at the profit and loss report for Legacy, a profit of about $30,000 was forecasted. In the previous year, the profit was $60,000, and the year before that, $21,000. As for Teton Lakes, the loss was $27,000 two years ago, but they made a $75,000 profit last year. This year, they were expected to lose approximately $130,000. However, he emphasized that this had been a major capital investment year, including a $140,000 remodel, which was not typical. Finance Officer Nielson pointed out that, operationally, Teton Lakes performed quite well and, under normal circumstances, would likely have contributed toward capital expenses. Board Chairman Johnson asked about fund transfers and whether they were meant for future irrigation. Finance Officer Nielson explained that approximately $60,000 of the transfer was related to golf carts, possibly $50,000, but in any case, it involved both carts and irrigation. At the bottom of the financial report, it was shown that they would likely carry over just over $500,000. They had started the year with a carryover of just over $600,000, so the reduction was modest. For the following year, they projected a carryover of close to $300,000. He stated that, as more full-time personnel were added, those funds would be depleted more quickly due to the high cost of salaries and benefits. Board Member Parkinson questioned the long-term plan if they continued adding personnel and increasing expenses. Finance Officer Nielson acknowledged that increasing revenue would be necessary, as reducing operating expenses was very difficult—unless they considered staff reductions. Discussion regarding using autonomous lawn mowers instead of personnel to mow the golf course lawn could possibly save personnel costs. 6 Board Chairman Johnson asked how Golf Pro Garn felt about having the restaurant area within the facility. Golf Pro Garn responded that it was good. He believes it helps with basic play and noted that there weren’t many food options available. He acknowledged that it was just a snack bar, offering self-serve hot dogs, but he didn’t mind it. He felt it was better than having to deal with an alternative setup. Board Chairman Johnson shared that he had read in Golf Digest about a course in Wisconsin that had outlawed alcohol. While he clarified that he is not suggesting doing the same, he mentioned that after that change, the course saw a 15% increase in play, as people were more focused and spent less time lingering. Golf Pro Garn agreed and said he is sure that it is true. Although complaints about alcohol restrictions were common, he didn’t believe it would affect the course that much. Board Chairman Johnson noted that the concessions area used to look like it was still being unpacked. He hadn’t been to that side of the building recently and asked about its condition. Golf Pro Garn explained that they had caught up a bit, though the floor in the restaurant area had been ripped up. He spoke to someone and offered to trade a season pass in exchange for redoing the floor behind that area, many of the boards were damaged. He added that they had relocated the shoes to open up the space and felt the area was improved compared to when the restaurant had first moved in. 3. Board Business/issues/problems/events a. Cable Railing Sign update – Cam Garn i. 2 sign needed stating “Please do not climb or stand on the cables or rails” Board Chairman Johnson asked if there was a need to talk about the cable railing sign. Golf Pro Garn explained that the sign reads, "Please do not climb or stand on the cables and railings." He said despite the sign, they still saw kids climbing up and sitting on the cables. He mentioned he had eight signs made at no cost because someone owed him money. The signs were sized 6 by 6 by 9, and he planned to hook them onto the cables. b. New Golf Rates Update i. See recommended changes to be presented to City Council 7/16/25. Commissioners to review as well. Joint Public hearing with both entity owners on 8/6/2025. 7 ii. Proof of Residency for 10% discount on green fees or season passes only will be utility bills, tax statements, driver’s license or rental agreements. Proof of residency to receive discount will not be required on junior passes and daily rates. Verbal notification of Junior residency will be sufficient. Finance Officer Nielson presented the proposed golf rates with changes highlighted in blue to indicate the adjustments in fees. Last year, they had taken a different approach by implementing a non-resident surcharge and eliminating certain fees. He emphasized a few critical points regarding the 10% discount on daily green fees. The discount applied specifically to daily green fees only and did not include punch passes. To qualify for the discount, residents were required to show proof of residency, such as a utility bill, property tax statement, driver’s license, or rental agreement—criteria that had been added during the group’s last meeting. He noted that if a resident failed to provide proof of residency, they would be charged a higher, non-discounted rate. This clear definition helped staff enforce the discount policy without confusion. For instance, if a resident requested a discount on a cart rental or other items, staff could simply explain that the discount applied solely to daily green fees. The 20% discount was structured similarly but applied to season passes for green fees only. Again, punch passes were excluded since they were already offered at a discounted rate. The group agreed that clearly defining these rules was essential to prevent residents from expecting a 10% discount on all services, which was not the intended policy. The Board Members expressed support for the proof of residency discount on season passes and green fees only. Finance Officer Nielson confirmed that these details would be included in the presentation for the City Council and County Commissioners. He said although he would not be able to attend the upcoming meeting, someone from the Finance Department would present the proposal. The City Council would then set a public hearing date, and the Commissioners were expected to attend the hearing on August 6th, after which a final decision would be made. 8 c. Discussion on what other courses rules are regarding bringing babies and kids not playing golf to the golf course – Spencer Rammell (Action Item) 9 d. Discussion on course policies regarding golf carts and group sizes with all staff, signage or additional staff presence to address group merging and slow play, and communication strategies for educating new players on course etiquette and tee time expectations – Spencer Rammell (Action Item) City Attorney Rammell explained that different golf courses had various policies depending on whether they were private or municipal. He explained that there were tiered levels of restrictions, with some courses not allowing anyone under the age of 7. He clarified that such strict policies were likely not a good fit for city/county golf courses. He suggested that instead of hard bans, they could consider waivers, acknowledgments, or guideline policies. City Attorney Rammell mentioned that a few golf courses in Utah had implemented such measures. He shared a concern that in past years, people had dropped off 12-year-olds who were left to watch younger siblings while playing golf. However, others noted that this behavior had decreased and that it was now more common to see people bringing infants in strollers and car seats. Golf Pro Garn expressed more concern about safety than about older kids playing. He recalled seeing babies in strollers on the course and noted that although bringing a 12-year-old to golf independently wasn’t worrying, the presence of very young children presented greater risk. County Commissioner Mendenhall agreed and emphasized that the real issue was with babies and toddlers, especially those in strollers who disrupted the pace of play and raised safety concerns. The conversation turned toward developing a clear and posted policy. City Attorney Rammell explained that the course could either indemnify itself from liability or post guidelines —such as restricting strollers or defining age minimums—so long as the rationale wasn’t discriminatory. He gave an example of players using strollers modified to carry golf clubs. Others pointed out that many couples were using golf outings as family time, with one parent golfing while the other walked the course with a stroller. Board Chairman Johnson said while he valued the family-friendly environment, he agreed there needs to be language clarifying that bringing infants or toddlers was at the guests’ own risk. Golf Pro Garn shared a story about telling a golfer that bringing his baby wasn’t safe. The golfer replied, “I’ll do whatever I want.” Golf Pro Garn emphasized the risk involved if another golfer accidentally injured a child. Golf Pro Garn recalled a tragic incident at another course where a child was struck and killed, prompting that course to ban all children under a certain age. He expressed concern that their own course might face similar risks if no action was taken. City Attorney Rammell reiterated that the solution wasn’t to ban all young children but to have clear, visible rules and regulations in place. Discussion regarding adding disclaimers on receipts or signage on golf carts. The conversation turned toward practical enforcement: employees, especially younger ones, needed clarity on rules so they could enforce them confidently. Board Member Boehm noted that currently, some parents drop off kids and leave them unattended, sometimes leading to property damage or safety issues. They discussed the possibility of requiring acknowledgment at the time of purchase—either in person or online—and including policies in the pass-holder agreement. City Attorney Rammell pointed out that while most pass-holders wouldn’t read every word, the acknowledgment would still help limit liability. Golf Pro Garn mentioned that pass-holders often didn’t check in at the pro shop, making it difficult to enforce on-site agreements. City Attorney Rammell suggested including the language at the point of sale for season passes, with a digital acknowledgment or signature. Board Member Boehm stated that he noticed the pace of play being significantly affected by kids. Golf Pro Garn mentioned that kids typically weren’t a problem during early morning tee times, such as 5:45 a.m. Discussion whether implementing a waiver based on age would be appropriate. Board Member Sorensen acknowledged that it might be a hassle but suggested setting an age threshold—perhaps 10 or 6 years old—for when waivers would be required. City Attorney Rammell responded that while individual waivers each time would be ideal from a liability standpoint, it wasn’t practical. However, he explained that a waiver could be required for specific cases, like when someone brought an infant or toddler onto the course. In those situations, the waiver could serve as a safety measure. 10 City Attorney Rammell said they could target a designated group—like parents bringing infants—and require a waiver for them to be on the premises. He suggested simplifying the process by having a one-time annual waiver for parents bringing children, which could be kept on file for the entire season. He clarified that if someone was using a season pass, the purchase itself could serve as a form of acknowledgment of the course's rules. However, he noted that there could be legal gray areas with enforcing such assumptions. City Attorney Rammell said it would be possible to implement an age -based policy, such as requiring a waiver for any child under a certain age—perhaps under two or under five. He added that they could base the policy on similar principles used by other organizations, like height restrictions at Disneyland. The key, he explained, was to define the age or developmental threshold where children were obviously not there to play golf. City Attorney Rammell said a good approach might be to require a waiver for children five and under. He also stated that if Golf Pro Garn noticed a specific family or group repeatedly creating safety issues—like children running into the driving range—then a policy could be enforced for those cases. Board Member Sorensen suggested the idea of having a formal policy in place—one that not only Golf Pro Garn could enforce, but the entire staff would be responsible for upholding. He noted that the policy should not depend solely on one person’s judgment. City Attorney Rammell explained that the concern wasn’t necessarily about a 12-year-old or a 7-year-old swinging a club, but rather about the presence of much younger children who could be in harm’s way. City Attorney Rammell mentioned that if a small child was running around the course and a staff member were operating equipment—like a Cushman utility vehicle—they might not see the child while turning a corner. That situation, he emphasized, created an inherent risk. He said he didn’t think it was a bad idea to move forward with a policy and offered to prepare something. City Attorney Rammell said that he would draft both general and more specific policy options and then present them to the Golf Board Members. From there, the board could choose from those options, suggest edits, and eventually implement the policy in phases. He also mentioned the possibility of having multiple versions on file so that if the situation evolved or if risk continued, they could incrementally increase the restrictions. Board Chairman Johnson said the next agenda items involve policies regarding golf carts and group sizes. Discussion focused heavily on the challenges of group merging and slow play. City Attorney Rammell explained that sometimes two groups went out separately and then merged on the course, effectively creating large, slow - moving groups. Golf Pro Garn explained that staff has tried reminding players of basic etiquette during busy days, such as completing nine holes in 45 minutes, keeping carts 30 feet from greens, and using cart paths when appropriate. They felt those reminders helped improve the pace of play. He noted that on holidays, such as the Fourth of July, it was common to see groups of six or more trying to combine, despite having booked a tee time for fewer players. Staff often knew from the outset when a group planned to merge and tried to enforce the rules by stating, “You had a tee time for four.” However, in some cases, they allowed it if the players kept up with the group ahead of them. When necessary, staff issued verbal warnings and stated that if complaints came in, the players could be removed from the course. Golf Pro Garn continued to explain that they often judged group sizes and speed by day and occasion, sending larger or potentially slower groups to the middle nine to avoid clogging the main flow of play. They tried to reroute slow groups coming off hole 9 toward the middle to prevent further backups on the South course. While most of the staff handled this well, they acknowledged that younger employees sometimes got distracted and didn’t catch slow groups as quickly. County Commissioner Mendenhall shared a personal story about mistakenly playing on a Saturday and encountering an eight-some, calling it a rare but frustrating experience. Golf Pro Garn speaker pointed out that during busy holiday weekends, many players only played once or twice a year, making slow play almost inevitable. Staff did their best to manage this by keeping a close eye on group movement and adjusting the course flow accordingly. Most of the staff members were attentive and able to recognize potential issues, though some of the younger employees were more distracted—often on their phones—and didn’t catch things as quickly. Staff 11 also kept an eye on slow groups and tried to reroute them after hole #9 to prevent backups, directing them to the middle nine while letting faster groups proceed to the South course. While some golfers allowed others to play through, it didn’t always solve the issue. Golf Pro Garn explained that allowing play-throughs often indicated slow pace, and that led to further delays. They encouraged players to skip unnecessary practice swings and play ready golf instead. When groups still moved too slowly, staff occasionally had to step in, which sometimes resulted in negative Google reviews. They also noted that slow play had become more common due to overflow from Idaho Falls. Many of those players couldn’t get tee times in their hometown and traveled to the course, bringing with them a slower pace of play. Those golfers were used to rounds lasting 2.5 hours for nine holes, whereas the local course culture emphasized quicker play—ideally completing nine holes in around one hour. Golf Pro Garn acknowledged that some players had started to adapt, realizing that weekend golf required different expectations. They noted that weekday rounds, especially before 4:00 p.m.—were typically much faster, often completed in three to three and a half hours. Board Member Boehm asked about the golf cart policies. Golf Pro Garn recalled previous discussions about charging full cart fees, particularly for private carts or single riders. While other courses charged one person for the entire cart, this course took a more flexible approach, typically splitting the cost between two riders. However, they noticed that people often wanted their own carts, especially due to social preferences or because they brought along non-golfing spectators. Golf Pro Garn described how groups of four golfers would sometimes have six carts because they brought along family members or guests. In those cases, staff did their best to monitor and charge appropriately charging full cart fees for spectators due to liability and insurance concerns. Board Member Boehm emphasized that charging full cart prices for private cart use or extra spectators was essential to maintaining revenue and ensuring fairness across all players. Golf Pro Garn expressed concern over the growing number of private carts on the course and the problems they create. He explained that one of the main frustrations was a sense of entitlement among some private cart owners. Many of those individuals believed that because it was their own cart, they could drive it wherever they wanted, including areas where carts were not permitted. Board Member Wright said she witnessed private carts parked improperly, including trailers taking up multiple parking spaces —sometimes as many as eight spots for just four carts. Golf Pro Garn predicted that the number of private carts would continue to increase, estimating that they might have up to 60 on the course soon. Board Member Wright asked if they are charging storage fees to the private cart owners. Golf Pro Garn confirmed that storage fees were already being charged to those who stored their carts at the facility, but the growing presence of private carts raised broader concerns about enforcement, fairness, and revenue. Discussion regarding some individuals that paid only a small trail fee and claimed they were only playing nine holes, but then used the cart all day, often with multiple people riding who hadn’t paid. They acknowledged that this behavior likely led to a loss of revenue and a potential abuse of the system. It was noted that the issue might be more than just financial. Some believed the entitlement attitude and misuse of private carts created operational problems on the course. Golf Pro Garn recalled an instance when a golfer received a warning for parking too close to the green but later complained after being reminded of the rules. Discussion regarding possible solutions, including requiring all private cart owners to pay a full -season trail fee rather than discounted or daily rates. They believed this would simplify enforcement and ensure consistency. Golf Pro Garn suggested making the trail fee equal to the full-season cost of renting a course-owned cart. Another option was to increase the trail fee rate as a potential deterrent if the number of carts became unmanageable. Board Member Wright pointed out that many of the private carts were being used not just by the owners, but also by friends, family, and others who hadn’t paid. They emphasized the need for clearer policy and possibly tighter enforcement to prevent widespread misuse. 12 Finance Officer Nielson suggested addressing this issue during the next council or budget planning session, especially for the 2026 season. He explained that having policies in place ahead of time would help manage the situation before it became unmanageable. While they were unsure of the current financial impact, they agreed it was worth evaluating trail fee revenue data at the end of the year to assess how much was being lost and whether policy changes were justified. City Attorney Rammell clarified that the new fee structure would not come into effect until the 2026 golf season. Board Chairman Johnson pointed out that the maximum rate could be approved now, but they could still choose to charge a lower rate later. He proposed voting to raise it to 100% for now, and if future analysis justified a lower fee like 50%, then it could be adjusted accordingly. He also explained that although the official books might be listed 100%, Golf Pro Garn could still ring it up at a 50% rate if needed. Board Member Boehm mentioned that if they waited until February of the following year, there would still be enough time to implement the change. Finance Officer Nielson said a public hearing would need to be concluded, which might involve additional publication costs. He noted that the city might already be planning another hearing by the end of the year and that publishing a few additional items would not be very expensive. He clarified that the fees would be published twice before the public hearing, provided the council passed the resolution that Wednesday. They expected the full list of city fees to be much longer than just the golf -related items. Board Member Wright clarified a person using their private golf cart would either buy a season trail pass or pay a daily cart fee each time they visited. Finance Officer Neilson said he would prefer eliminating the daily trail fee entirely and simply charging a $10 cart fee regardless of who owned the cart. He felt this approach would be simpler and more consistent. Golf Pro Garn expressed concern about potential backlash, especially as more residents began purchasing private carts, particularly in nearby neighborhoods. Finance Officer Nielson said that if customers had the option to buy a season pass and receive their discount, the policy would be fair. Board Member Sorensen said from a fee administration standpoint, he suggested that they could accomplish their goal by eliminating the season trail fee. Finance Officer Nielson recommended deleting the punch pass and daily trail fee entirely and instead explaining the new structure to the public and elected officials. This approach would align with standard practice elsewhere, where cart users paid the same fee regardless of ownership. Board Member Sorensen moved to approve to discontinue the trail fees for daily and punch cards for the 2026 golf season; Board Member Wright seconded the motion; Board Chairman Johnson asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Board Member Wright Board Member Boehm Board Member Sorensen Board Member Parkinson Board Chairman Johnson The motion carried. Discussion about how parking could be considered a potential source of lost revenue, when people use a trailer to transport their golf cart and take up two parking stalls. Board Chairman Johnson noted that the season passes made things easier to enforce, as they allowed staff to treat all users consistently without worrying about whether someone was reselling rounds or access. Staff confirmed that the season pass covered household members, not just individuals, meaning spouses could share in the benefit. Finance Officer Nielson asked if the golf course had run out of carts as often as they used to. Golf Pro Garn replied that it did not happen as frequently now, largely due to the increased number of carts in circulation — though that came with a cost. Golf Pro Garn mentioned that the carts were sparse over the weekend, especially 13 on a couple of rainy nights. He recalled that while they did not run out of carts on the 4th of July, they did run out the next day. Board Member Boehm clarified that they currently have 75 carts, with 20 more at Legacy. Finance Officer Nielson emphasized that private cart owners were still welcome to bring their own, but they would need to pay the same price as everyone else. This ensured fairness while still giving users a choice. Discussion about whether passes covered spouses. Golf Pro Garn confirmed that regular passes did include a spouse, but the same did not apply to senior passes. County Commissioner Mendenhall reminded the board members that while the city operated the course, the county remained a key partner. He encouraged the group to remember the broader goal of promoting Rexburg as “America’s Family Community” and to ensure decisions reflected fairness for all, including senior couples. He pointed out that while the current policy gave a senior discount for individual passes, it didn’t automatically extend to their spouses unless they bought a second, full-price pass. He urged the group to be mindful of perception and community unity, even though he understood they had many other things to manage. Finance Officer Nielson responded that a spouse pass did exist, although it wasn’t specifically discounted for seniors. He acknowledged the discount wasn’t large, about $50, but felt it was still reasonable. Board Chairman Johnson suggested creating a new “senior family” pass option to address the issue directly. e. Other Items as brought forward by Board Members 4. City or County Input/Issues a. Other Items as brought forward Staff or Elected Officials 5. Golf Pro’s update of issues/concerns/problems/projects a. Update on Trailer signs for rentals-This has been ordered by city staff-hope to have installed soon. b. New HVAC system further discussions or updates c. All Other Items as brought forward by Golf Pro Board Member Boehm asked if the air conditioning issue had been sorted out. Golf Pro Garn confirmed that it had been fixed and was working well, but explained that cotton from the trees blew around, it clogged the system. The airflow would eventually stop, and ice would build up around the condenser. Discussion regarding receiving a proposal for a service agreement, where someone would come regularly during the summer months to clean it. The cost seemed to be around $275 per month. Ultimately, the technician came that morning and got the system running again. It was cooling properly at that point. 6. Golf Grounds Manager update of issues/concerns/problems/projects a. Tee Box, netting, and Range Lights at Tee Box (Seth and Cam to come back with design proposal) b. Update on mapping with GIS and our City Works Coordinator to mark the location of all the irrigation lines and equipment on a map with coordinates. i. More work to be done here with marking sprinkler heads and noting pipe size. c. Update regarding new signs that are being ordered for Legacy parking. d. Other items as brought forward by Golf Grounds Manager Grounds Manager McFarland reported they are working on completing the block wall, which would mark the end of this year’s portion of the project. Board Member Boehm asked if they needed to worry about installing lights at the tee or driving range. Ground Manager McFarland agreed it wasn’t a priority, though he acknowledged it had been a topic of discussion for years. They had some extra lights available, which had sparked the original idea. Board Member Parkinson mentioned they should first focus on purchasing nets and mats. Ground Manager McFarland agreed and added that expanding the tee area to make it larger would be a more pressing improvement than installing lights. 14 Discussion about the idea of installing permanent netting, noting that it was likely more of a long-term, 10-year goal. The board members agreed to remove the item tee box, netting, and range lights at the tee from the table for now but planned to bring it back later. Discussion about the landscaping around the maintenance area, asking whether the college could supply white sand to help with the appearance. Regarding sand, Grounds Manager McFarland explained he had once tested a particular type during construction of the new greens but found it held too much water. He warned against using that type again. Board Sorensen commented that similar sand at another course hardened and played more like grass, making it difficult to blast out of the bunkers. He suggested using black sand from Anaconda, noting that it looked cool and played similarly. Board Member Boehm asked if GPS had ever been added to the flags so players could get accurate distance readings to the hole. Ground Manager McFarland replied that he had not yet investigated it but promised to follow up. Board Chairman Johnson described a system in which a GPS transmitter would sit on the flag, connecting to an app to display pin distance. Board Member Boehm said he was unsure of the cost to add GPS to the flags; however, emphasized it would be a neat feature and could promote the city’s slogan “America’s Family Community.” 7. Determine Next Board Meeting Date/Time a. 8/12/25 at 4:30 pm 8. Tabled Agenda Items to Consider: a. Consider landscaped items at the service shop area after completing main parking lot/clubhouse improvements. 9. Executive Session (Statute 74-206)-Only held if necessary, and subsection authorizing the executive session must be stated-Generally held after regular meeting to discuss labor contract matters. (If necessary) (j) To consider labor contract matters authorized under section 67-2345A (74-206A) (1) (a) and (b), Idaho Code. Adjournment 5:49 P.M.