Little Falls council debates golf course rules, youth supervision and employee benefits as fee schedule set for decision

At a Little Falls City Council special work session on March 17, 2025, council members reviewed proposed changes to Policy 57 and a related personnel policy that would affect membership rules, youth supervision and employee access at the Little Falls Golf Course. Staff told the council the golf fee schedule (Resolution 2025-07) needs to be finalized so memberships and rates can be loaded into the city system.

The issue matters because the policies affect public access, liability for unsupervised youth, and an employee benefit that city legal counsel said may violate Minnesota law. Changes could also affect the golf course’s operating revenue and staff recruitment.

Alex, a city staff member, opened the discussion with a facilities and operations update, saying “we do have the clubhouse manager position is posted, and it's been getting some traction.” He also reported progress on pro-shop carpeting, a new deck, security door quotes and purchases of small kitchen items for under $500.

Alex also told the council that “both Little Falls and Royalton use the Little Falls golf course facility for both of their practices as well as their games. And it's also been brought to our attention that they do it at, at no cost.” He said staff cannot authorize a permanent fee waiver and recommended allowing the schools to continue this season while researching a nominal fee for future seasons so schools can budget.

The redlined Policy 57 changes that staff presented include renaming the facility in the policy to “Little Falls Golf Course,” clarifying membership categories (for example, a single membership minimum age clarified at 24), adding a college membership to match the fee schedule and removing obsolete punch-card language. The fee schedule being considered this meeting includes changes to the driving-range seasonal pass (medium and large bucket options).

On youth golf, staff proposed preserving free golf for youth but limiting unsupervised access. As Alex explained, “what we're suggesting changing is saying that all youth still golf for free, but with when they're accompanied by at least 1 paying adult, whether that's a member or a paying adult.” The proposal would allow a single responsible adult to accompany multiple youth players; council discussion centered on when exceptions should apply for organized teams.

Council members pressed staff for a high-school exception: the fee schedule proposal would include a Little Falls High School golf team membership that allows rostered high-school players (including 13- to 15-year-olds) to play without a chaperone when the city has a roster from the coach. Council member Jerry said youth on a school roster “have had some training,” and several council members agreed that rostered team members should be treated differently than general youth who arrive unaccompanied.

Annie, the city attorney, told the council the prior practice of granting a free membership to golf-course employees who worked 200 hours in the season conflicts with Minnesota law. As she stated, “previously, within that policy, it stated that anybody that worked for the golf course that, worked 200 hours during the season got a free membership. So excuse me according to Minnesota state statute, that is illegal under gift ban and public purpose doctrine.” She said the legally compliant alternative would be to remove the benefit from Policy 57 and, if the council chooses, offer a nonmonetary wellness benefit available to all city employees under Personnel Policy 12 (for example, a points-based wellness program); on that point she said, “it would be free golf for all city employees” only if structured as a nonmonetary, city-wide wellness program.

Council members expressed a range of positions. The Council President said he would not charge Little Falls High School students for use this season, citing community partnership. Other members said they would not impose a fee this year because the season is near but asked staff to research what other municipalities charge and present options for 2026 so schools can budget.

On next steps, staff warned that the golf fee schedule must be available to publish memberships and rates: “At a minimum, the fee schedule does need to be decided tonight so that we can move forward with that,” Alex said. Council members agreed to proceed with finalizing the fee schedule entries needed to open the system and to defer full adoption of the broader Policy 57 and Personnel Policy 12 changes for additional deliberation. No formal vote on Policy 57 or Personnel Policy 12 was recorded at the work session; the council directed staff to return the fee schedule and the revised policy language for formal action at an upcoming meeting.

Discussion points not resolved at the work session included whether to require chaperones for all youth (several council members advocated a chaperone ratio of one adult per group of youth), how rangers should enforce rules and document violations, and whether to retain cart privileges for employees if a city-wide benefit is adopted. Staff and council members repeatedly emphasized the need for a deliberate policy decision before opening the season.

The council also noted that the proposed personnel-policy change removing the employee-specific free-membership language was based on the city attorney's legal opinion and that, unless the council adopts a city-wide, statute-compliant wellness benefit in Personnel Policy 12, golf-course employees would not receive a free membership as a stand-alone benefit.

The session closed the golf discussion with instructions for staff to finalize the fee schedule items needed for system setup (Resolution 2025-07) and to return the revised policy language and suggested Personnel Policy 12 wording for council action.