The Pasadena City Council on Sept. 17 approved Ordinance 2024-174 to purchase and install a shaded structure at the Pasadena Golf Course at a cost of $203,000.83.

The measure passed after council debate about whether the expenditure is an appropriate use of city funds for a facility that council members said has run operating deficits. Councilmember Barr summarized multi-year losses reported for the golf course and said the city should prioritize other parks and recreation projects over the shaded structure. “In good conscience, after losing $1,000,000 of dollars out there, I cannot vote for this shade,” Barr said during the discussion.

Council supporters framed the shaded structure as a parks-and-recreation quality-of-life investment. Councilmember Sandbach said parks funding routinely includes improvements such as softball fields and trails and positioned the shade as part of that system. “This is an extension of our parks and rec system,” Sandbach said, adding that the city invests annually in a range of recreational amenities.

The financial figures discussed by councilmembers included multiple historical operating losses and a current-year projection: Barr said the golf course lost $425,000 in 2017, $336,000 in 2018, $498,000 in 2019, about $418,500 in 2020, $111,000 in 2021, made $112,000 in 2022 after fee increases, lost $41,000 in 2023 and is projected to lose about $43,000 in 2024. Barr also cited city budget figures showing roughly $1,500,000 in expenditures and $1,200,000 in revenue at the golf course for the year, a gap he characterized as about a $300,000 deficit. Those numbers were presented by Barr as the basis for his opposition.

Council members recorded two “no” votes on Ordinance 2024-174; the mayor announced the motion passed and had two dissenting votes recorded. The roll-call tally beyond those two dissenting votes was not spelled out on the meeting transcript.

The ordinance item was discussed during the council’s final-reading segment, and the council proceeded to other agenda items after the vote.

The council did not adopt any additional conditions or amendments to the purchase authorization during the meeting.

Why it matters: The discussion highlighted a recurring budget question for the city — balancing investments in recreational amenities against the operating costs of a municipally owned golf facility that councilmembers said has a history of losses. Supporters described the shade as a community amenity; opponents said limited city funds should be targeted elsewhere.

What’s next: The ordinance authorizes procurement and installation of the shaded structure; the meeting record does not indicate a separate implementation timeline or department-assigned follow-up in the transcript.