Just as
It's evidently driving the mayor nuts that Emerald City's Crown Jewel Park is running negative revenue, and by gum, Godfrey intends to do something about that -- right now. Whereas he'd earlier vowed to schedule a public meeting "within the next few weeks," he's now put the matter on the front burner, with a town meeting set for Wednesday, March 19, 2008. After many years of purported losses, we're wondering "what's the sudden rush?"
Mr. Schwebke also reports the "unveiling" of four possible options for the golf course:
1) Put the matter on the ballot and let the public decide whether to continue subsidising the course through a blanket tax increase,Today's story also reports the calendering of a work session with the city council on March 18.
2) Ask the public to approve $6 million in bonding to redesign the course to make it more "playable."
3) Forget the whole thing and let it go back to "seed."
4) Impose a punitive Special Assessment District on the naysayer Mt. Ogden neighbors whose collective political action forced Boss Godfrey on the eve of the last election to abandon his scheme to sell the park to his crony Chris Peterson.
As to the council work session, now that Godfrey is dropping the issue in the council's lap, it would seem to be the ideal time for council leadership to demonstrate true leadership, and to set the tone for Mayor-Council relations for the next two years. We believe that the council should take the initiative on this issue, demand a full accounting of golf course income and expenses from the time of the course's original opening in 1984, including scrutiny of the amortization of the "loan" which golf course management ought to have been paying down over the past 24 years. This is something that should be done prior to considering any of the "options" now being put on the table by Mr. Godfrey.
All of the above option scenarios, all of which are quite drastic, depend upon Godfrey's assertion that the golf course is losing money at the rate he says it is. Although we'd like to be able to take Godfrey's word for it, past history demonstrates that we can't.
We hope every interested Emerald City citizen will attend Wednesday's town hall event, and press the administration and council for a full accounting. Likewise we call upon the council to order a full accounting, preferably from an independent auditor. Addressing any of Godfrey's proposed options would be "premature" at best, we believe, until we have numbers "on the table" upon which we can rely with confidence.
This, by the way, is the same approach that has been urged as a constant, here at Weber County Forum: Obtain and study the facts first -- then undertake action, if necessary.
The floor is open for reader comments.
45 comments:
The mayor outlines four options for the golf course. Three of them involve tax increases; the fourth option would be letting it "go to seed" to become a nature park with more hiking trails.
Let me humbly suggest a fifth option: Instead of telling the newspaper at every opportunity how unplayable the golf course is, Ogden's mayor could consider actually saying nice things about the course once in a while. You know, brag a little: "Ogden is lucky to have such a unique golf course in its foothills. Yes, it's a challenging course, but this is an asset because it brings in skilled golfers from all over Utah. It's a course where you have to hit the ball accurately, not just blast it as hard as you can. And the views are unparalleled."
While the mayor goes around talking-up the golf course, the city could bring in an outside consultant to make recommendations on how to better publicize the golf course. The consultant would also review the golf course's finances to find ways to run the course more economically. In the process, the consultant could address the allegations that the golf course is being wrongly charged for certain expenses such as subsidizing El Monte Golf Course and watering the soccer fields.
The article also announces that the public meeting on this topic will be on Wednesday (presumabely the 19th) at 5:00 pm in the City Council chambers. Apparently the mayor will present his four options to the City Council the previous night at their work session.
A couple more thoughts...
If the city can write off a $6 million debt to the RDA, why can't they write off those old golf course debts that they apparently can't even document?
Last summer I submitted a GRAMA request for any records of communication with professional golf course designers. There were no such records. So I'd be interested to know where Godfrey got the $6 million figure for the redesign.
Sadly, Mr. Schwebke's story is, yet again, an exercise in press release journalism, that goes not one iota beyond reporting the Mayor's statements. For example, the story does not point out that the "debt" the city golf course owes is... to the city. It involves money the city owes itself. Nor does the story report that the Godfrey administration's own people recommended, when he first took office, that that construction debt be simply forgiven, since the prospect of its being paid by the city to the city was, more or less, zero. That plan died when the Mayor decided he needed to run up the apparent losses on the golf course to justify sale to his real-estate developer crony, Chris Peterson.
To those who object to having the city write off a portion of the debt it owes itself in re: the Mt. Ogden Golf Course, please recall that the Mayor opposing that is the same Mayor who, just weeks ago, recommended to the city council that it agree to write of $6,000,000 in payments due the city's RDA board because they were noncollectable. Six million.
And, as Dan has noted, the Mayor has yet again gone to the press to tell potential golfers and customers that the course is not golfer friendly. He's been doing that now for several years. I have to wonder, as Dan does above, how much more business Mt.Ogden might have done if, over the same period, Hizzonah had promoted the Mt. Ogden Golf Course with half the enthusiasm and consistency he has recently promoted Ogden attractions that do not yet even exist, like the ice tower. I seem to recall that Golf Digest was it, listed the Mt. Ogden course as a top-ten course fairly recently. I don't recall the Mayor making that part of his attempts, as Mayor, to promote the course as an attraction. But then, I don't recall the Mayor making any attempt to promote the course as an attraction to visitors. Isn't that his job, or part of it?
Rudi is correct that there can be no meaningful public discussion... on the Council or around town... until the Council and the public have before them an accounting of Golf Course revenues and annual expenses on which they can rely. We have, as yet, seen no such accounting, only self-serving claims by the Mayor who spent nearly three years trying to sell the golf course to his real-estate developer associates for development as a gated community of vacation homes for the non-resident wealthy. That Hizzonah has seen over the past years, and still sees, an advantage to him in ratcheting up the alleged losses and debt [money the city owes itself] of the golf course has high as possible seems fairly clear.
Research first. Facts first. An accurate and public auditing of the course's maintenance and operational costs on the one hand, and the revenues it generates on the other, is the essential first step to addressing the problem... if there is one.
In case no one noticed, the legislature did it again this session. Another "Developer's Dream" Bill which opens the door a crack to enable municipalities to sell off golf courses and parks, pools, recreational facilities which are adjudged to be in competition w business' and which are unprofitable, if the City needs the cash to pay themselves...say during a recesssion. Hmmmm?
Weber County just paid themselves, the entire County Workforce regardless of performance, a 9.1% pay raise during the budget "approval" on 6 December. 2% outright raise, 2% COLA, and another 5.1% "to pay for increased medical coverage expenses", 9.1% payraise without the BS and "spin". (You know those guys who gather every morning at Karen's Cafe at 0900 AM for breakfast until 1030 AM on our tax dollars.) And no one said a word about it. It cost us taxpayers $2,000,000 in property taxes. Another $2,000,000 for yet newer "equipment", Sheriff's luxury cruisers and SUVs, etc. Hell they even tossed in some RAMP money ($122,000)into the budget for an intercom system at the Washington Terrace new Library boondoggle.
The City workforce is probably salivating like Pavlov's dog and the City Council is under pressure to do the same for the City workers while funding water supply infrastructure.
Where's the money gonna come from? More taxes during a recession? Or from "a wise decision to sell off Mount Ogden to developers"?
How does publicly subsidized golf differ from publicly subsidized miniature golf in the Salamon Center with a $22,000,000 taxpayer stipend? If the little Mormon worm is selling Ogden as an outdoor enthusiasts wet dream area, then how does attacking or beginning yet another case against a public jewel (Mt. Odgen) which is both a park and golf adventure square?
How about the City Council strapping Mayor Godfrey to a post located at the 200 yd. marker on the driving range every Tuesday and Thursday. Watch the revenues climb exponentially.
Who is "asleep at the switch" in Ogden? Happiness is Utah in my rearview mirror!
It's sickening the way Godfrey goes around evaluating our recreational assets when the extent of his athletic activities involve cross-country running. I have heard that he golfs, so what does he know about playability. He definitely does not snowboard or ski yet he attempts to tell me, with a thousand days of experience, how you can ski down to town from the west side of the mountain. He promotes the Salomon Center attractions as though he uses them yet I have never seen him there doing anything but standing around. He declined my goading to strip to the waist and flail away on the flowrider. What a chump. Does he climb, ice or rock, NO. What an excessively self-absorbed non-starter. Can anyone shut down his expanding ego. Can anyone shut him up. I remember last fall Mt Ogden GC with a full parking lot all the way to snowfall. It's friggin' winter, dude. Does he have no desire to measure the numbers at Mt Ogden this spring now that all his Salomon recruits are snuggled in cozy in Ogden. I thought all these newcomers were going to make a turnaround for this town. That should include golf. He sickens me. I despise posers.
While we're on the subject of promoting the golf course...
Check out the golf page in the recreation section of the city's web site. The list of local golf courses puts El Monte fourth and Mt. Ogden fifth, below three private courses that aren't even within the Ogden city limits.
The photo on this page of the Mt. Ogden golf course shows some trees and a stream, but doesn't begin to do justice to the magnificent views. If you follow the link to the page on the Mt. Ogden course you'll see some really nice photos--but that page takes a long time to load.
Imeant to say "I have NOT heard that he golfs."
Dan:
Nice catch on the city promoting three private courses NOT in Ogden city before it gets around to promoting ANY city course. And even then, Mt. Ogden comes behind El Monte. Nice catch indeed. And this is on the City's website!
Curm:
I didn't discover that web page myself; in fact I believe I read about it on this blog when someone (Bill C?) pointed out the same thing a year or two ago. Since then they've improved the page for the Mt. Ogden course, but not the general golf page.
Curm:
Regarding Schwebke's reporting, he would probably respond that he tried to balance the article with a quote from Ms. Wicks, but that she declined to comment because she hasn't yet seen the mayor's proposals.
The golf course staff could undoubtedly offer some comments, but if they open their mouths they'll be in danger of losing their jobs.
Given that no public official could be expected to offer another side to the story, Schwebke should have taken the next step and called Bill C. I know he has Bill's phone number.
anon,
Bill is certainly an avid golfer. Why can't Schwebke call a golfer for an opinion? I'm sure if he contacted one of many golfers groups around the state you could get some interesting statements about MOGC. I'll add that Scott Schwebke is also a poser newsman. You hear that, Scott. A poser. I like you and we have had constructive conversations but "press release journalism" describes you in a nutshell. Why can't you get it that you need to probe and not just regurgitate. Ask a question or two and get other opinions from a variety of interested parties.
I asked Schwepke a year or so ago what he thought about some matter that was before the council. His answer: "I don't have opinions, I only report the facts" He seemed pretty smug about it. Strange for a guy who considers the "facts" whatever Godfrey tells him and apparently never checks those "facts" with independent sources.
Tec:
Two points on which we disagree. First, about the reporting on this story. No, Mr.Schwebke asking a golfer for an opinion would not have materially improved the story, without that golfer being recognized as representing some broader community --- president of the local Golfers Association, if there is such a thing. I am certain Mr. Schwebke could have found a golfer to ask who would have criticized the course. I am sure the mayor would have happily provided him with names and phone numbers. At best it would have been "he said, she said" journalism. Better than just "he said," but not by much.
The story could have, should have, been strengthened, but not by finding a golfer --- some golfer, any golfer --- to ask, or hunting up Bill C. who is as committed a partisan against the Mayor and most of his proposals as I can think of. If I were a reporter looking for comment on the Mayor's proposal, I would not call up someone whose preferred phrase for Hizzonah is "lying little Matty." Bill C. is a community resource, in my opinion, and I'm damn glad he's here. But he is not the source I'd ring up for comment on any Godfrey proposal [unless I thought he had verifiable information not otherwise available, as he has on occasion ferreted out].
What I think the reporter could have done, should have done, was do a little probing into the Mayor's financial claims that the course "loses" a quarter of a million a year or that it will take so many millions to make the course more golfer friendly? "Where did you get that number, Mr. Mayor? How do you know that's the cost of retrofitting the course? Can you give me your source for that?" And "When did the city loan the money to the golf course for its construction? How many years ago? In that time, has original loan as been repaid? If so, how much? Can I have a source for all that, so I can check it? " He also might well have asked, since the Mayor's claims rest upon what he alleges is an insufficient number of rounds played on the course each year, this: "How has your administration over the past eight years promoted the Mt. Ogden Golf Course to tourists, travelers, visitors, and others along the Wasatch front?"
With the information generated from those questions in hand, he'd have been well set up to write a good story, and not just a rephrase of the Mayor's press release. And if the Mayor could not or would not answer those questions, his refusal and his reasons for refusing or failing to answer would have been as appropriate to include as was Councilwoman Wicks' declining to comment along with her reason for doing so.
If the Mayor's numbers are rock solid, then I as a citizen want to know that before the Mayor's hastily called "public input" meeting. And if the Mayor is fudging the numbers to make the course look like a liability to justify some other plan he has for it, then I want to know that. It is the SE's job, as My Home Town Paper, to dig that information out for me and the rest of its readers. It's job began with reporting the Mayor's press release. It shouldn't have ended there.
Second: Tec, it's kind of silly to expect the mayor of a city to take part in all the recreational opportunities his city offers. Ogden offers hiking trails, golf courses, soccer fields, tennis courts, softball fields and more. To comment on those city-owned facilities and their best use does not require Mayor Godfrey or any public official to hike, golf, and/or play soccer, tennis or softball. He's fully entitled as Mayor... he would be as an Ordinary Citizen... to have an opinion on how best to use those city resources whether he, personally, made use of all of them, some of them, or none of them. There are many criticisms to be made about how Hizzonah has dealt with Mt. Ogden Golf Course. His not being a golfer is not one of them.
If the lyin little lord truly wanted to save the city money he would expand on these four options for the golf course and include ideas on how to reduce or eliminate the approximately million a year that his incompetent development dream team drains from the city budget each year.
In addition to their outrageous salaries and perks, these losers cost us tax payers untold millions in an endless string of illogical and bizarre deals. Their crowning achievement - the Rec Center - will most likely end up costing the tax payers of Ogden City $25 to $30 million when it collapses financially from the shear stupidity of it all.
Given the four choices he has proposed for the golf course, it is obvious what he is up to. That being selling it off on the cheap to Peterson or some other insider scam artist he buddies up with.
None of his proposed options get even close to finding out the real problems, if they even exist, and fixing them. That is what an honest and competent CEO would do. But then again Lord Godfrey is the sorriest ass excuse for a smart CEO that has ever appeared on the Utah scene. He and Wayne Ogden should be sharing a cell together, they appear to be on the same level. He is a punk and a sanctimonious bully. Sorry Spitzer, our little punk has you beat in this category hands down! The only difference between Spitzer and the punk is that Spitzer frequents whores, while the punk is one to the assorted leaches, sycophants, scam artists and accused felons that he consorts with.
Just my humble opinion of course.
Oz:
I find it interesting that the Mayor did not include in his list of potential "what to dos" this:
#5: Hire an experienced and successful recreation industry promotion consultant to devise a promotional plan that will increase business at Mt. Ogden Golf Course to its full potential. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, [a] promoting city-owned golf courses on the city website before courses located outside the city and [b} extracting a pledge from the Mayor not to disparage the course or refer to is as "not golfer friendly" or "too hard" in public or to the media for the remainder of his current term in office.
Curm:
While I agree that, in principle, Schwebke should have asked all those follow-up questions and gotten all the facts and written a truly informative article on the subject, I've long since given up on such expectations. Schwebke isn't interested in facts; he's only interested in quotes. Asking Bill C. for a comment may be a poor substitute, but at least it would be better than nothing. Bill is actually very knowledgable about the golf course and has at least as much credibility as the mayor on the subject, in my opinion.
dan:
No question, Bill is knowledgeable on many of the public policy topics that interest him, the Mt. Ogden Golf Course being one of them. But I still think his ardent, outspoken and often scurrilous comments on the mayor, "lying little Matty" being but one of them, largely undercuts his ability to be a good source of reaction or comment on a Godfrey proposal for a general circulation paper. If I were a reporter, I wouldn't call him for that reason. His views are too likely to be dismissed as "oh, that's just Bill C. He hates the Mayor." And too likely to open the paper and reporter to this fair question: "Why in the world did they ask Bill C.? He hates the mayor." Wish that wasn't so, that the vehemence of Bill's rhetoric had not undermined his public credibility among the not-already-engaged on any particular Godfrey-related issue, but I think it is.
As for "giving up" on expecting good reporting from the SE: Never, Sir! Never! Whatever I might think about its reportorial [and editorial] shortcomings, it's (a) My Hometown Paper and (b)The Only Game In Town. Which means my only option is to keep critiquing it when it falls short, and stroking it when it gets it right. Over time, it is reasonable to hope that it will improve. Seems like a long hard row to hoe at times, I agree. But worth the effort.
Curm:
I stand by my claim that Bill has as much credibility (on the subject of the golf course) as the mayor.
Dan S:
For you and me, no argument. For the public [aka readers of the SE who were not actively engaged in opposing the Mayor's re-election], I doubt it.
Credibile does not mean the same as knowledgeable. Bill is I suspect far more knowledgeable about day to day and overall operations of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course than the Mayor is. But public credibility is another matter. That comes with [among other ways] election to office or by becoming a spokesperson for a particular interest group, or from, over a long term, having built up credibility by extensive involvement in public affairs in ways which build credibility. [That sounds tautological, but I don't think it is.]
For example, the elected leader of an environmental group might become the paper's go-to guy on environmental matters by right of his being spokesperson for the group. In that capacity, he might have given testimony and provided documents and corroboration for his and the group's views in a variety of public venues over the years, so that, even should he no longer be spokesperson for the group, he would still have built up substantial public credibility on environmental matters and still be the media's go-to guy for comment on such issues. I don't think Bill C. has, to date, built up that kind of public credibility, despite his substantial knowledge about matters like Mt. Ogden Golf Course operations. And, as I said, I think his tendency to rhetorical overkill [at times] makes it difficult for him to create the kind of general public credibility he would have to have in order to become the go-to guy, first on the speed dial, for reporters when issues like this come up. If, for my sins, I became a reporter, he wouldn't be first on my speed dial, for the reasons above.
Curm, sometimes I think you just like to argue.
First of all, remember that the mayor lost any credibility he might have had regarding the golf course by campaigning to sell it for two years. Even many of the folks who voted for him (for other reasons) are unlikely to trust what he says about the golf course.
Second, remember that the vast majority of Ogden's newspaper readers have no idea who Bill C. is. If the newspaper were to quote him, and identify him accurately as a frequent patron of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course, that would be enough to give him a certain amount of credibility with readers. I grant you that Bill probably hasn't endeared himself to Schwebke. But I still maintain that a quote from Bill would have added a lot to the article, and therefore Schwebke should have sought such a quote.
25 cents/month from each Ogden resident will cover what the mayor says the golf course is costing each year.
24.50 per month for a year will cover the cost of the rec center when it goes tits up. And 98.00 per month for one year will pay off the city debt that the Lord on nine has racked up.
But thats only if you can squeeze it out of 85,000 people.
Been thinking on some other questions it might be interesting to ask the Mayor in re: the "value" of Mt. Ogden Park golf course.
We've been told, over and over again, for some years now, that each of the attractions the city has bankrolled [Salomon Center, etc] will bring business to the city, people who will be drawn here by them, stay in hotels/motels, buy dinners, etc, and so pump a great deal of money into the local economy [and tax revenues] over an above the admissions they pay for the attractions like the flow rider and wind tunnel.
OK, fair enough, if the projections hold up. But I wonder, why have we heard nothing about the economic impact of having the Mt. Ogden course in the city? Over the course of a year, how many extra hotel rooms are filled by people coming in to play a tournament, say? How many meals bought by people coming in to play around... or two? How much collateral business has it generated for the city? Haven't heard nary a word about that. Curious.
And of course, there is the additional question of how much collateral business might it have generated over the past four years if Ogden's Mayor had not made a point of telling the newspapers and radio stations that it was "not golfer friendly" and was "hard to play"? How much more in collateral income and taxes might it have generated if the Administration had actively promoted it as a major attraction rather than dissing it at every opportunity instead? Seems a reasonable question to ask, since we're regaled with dramatic projections about how much collateral business other attractions not yet in existence will bring to Ogden hotels and restaurants and such. Like the ice tower. Why one standard of measurement of economic "value" to the city for attractions the Mayor and his cronies favor [gated communities of vacation villas, gondolas, wind tunnel rides, surf rides, ice towers etc.], and a very different measure of "value" for attractions already here that they want to sell to each other?
Seem fair questions to me.
oldguy says,
Great comments folks - right on the mark. Since the midget has raised the question of profitability wouldn't it be nice if we could extend that topic to an open and frank discussion of the Salomon Center. Perhaps, that is the purpose of the midgets current interest in the MOGC -a diversion. The MOGC is a recurring theme for the little guy and he may be harbouring resentment - golf was once considered a rich man's sport. Of course, trying to figure out what motivates the mayor is a lost cause but it is always a temptation to try.
BTW, a good place to start in assessing the playabilty of the MOGC would be a panel compossed of the course pro and staff, some of the dedicated MOGC golfers and for balance, a city planner or two. A citizens committee won't get it. If the course needs some correction here and there, fine, but I don't like the idea of turning it into another Ben Lomond and without some educated input it could happen.
Curm,
ALmost all cities have softball and soccer fields. It's the HiAdventure stuff that he has tried to use to set us apart from the aveeragfe city and in the process posed as an expert on ski trails, ice climbing, and downtown redevelopment. None of these he knows anything about yet he forces his plans on everyone and uses his position to shunt query and to defer to his panel of experts who onloy exist in his mind. He has never presented an expert on resort planning, transit, gondolas, golf course reconfiguration, or anyone other the conflicted Jeff Lowe as cosultant on the ill-advised ice tower. Bill hates the mayor as I am beginning to also because of his brazen disregard for local input and the few citizens still willing to offer him an opinion other than the lemmings in his circle.
Tec:
On this, you and I could not agree more: He has never presented an expert on resort planning, transit, gondolas, golf course reconfiguration...
Many of his "projections" seem be based on wishin' an' hopin' and dreamin'. People have been calling for research, feasibility studies, expert testimony on a whole variety of his "can't miss" grand plans for years. None have been produced. The most glaring example being his "projections" for the success of the flatland gondola, the mountain gondola, the sale of the golf course and its conversion into fairway-side vacation villas, the success of the unbuilt Tyrolean Fantasy in Malan's Basin. Long on rosy predictions, very very short on corroborating evidence such as might convince someone being asked to loan money to the ventures. All we've ever gotten was this: "Mr. Peterson wouldn't be willing to risk his own money on this if it wasn't a probable success." But of course, he wasn't going to risk his own money. And, apparently he could not convince the bankers and major money lenders [who were, we now know, happily lending billions to people who had no prayer in hell of paying their mortgages] to lend money to him for his project. They thought it, apparently, more dicey than lending 220K with no money down on an interest only mortgage to a guy earning 38,000 a year with three kids and one on the way. Which is why, of course, Peterson had to have the city sell him the golf course for vacation villas so he could make enough money that way to pay for the rest of it.
Smoke and mirrors, which now even the Mayor admitted [under threat of losing his job] when he took sale of the golf course off the table because he'd suddenly noticed that the land was too hilly to build on anyway, he said. Though now, he's trying to rewrite history, claiming the real reason he took selling the park off the table was to preserve the trail system. Right. And weapons of mass destruction were not the reason Bush invaded Iraq, so it didn't really matter if they weren't there at all.
Tis enough to gag a maggot.
I loved Rudi's take on Godfrey's four options.
It's an interesting question raised here. Will the mayor be asking for input on whether the millions spent on the economic development department have been worth it?
Should we have a vote for a special assessment to cover THAT money loser? Somehow, I don't think we will.
But they may be goners anyway. In a few month's time, it may come down to them, or cops.
Curm
Hey I'm with you on the Bill C. thing. My blood boils every time he uses the term "Lying Little Matty" when referring to our puny Peckerwood mayor.
I am sick and tired of you people on this blog. You are constantly putting me down and pointing out the mistakes that me and my crack team of executives make.
I dont like you telling me how to choose my friends. I prefer to hang out with liars cheaters criminals, and developers interested in sucking the great city of Ogden dry.
I enjoy lying to the citizens about every aspect of business in this town, I particularly enjoy creating hate and discontent with the Council. I really like to make the women of the council burst into tears from my harsh abusive ways.
I cant wait to get even with you smart growth people, do you really think that I wont sell that stinking golf course? It's as good as done as I type. I only told people that I wouldnt sell it to get re-elected.
So you people better repent to me and I mean pronto, becasuse I have my list and I will make life hard on all of you. I will get even if its the last thing I do.
I hope you are all ready for another great four years of division and hate in the great city of Ogden, i know I am, I thrive on it.
Ta ta for now idiots.
Ok,chew on this. Every comment in this post I can document.
First Curm, Schwebke does have my number and should have called me.
I've been a member of the Mt.Ogden mens association since the day the course opened, and Pres. since the late 80's. This does give me alot of credibility in this area. I've witnessed first hand everything from the sneaky dealings of Cowles Mallory to the disengenuous current assault.
First, this debt is like some mystic illusion, and will forever remain one.
Both loans were originated after the golf course was built and opened. I by way of GRAMA tried to get the documentation for these two loans. The reply was nothing exsists. I appealled and had a hearing, all that was produced was a photo copy of a piece of scratch paper that had had a column of numbers, one mating the the first loan. During the hearing Arrington stated that the City has no documentation of the loans or where the money was spent.
I have Council meeting minutes from the time these loans were generated, most of the talk centered on areas around the golf course,(adjacent park) and the Loren Farr pool.Arrington also stated he cannot document where the money came from for the Loren Far pool or what any was spent on.
At the time, the golf courses were part of the City Parks division. Immediately after the approval of the loans work began that constructed Costitution Way, the parking lot between the golf course and the newly constructed tennis courts. They also built the parking lot on 32nd and Taylor ave. Coincidence?
In 2004 Mark Jojnson and John Patterson made a huge push in front of the City Council for the forgetting the debt, and starting anew. The golf course had been making all their debt payments and interest religously up untill the late 90s. To paraphrase Patterson, the city has received all it's original money and much more. Keep in mind this is like me loaning money to myself, one fund to another.
On a budget revenue basis the picture is not so bleak, $500,000 spent, $465,000 taken in. These aren't exact, I have the exact figures but not right at my keyboard. It's around $37,000 difference.
The City also profits quite abit on the $500,000 expenditure, fleet operations take alot of that sum. The Administration even gets in on the act, they bill the course $20,000 a year administrative fee. They even get dinged $ 12,000 a year for IT sevices they don't even participate in.
There's more, but I have alot to prepare before Wed. the sudden urgency to have a public meeting doesn't give me alot of time, oh, that's by design.
My dad was a golf addict. I even dabbled in the infernal damn time waster myself when I was younger and had no sense.
With this golf exposure I was always under the impression that the tougher courses were for real golfers and easy ones were for dilettantes and posers.
My dad played courses in Hawaii, California, Utah and numerous other places. He played Mt. Ogden into his mid 70's and thought it was one of the best any where. Mt. Ogden and El Monte are also in absolutely beautiful locations which makes them both world class as far as the visuals go.
It seems to me that most of the great courses in the world are known for being tough. Courses like Pebble Beach and St. Andrews come to mind.
I agree with Curmudgeon (if you can imagine that!), if the city promoted Mt. Ogden as the fabulous course that it is, it would be a great financial boon to the city and help promote Ogden as a sport and recreation mecca - which of course seems to be the program these days. But then again if Godfrey allowed that he wouldn't be able to find a way to give it away on the cheap to one of his pals.
I also wonder how much the tax payers of Ogden are losing on the stupid little day glow golf layout in the High Tech Rec disaster. It, along with the bumper car ride next to it, takes up about 20% of the place and in the dozen or so times I have been down there I have never seen any one using either one.
I guess we will all just have to wonder about that one. Given the way Godfrey plays games with financial reporting and his always in secret MO, we most likely will never find out the truth unless some court orders a forensic accounting of the whole disaster down there.
Bill:
Three points. First this: you wrote I've been a member of the Mt.Ogden mens association since the day the course opened, and Pres. since the late 80's. This does give me a lot of credibility in this area.
I did not know that. That, I agree, gives what you say a great deal more weight than just "one golfer's opinion." Given that, I'd have called you too.
Second: as noted above, I'd be curious to know the dollar value of what the golf course paid back on the loans over the years. I've not seen that anywhere. I wonder if, over the years, the course has paid back the original dollar value of the loans or close?
Three: I'm curious to know how, if the city cannot document the amount of the loans or how much has been paid back or what the money was used for, how the city can then claim the city owes itself the amount the Mayor mentioned? Fair question to ask, seems to me.
As for Wed's meeting, I think the proper descriptive term is "hastily called."
Curm, we can document the loan amounts and the payment record, but that's all. Whats convieniently missing is any other documentation. Period. The mayors constant badmouthing has been extremely harmful coupled with no advertizing or promotion. All they hear is how bad it is from someone who has zero knowlege or reference point on the matter.
Both loans total a bit over $900,000. The flaw in the Council and City Managers mind was that there would be no cost in providing this fantastic amenity to the residents of the community.
What doesn't cost something? They've probably got $1,000,000 sunk into 4th st park, that will never be recovered. How much have they plowed into Lindquist field? It ain't coming back.
City recreation costs, if you don't play the compound interest game most would conclude Ogden got one hell of a bargain. You could say that even at the bloated $2,000,000 figure.
The proper response would be, whats the big deal?
Capital cost, it seems, is water under the bridge since every park in the city "loses money." I think the main issue Godfrey is addressing is the annual operating deficit.
This is similar to Godfrey trying to axe Union Station and Marshall White because they require an annual subsidy.
One clear message should be: How can we comment when we don't have the numbers? The council needs to have hard numbers. That should be the council’s position.
I won't be able to be there Wednesday, but was going to write a letter.
Being more controversial, I'd rather see a park or raw land there than the golf course, or the addition of a lighted winter park including a cross country trail. So my vote would be to save money by letting the golf maintenance go and just water and cut the grass. That would be my preference.
But I know how obsessive golfers are and how much work has gone into this golf course. After 25 years, this course is much more viable than the old mall was, and more than the Salomon center will be 25 years hence. It’s really hypocrisy for the mayor to have all these ratholes all over town losing money, and focus on the Station, White Center, and the Course. But then again, his contractor paymasters won’t be giving him any kickbacks on those places, will they, because they get nothing for keeping them open, do they?
Anyway, I plan to participate. But I don’t know how to say it’s fine with me to convert the land to a park, without alienating good people.
Gotta go ‘till tomorrow . . .
Maybe MOGC should be made even tougher by letting the grass grow and forgetting the weed and feed. It's highly toxic shit anyway. That'll save some greenbacks. Golf courses are notorious environmental hazards and suck the life out of water supplies. Oz mentioned St. Andrews which brought this thought to mind. Seems the likes of the world's best flock there every year to curse the rough and have their go at it. I rather like roughshod golf. MOGC suits my game just fine. So does the ambience. Showing up in my grubbies and a six pack and my ragged gear and rumbling around the cartpaths in the summer sun. Nothin' better. Do I keep score? Hell no... Except for the lost ball count.
Citizen:
You wrote: One clear message should be: How can we comment when we don't have the numbers? The council needs to have hard numbers. That should be the council’s position.
Exactly.
Honestly, I think you people should just trust your mayor in every decision that he makes and you should just support that.
Consider option #5:
How about using tax increment financing to entice a private enterprise to take over the golf cours and shoulder the burden of its operating risk.
Then put restrictive covenants on that investor that require him to run the golf course as it is. Also, require him to sell the golf course back to the city at the same price he bought it for if his efforts fail. This will prevent the investor from selling it to say...Chris Petersen.
The affect of this agreement will be to limit the investor's options to one solution: Advertising and Marketing. As I agree with Dan S., I'm certain that the investor will find success with this venture, and we can avoid all of this hand wringing.
I'm certain that they could get a private business person to agree to such an option.
I think it might be difficult to get the city to invest tax money in an aggressive advertising and marketing effort on a golf course that they are losing $250,000 per year on and have incurred $2 million in debt--to date.
I really think this solution will work, and it will meet the needs of the community.
I'm considering unveiling this option at the open house next week, but it would be nice to flush out the arguements and details here.
Thoughts?
Dumb idea, option five.
How about about just beating the bush and trying to find an independant operator who's willing to lease it long term?
Selling the golf course is not an option, as Mayor Godfrey solumnly promised right before the November 2007 election, by the way.
Rudy's idea isn't bad either. The council should commission an audit. It's dumb as hell to make any decision without independant analysis from an indepoendent auditor.
Nobody in their right mind would trust Gofrey's numbers.
Read up, anonymous: Readers please take note: Comments entered under the "anonymous" ID will not be permitted on this blog. Please log in from a registered Google account, or alternatively pick your own unique "nickname," if you choose to comment here. Check our "Comments Policy" in the right sidebar for more information - Thanks
It's in the header.
Please try to follow the same rules that eveyone else who posts here does.
Thank you.
It's relatively easy, anomymous.
Click the Name/URL radio button in the comment post window, and enter a handle of your choosing.
The "URL" box is optional.
We've bannned the anonymous ID for a reason. When three or four are posting here, it creates concusion.
Option 5:
You wrote: I think it might be difficult to get the city to invest tax money in an aggressive advertising and marketing effort on a golf course that they are losing $250,000 per year on and have incurred $2 million in debt--to date.
The problem, Option, is that we don't know that the golf course is "losing" a quarter of a million a year. We have only the Mayor's claim that it is and he's hardly a disinterested party. And there are people here who say they can document that it is not losing that much. And, since the "debt" involves money the city loaned to itself, and the it seems to have paid back regularly on the initial loan [$900,000 I think], what that alleged $2,000,000 "debt" is is accumulating interest payments from the city to the city that have been added to whatever principle was still outstanding when MOGC ceased making regular payments... after which Mr. Paterson told the Council it was the Administration's position that the "debt" the city owed to itself, or what remained of it, should be written off. In short, it is possible that a good portion of the alleged two million dollar debt has been inflated as well [I suspect to justify sale of the course two years ago to Mr. Peterson]. But I don't know that.
For you solution to be discussed intelligently, answers about the true annual operating loss of the course [if there is one], and the true amount of the original loan that remains unpaid, would have to be established. That hasn't happened yet. So, seems to me, your fifth option is a little premature. We need to have reliable numbers about the course's operations, annual expenses, income and "debt" [city owes to city] first.
How much income does City Hall bring into the municipal coffers each year? None? Then why don't we sell the building off and let the Mayor work out of a tent in one of the city parks?
Parks and the like are benefits provided by a city for its residents. Try telling New Yorkers that Central Park is on the auction block because it doesn't make money! Like parks, the golf course should not be expected to make a profit.
I expect that the meeting designed to allow "public input" is in reality a sham just like the Mayor's Peterson Plan information sessions. Disagree with him and you have to listen to his self-righteous ranting or walk out.
A notice of Wednesday's public meeting has been posted on the city's web site, along with an email address to which citizens can send comments. I would encourage people to copy the city council (citycouncil@ci.ogden.ut.us) on any comments submitted.
Post a Comment