It is true that the city of Bowling Green is in the business of providing service, but when hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid each year by the taxpayers for a money-losing service that the city offers, why not leave all options on the table?

The service in question is our golf courses, which are continuing to see a loss of revenue each year.

We pose this question because we find it hard to understand why commissioners feel the need to bleed revenue on a noncore service when an option was on the table to lease one of the courses to a local businessman who might have turned the course around and actually shown a profit, given the chance.

Unfortunately, the city chose to turn down local businessman Greg Gary’s request to lease Paul Walker Golf Course.

Their decision is disappointing, given the huge deficit these golf courses are putting on taxpayers.

In fiscal year 2011, the city ran a $179,974 deficit on the course. It’s the second highest deficit since 2008, when it was $224,437. Overall in 2011, the city’s three courses ran a $923,965 deficit.

These numbers are simply unacceptable given the belt tightening and layoffs at City Hall, which makes the commission decision more troubling.

We fully understand that not all of the services the city offers make money, but this proposal seemed like an opportunity to reduce the deficit.

Gary, who said was going to bring the course up to United States Golf Association standards, made a very good point when he said why not take an asset like the golf course and release some of the liability so the city could take those funds and use them elsewhere, like other parks?

This seems like a legitimate question, but apparently the city doesn’t mind continuing to lose nearly a million dollars a year on its golf operation.

Commissioner Brian Nash, who opposed Gary’s idea, said there is a cost to providing services.

This is true, but can losses this sizable be justified during a period of belt tightening?

What did the city have to lose by giving Gary’s proposal a shot?

The city staff believed that Gary’s proposal didn’t provide enough detail and was too good a deal for him, but Gary commented after the decision that he had hoped to be able to negotiate.

Now we cannot know if the city could have obtained an arrangement more to its liking.

The city also had discussed closing Riverview, the golf course at Hobson Grove, since it was seeing a decline in golfers and losing a substantial amount of money as well.

On average since 2008, the city has subsidized 37.8 percent of the Golf Course at Riverview’s operating costs. That’s considerably higher than Paul Walker Golf Course’s 16.7 percent and CrossWinds Golf Course’s 19.4 percent.

City staff estimated in December that closing Riverview could move an estimated 10,000 rounds to Paul Walker or CrossWinds. Riverview has seen a significant decrease in play since 2002, when 16,865 rounds were played. In 2010, 10,978 rounds were played.

Wouldn’t it have made sense to close this course considering it is the least used and the city faces larger deficits to keep it operating?

Moving golfers from Riverview to the two remaining city operated courses could reduce their deficits.

We are hopeful, but not optimistic, that the city will re-evaluate the Gary proposal and the Riverview closing.