At the beginning of this year, a new government structure was instituted for the City of Portland. This, in turn, caused a new procedure for passing a budget which, in hindsight, was both very transparent and somewhat secretive. Why should Oregon golfers care? Because within this new structure, with little notice and limited public involvement and with almost no review or study, the new Portland City Council approved three things: 1. taking $825,000 from the City of Portland’s Golf Fund (“Golf Fund”) to be used for the City’s Small Donor Elections program, 2. taking $1,000,000 from the Golf Fund to be used for maintenance of Portland’s parks, and 3. raising green fees $5 per 18 holes.
In the landscape of Oregon golf courses, the golf courses owned by the City of Portland (and managed by its Department of Parks & Recreation) are, collectively, pretty important. The courses comprise one of the most varied and acclaimed municipal golf complexes in the country: Eastmoreland (a Charlie Egan design, seventh oldest course in Oregon and two-time host of the USGA Amateur Public Links Championship), Rose City (clubhouse is on the National Register of Historic Places), Heron Lakes (both Blue and Greenback courses, home of the former NW Open and the 2000 USGA Amateur Public Links Championship), RedTail (located on property leased from the City of Beaverton), and Colwood (a golf practice complex that includes a 3-par course). These are all great courses (and Colwood is a great practice facility) that deserve to be played.
Like any golf business, the Portland golf courses have seen their share of financial ups and downs. Way back when (I saw references back to 1923) a golf fund was established – an operating reserve funded by green fees and concession payments. There is very little in the Portland City Code that discusses the Golf Fund, but there is a statement of purpose:
Statement of Purpose: The Golf Fund is an enterprise fund and accounts for all resources and requirements of the Portland Parks & Recreation Golf program.
Sources of Revenue: All revenues derived from the operation of the municipal golf links shall be credited to the Golf Fund. The primary sources of revenue to the Golf Fund are: (1) revenues from contracts with concessionaires located at each of the City’s golf courses. This includes revenues derived from food and beverage services, clothing and equipment sales, golf lessons, cart rental, driving range activities where available, and collection of greens fees; (2) greens fees are paid by golfers for each round of golf played whether, nine holes or 18 holes.
Contingency Requirements: Per Financial Policy 2.04, contingency funds should be used to address reasonable but unforeseen requirements within the fiscal year. There are no minimum or maximum contingency requirements for the fund. Historically contingency size has been recommended to remain around one million dollars, but can fluctuate based on debt requirements.
Reserve Requirements: There are no reserve requirements for this fund.
Portland City Code (and rules) do not further define “enterprise fund.” But a State Administrative Rule does provide a definition within its budgeting guidelines for counties and cities:
(f) Enterprise Funds — To account for operations:
(A) That are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises — where the intent of the governing body is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or
(B) Where the governing body has decided that periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes. OAR 150-294-0420(2)
Accordingly, if a city sets up an enterprise fund (such as the Golf Fund) the intent is to deposit into the fund proceeds from operations and use those funds for operational costs, just like a business.
Although the intent of the Golf Fund is to receive revenue from golf operations and take withdrawals to support golf operations, there is no legal restriction on the use of the funds. Over the century that the Golf Fund has existed, money from the Golf Fund has been used for a variety of things. For example: to help build a new course in Portland’s West Hills in 1923; for a new irrigation system and bathroom at Eastmoreland in 1946; as a loan to help fund improvements at Portland International Raceway in 1984; to expand the course at Delta Park (now Heron Lakes) in 1986; and as a loan to help support the Oregon Symphony Association and to pay for a new Parks Resource Development Manager in 1987. My review of the historical uses of the Golf Fund showed that when money was used for non-golf items, it was in the form of a loan (that was repaid). For over a century then, the City maintained the intent of the Golf Fund.
The balance of the Golf Fund has gone up and down, generally following the popularity of golf. In 1978, it was overdrawn. By 2013 it had a balance of $1.5M. By 2017 the balance was reduced to $300K and the next year the City of Portland loaned $800,000 to support operations at the golf courses (which was repaid). In 2020, COVID prompted a material jump of popularity in golf and the balance of the Golf Fund increased. The last fiscal report from the City of Portland shows that the balance of the Golf Fund as of June 30, 2024, was $7,884,711.
So maybe taking $1,825,000 (or over 23%) out of the Golf Fund when it is so flush was “no harm, no foul” even though it was a failure of the intent and history of the fund. But I would think that before almost a quarter of the Golf Fund was used in such a non-golf way without any repayment provisions that City Council would have studied the long-term implications of making such a withdrawal. Right?
Nope.
During the hearing on the use of the Golf Fund, a few numbers were thrown out: that the $5 green fee increase would increase revenues by $1 million and that there is a capital maintenance backlog for the golf courses of between $16 to 22 million. The increase in revenue sounds good, but the large maintenance backlog sounds bad. Golfing operations in Portland have been cash positive since COVID. In 2023-24 golfing operations had positive net cash of $231,596. However, recent numbers received by the Portland Golf Advisory Committee suggest that the number of rounds is decreasing; that the COVID bump is fading. In addition, by raising greens fees by $5, it is probable that revenue will fall. Indeed, in 1995 when rounds of golf were decreasing, the City Administrator at the time blamed the decrease on the increase in greens fees for non-residents. I believe that the estimate of an increase in revenue was based on the same number of rounds being played, and, if so, it would be a bad estimate. Accordingly, a long-term view of the Golf Fund suggests that it may not be as healthy in the future as it is today.
The taking of 23% from the Golf Fund was: a break from intent of what the fund should be used for; a deviation from historical use of the Golf Fund to allow the use of funds for non-golf reasons that was NOT in the form of a loan; and done with little analysis of history or long-term effect on the fund. (I also tend to wonder if local golfers knew that a portion of their green fees was going to be used to support elections and/or public swimming pools if they may have gone to local non-municipal courses. In short, a breach of trust by the City.) How could this have happened?
Several reasons. First, the 2025-26 budget process allowed for last minute budget changes with little public knowledge, limited availability for public comment, and hardly any opportunity to study a proposed amendment. On February 28, the City Administrator released a proposed budget. In March and April, the City Councilors held numerous public listening sessions and working sessions on the proposed budget (good for them). There was lots and lots of opportunities for public comment (and there was). On May 5 the Mayor released his proposed budget (it is hoped, after considering all the public comments). After that, the opportunity for public input shrank considerably – essentially providing written comments through a portal and very little opportunity for oral testimony. In the meantime, City Councilors could propose any amendment to the budget. The public had to know where to find these amendments in order to know what was going on (and there were a lot of amendments you would have to work through). After a few work sessions during the week of May 12, the City Council held a day-long work session on May 21. That is the first time that using the Golf Fund was even considered. At the hearing, there was no discussion about the health, history, or long-term prospects of the Golf Fund. There was no request for testimony from those who would be affected or anyone who could inform the Council if enterprise funds had historically been used in this way. (The City has an active Golf Advisory Committee, but no one sought to seek its advice or suggestions. Several members of that committee wrote a protest letter that appeared in The Oregonian and one, Kristen Dozono, provided oral comments at the start of the May 21st hearing.) After the May 21 hearing, there was even less opportunity for public input and the budget was adopted on June 11.
The second reason why this happened is that the City of Portland was/is in a tough fiscal situation. The City was faced with a budget deficit initially reported at over $90 million and the new mayor ran on a platform of spending more money to address the houseless and crime problems in the city (so you have a large deficit plus funding for new projects).
A third possible reason (and I hope that I am wrong here) is that there seems to be a bias (callousness?) on the part of the City Council against golf courses. I believe this is demonstrated in at least three ways: first, why was only the Golf Fund considered? Portland has many enterprise funds, many with much greater balances than the Golf Fund. Second, why wasn’t there any outreach to those who use or operate the golf courses when the Golf Fund was being considered (Council, you have a Golf Advisory Committee!). Third, there was very little conversation on what golf courses provide to the City other than golf: open space, additional recreation programs (such as walking and yoga at Rose City), tree abundance, wildlife, improving diversity in recreation opportunities (such as Junior Leisure Hour), employment, watershed management and protection, and scholarships (hire an Eagle Caddy).
Raiding of the Golf Fund could easily happen next year. Portland is a long way from getting past its financial difficulties. And now there is blood in the water: the Golf Fund was used once, why not use it again? Indeed, if you have a healthy Golf Fund and operations appear to be cashflow positive, why would you raise green fees unless there is a plan to use funds for something other than golf.
What can you do? Contact the Mayor and your City Councilor [contact page link] and tell them the Golf Fund should be protected from any further non-golf related use. Contact the Golf Advisory Committee [contact link] and tell it of your concerns.
And support the Portland golf courses by playing and using them.