Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Spotlight on Our Championship Golf Course

A reminder of two important public events

This morning's Scott Schwebke article should serve as a reminder of tonight's council work session, and and tomorrow's town meeting, during which Boss Godfrey will begin his full-court press to address purported loan arrearages and revenue shortfalls related to the Mt. Ogden Golf Course. We provide here the story's opening paragraphs:
OGDEN — The city would have to spend $4.3 million over the next decade to cover anticipated revenue shortfalls and eliminate existing debt at Mount Ogden Golf Course, according to a scenario proposed by Mayor Matthew Godfrey.

The proposed payment plan to address the facility’s lingering financial problems was one of four outlined in a memo Godfrey sent to city council members last week.

Godfrey said the $4.3 million payment plan calls for a tax increase, which would allow operations at Mount Ogden Golf Course to remain unchanged.

He will discuss the options with the city council during a work session tonight and will hold a town meeting from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Wednesday in the council chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Blvd.
Although we believe that today's article probably represents a good faith effort on the part of the Standard-Examiner to provide its readership a detailed explanation of the financial condition of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course, we also believe the data in today's article and graphic table is deficient, inasmuch as it comes from the Godfrey administration alone, and not from an independent audit, of the type we called for in our article of March 13. The net result, of course, is that the Std-Ex has regurgitated Godfrey administration figures, splashed them all over the front page, with little or no attempt to verify their accuracy or reliability. Notably, Ace Reporter Schwebke mentions a negatively-amortizing "loan," relating back to the time of the original 1984 course construction, but fails to mention that no original loan documents exist to either prove the existence of any such loan, or to reveal that such loan, if it indeed exists, would have been a loan from the city to the city.

We believe it would be foolhardy to take drastic action on the future of the golf course until independently obtained figures are available for analysis; and we urge the Emerald City lumpencitizens to attend each of these events (torches and pitchforks in hand) to urge city council restraint, until we have a true and reliable picture of the financial posture of our crown jewel championship-quality golf course.

We'll also extend an invitation to anyone who might wish to submit a report on the events occurring in tonight's council session, either by way of our comments section or via a full article.

We're on a tight schedule today; so we'll leave the microanalysis to our gentle readers. Who will be the first to comment on the several red flags and outright errors appearing in this morning's Std-Ex article?

26 comments:

OgdenLover said...

If I remember correctly, the figures for El Monte Golf Course were included with those for Mt. Ogden. When this was discussed previously, there was no way to separate the two budgets.

Anonymous said...

How convenient of the Godfrey Administration to provide the Standard-Examiner with a table of revenues and losses that goes back only four years. If it went back another four years, it would show that the deficit was significantly less before Godfrey took office.

OgdenLover said...

Could the Golf Course issue be a diversion perhaps? How is the Salomon Center doing lately?

Anonymous said...

As I understand it, the original "construction" loan from the city to itself included construction costs for the tennis courts, for an irrigation system for the soccer fields and non-golf areas of Mt. Ogden Park. So the city benefited from that loan, and still does [via the improved facilities]. And the golf course has therefor been paying back with its revenues loan money that went, in part, to build non-golf course facilities.

I also understand that over the years when it was paying the city back for the original loan, plus interest the city was charging itself, the golf course paid back at total of 1.2 million [on the original 800K loan]. Seems to me the city originally loaned itself money for construction of recreational facilities, some of which were not used for the golf course per se, and has been paid back far more than it loaned over the years [unadjusted for inflation], and the only reason any debt remains for the golf course per se is because the city insisted on charging itself interest on the money it loaned itself, and has been adding the interest it hasn't been paying itself for a while to the balance outstanding, and has been charging itself interest on the the interest it hasn't been paying itself too. And let us not forget that it was Mr. Paterson who strongly recommended to the Council that the remaining outstanding 'debt' the city owed itself for the golf course construction loan, should be simply written off --- until the Mayor found a sudden need to run up apparent golf course "losses" to justify its sale to Mr. Peterson for a real estate development.

Anonymous said...

Why for the last twenty years the golf course was running it turned a profit and now that the mayor is managing the course it is losing money? I think the problem is the manager and not the course, time to replace the manager, which is the mayor.

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I think we should just believe the Mayor and support him in everything he does.

Anonymous said...

Once again the Standard Exaggerator got it wrong. They don't even do their home work. This is why retarded republicans keep getting elected. The retarded paper can't get it right.

Retarded Reardon, and Retarded Ted Allen do have opponents.

Anonymous said...

Godfrey claims that revenues are low due to the difficulty of the golf course itself. Being an avid golfer, I have played Mt. Ogden numerous times. I have also played Valley View in Layton and Bountiful Ridge in Bountiful, which happen to be owned by Davis County.

Now Mt. Ogden, Valley View and Bountiful Ridge are all very similar courses with huge elevation changes from tee to green, lots of trouble in the form of water, trees, weeds, rough or other obstacles on either side of the fairways, tough greens with lots of break in them. (For those of you who don't golf, greens are not flat and when you roll a ball across them the ball doesn't roll in a straight line, it tends to follow the slope of the greens which makes it tougher to make putts. Go play mini golf and you will see what I mean.) and none of these courses are very easy to walk so most people take carts instead of riding. All three of these courses are along the mountains and have awesome views of the valley below and you can even see wildlife meandering along the course once in a while.

Under the Mayor's theory then, since the courses are very similar in just about every respect except for who owns the course, that must mean that Valley View and Bountiful Ridge must also be losing money because they are just as if not more difficult than Mt. Ogden. In case you didn't know, Valley View and Bountiful Ridge are owned by Davis County and you don't see them stating that their courses are losing money. In fact I think that you would find that those courses owned by other governmental entities are probably breaking even if not making money. Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City also own their own courses and you don't hear them bitching about losing money.

Simple fact is that Ogden City doesn't promote Mt Ogden correctly, the Mayor is simply lying about the revenues and expenses of the golf course, and the citizens of Utah don't want to come to Ogden for any reason because Ogden is the butt spincter of Utah and everyone outside of Ogden knows this.

The mayor assumes, just like he has with The Junction, that people are going to come from all around the world to come to Ogden to play in his playhouse, climb his ice tower and play his golf courses when he is gravely mistaken. Maybe the mayor ought to make the course tougher so that more people will lose more of their golf balls and then he can lease them to the people who are leasing the Soloman Center and they can use them for their glow in the dark golf.

This is just another one of the mayor's ploys to sell the golf course to one of his cronies for his gondola that is going to connect his playhouse with his hotel and water park with some development in Malan's Basin that will not succeed anyways.

Call me a naysayer, I'll be at Valley View playing golf laughing my ass off when the mayor gets his way and Ogden goes bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

ogden sucks,

Although some might call you a naysayer, there's actually a very constructive idea in your comments. The city council should look into the financials of Valley View and Bountiful Ridge, and into how these courses are promoted, to see if we can learn anything useful from them. Maybe we'll learn that all public golf courses in the foothills lose a certain amount of money. Or maybe we'll learn that if we just changed a few things with the management and promotion, our course could be more successful than it currently is. Either way, we can make decisions on the basis of actual facts, rather than the mayor's personal theories.

Anonymous said...

Brenkman appears to be right in saying that the MOGC needs to be expanded and re-designed, if google earth is any guide. Data points: MOGC occupies approximately 117 acres for 18 holes plus a driving range. Bountiful Ridge GC occupies approximately 143 acres for 18 holes with no driving range. Valley View GC occupies approximately 176 acres for 18 holes plus a driving range.
The topography of all 3 courses is somewhat similar. How did the designer of Mount Ogden Golf Course possibly fit 18 holes plus a driving range on only 117 acres? Google earth shows that it was done by making the fairways of Mount Ogden Golf Course much narrower than on our 2 comparable hilly courses. Narrower fairways = harder to play = fewer rounds of paying golfers. Brenkman and Godfrey appear to be telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

Brent

If Godfrey told the truth it would be by accident.

Anonymous said...

brent,

Expanded? Who said expanded? And in which direction, exactly, should the golf course expand?

You can't expand it to the east without making it even hillier (and incurring tremendous expense for all the cut and fill and retaining walls). You can't expand it to the west without encroaching on the soccer fields. You can't expand it to the north without bulldozing a bunch of expensive homes. You might be able to expand it a tiny bit to the south if you don't mind eliminating one of the most popular hiking trails on the east bench, but even then you won't add more than a few acres before you again run into topography that's too steep.

So I'm afraid we're stuck with the small overall size of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course. The question, then, is what can be done within this constraint.

By the way, how did you get Google Earth to give you acreage figures? And how accurate are they? The city has put the acreage of Mt. Ogden Golf Course at 125.

Anonymous said...

Dan S.
At my office I have Google Earth Pro. It gives extremely accurate acreage figures if you zoom in and take the time to mark exact boundaries.
There are terraces to the east and to the south of Mount Ogden Golf Course that would need little grading and could be reached by golf cart. A golf cart is already all but mandatory to play MOGC because of the elevation changes.
I think the point Brenkman was trying to make is that he's done his best within the existing MOGC boundaries, and MOGC simply can't make it financially in the current configuration.

Anonymous said...

Brent, I respectfully disagree with your assumtions. First, Mt.Ogden sits on more like 130 acres, probably not totally utilized but what the hey. What you call a driving range is technically incorrect, the range at Mt. ogden is more a short iron practice facility, check the length on google earth.
Bountifull Ridge lost a comparable amount to the Ogden City Golf division last year.( note, I'm refering to real numbers, budget/revanue, not with interest compounded on interest with depreciation, administrative service charges and the like).
Salt Lake County lost $800,000.00 last year on their Golf operation.
Which begs the question, is public recreation intended to be a for profit venture? How would an accounting for the 4th st. softball complex compare if looked at in the same vein as Golf courses,paying for the construction and all.
The $3 million for Lindquist Field,I guarantee there's no payback there. Is Lindquist Field recreation, entertainment or just corporate wellfare?
I would like to express to everyone that the whole purpose of munincipal golf is not to be a sourse of revenue, the ideal is to break even. But that's a secondary purpose as well, the true purpose is to provide the recreation opportunity to the community at an affordable price.

Anonymous said...

Bill:

For the purpose of extending the discussion, let me play devil's advocate, based on Hizzonah's comments Tuesday night. Here's how I think he might reply to your post above:

"Bill, you can argue that a municipal golf course should be considered the same as any other park, and not valued by how much it brings in or costs to operate. And I might even agree. But the point is, the voters back when the loan was made did not agree to that. The loans were made from the two city funds [sewer and cemetery funds], and interest was attached. Real money was taken from the reserve funds of those two agencies, and loaned to MOGC, at interest, with the expectation that both principle and interested would be paid back.

"Now, to simply cancel the loans and interest outstanding, Bill, would require the city to make up that money someplace else... to take funds from some other budget to give to sewers and the Perpetual Care cemetery fund. That probably means selling a new bond, financed by tax revenues, or imposing a new tax to make up the money in the general fund. And we cannot properly do that without getting the voters' assent first."

In know, I know, Bill. The mayor who refused to put the gondola or park sale up to a vote because "this isn't a democracy" suddenly becoming a populist who wouldn't say "boo" without asking the public to approve by vote is.... well, it's a stretch. But, just for the sake of argument, if he did reply as above, how would you answer him?

Anonymous said...

brent,

This evening at the "town meeting" I looked at the proposed redesign of the golf course. The redesign doesn't move any of the fairways farther east or south--it's on pretty much the same footprint as the existing course, except for the clubhouse and a very small parking area near the water tanks, and a ridiculous up-hill driving range going up the mountain just south of Strong's Canyon. Perhaps this redesign would improve the course slightly from a golfer's perspective, but it's hard to imagine that the incremental improvement would be enough to justify the $6 million cost--which doesn't even include construction of the new clubhouse.

Your idea of moving up onto higher, steeper terrain would undoubtedly be even more expensive, and in general it defies common sense. Can you show me another golf course that's cut into 30% slopes as you're proposing?

Anonymous said...

Well Curm, fist, I don't buy themayors assertion of his hightened clairvoyance, he can crawl into the minds of council members from the early 1980s and now there's no doubt as to what thought processes and expectations were. This all transpired while he was sucking a binky and wearing diapers.
I also want to point out that none of his so called options represent anything close to resolution. Only the most insect like brain would fall prey to the concideration of these as the by product of ratioal thought or a sincere attempt at finding a palatable solution.
Curm, please don't let me think that you would assume the mayors premise is an accurate snapshot of truth, you were exposed to the same overload of disengenuous mayorial flatulence That I suffered through last night.
Trust me that the hypothetical conversation between the mayor and I would in all probability never occur, I don't believe he likes me. Any real conversation and discussion should be directed at the Council anyway, it's their call. Why waste time arguing with the mayor? He now plugs his left ear with that binky and covers the right with his diaper.
Oh, and he didn't claim that these loans were a byproduct of a vote did he? If so, how many lies are we up to this year?

Anonymous said...

If you want wider fairways at Mt Ogden, cut down the trees and make the fairways wider. They have already done that on a few holes. The fairways at Schneiter's Riverside in Riverdale aren't any wider than they are at Mt. Ogden, but Mr. Schneiter has players coming out his ears. True there are a couple of holes that have much wider fairways, but overall they are about the same. He doesn't have a massive club house either, but they book tons of tournaments. There has to be alot to say about marketing and promotions. Go take a look at the golf course up Parley's Canyon called Mountain Dell, also owned by a municipality. Their fairways are wider, but they also have a lot of play.

I would be careful in listening to what Mr. Brenkman is saying, especially when his boss, Mayor Godfrey is around. Godfrey's argument that comparing figures from prior to the last four years to now is comparing apples to oranges is BS. Back in the day, part of a golf course pro's pay was the concessions such as revenues from cart rentals, and the snack bar. The former pro of Mt. Ogden, Steve Wathen was compensated that way. I want to see the revenue number from when he was the pro because he was taking part of, if not all of the revenues generated by golf cart rentals and the snack bar as part of his compensation. That would mean that that revenue was not being sent on to Ogden City. So if revenues were higher back then, then there is a different problem. Ken Pettingill, the head pro at Valley View is compensated in this same way.

Godfrey also claims that money was borrowed from other city entities for the golf course and forgiving that would cause delay in projects for the sewer. Well, didn't he do the same thing when he needed more money for the junction's parking lot? It's ok to do it for his projects, but we can't do it for others. What a crop of crap.

To say that RDA debt is a hope that it will be paid back and that it isn't real money is a great example of how he works. Let's put all this money out on the hope that it will be paid back, but we don't really expect it to be paid back. That RDA money that was used to build the junction, I'm pretty sure that some contractor took a real check to the bank and turned it into real money. I'm not aware of many companies that will do work for money that isn't real.

Again, this is just another ploy by Godfrey to give the golf course to one of his cronies.

Hell, if I had the money I'd buy the course and run it. I couldn't do much worse than Godfrey.

Anonymous said...

Dan S.
I was talking about moving up onto higher flatter terrain (not steeper). I agree with you that it would not make sense to try to create terraces where there are none, but I believe it would make sense to use existing terraces, where little grading would be needed.

Anonymous said...

Dan S. -

If golf holes were moved onto the higher, flatter terraces, it would require that the existing hiking trail be relocated higher on the hill, as has already been done to the south above the houses built on the Beus Drive terrace.

Anonymous said...

brent,

I see. You're talking about the Lake Bonneville terrace, 350 vertical feet above the east edge of the existing course. Yes, there's room for one or two fairways up there without doing a lot of cut and fill. But putting fairways up there would still be incredibly expensive and incredibly destructive. It ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

brent,
btw bountiful ridge does have a driving range. its located on the east side of the road from the club house.

course could be made a lot easier by thinnig out the trees between the fairways so people could find their balls easier. by backstopping the greens with more grass and mounds. by flattening out a couple of putting surfaces. none of this would cost that much.

Anonymous said...

curm

youre a piece a work. since when does the mayor care about getting the proper voter assent first. name one major project that he worried about this before he acted.

you just like to hear yourself talk and when you run out of things to talk about you take on the counter side of the discussion just so you can continue to talk.

youre one lonely guy.

Anonymous said...

Dear disgusted:

You did notice, in my post above that annoyed you, this, didn't you?: I know, I know, Bill. The mayor who refused to put the gondola or park sale up to a vote because "this isn't a democracy" suddenly becoming a populist who wouldn't say "boo" without asking the public to approve by vote is.... well, it's a stretch.

Or did you miss that, somehow?

I asked Bill how he'd counter, because the argument I summarized is the one Hizzonah made and is going to make. And it needs a response. No, Digusted, "Godfrey doesnt' give a crap about voters" is not a good response. Most folks think voters should have a say on public policy matters, particularly those involving money and taxes. Godfrey is trying to preempt the high ground on this one for his side. So folks who expect to oppose the Mayor's plans for MOGC need to have replies to his arguments that will play well at the ready. I was curious, still am, to know how Bill C. would counter the Mayor's argument, so I asked. Kinda sorta what public discussion blogs are for, que no?

Challenge Hizzonah without good prep, and he'll eat your lunch. You may not think working out counter-arguments, prepping for an extended public debate pays dividends, or that not doing so is not a formula for defeat. But, based on long experience, I do. Sorry if that bothers you.

Just skip past my posts if you like, and you can cut down on your Maalox.

Anonymous said...

Yo Disgusted

The thing about Curmudgeon is he can take any side of any argument and kick most any body's ass that takes the other side.

The reason for this is he is damn smart, well practiced and well prepared on all sides of any issue he weighs in on. He not only assigns home work, he does it. He would make a good boy scout cause he is always prepared. I imagine he also might play a pretty mean game of chess as he not only thinks several moves ahead but he also thinks his opponent's moves through as well.

If you want to debate him you better get up awfully early and do some serious home work yourself! It's a fools game to choose him off if you don't.

Anonymous said...

Oz:
Thanks, Oz. [I have your check ready. You can pick it up anytime.]

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved