Louisville golf fees under review as staff models increases to cover Coal Creek deficits

Louisville finance staff is modeling higher Coal Creek Golf Course green fees after projecting that the city-run course’s Golf Fund will continue to lose money without a change. No final recommendation had been recorded as of July 23.

The options include no increase, a 5% increase, a $5-$10 increase per 18-hole-round equivalent and larger increases tied to reserves and capital needs. Under staff’s projections, no increase would produce an operating deficit of about $158,500 in 2027, growing to $264,500 by 2032. A 5% increase would still leave deficits, from about $73,500 in 2027 to $160,000 in 2032. A $5-$10 increase would produce projected operating surpluses, starting at about $79,500 in 2027 and declining to $28,000 in 2032, the financial-modeling presentation shows.

Staff also modeled an increase of about 45% to maintain a minimum reserve and about 21% to generate roughly $200,000 a year for capital work. Those are financial scenarios, not adopted fee recommendations.

The Recreation Advisory Board’s July 27 meeting is scheduled to include a Golf Fund update and a Golf Fees Subcommittee update. The city’s agenda lists the meeting for 6:30 p.m. at the Recreation and Senior Center. The presentation says staff met with the subcommittee on July 14 and was returning to the full board for a recommendation or recommendations. As of July 23, the meeting had not occurred, and no council action was recorded in the supplied materials. The presentation is identified with the July 27 meeting but has a July 14 final-slide date, another indication that the material remains under review.

The modeling does not show how each fee option would change annual-pass prices or the share of play by Louisville residents. Staff assumed 2026 estimated or budgeted rounds would continue through the projection period. June 22 board minutes identify declining annual-pass sales as a major factor in weakening Golf Fund revenue and show that staff was seeking input on annual passes, green fees and resident preferences. The record contains no final annual-pass price, resident discount, resident-use target or other adopted access policy.

Capital needs are part of the rationale for larger increases. The presentation lists a $205,000 bucket renovation, $262,000 in maintenance-facility paving, equipment replacements, cart-path repairs, clubhouse and tee-line work, fencing and robotic mowers. Its unfunded list includes irrigation and water-rights work, a potential $2 million clubhouse replacement or use improvements, roof and solar work, course improvements and clubhouse parking-lot lighting.

The capital figures are preliminary and inconsistent across the supplied documents. The presentation totals funded or proposed Golf Course Fund projects at about $1.39 million and the unfunded list at about $2.49 million. The agenda packet’s summary instead reports about $1.74 million in preliminary 2027-32 capital projects and about $490,000 in additional unfunded projects. The records do not explain the difference, so neither set should be treated as an adopted capital plan.

The city’s self-sufficiency requirement for the Golf Fund limits the use of other city money to close the gap, according to the June minutes. The next documented decision point is the Recreation Advisory Board’s consideration of the staff models; any recommendation would need to be recorded before it could be described as final.