Wednesday, 19 October 2016 14:10

Outlining reasoning behind golf course stance

Written by  Contributed
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Editor:


Much has been made of my views on the Elmwood Golf Course Agreement during this election campaign.
It may be useful to reiterate the facts without any editorial comment, related to the contract between the City and the Golf Course.
1. Amount of Loan:  $2.4 million and has since been increased to $2.9 million.
2. Term of the Loan: 45 years.
3. Interest Rate:  Same as what the City borrows the money for.
4. First Principal Payment Due:  six years, since changed to four years.
5. Collateral Pledged to guarantee loan: No guarantees. Through a civil suit City could take over golf course not including Club House and parking lot.
6. Lot Sales: City pays the first $20,000 of each lot sale to the Golf Course. ($1.6 million).
7. Who owned the land being developed: The City.
8. What is the lease agreement with the City: Golf Course pays $1 per year.
9. Property Taxes paid by Golf Course: zero.
10. Who voted in favour of agreement: Entire council.
11. Special Levy Charged to golf course members to help pay for renovations: None.
12. Is waterfall and retaining wall cost included in cost of lots ($400,000): ?
13. Would any financial institution lend money under same terms: No
14. Is the City a lending institution: No.
The above facts are not in dispute. I will let the reader come to their own conclusions.
Don Robinson, Swift Current

Read 805 times