SAFFORD — In a meeting with the press Wednesday, Safford City Manager John Cassella explained the reasoning behind Safford’s decision to terminate the intergovernmental agreement with Thatcher for operation of the Mt. Graham Golf Course.
He said the decision was based on a desire by the city to establish equitable cost-sharing to maintain an asset that benefits the entire Gila Valley.
“If that services goes beyond your own border, it seems like a logical expectation to say, ‘Hey, maybe this is an opportunity for you to help us to provide that service,’ ” Cassella said.
He added that Safford remains willing to meet with Thatcher to negotiate a new IGA for the golf course, as well as meet with all entities that utilize other services the city offers.
In January, the Safford City Council authorized city staff to negotiate a new agreement with the Town of Thatcher for the golf course, and to work on an agreement for joint funding of the library with Thatcher, Pima and Graham County.
In 2016, Safford and Thatcher entered into an IGA for the operation of the golf course. Thatcher was to provide utility service to the golf course, club house and restaurant, and remit the sales tax collected to Safford for golf course operations.
Cassella said the original agreement was for Safford to provide subsidies for the golf course of up to $200,000 through 2019. He said the city has often exceeded that amount and continues to make those payments to present day. He also said the city pumps treated effluent to the golf course for irrigation at a value of up to $500,000.
The golf course is owned by Safford, but is within Thatcher town limits.
Once the termination goes into effect July 6, Safford will be responsible to pay Thatcher for utility service, estimated at $50,000 to $60,000 each year. And Thatcher will retain all sales taxes collected, estimated at $24,000 to $36,000 each year.
“The idea is, if we can sit down, talk about, work through, agree, disagree and in the end, hopefully, get somewhere that’s mutually beneficial,” Cassella said, “but if you’re going to debate an agreement or talk about an agreement, it requires two parties at the table, willing to have a discussion.”
