It was extremely refreshing to read Chuck Woodling's article, ``Lawrence needs municipal course,'' in the July 25, Journal-World. What is so impressive is that a non-golfer could investigate, research and analyze the facts and conclude that Lawrence really does need a municipal golf course even though we have two very fine country clubs.
The Lawrence Municipal Golf Course Committee, THK associates (a consulting firm), 1st Golf Corp. (a Golf Course building and financing firm) and the Lawrence city staff reached the same conclusions after several months of investigation.
1st Golf Crop. was so convinced of the local golf market that they proposed to build and finance the project with a debt reduction schedule based on user fees (no general tax funds to pay for the city golf course). The only financial stipulation was that should the city not be able to operate the course to meet the debt reduction schedule, 1st Golf would be given a lease to operate the course until the debt was retired. When the debt was retired the course would be returned to the city free and clear. I guess 1st Golf Corp. has confidence because they have built over 64 courses with similar arrangements and they stated they were not in the golf course operating business and have never had to operate one.
The previous commission had study sessions to learn about municipal golf courses. Why did the current commissioners feel it unnecessary to have a study session before they made their decision?