RockTrash

• Home
• About Me

When the City established the golf course, golfers promised to pay the full cost, and not to burden taxpayers with the expense.

So why are we on track to spend $6 million of taxpayers' money for the golf course?

Is this really the best use of taxpayers' money?

RedGate's Financial Performance Drops Precipitously in FY 2011

The FY 2011 financial results for RedGate were terrible, the worst in at least a decade. This is beyond serious.

• the deficit increased to $717,446, up from $546,329 in FY 2010. This excludes the $2.4 million payment from the general fund to retire RedGate's debt.
• Revenue, which is principally golf and cart fees, declined by $137,947, falling to $879,763.
• Assuming the $ per round was the same as forecast in the 2012 Budget ($31), the loss in revenue translates into a 4,500 reduction in the number of rounds played, falling to less than 28,000 rounds.
• This is the lowest # of rounds played in at least12 years, and it is less than half the levels in the late 1990s.
• This works out to a taxpayer subsidy of almost $32 per round, when you add in the $165,750 taxpayer subsidy for administrative expenses.
• For more info, see: Fourth Quarter FY 2011 Financial Report, page A-11.

Suggested Links

City of Rockville

Rockville Budget

Rockville Central

Patch

Max for Rockville

Taxpayers Subsidies For RedGate Golf Course

Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is appropriate for the City to subsidize the golf course.

Even if appropriate, does it makes financial sense when resources are extremely limited and golfers can play at so many other courses in the immediate area.

But we shouldn't disagree about the facts.

Below are some useful sources of info:

City Staff summary of the financial status of the golf course.

National Golf Foundation study of RedGate. Note the corrected estimates at the end, showing that even in the best case scenario, the golf course will continue to cost taxpayeres hundreds of thousands of dollars.

10 questions for golfers -- questions that deserve answers before we sink another $3 million of taxpayers money into the golf course.

FAQs about the golf course

Learn how RedGate's deficits had cut into the General Fund reserve by $2.4 million and threatened to reduce it by as much as 40 percent. This was extremely serious because we count on the reserve to be there in an emergency.

Golf Subsidy is 10 times the Swim Center Subsidy

Failure of 2006 Business Plan for Golf Course

The RedGate Advisory Committee Report -- I include this for completeness, but I forewarn you that it is incredibly one-sided. This was a slick, one-sided advocacy piece, not a neutral analysis that a City Advisory group should prepare. And since when is it appropriate for a City Advisory group to a politically-motivated petition. The City should disband this group and conduct a close review of the guidelines that such group operate under.

• The report stops with FY 2009 results, which conveniently allows it to ignore the much larger costs in 2010 and 2011.
• The report fails to address the even larger costs going out into the future. How can you write a report about the future of the golf course and not even mention that the taxpayers subsidy could grow to $923,000 in five years?
• The cost estimates in the report fail to include full costs. It excludes overhead expenses to help make their case that the golf course hasn't cost taxpayers. But their position is refuted by the NGF study, which correctly states that it is common practice to include overhead expenses. In fact, full cost is the gold standard of budgeting. I was amazed to see a spokesperson for the Advisory Committee and a CPA by profession make the outlandish claim that it is her professional judgment that overhead expenses should not be included in the golf course budget.