January 18th City Council Agenda

7 Responses to “January 18th City Council Agenda”

1. Charles Schroeder says:

   1/17/2010 at 3:38 pm

   I believe that the City benefits from the airport as much or more than the county. The Golf course serves a small section of the cities population and should not supercide the benefits the city recieves from a full service airport. Since it is not necessary to move the hole the cities request for a total funding for redesign is inapproprate. Even if the city wanted to design a new course from scratch $800,000 would not be a wise investment of city monies for astetics of a hole. I do not have a dog in this show as I do not play golf or fly but look for wise expenditures of out tax monies.

   Thanks for reading Charles
2. James Kemp says:

   1/17/2010 at 4:45 pm

   Tom,
   As I’m sure you know, I am pilot and a hanger owner,and also have strong feelings as to the way the City has handled this issue. The City has a ” I gotcha finally “attitude toward the County,with grounds probably. This is not the issue to fight over, it is to important to the citizens of Fbg/Gillispie Co. Settle this mess Mon.p.m. and put it to bed.
   Thanks,
   James
3. Tom Avant says:

   1/17/2010 at 4:57 pm

   Tom, I agree with Mr. Schroeder. More people would benefit from a top-notch airport than from spending taxpayer money on golf course changes. And more tourists would fly to Fredericksburg, further enlarging the city’s coffers. I would bet that a study of how many people actually use the golf course would show that most people there, both residents and tourists, don’t play golf. During the past two years the Abilene City Council, dominated by golfers, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads and commercials designed to convince voters to approve huge expenditures on one City-owned golf course and the purchase of another private golf course. When the issues were placed on a referendum in 2008 and again in 2009, both times voters turned down the proposals, much to the chagrin of the City Council. I think that people recognize special interests when they see them.
4. Johna Clark says:

   1/17/2010 at 8:33 pm

   We are members of the golf course and interact with many people who are winter texans and visitors who love the course and believe it is a great asset to the area. These people including us locals spend a lot of money in the community. A good number of folks come out from the big cities to get away from the rat race for some down to earth, quiet, great quality golf for a really good value. The staff and management for the course and the restaraunt do a fantastic job. We agree the course should hold its value and whatever it takes, the course should be protected. The wildlife is spectacular and enjoyable while playing golf. It is impressive when the big planes come in. But they also leave a big carbon footprint for a few exclusives’. I’m sure there are many more folks that enjoy the park, the sports, the tennis, the swimming, the stream, and the clean air than a few in airplanes. We need to keep Fredericksburg off the beaten path. We will soon become overrun by big city encrouchment if we allow too much expansion for the sake of expansion. We need to be well rounded and know the grass and trees at the course are very valuable. Concrete and runways and exhaust can be found many places.
5. Sherryl Brown says:

   1/18/2010 at 8:23 am

   Tom,
   I have been dismayed by the inability of the City of Fredericksburg and Gillespie County to resolve this issue of the avigation easement at Lady Bird Golf Course. This is not an issue of golf course users against the business interests of the community, rather it is a problem that can only be solved by consensus. All sides will have to take a hit on this one…that is why I am in favor of the City Council voting to accept the $400,000 offer made by the Commissioner’s Court. I think it is fair. No, it doesn’t account for all the additional costs of reconfiguring Lady Bird Golf Course, but in a cost sharing environment I think would be prudent to vote yes on this offer. I am a golfer, and I have a vested interest in the integrity of our municipal golf course that is one of the jewels of this community. But we want those planes to be able to land by flight instrumentation, not just sight. It is a safety issue as much as a financial issue.

   Sherryl Brown
6. Tom and other Council Members says:

   1/18/2010 at 1:56 pm

   I am both a city and county resident and my property tax statements indicate that I pay approximately the same amount of taxes to both entities. I, too, am dismayed (borderline appalled) that our city and county leadership is unable to resolve an issue involving my (and all the other residents of the city and county) tax dollars! I am a numbers-minded person and I suspect that, if a thorough cost analysis of the Golf Course and the Airport were prepared and reviewed, all of our citizens would see where the income stream is and where the black hole is. I strongly suspect that the Golf Course is the black hole, but I would prefer to see the figures before passing judgment. Come on, leadership (both city and county), let’s come to an informed decision and stop bickering over our tax dollars.

   John Benson
7. John Benson says:

   1/18/2010 at 1:58 pm

   Corrected name for comment 6

   John Benson