Scott Schwebke chimes in this morning with more information on last night's council sessions, reporting that the council has agreed to put issues related to Mt. Ogden Golf Course back on the discussion table in one or more future council work sessions. What seems clear from this story is that Boss Godfrey hasn't budged an iota on his crackpot scheme to bulldoze the golf course and construct his $146 million hotel/condo project at the top of Ogden's 36th street location. What also seems clear, at least to us, is that Godfrey's newly released "poll" is a mere pretext to open up another full-blown debate about Godfrey's massive golf course makeover, under the transparently mendacious guise of improving the course's financial viability.
While we see no real harm in opening up this can of worms again, we do believe there are two preliminary matters to which the council ought to devote close scrutiny:
First, we believe it's incumbent upon the council to make a determination about the validity of the underlying assumption that's the foundation of Godfrey's latest policy sales job, i.e., that the golf course is actually losing $250 thousand per year. In that connection, we suggest that the council should commission an independent audit of golf course operations, to determine once and for all whether the numbers that Godfrey has been rattling around -- numbers which indeed actually furnish the foundational assumptions for Godfrey's polling results -- are truly based in reality. We've had much discussion on this blog about the questionable methods of accounting which Godfrey has used to support his argument for his golf course/hotel/condo boondoggle; and there's good reason to believe Godfrey's figures are rigged. It's thus high time we believe, for the council to find out for themselves the true condition of the golf course balance sheet.
Secondly, we believe the council should retain an outside polling expert to carefully examine the methodology of the Godfrey poll. Although Mr. Schwebke offers a bare bones opinion of one WSU math professor that the poll's 200 person sample might be sufficient to support valid results, there are enough other apparently glaring methodological problems inherent in the poll (including the phrasing of loaded questions) that we believe this poll ought not be taken at face value, until it's been fully vetted by a polling expert who can be trusted.
And since the council has expressed its willingness to once again put a MOGC discussion back on the table, we believe the council should thoroughly examine all options. Although we have no doubt that Godfrey regards a full golf course makeover to be the only option, we believe the council should also carefully weigh those options which will be the least burdensome to the taxpayers, such as the "minimalist Plan 'B' option" presented in Frank Mcfarlane's 4/13/09 letter to the Standard-Examiner editor.
And while we're talking about less financially burdensome alternatives, we'll highlight this simple and elegant plan, lodged in one of our down-thread comments sections by gentle reader Dan S.:
Solution for golf course:And here's a question the council should consider to be even more fundamental. Ogden City already has two taxpayer burdensome and woefully incomplete Godfrey schemes languishing away in downtown Ogden, The Junction, and the River project. Do the taxpayers really need another of these half-baked projects fizzling out after great fanfare in our precious Ogden Foothills area? There's plenty of other evidence of Godfrey's ineptitude in beginning and completing ambitious projects too. Whatever the council does in the future with respect to the golf course, we believe the council needs to take Godfrey's miserable track record into account.
1. Write off the debt. Then annual debt service goes away, saving about $100k.
2. Start promoting the golf course instead of spending taxpayer funds to tell everyone how bad it is. Listen to the golfers for ideas on small changes that can bring in more customers. This could raise another $100k.
3. Be prepared to "subsidize" the golf course by $100k per year over the long term, since it does provide additional value to the city besides golf.
4. Fund one-time improvements to the course through RAMP grants when possible. Any city funds freed up should then be set aside for major maintenance such as repairing the sprinkler system.
And here's a crucial question which ought to be considered by our Ogden City Council: Shouldn't Godfrey defer the initiation of any new projects, until he's finished what he's already started?
That's it for now gentle readers.
Who will be the first to comment?
