Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Consolidated City Council Meeting Reports

Mssrs. Schroeder and Schwebke report the full range of business conducted during last night's two council sessions

As a supplement to the excellent material provided by Dan S. through last night's council meeting live blogging (see Dan's comment #3 et. seq.), Scott Schwebke provides his own Standard-Examiner story this morning, reporting on the Mt. Ogden Golf Course discussion which occurred during last night's work meeting:
According to Mr. Schwebke, the council has thus wisely given council staff the "green light" to cherry pick elements from the earlier council presentations by Kris Abegglen and Jon Garner, and to cobble together "hybrid" "goal statements" which would incorporate the best ideas from each, rather than to adopt either the Abegglen or Garner proposals in their entirety. A few of these "elements" are enumerated within Mr. Schwebke's morning story; but here's one which particularly caught our eye:

City Council Chairwoman Caitlin K. Gochnour said she would like to see Mt. Ogden Golf Course at least break even financially and described financial subsidy from the municipality for the course as a worthy investment.
If we're interpreting this language accurately, we believe Councilwoman Gochnour is on the right track. Yes, we believe it would be great if the Mt. Ogden Golf Course could at some point be operated at at least a "break even." And we should certainly strive for that. Realistically however, it also seems to us that the prospect of further "municipal subsidies" ought not be ruled out. The Mount Ogden Golf Course is an important and highly unique Ogden City recreational amenity; and we believe it's no more reasonable to expect the MOGC to fully carry its own "financial water" than to expect the same for any other Ogden City park or other recreational amenity. We'd be interested, however, in hearing our WCF readers' opinions on this aspect.

In closing, we'll offer our thanks to Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Schwebke for their excellent and detailed reporting. Due to the efforts of these two reporters, we're confident that Emerald City residents have the complete picture this morning of the full range of business which was conducted during last night's two council sessions.

Who will be the first to comment?


p'shaw said...

What is the deal with golf, anyway? I would spend the four mil on an ice tower for young outdoor enthusiasts,before I redesigned the course for crappy golfers who can't keep it on the green.

This reminds me of all the money poured into indoor tennis facilities 25 years ago by municipalities who thought that was going to last 100 years.

Golf is a faddish game (not a sport unless you call cribbage a sport) for dorks. If it cant support itself, bulldoze it and turn it into a winter sled park for kids, and an extreme skate park for the summer.

Or leave it as it is, and charge higher green fees.


Biker Babe said...

Comment bumped to
Top Shelf

blackrulon said...

Do any city parks make a profit? I always thought that city parks and the associated costs to maintain and operate them was a small cost to the city to provide outdoor play areas for the citizens of the city.

Curmudgeon said...

Comment moved to new article

Post a Comment

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