Reminder: Community New Year's Eve Party

Open Thread for the week of December 13th

Sorry for the lack of posting lately, but I should get a new post up later this week. I have had a lot of things going on, but I have been monitoring the blog and am very happy about the progress people have made on ideas. I've always believed that this blog can be a breeding ground for ideas that can help support our community. With that being said I also believe we can all handle the constructive criticism that comes with anything involving politics and remember we all want the best for Dayton.

Some ideas to discuss: The last council meeting and the community New Year's Eve celebration.

Just a reminder if anyone has any ideas for the blog or questions for me my email address is: dayton451@gmail.com

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Dayton Observer would like to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

As you can see we have some new additions to The Dayton Observer. As you have probably noticed we've added some new festive colors, a search this blog box (brought to you by the wonderful folks at Google), and at the bottom of the page a news ticker. The news ticker uses topics from Google news and runs of suggested searches from the admins. So if you want any topics to come up in the news ticker please suggest them in the comments.

Also, I would like to introduce myself. My name is...... well you can call me Mr. Montag and I have volunteered to help D.O. run the blog and write new posts from time to time. If anyone has any questions or concerns you can reach me at dayton451@gmail.com.

Comments, part 2

I have noticed quite an uptick in comments these past few days on an array of topics. I want to remind everyone to be respectful as this medium is an opportunity to provide you a voice in local government.

These past two days, I have especially noticed comments directed at city services. I am not sure if these comments are any way related to the comments stating that this blog should be shut down or mere coincidence of timing.

I believe we can still have a civil discourse regarding the community. However, if you do not enjoy reading the blog, please do not read it. If you post, please be respectful in your position, and I would hope people with the opposite position would be just as respectful.

Also, I deleted the last posting to give the comments a new slate.

Candidate Forum

First, I want to remind everyone of the upcoming council meeting.

Next, I would like to give all the city council candidates the chance to have their ideas/views expressed on this blog. E-mail your ideas/views to dayton.observer@gmail.com

Finally, as it is the beginning of October, I think it would be very prudent for the citizens of Dayton to know how the golf course did this past season. For instance, what changes did the Rec Board implement? What changes were successful/unsuccessful? Did the Rec Board implement a budget for each area of the golf course? It is imperative that things get figured out before next year as I think we can all agree that we do not want to continue paying higher taxes every year.

Council Meeting Tonight

Just wanted to remind everyone that the council meeting is tonight. I would encourage everyone to make it to the meeting if they can.

Property Tax Website

If you are interested in seeing how much your property taxes have increased, the link to Iowa State County Treasurers Association is located below. Once at the website: mouse over property taxes, click pay property taxes, click Webster County, click the "I have read and understand the information above button." You will then be able to enter your name to see how much your annual property tax is.

http://www.iowatreasurers.org/iscta/access/home.do

Synopsis of the Meeting Last Night

Here is a synopsis of the council meeting last night:

Old Business:
A) Well Project: Very length discussion regarding well and
completion date. City engineer and representative from
Well company discussed options with city council. Mayor Travis stated, “we are a small community and every penny counts”.

B) Downtown building demolition: City engineer discussed the
The options of the remaining connecting wall. He said that he now changed his mind and that the wall cannot be removed and that repair will need to be done. He then left and returned and said that Mr. Dalstrom may be tearing down his building.

C) Ordinance 235 passed

D) Power of Trees Tabled

E) First American Bank building passed with contingency

F) 5th Street NE Sanitary Sewer Service Line Failed 2-2 vote

G) City Cell Phone Plan: Changing to US Cellular

H) Prairie Meadows Grant Applications: Dayton Library

I) Reserve Police Officer: Hired officer $8.00 per hour

J) Police Chief Salary Review: Increased retro to July 1st

K) Deputy City Clerk Salary Review: Increased 9.00 to 9.50

NEW BUSINESS:
A) Building permits all passed. Added two emergency permits
for Paul Peterson one because of insurance and time issue and other not issue stated.

B) Fireworks permit Dayton Celebration committee: passed

C) Beer Permit, Dayton Fired Department 5 Day Class B passed

D) Liquor License: Thompson Industries 14 day Class C Passed

E) Outdoor Service Permit Frontier Lounge 3 day Passed

F) 1st Ave NE Street Closure request for auction Passed

G) 2009 Street Finance Report Passed

H) Special Assessment Passed

I) Highway 175 Resurfacing Report: Discussion about curb and gutter and information from DOT.

J) Tree Trimming and removal Passed

K) Backhoe repair Passed

L) Comments from the floor Kevin Wickwire from park and rec. board was at meeting for questions. Ask if information regarding loss printed in Dayton Review was from fiscal year to fiscal year or was from purchase date of city buying golf course. Answer: From date of purchase of course. Clarified that this did then included two years of income, yes it did.
Asked if they had a business plan. Answer yes. Asked if questioner could read this and was stated that they could. Asked if they were working on public relations and marketing since they would not have the loan available next year to make the payment on the course. Answer: yes we are working on this and that on Oct. 12th we will be deciding if we will continue to serve food in the club house for the winter. Was asked who was doing the new roof on the club house Answer: Dorman

L) Mayor Travis state that employee Mike Corson has received his water certification. Mayor Travis congratulated him. Councilman Vegors stated, “I want everyone to know how important this certification is to the city and it is an asset,” he then also congratulated Mr. Corson.

Council Meeting Tomorrow Night

The council meeting will be tomorrow night (Wednesday night) at 7 pm. Ms. Corson posted earlier tonight that the Park and Rec Board will be there to answer questions regarding the golf course financials.

I believe that this is a great opportunity to see what direction Dayton is going with the golf course and may provide insight to where Dayton is heading. As citizens, we need a continuing dialogue on what is happening in our city.

Every day we read about more tax increases to pay for basic services in other cities. Dayton is not immune from this. I believe that we need to be more fiscally responsible in order to keep the costs to the taxpayer at a minimum. Ensuring that we have good roads and money in the bank for possible emergencies is a must. As I have stated before, I think a golf course is a great asset if it is fiscally sustainable. We, as a collective group, must decide how long we are willing to wait to get a fiscally sustainable golf course and how much we are willing to spend until we get there.

Glen Oaks Update

I hope everyone is enjoying their weekend. The Des Moines Register has another story on Glen Oaks. Here is the link:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090801/NEWS05/908010325

Fiscal Responsibility

After the last couple of posts, I wanted to take this time to reiterate one of the main purposes behind this blog and that is Dayton needs to become fiscally responsible. We have all seen news stories about the toll the current economic conditions are taking on different cities.

For instance, some cities have been forced to shut down city pools early to save money. Other cities have been forced to cut job positions in order to maintain a balanced budget.

We, as a city, need to decide what services are the most important and how to move forward. City streets are in disrepair. People would like pay raises. Both of these are needed, but we need to get together and determine how we would like to move forward with regards to the golf course. Right now, the golf course eats up a major portion of the city's budget. If we do not get something done with regard to the golf course losses, our property taxes will continue to increase.

I think this is a good time for all of us to reflect on what services are the most important to Dayton and what we need to do in order to get things back on track.

Just as a side note, other golf courses are not seeing the best of times. Today's Des Moines Register is reporting that Glen Oaks County Club is in foreclosure. Here is the link:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090724/BUSINESS/90724018

Attorney Bills

I have posted two pages from the most recent attorney's bill to the city. The interesting parts from these two pages, in my opinion, is that Mr. Hemmingson charged the city 1.75 hours to talk with The Des Moines Register as well 16.5 hours to draft answers to the Civil Rights Commission questionnaire. That is a total of $1825 ($100 per hour) charged to the city.

In lieu of the $1650, the city could have purchased a pretty nice sound system or those Sonic Earz devices that we see on TV all the time for each attendee of the city council meetings.

Attorney Bill Page 1

Attorney Bill Page 2

Short Synopsis of the Meeting Tonight

Just wanted to hit the highlights from tonight:

- City Expenditure Year to Date was handed out
- Talk of a new public document policy
- Police chief salary increase
- Reappointed three members of the Library Board for six years
- Approved 7 building permits
- Discussed cell phone options for city employees
- Discussed Highway 175 resurfacing project

Webster County Sales Tax

There was a recent comment on the new sales tax to take effect in Webster County last week. Here is the article about the new tax in The Fort Dodge Messenger:

http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/516540.html

Budget Talk

Happy July 1st to everyone.

Today's story on the Des Moines Register's website shows how important it is to be fiscally responsible as a city. That is why I hope that we continue to receive updated financial information on all aspects of the city. We should know what lies ahead with respect to the city's financial situation, whether it is good or bad. The sooner we know, the sooner we can make informed decisions going forward. Here is the link to the Des Moines Register story:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090701/NEWS/90701018

The Month Ahead

Everyone has probably either seen the golf course financials or read about the financials in The Dayton Review. I hope we will receive more financials to enable us to compare this year's financials to last year's financials as July is just around the corner. As many people have alluded to already, a golf course's best months are April, May and June as a majority of that year's income is made during those months (i.e. memberships, cart rentals, etc.).

I hope to continue to see transparency in the coming months. I still think an independent audit is the most prudent and pragmatic action to take next because an independent audit would give us broken down expenditures, receipts, and inventory. In the next few days I am going to try and compile all the recent taxes that have went into effect and post these taxes on The Dayton Observer.

Tuesday's Thoughts

I wanted to make a quick post regarding some recent postings under the golf course financial's section. First, I am glad that there was some information regarding the golf course financials that were released. This helps everyone in the community see where the golf course is in regards to making money.

There were some good postings regarding the continuing need for an audit. I still think an audit needs to be done just so we can see where things are working and where things are not working. An audit would also show exactly what is being paid and to whom. For example, were the new greenskeepers salaries included in the expenditures? I hope to continue seeing financials for the upcoming months.

Finally, it seems like the Dayton Review would like the animosity to continue; although, this may help him sell more newspapers.

However, I feel a more neutral approach to the paper's articles would benefit the city greatly. Just report the facts and be objective in your articles. This may help the city to continue to have a civil discourse on issues, like last council's meeting, and continue bridging the divide.

Golf Course Financials

The golf course financials were handed out at the last meeting. I have posted both pages below.

Golf Course Financials Page 1

Golf Course Financials Page 2

Audit Time

After reading some of the recent comments in the last posting, it seems quite a few people have suggested that an audit would be in the best interest of everyone. I agree with this.

An audit by independent auditor would give the whole city a look at the books of the golf course. As others have mentioned, everyone would gain from an audit. An audit would provide financial transparency. We would be able to see how well the golf course is doing and see where there needs to be improvements to get the most out of our tax dollars. It is our tax dollars being spent to run the golf course (as well as being owners of the golf course), in the least we should be able to see how sound our investment is.

Finally, I would like to thank Kendra for mentioning the recent column in the Fort Dodge Messenger regarding blogging. The column can be found by clicking on the following link:
http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/515918.html?nav=5089

Comments are available again

I have enabled the commenting feature again. Please note that any out-of-bounds comments will be deleted.

I also wanted to say that I think things were starting to improve last week or at least were improving up until the city attorney's letter was printed. I think it is important to remember that the current debate is about the golf course, and there seemed to be support from a lot of people in adopting the eight suggestions. I think the eight suggestions would help bring financial transparency to the golf course so everyone would know how the course is doing and what to expect in the coming years if the city continues to own it.

Ombudsman Page 1

Ombudsman Page 2

Ombudsman Page 3

8 Suggestions

I wanted to post the 8 suggestions that were previously posted in Letter to the Dayton Observer. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.

1) A well written, reasonable and attainable business plan by the park and rec board.
2) An audit of the golf course because there seems to be ongoing questions of what has happened financially. This audit should solve the questions. If everything is o.k. then good, if not then it would need to be fixed.
3) The city attorney be replaced, I do not think after his “personal tirade” that he could or should continue to represent Dayton.
4) That several completely unbiased individuals be on the park and rec board.
5) The council work together to get along, possibly some apologies with the council it’s self and to some others closely involved.
6) An up front open and honest movement by the mayor, council and park and rec board. When things are not perceived as easily answered or information easily and quickly given then it is questioned as to the valid and truthful of any answers or information. This is human nature.
7) Sometimes appeasements to people, ie: arrangement of tables at council meetings, purchasing cheap microphone. These are just examples. If you try to meet very simple requests it will make people happier. It’s usually the small pebbles that irritate people the most, and then these things multiply and become boulders.
8) Have a community healing potluck picnic as suggested by Cindy Corson.

Letter to The Dayton Observer

Dayton is NOT a Credible Government
By: Publius

Local governments are supposed to be a voice of reason in today’s era of big government. Towns are not supposed to take on huge amount of debt or loan themselves money. In the town of Dayton, Iowa, however, this is not the case. Dayton has taken over ownership of the previous privately owned golf course and has pumped hard earned taxpayer money into it. The golf course seems to be a few people in government own personal project. The town has fallen into the mode of tax and spend, and this is a big problem. The government is no longer a credible one that people can trust, but rather a government that people can view as a predator. The town of Dayton has a problem; a problem that will only get worse unless change happens.

The town of Dayton beginning in the summer of last year has funded the local golf course. The course was bought at the price of 170,000 dollars which was the debt of the course at the time, meaning the city bought debt. Of course the many citizens of the city didn’t know the course could have been bought cheaper after foreclosure and that there was another private buyer that wanted to continue the land as a golf course. After the course was bought, the city council feeling improvements would be needed to the clubhouse to keep the course alive made large purchases such as building a deck and buying several major kitchen appliances. The choice was made to buy these things new, instead of possibly buying used items at a cheaper price. The council was advised to shut down the golf course over the winter by an advisory board. The town council however, voted to keep the course open. The golf course and clubhouse hence accrued a loss of 40,000 dollars over the five winter months as a result of this decision. That is a staggering loss of $8,000 per month.

Then in May the council voted to approve a $1.35 increase in property tax. This property tax increase as stated by a town official is almost entirely due to the golf course. The city also is hurting existing businesses by neglecting town roads. The town road maintenance budget is now only one-fourth of what it was last year. There are several pot holes on heavily trafficked roads that lead to prosperous businesses. This undoubtedly has lead in a decline of business to those areas as other places have much better roads. The roads in Dayton are so bad that you have to swerve in several locations to keep from bottoming out in a car. The roads are just the start in the way this government is unfairly impairing private enterprise. The town and taxpayers are directly funding a rival to restaurants and bars. Just recently the town has also borrowed $25,000 from the Light Board to help pay debt on the golf course (they are in charge of the town’s electrical payments, plans, etc.). This after the town’s electrical rates went up 9 percent this year.

A credible government is one that will let a success prosper and succeed and let a failure, fail. The government must allow these things to happen no matter the preference of the government. This means having a zero tolerance/no exception policy when it comes to funding goods that are pure public goods. If an enterprise is succeeding then the government cannot become a predatory state and start to tax the business more for its success to support a failing business. So, if a business is failing the government should not bailout the business and prop them up. This creates mistrust between the government and the people. The people being the lifeblood of the government can take action by voting and electing new leaders or by doing damage with their feet and moving to different communities with a credible government already in place. That is a plus of a having a Federalist system of government.

Another important part within the idea of credible government is that local governments cannot print money to bailout failing businesses. However, if a local government were able to do such a thing through creative methods you could see it causing a large rift in the community. Ultimately a small government being predatory by methods such as taxing its citizens at an extremely high rate will cause damage to that community as it loses its tax base, when they move to a different community.

The town of Dayton in many of its citizen’s eyes is no longer a credible government. The town has decided to prop up a failing business in the golf course due to the government’s preference for the course. The course lost 107,000 dollars in the past year. This is remarkable and substantial lost. Yet, the government continues to prop the golf course up by raising the citizen’s taxes by $1.35 all due to a golf course a majority of the citizens do not use. The tax is even worse on local businesses however. This is because businesses have to pay a higher percent of their properties earnings than homeowners. There are currently approximately 35 in town members out of the total memberships. That means that in a town of over 800 people under a tenth of the town plays the sport of golf, while the entire town pays for the cost of operating a failing business.

The town has become very predatory. It is not only taxing its citizens at the highest rate by $3.00 per $1000 property value in the county, but it is also competing against private businesses. The city is sponsoring events at the golf course’s clubhouse (that also serves as a restaurant) that would otherwise go to other businesses in town such as the two restaurants, one future restaurant, the bar, and the grocery store that also caters events. The government in Dayton is not letting succeeding businesses succeed.

The government has strong connections to the golf course in the town of Dayton. Three of the five council members have golf memberships, as does the mayor and police officer. I am not saying that the government is purposely trying to become a predatory and uncredible government. They may be doing things with the best of intentions, in the name of promoting the town as a strong major little town. To many a golf course in Dayton is viewed like a pro sports franchise. Many in the government feel that the town without a golf course is no longer a relevant to the rest of the area. This however, is not true; they in fact are only hurting the market for good business in Dayton by bailing out the golf course.

As previously stated local governments should not be able to print out money or bail out businesses. The town of Dayton has gotten around this by taking even more money away from prosperous businesses by slashing the road fund by three fourths and borrowing 20,000 dollars from the Light Board. The town in doing this is borrowing money from itself. All of these things are going to lead to a large move with your feet “movement.” Many people already have expressed a desire to leave due to the factors and mistrust of the government.

A few possible solutions for the town of Dayton are to privatize the golf course in some way. The town could go the route of leasing the clubhouse which has been the main reason behind the large losses and the town becoming predatory. This would also still ensure that the government’s preference of having the golf course is also met, while satisfying the people by taking it off the town’s budget and the taxpayers’ property tax. The other option would be to sell the golf course and the clubhouse to the highest bidder; this while being most likely easier due to the ability to convert the course to farmland. The town would get immediate profit from the sale which would allow the town to concentrate on pure public goods such as roads.

The town of Dayton bought a golf course that was in serious debt. The government then decided due to their preferences that it was best for the town to continue ownership of the golf course. However, due to this decision the town’s government has turned into a predatory government that taxes its citizens as extremely high rate and one that supports its failing business over those of prosperous, succeeding businesses. The town of Dayton has a very simple choice in my mind to privatize the golf course in some way. Otherwise the problems will continue to progress.

Tuesday's Edition

I find it unforunate that The Dayton Review decided to rehash last week's Des Moines Register article, as well as a portion of the quotes the city attorney made at the city council meeting. As stated in a previous posting, I thought the city attorney and The Des Moines Register opened Pandora's Box. I am not sure why the decision was made to reprint the same story, a story which does not advance the current debate.

I think there are more important issues out there. For example: the new budget/bond issue.

However, this week's story is already over a week old.

Saturday Meeting

Very short meeting on Saturday; the meeting was held to approve the budget to be advertised.

I hope everyone is having a safe and a fun Memorial Day.

Interesting Read

I wanted to post an article that I thought was very interesting and some of the points made in the article are directly related with the city of Dayton owning the golf course.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

Tuesday's Thoughts

Some of the recent comments posted on the other site are very unsettling to me. In my previous post I stated that I did not think that a person's past has anything to do with the current debate; this statement includes family and friends. I hoped it was not true, but the combination of the city attorney's statements and The Des Moines Register, Pandora's Box was opened.

We need to find a common ground to try and come to a solution. Some have suggested a business plan. Let's look at alternatives that would not increase our property taxes. I would still be happy to post advertisements for the golf course if there are events/special food items that they would like advertised.

Please be warned that if there are any comments that I find offensive or out-of-bounds, I will immediately remove them.

Common Ground

I have to say it has been interesting reading all the comments on the Des Moines Register's website and the blog today. I wanted to talk about a theme I picked up in some of the comments tonight. I believe that theme is finding a common ground. I think we need to find a common ground to discuss the concerns of both sides. I think that some of this might be solved if we come to a definitive conclusion on what the city should do with the golf course. Some people do not want to continue to having higher property taxes if the golf course is continuing to lose money. Obviously, if the golf course does well, we don't have to pay higher property taxes.

But we have to have some kind of measuring stick to determine when it won't be feasible to continue to have the golf course if the course continues to lose money. Can we decide at what point that will be? I think this may make both sides a little less edgier because both sides will know what to expect going forward with the golf course.

This is only one option in trying to find common ground with many other options out there.


Now to a couple other items: As many others have stated, I'm not really sure what the purpose of airing Councilman Benson's past has to do with the current debate other than to make him look bad. Furthermore, I really don't think that is a road that we want to head down. It seems like the city attorney has opened the door to every councilmember's past, which I believe is a disservice. Their past is their past, whomever it is.

Last Night's Meeting

Wanted to give everyone a quick synopsis of last night's meeting:

AGENDA
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Agenda- Approved
Approval of Minutes- Approved
Approval of Bills- Approved. There was an issue brought up with the council not being notified about Dale Johnson hauling for the city and the cost difference between the city hauling and Mr. Johnson hauling.
Approval of Water Project CDBG/SRF Bills-

OLD BUSINESS
A. Recycling Fees- There was a motion to approve increasing the recycling bill by $1.00 per month. The council then discussed raising the rates by only $0.50. Council approved raising the rates $1.00 a month per resident household and sending a letter to the county to ask for more funds.

B. 2008-2009 Budget Amendment

C. Ordinance 233 (3rd Meeting)- Approved

D. 31 South Main Street Property Clean Up- Brought up liability concerns of not tearing down the last wall as a town. The council decided to try and get the property owner to help with the cost of this project.

E. Power of Trees Program- The mayor asked the council to think of candidates for a five person committee. Two can be council members.

F. 9th Street Drainage-This drainage needs to be repaired according to the council.
G. Well Project- They have drilled to 1000ft. The goal is to drill to 1250ft. They hope to have this accomplished by Thursday of next week.

H. Water Meter Replacement Program- The council approved by 10 meters with the type to be determined by city employees.

I. Golf Course Superintendent- Devin Gallentine was hired at $500 a week for 5 months

J. Golf Course Maintenance Worker- Hired Tyler Menhusen at $400 a week.

K. Golf Course Clubhouse Cook

L. Lagoon Property Rental Bid

M. Golf Course Petition-Out of Order


NEW BUSINESS
A. Building Permits: Christ the King Church, Storage Shed- Approved; Kevin and Robin Dodson, Retail Building-Approved; Southeast Webster School: concession, restroom building-Approved

B. Fireworks Permit-Approved

C. Bridge Inspection Reports

D. 3rd Avenue SW Drainage and Trees- Will ask the DNR about a potential solution.

E. Animals at Large Ordinance- Police Chief Weiland suggested that the town change the fines for this ordinance from $250 for the first offense and $750 for all next offenses to $25 for the first offense, $50 for the second offense, and $75 for the third offense. The council passed his suggestion.

F. Park Clean Up Project-5th Graders. This was moved up to the beginning of the meeting. Two pupils in Mr. Wisecup’s 5th Grade class asked the council for permission to clean up the park at the school and to raise money for the Humane Society. Council approved of their inquiry.

G. Park and Recreation Secretary Pay- The council approved paying either the City or Assistant City Clerk $25 to take notes at the Park and Recreation Board meetings.

H. 1st American Bank Building- The town has been approached about buying this building. Some have suggested making this City Hall to protect records in the vault. More information will be collected before a decision is made.

I. School Park Update

J. I-JOBS Program- The state has appropriated a sum of money for roads to cities. The town will have to apply for these funds.

K. Franchise Fees- Towns can now again apply franchise fees. The council decided not to apply this.

L. Hazard Mitigation Plan Update-

M. State Ombudsman- The city attorney addressed the council and those in attendance from 40 to 50 minutes addressing a variety of issues.

N. Comments from the floor- There were several comments from the floor.

O. Other Business

Meeting Adjourned

Coming Soon

I will have a posting soon with regards to the meeting last night.

Council Meeting Tonight

Just wanted to remind everyone that there is a council meeting tonight.

Space For Rent

Some of my recent posts have been critical of the some of the latest happenings going on in Dayton. Last night I did say that the purpose of this blog was for everyone in Dayton and I would like to reiterate that tonight. Specifically, I would like to offer some space on this blog to the golf course business.

Some of my suggestions:
1. I would be interested in receiving a weekly lunch/dinner special menu for the clubhouse. My thinking is if I could receive something on a Saturday or a Sunday through e-mail, I would be able to post the next week's specials on Sunday so anyone interested would be able to check to see what's on the menu for lunch/dinner.
2. If the Rec Board has an event that they want advertised, I would be more than happy to post those events.
3. If there is someone that would like to write a guest column, I would be also happy to post that column.

If others have suggestions, submit them at dayton.observer@gmail.com

Also, I encourage people to go try the food at the clubhouse. They do have some really good food.
I want to make clear that I have been critical of some of the decision-making surrounding the golf course, not that I want the golf course to fail. Heck, I enjoy the food and will continue spending money there.

The Quelling of Political Speech

I want to start off tonight and let everyone know that there was a Rec Board meeting tonight, and the board decided on a supervisor.

I would like to take this time and respond to the recent article in The Dayton Review. First, I appreciate being called the "alternative newspaper," but the real purpose for this blog is to give a voice to everyone in Dayton.

The crux of the matter, it seemed to me, was that this blog was centered on anonymity. I briefly addressed this issue a month or so back, but I will discuss my reasoning again.

When I created this blog I felt it was important that people have a chance to have a voice and be heard. However, some people feel hesitant to let their feelings be known because of possible retaliation or their opinion being minimized. I will admit that anonymity is not perfect, but I feel it is the best option and gives people the best chance to let their voice be heard.

Another important point, the Constitution protects anonymous political speech. If anyone is wondering about that, I googled anonymous free speech today and came up with two cases protecting anonymous political speech. The two cases are: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissioner and Watchtower Bible v. Village of Stratton. I wanted to quote a portion of the McIntyre opinion:

"Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."

Another quote from McIntyre:

"Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

I believe the principles set forth above ring true in this situation. People are free to agree or disagree with my positions and these people can let their opinion be known on this blog. As noted, there are factors that go into deciding whether to stay anonymous, and one of those factors is official retaliation.

Case in point: This week Councilman Benson was issued a letter stating he was not in compliance with the dog registration ordinance. There was also an earlier verbal warning to him after a contentious city council meeting. Councilman Benson complied with the ordinance by registering his dogs.

This brings up an interesting point: how many letters or citations under this ordinance have been issued before this in recent years? Zero. This stinks of retaliation. Councilman Benson has been a vocal critic of the golf course and he gets a letter saying he was not in compliance with an ordinance. The argument can be made that the enforcement has to start somewhere and with someone. True, but only one letter was sent out and that letter was sent to one of the councilmen who has been a vocal critic of the golf course. If you have spoken out against the golf course, you better make sure your sidewalks are not cracked or make sure to have your dogs registered. Furthermore, there are other instances of this kind of "enforcement of ordinances" going on with other opponents of the golf course.

Hence, this is the main reason that the Dayton Observer is going to maintain its anonymity.

Inefficiencies of Local Government

First of all, I would like to congratulate the golf course on two good days of business.

I wanted to have a discussion about the inefficiencies of the local government. It has long been the belief that local governments are best suited to provide local transportation infrastructure, sanitation, police, fire protection, and elementary/secondary education services. One prominent theorist (Tiebout) specializing in local government asserted that people will "vote with their feet" by moving to a locality that provides a better mix of taxes and services. Local governments try to keep people and attract more by offering attractive public services and amenities at reasonable tax costs. Of course, this theorist assumed that people can move to other localities without many burdens. Today, we know that some people cannot vote with their feet due to economic circumstances.

These local governments need revenue, and the biggest source of this revenue is the property tax. The main purposes behind local taxation is to provide services and create wealth. I believe all of us are very familiar with the providing services part. However, a local government should have policies that improve the well being of the local citizens. Also, there is a desire to increase the tax revenue of a community through business related decisions. However, it is paramount that these business related decisions lower the effective tax burdens on residents. Generally, the majority of the property tax burden falls on the residents of a community. This is because businesses usually receive tax relief as a carrot to come to a community.

Now to the inefficiency of our local government. Dayton has one of the highest property taxes in Webster County. Granted, some of this is due to recent infrastructure improvements. However, the golf course decision was a business decision that increased the tax burden on the residents of Dayton. As noted before, there was some questionable decisions that were made with regards to the golf course. First, there was no mention of possible private buyer. Second, the city could have gotten a much better deal than the $ 170,000 paid. Finally, the citizens are footed with the bill of the $ 107,000 loss last year. I would argue that some of these moves has hurt Dayton in being competitive with other communities. A golf course is a great asset to the community. However, other communities offer the same services at a lesser tax burden to their residents. This puts Dayton at a competitive disadvantage, which is part of the inefficiency of our local government.

We still have the full golf course season ahead of us to see how well the golf course does and what future decisions the Rec Board makes, as well as the City Council. In November, each resident will get to evaluate the decision-making of the Council and determine whether the Council made Dayton more competitive in the sense of offering the right mix of taxes/services.

Good Golf Day

I wanted to congratulate the golf course on having a good tournament today. I do hope we see more days like today and getting the course closer to break even! Congratulations again to the people putting on the tournament today.

Cost Per Membership

There was a recent suggestion via e-mail regarding a topic this person wanted discussed.

So far, if you add up all the costs associated with the golf course you get $287,000 ($170,000 + $107,000 + $25,000)-$15,000. These are the total amount of buying the course, loss from last year, the recent loan from Light Board and taking away the approximately $15,000 for the first payment obligation. There was some back and forth about a month ago regarding the actual membership numbers from last year (106 memberships from an editorial and I believe around 118 from another source), so I am going to round up to 120 memberships, give or take. Divide the $287,000 by 120 and we get $2391.67 per membership.

That is a staggering number. I understand that some of the debt went to capital improvements and such, but the truth of the matter is the debt sustained by the golf course is approximately $2391.67 for every 1 golf membership so far. This seems to be an amenity that serves a few but in turn costs the majority much more.

I have heard some arguments that the golf course increases the value of homes in the area. I believe golf courses, in general, do increase the value of a home. The other side of that argument is the opportunity cost of not continuing the general upkeep that a city needs every year. This may lower home values. I hope not, but it is a factor.

I am glad to see the Rec Board discussing some cost saving matters in their recent meetings. But there is still quite a bit of cost savings that need to be implemented to reduce the $2391.67 dollars lost to every 1 membership.

New Thoughts Tonight

I'll have a new post later tonight.

Tonight's Meeting

Some of the brief talking points from tonight's meeting:

-talk of buying a commercial icemaker and freezer boxes (thought is (in part) they could sell ice to the grocery store in town)
-cutting down on the amount of food made for buffets
-talk of possible closing the clubhouse in November if circumstances warrant (not serving food)
-looking into getting two retired citizens to be golf course cops (these two citizens would receive free memberships for compensation)
-interesting conversation about a request to buy 55 bags of fertilizer for the fairway (this purchase would have put them over their $500 expenditure limit)

Thoughts

I think this is very interesting news that there was a potential private buyer for the golf course. As we can all imagine, this scenario could have saved the taxpayers of Dayton lots of money. We could have had a city budget that was not hamstrung by the money earmarked for the golf course. The city budget could have went to rebuilding Dayton's infrastructure. Also, the city would not have needed to go to the Light Board to take out more debt to pay off another debt payment that was coming due.

Before I get into this, I fully understand that the golf course will be owned by the city of Dayton for this season, and I truly hope that the golf course at least breaks even this year.

However, I would like to know why was this information not brought forward much earlier like when there was talk about a private buyer that showed interest in purchasing the golf course? I think this would have been very important information for the citizens of Dayton to know.

Who was/were the one(s) that decided this information was not important enough to share with us? I sure hope they are not on the current Rec Board because we see where that kind of planning has gotten us.

Alternatively, if the golf course had to be owned by the city, the city should have bought the golf course in foreclosure. This simple alternative would have saved the taxpayers while giving the city ownership of the golf course. I understand the difference between the foreclosure purchase price and whatever remaining that was owed to the bank would have been all on the previous owners to pay back. I'm sorry, but that's what happens in the business world. Sometimes people owe money because a business fails. Right now all of Dayton taxpayers are on the hook due to the city buying the golf course for $170,000. Again, I don't think this is how the business world works (unless you are AIG).

The scenario that may happen (which I don't want to happen) is the city of Dayton buys golf course at a high price; however, things don't work out and the city has to sell the course at a low price (much like what happened to the U.S. Government in the late 80's with the Savings and Loan scandals). Of course, there are alternatives such as leasing. However, there is a time when one has to cut losses and quit throwing good money after bad.

After this look back, I hope that the Rec Board comes out with a definitive course of action such as saying we (the Rec Board) will start looking at selling/leasing if the course does not break even or make money this year. Also, figure out who did not think having a potential private buyer for the course was important and keeping that person out of any future decisions regarding the golf course (if they are still a part of the decision making process). We see where this kind of decision making has gotten us so far.

Saturday Evening Post

To the previous board members in charge of the golf course before the sale to the city (which may include current Rec Board members):

Was there ever an offer from anyone other than the city of Dayton that offered to buy the golf course or anyone other than the city that expressed an interest in buying the golf course?

If so, this is interesting information. As most of us probably would agree, private individuals run businesses better than governments. First, these individuals must run a tight ship in order to recoup on their investments. Second, there would have been no need to take out $170,000 to purchase the golf course. Third, there would not have been a loss of over $100,000 this past year charged to the citizens of Dayton. The best part, we would still have had a golf course! Even better, we would not be subsidizing the golf course's losses with higher taxes!

I'm not sure if this was information that was widely communicated to the people of Dayton when there was a vote to buy the golf course.

Professionalism?

The level of unprofessionalism shown tonight in the Rec Board meeting simply astounded me.

Special Session - Wednesday Night

There will be a special session of the city council tomorrow night at 7:00 PM. Two items of interest under Old Business on the agenda:

1. Ordinance 233 (Giving Rec Board hiring power, with objection power of the council).

2. Light and Power Loan Agreement (Looks as if there is a need to revise the original loan agreement):

Part of the original agreement states:
This agreement is for the purpose of the Lender providing funds to the Borrower to be used for expenses related to the start up of the Oak Park Golf and Recreation golf course and clubhouse for 2008. The total amount of this note is $ 25,000.

Part of the revised agreement states:
This agreement is for the purpose of the Lender providing funds to the Borrower to be used for expenses related to improvements and debt service bond payments for Oak Park and Recreation golf course and clubhouse. The total amount of this note is $ 25,000. The first advance of $15,624.71 will be made in May of 2009 to fund the initial debt service payment on the $ 170,000 general obligation bond used to purchase the Dayton Golf and Country Club property. Further advances may be made in $ 1,000 increments as needed up to a total of $ 25,000.

Here's a problem that I have with this: Taking on debt to pay off debt. I do understand the need to pay off loans on time; however, my contention is that this is not a good business practice.


From the meeting minutes on April 13, 2009 of the Rec Board:
Paid memberships to date: 14 single, 19 family (3 are new members) and 2 high school.


Quick Note:

Under both agreements: Borrower is City of Dayton, DBA Oak Park Golf and Recreation; Lender is Dayton Light and Power.

No Meeting Tonight

No Park & Rec Board meeting tonight due to a failure to meet quorum. The only new business on the agenda was golf course employment issues.

Golf Course Improvements

I was looking over some city council minutes this afternoon and came across the March 26, 2008 minutes, and I have a few questions to whomever can answer them. This looks as if where the original light board $25,000 loan was approved or talked about. Was the original $25,000 appropriated specifically for improvements? After reading the minutes, it looks as if the intent of the $25,000 loan was to be used for improvements. I talked about in earlier posts that the $25,000 loan was taken out earlier this week to use a portion of the loan on a note coming due.

I've posted the meeting minutes pertaining to this issue. Any clarification would greatly be appreciated.

Minutes from March 26, 2008:

GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS: Mayor Travis went over the closing process for the golf course purchase and asked Council members to stay on point during meeting agenda items. Paul Peterson discussed several course and clubhouse improvements that the advisory committee feels are needed. Council member Vegors moved to allow all improvements except construction of a deck. Such improvements to include: construction of a bar, electrical improvements, roof shingling, and a computer and software. Second by Benson. Ayes: Benson, Vegors. Nays: Breitsprecher, Diehl, Gallentine. Motion failed. Following further discussion, Council member Breitsprecher moved to accept all above improvements, including deck construction, as a package and to give the advisory board permission to continue with the improvements; to fund from $ 25,000 loan from light board; and to actively pursue other outside funding for the improvements. Estimated total of all improvements is $ 19,393. Second by Gallentine. Motion carried unanimously. The Council also discussed holding a grand opening event on May 10th. Following review of information about specialty cooking equipment that could be used for quick food preparation, Council member Vegors moved to purchase a UF-3 fryer and instant burger maker for a total of $ 8,400. Second by Diehl. The Council then discussed other options before voting on the motion. Ayes: none. Nays: Benson, Breitsprecher, Diehl, Gallentine, Vegors. Motion failed.

Golf Course Changes

Looks as if the rec board will be looking at possibly implementing some financial changes this upcoming year. Some changes were suggested in a memo to the rec board.

First, the operating loss for the golf course from April 2008 through 2008 was about $41,088.63 (excluding accrued bills or inventory, which may make the figure less).

The changes suggested:
1. Shut down the clubhouse for at least January/February, possibly December and part of March.
2. Increase membership 10%. This would increase revenue by $2744.
3. Increase green fees 10%. This would increase revenue by $1081.
4. Shed rental. Making sure everyone has paid.
5. Increase food and beverage sales. More members = more money
6. Salaries. Cutting 2008 salaries by 10% will save $8319.
7. Clubhouse maintenance.
8. Course maintenance. With 7 and 8, most of the maintenance work should be done, which saves the course money.
9. Equipment maintenance.
10. Beer. An increase or prices of 10% adds almost $3,000. If costs are reduced by just 5%, it saves $657.
11. Pop. Reducing cost by 10% saves $856.
12. Food. Reducing cost by 10% saves $5090.
13. Utilities. Reducing this by 10% saves $973.

Most of these items are conservative estimates. The total additional revenue or reduced expenses comes to $18,220. Deduct this from last year's operating loss leaves a projected operating loss of $22,869.

Interesting Tidbits

Just wanted to pass along some interesting tidbits:

The $25,000 that is being asked for tomorrow morning will be used in part to pay off a note coming due before July 1. Add the $25,000 to the $107,000 lost this past year to get the new figure.

Also, in last night's meeting there was an interesting discussion about the new greenskeeper.

Heard on the street:
-Sounds like golf memberships are down this year, and
-Sounds like a corporate sponsor may not be a corporate sponsor this year due to bad economic conditions.

Clarification: With regards to corporate sponsor, I should say corporation who had corporate events at golf course in the past.

Monday's Thoughts

I hope all of you had a safe and enjoyable Easter weekend. There was quite a bit of reaction to my posts last Wednesday and Thursday relating to the open meetings and open records laws of Iowa, and I wanted to take the time to opine about some of the comments.

Some comments stated that we should not nit-pick over these formalities that are the law and that the only point to contending that proper notice was not given was to cause unnecessary problems.

Here's the problem with this mindset: The city of Dayton falls under Chapter 21 and 22 of the Iowa code, no matter how small Dayton is. The open meetings laws are in effect so the citizens have easy access to the rationale and basis of governmental decisions. Hence, the reason for the 24 hour notice requirement for the tentative agenda. The 24 hour notice allows the citizens to see what is on the agenda and have the opportunity to speak at the meeting if the agenda has an item of importance on it. On the other hand, citizens may not get the opportunity to be heard if the agenda is changed right before the meeting.

Some comments argued that permit holders are at the mercy of the contractor's schedule and that a permit may have had to been issued asap. If this is the case, Iowa Code 21.4 allows an exemption to the public notice requirement for good cause, as well as noting the reason for the good cause in the city council minutes. For example, if the contractor had to start asap or else the project would be put on the back burner for 3 months. This would be an instance in which good cause could be shown and noted in the city council meeting minutes.

Another argument: Interpretation is the legal system in a nutshell. There is not too much interpretation that needs to be done with regards to 21.4. The city council meeting on Wednesday night was an open session that required the tentative agenda to be posted 24 hours before the start of the meeting. Please see the iowaleague.org link I made available in my last post (page 5).

Some say this is nit-picky. I disagree. This is a very slippery slope if we start allowing this to happen. Items may start to get put on the agenda right before meetings (the items without good cause), which does not allow concerned citizens to be part of the governmental decision making process. Furthermore, this kind of action does not allow a citizen the opportunity to challenge a permit that may impede on that citizen's property line.

Iowa Codes 21 and 22 were enacted to give us the power to watch over our city council and make the city council's rationale and decision making open to us, as well as all of the public records to any who wish to look over them.

Open Meetings and Open Records

There has been much discussion today regarding some of the happenings at last night's meeting, and I wanted touch on some of that in this post.

First, regarding the sign-in sheet: I'm not sure what the reason was for having the sign-in sheet; however, the very nature of having a sign-in sheet goes against the public policy reasons of the Iowa Open Meetings Law. Therefore, it does not matter if there is a good reason or a bad reason for the sign-in sheet. Iowa Code 21.2(3) states that an open session means a meeting to which all members of the public have access. City Council meetings are considered an open session under 21.3. Some may argue that this does not literally prohibit a sign-in sheet. True, but the mentality behind the sign-in sheet cannot be sign-in or you are not allowed in the meeting. This would be in direct conflict with 21.2(3) of saying that all members of the public have access. Therefore, you do not have to sign the sign-in sheet if there is another sign-in at a city council meeting in the future.

Regarding the added building permit last night. Yes, the statute does say tentative agenda, but I would point everyone to http://www.iowaleague.org/Downloads/Resources/Publications/OpenMeetings2005.pdf
Look to page 5. "The council shall provide 24 hours notice to the public on what will be discussed at the meeting. If an item is added to the agenda less than 24 hours prior to a meeting or at a meeting, the public may contend that proper notice was not given."

Regarding public records: Everyone has a right to examine a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in the public record, unless otherwise provided for by law. Iowa Code 22.2

The Iowa Attorney General has issued an advisory regarding the request of public records:
http://www.iowa.gov/government/ag/sunshine_advisories/2008/advisory%20-%20final%20-%2008April%20-%20Record%20Request%20Golden%20Rules.pdf

The Two Golden Rules (as in the advisory):
1. The reason a requester wants the record is irrelevant.
2. The identity of the requester usually is irrelevant. (Officials should not ask for identification, unless there is a lawful reason to do so.)

Therefore, if someone wants a copy of a public record, he or she does not have to fill out a request to receive this public record unless there is a very good legal reason.

Tonight's Meeting

Wanted to give everyone an update of what happened at tonight's meeting.

1. A building permit was added to the agenda before the meeting. Under the Iowa Open Meetings Law, a tentative agenda must be posted 24 hours prior to the commencement of the city council meeting. However, this building permit was not included in the tentative agenda that was posted at least 24 hours before the city council meeting.

2. The first reading of the amendment to Ordinance 232 passed 3-0 (Benson and Vegors abstained). This amendment would give the park board power to hire the employees of the golf course (The City Council does have objection power over hiring decisions).

3. There was a motion to accept Ms. Kristi Ott's petition that she presented to the council a few weeks ago, which was intially rejected. The vote was 2-2 (Vegors, Diehl voted yes, Benson abstained due to a potential conflict of interest).

I will have another posting sometime tomorrow.

Late Edition

Last week the new rec board met for the first time, and I believe the board had a very serious discussion regarding the issues facing the golf course. Since the board has probably been able to see the financials (or at least some of the financials), I wanted to ask some questions to the board:

1. What is your vision for success? Obviously making the golf course profitable is the end goal, but what specifics does the board see as being important to getting to that end goal.

2. What are your metrics for measuring success? Most successful businesses implement some kind of metric system to ensure one's vision is being followed and steps are being taken to reach that one's vision. For example: Is there a monthly membership number that you hope to reach by the end of April/May?

3. Since some on the board have probably seen the financial numbers from last year, what were the major issues last year? Were there areas of the golf course that had more problems than other areas? If so, what were those areas? Is there any kind of financial documentation that can be made available to us?

4. Will the board release year-to-date financial information in May/June/July/August/September?

Pros and Cons of the Membership Fees

Last week, the city of Dayton sent out a letter outlining the membership fees for this upcoming year.

Pros:
- The fees did not change from last year.
-Membership dues may be paid over 90 days.

Cons:
-The fees did not change from last year.
-Membership dues may be paid over 90 days.

Overall, I think this is a good marketing move as this allows people the chance to pay their membership dues interest free over a three month period. Furthermore, people will not be paying any more for their membership from last year. Obviously, this is good with the economy in such bad shape and people having less of a disposable income.

However, no increase in fees means any shortfall in the balance sheet must be made up elsewhere or there will be more financial losses. Also, if a person chooses to take the 90 day plan, that person would be able to use the golf course over that time interest free. There is also the chance that some may sign up for the plan, play golf for three months, and then not ever pay the remaining dues.

I do hope this plan attracts more people to purchase golf memberships, which makes for a better balance sheet. I will have another posting tomorrow afternoon/evening.

I hope everyone had a safe weekend.

Wednesday's Meeting

Just a quick update regarding the Rec's board meeting last night. There was some discussion regarding the need to repair some of the golf course's equipment. There was also discussion regarding the need to hire more employees and the rules associated with hiring prospective employees.

I do want to note that I believe Mr. Gallentine stepped up to the plate last night. He noted the importance of making smart decisions regarding the golf course and that the town of Dayton will be closely watching this board. I appreciate Mr. Gallentine's comments last night. Thank you.

Wednesday's Edition

This week's Dayton Review had a very good section in one of its articles this week concerning the ad-hoc group that met this past week. I believe the ad-hoc group had a very good suggestion in leasing the restaurant, which will be brought up to the rec board by some of the members of this ad-hoc group.

Tonight the new park board will meet. I would like to hear from anyone on his or her thoughts regarding tonight's meeting.

Even though the rec board could be considered a sub-committee, this board is tasked with a very important function of essentially overseeing the golf course, looking over financials, and making suggestions about the course's future. Yes, some citizens do have concerns about some of the appointments and that is why my suggestion is to allow for public input. This may already be in the works with the ad-hoc group. I hope even more public input is allowed. I would also like to see some of the board's goals early on so we know what to expect. What in their mind would be considered a successful year? At what point will the board look to leasing the golf course if that is deemed to be the way to go?

Finally, some people have been critical of members on the city council because of the golf course. Tax issues are a very hot topic with lots of people. As stated before, some see the golf course as an extra tax burden in an uncertain economy. Just to see how heated other tax issues get we should look no further than today's Des Moines Register. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090401/NEWS10/904010378&theme=LEGISLATURE_ISSUES

Monday's Edition

I think everyone would agree that each of us wants to see Dayton succeed. However, each of us has an opinion on what path Dayton should take in order to see Dayton succeed. This is simply a difference in principles and philosophy. I think it is too easy to deem one side's argument as negative when we are simply expressing our principles and philosophy for a better Dayton.

It is all but certain that the golf course will be owned and operated by the town of Dayton this year. Some suggestions have been made in trying to make this year's golf course a successful endeavor. The suggestions from this blog can be seen in the prior post's comment's section.

Some other interesting reads from this weekend's comments include the new board. With the comments currently posted and also talking to other people, it seems that quite a few are concerned with the composition of the board. As I stated last week, some of these board member selections are good selections. I believe one of these new board members has posted some good comments this past weekend.

However, there is a little unease regarding other board member selections. That is why I think it is important to have transparency in the decision making process of the board.

First, I think the release of all financial records (ideally a line item budget) from the past year to the public would allow everyone to see what was brought in and what was spend. Furthermore, there should be a public release of the year to date financials this July/August. This would allow the citizens of Dayton to see how the golf course is doing and would provide a good barometer of where things are going.

Next, I would say that there should be a monthly meeting of the new board that is open to the public. This would enable us to hear from the board members on decisions that the board made. Conversely, the public would be able to participate by asking questions and giving their input to the board.

Finally, the board should create some metrics on what they would deem as passing or failing with respect to the golf course. For example: What goals is the course going to try to meet this month/next month/this year? How long is the city going to hold onto the golf course if the course continues to lose money? This is also information that should be made open to the public.

I believe that more transparency would probably put more people at ease. If anyone has any suggestions they would like to put forward with regards to the golf course being more successful, please post them in the comment's section of the previous post.

Letter to The Dayton Observer

I hope all had a great weekend. First of all, I will have a post later today or tomorrow on some recent topics that came up over the weekend and that I wanted to opine on.

In the meantime I did receive a letter to The Dayton Observer earlier today, and I wanted to post that letter. Thank you to the author of this e-mail. The e-mail I received is as follows:

One Day Challenge: What can I do to positively assist in the success of the Dayton Golf Course or what positive suggestions do I have to promote the success of the Dayton Golf Course? Agree or disagree with the city owning the golf course there is one fact we all can agree on; The City of Dayton owns the golf course, it's currently open for business and advertised to remain open for business for the 2009 golf season.

Regardless if you feel the vote was fair or not, regardless if you agree with the information that has been presented, regardless of what council members you agree or disagree with, regardless if you think it will fail; the golf course is going forward for the 2009 golf season. All the taxpayers' in Dayton money is on the line. We need to get the best return on our money possible.

I'm challenging everyone for 1 day to be positive and promote success. I'm not asking you to change your view point.

I'm not asking you to turn your head from potentially damaging information or actions. I'm not asking you not to challenge information presented to you.

Many of you have said "I just want the golf course to break even." OK, what suggestions do you have for that to happen? What actions will you take for that to happen?

What can YOU do or suggest. No "well, if so and so did this, then I can do that." I'm not asking so and so, I'm asking you. No excuses for why you feel entitled to be negative. I'm not asking you to get on board with ownership of the golf course.

I'm asking for the best return on our money this year for a golf course that by all current indications WILL be owned and operated by the city for the 2009 golf season.

Come on samadamslite, come on daytonflyer, come on Al, come on all you anonymous posters; I want to hear from you.

Can Dayton pull together in conflict for 1 day in the spirit of success and prosperity?

Response to some comments

I wanted to take a second to respond to recent comment tonight:

"The part I disagree with is 'The Dayton Observer' is posting his biased opinons as fact."

I am not posting my opinions as fact. I am posting my opinions as opinions.

Also, in my original post, I stated the purpose of this blog was to give a voice to everyone in Dayton. In that regard, I believe I have succeeded.

I feel that this is a very important issue in Dayton, and I post my opinions which serves as a mechanism for debate. Too many times a person's political speech is quelled because he or she is afraid of retaliaiton. That's why I allow everyone to post here anonymously. This is the perfect forum to allow one to participate in an issue so important to a community. If you disagree with my opinions, I respect that. However, I will continue to give a voice to everyone in Dayton if he or she chooses.

Finally, if you do not think your side is being presented fairly then please e-mail me at dayton.observer@gmail.com with a text of your arguments. I will be more than happy to post your argument on the front page of the Dayton Observer. You do not have to include your name. All you have to do is create a free gmail account under a pseudo name and e-mail me your arguments. I will not alter your argument in any way, just a simple cut and paste. We can consider it a Letter to the Dayton Observer.

Friday's Thoughts

I'm seeing some talk about what is called the multiplier effect. I wanted to give that talk some airtime on the post. I've seen a few posts that state if you spend $100,000 in Dayton that gets multiplied by 7 and it becomes $700,000.

Generally, the multiplier effect means that if you buy local, a portion of that money stays in the community. For illustration, I spend $1 at the grocery store, that dollar will be used to pay the wage of grocery store cashier and replenish supplies of the grocery store. That grocery store cashier will use his or her wage to buy something at the gas station, which in turn pays the wage of that person at the gas station.

One problem with the multiplier effect is that there is a cutoff, and that cutoff is Fort Dodge. Fort Dodge has the items that many of us need at cheap prices. That is just the name of the game. Therefore, many of these $1 that I talked about above get cut off at the second or third exchange by a person taking his or her wage money and going to Fort Dodge to buy items. This is also the case when local businesses have to replenish supply, they go to businesses out of town. Nothing wrong with that, that's just how business is transacted. As we can see, $1 does not simply get multiplied by 7 and it becomes $7. The $1 hopefully gets exchanged seven times in the small town. However, this exchange gets cut off by bigger markets like Fort Dodge.

Some argue that we need more attractions in order to get people to spend money here. That is very true, and if it were as easy as adding attractions or businesses I would be first in line saying the golf course is a must because that would mean money would be recycled in Dayton. However, we have to remember these local businesses must be sustainable and self-sufficient in order to continue recycling our money in the community. If that business is not sustainable, then it fails. The issue with the golf course is the town of Dayton is the golf course's credit line and as that business loses money, our taxes are increased. Remember that original $1? That $1 gets taxed a little more heavily this year to make up for the increased taxes going to the golf course. Therefore, I only 95 cents now. That's not good because my pop that I buy at the gas station is still the same price. I don't have as much expendable income as I did before. Plus, I like spending my expendable income on things that I like; I do not like my expendable income getting taxed more as I illustrated above.

If the golf course does bad again next year, my original $1 is only 90 cents now, and that pop is still the same price, which means I have to make up for the price of the pop by using more of my expendable income. This also means less of my $1 goes to the wage of the gas station cashier and less stays in the town of Dayton due to the increased tax. My illustrations further do not take into account the loss of my original $1 due to the fact that the time value of money goes down each year. My $1 (untaxed) is worth more now than that same $1 (untaxed) a year from now.

Finally, this illustration does not take into account that we are losing the opportunity to use our current tax dollars to improve the overall condition of Dayton now. No matter what, our taxes will still be near the highest in Webster County for years to come even if the golf course improves two years down the road. This is because the town will need to maintain a high tax burden on us in order to improve the conditions of Dayton that were neglected in lieu of the golf course.

More Thoughts

Looks as if both sides of the issue have posted today. In one sense, people feel that we need to give the new board a chance to right the golf course. On the other side, people feel that the golf course is draining Dayton's limited resources. Some people feel that the golf course is a great asset to the town of Dayton. I think the other side would agree that the golf course would be a great asset if the golf course was profitable and self-sufficient.

However, the golf course is currently neither profitable nor self-sufficient. Over a year ago the city took on the obligation of trying to make the golf course profitable. Over this year the golf course made capital improvements to the course and to the restaurant. The course also lost money on top of that. Taxes need to be increased in order to make up for that loss. Basically, Dayton is the golf course's credit line and when the golf course needs a bail out, Dayton will be on the hook.

How is Dayton going to get paid back? Think of Dayton as a bank in this case. Now think of how much the golf course is currently indebted to the town of Dayton and think of how many years that will take to pay back the town of Dayton. In the alternative, the money could have been spent on improving the roads and overall conditions in Dayton.

As we can see, the board has some very tough decisions on its hands. This board must make the golf course profitable very soon in order to start paying back the town of Dayton. Otherwise, our taxes are going to be increased to pay for a very toxic asset. The opportunity lost will be huge as streets will be continue to be neglected and the overall appearance of Dayton will diminish.

What are we looking at now? Best possible scenario: golf course becomes profitable and gets Dayton paid back. Options if things go South: Dayton has to continue subsidizing the golf course until the board decides what to do with it. What possible options does the board have if things go South? Sell the course to a private entity. Unfortunately, this might be a loss because the golf course would probably be sold at a discount to what Dayton bought the course at. One other interesting option is selling shares of the golf course to the members to make the course member-owned. This is what is actually done in some communities. However, I believe this option is very unlikely.

Reaction, part II

Last night's post has received a few comments. I would like to address one of those comments in part now:

"As a concerned citizen of Dayton you may have missed an important point tonight. While it is correct that the amendment has given hiring and firing authority to the Park and Rec Board, it also gives the City Council veto authority over the hiring and firing decisions. If effect it give the City Council a safety net if they disagree with the Board decisions. "

First of all, thank you for your comment. I appreciate all of the comments I have received these past few days to all of my postings.

I was planning on talking about the amendment a little bit more today since I did not cover it very much last night. Generally speaking, the board will have hiring and firing power at the golf course. The amendment gives a council member the power to object to a hiring decision of the Park & Recreation Board within 3 days of that hiring decision. In that case, the hiring decision goes before the city council where the city council can either uphold or overrule the council member's objection. There must be a majority vote of the city council in order to overrule the council member's objection to the hiring decision.

I will take up a few of your other points later today. Again, thank you for your comment.

Reaction

Tonight was an interesting night as two important events took place.

1: A surprise amendment was introduced tonight. This amendment would give hiring and firing power to the newly created board that will oversee the golf course. I do not have too much to say about this right now; however, I would like to hear from anyone that does have thoughts about this amendment. You can e-mail me at dayton.observer@gmail.com I would also be happy to break down the specifics of the amendment if anyone would like.

2: The mayor made his choices for the board. I do think a few of his choices are alright. However, a few others are anything but independent. I wrote in earlier posts the importance of a board comprised of independent board members.

Right now, the current budget is hugely strained by the money earmarked for the golf course. There is hardly any money tagged for infrastructure. This board will be tasked with coming up with a budget for the golf course in future years and presenting that budget to city council. The current composition of the city council allows the mayor to pretty much get anything he wants. Finally, the mayor chose the composition of the expanded park board.

A pro-golf board establishing a budget and presenting that budget to a pro-golf city council. Sounds like the golf course may continue getting a large portion of of the city budget for years to come.

This does not take into consideration the balance sheet losses the golf course takes in. Last year, the golf course lost $107,000. Our increased taxes are making up for this loss. Unfortunately, Dayton's taxes probably will not decrease anytime in the near or distant future. These high taxes will need to be maintained due to the fact the city's infrastructure will need repaired (due to the current allocation of the city budget to infrastructure, or lack thereof).

Again, I know I sound very anti-golf course. The posts do look that way. However, I would say I am more anti-throwing good money after bad money.

Tonight's Council Meeting

As discussed in earlier posts, the city council will have a meeting tonight to vote on the third reading of Ordinance 232. Ordinance 232 will obviously pass tonight. The important question now is what to do going forward. I have given my thoughts on why the board should be comprised of independent members. A board of independent members will allow for greater oversight of the golf course. Unfortunately, I believe that this may be a tough year for the golf course again. I know people will argue I am not giving it a chance; however, the economy just does not allow for people to be spending their money on amenities. Loss of jobs, increased taxes (not just because of the golf course, but tobacco, etc.), and this uncertainty takes too much out of a families discretionary budget. Hopefully an independent board will give the citizens of Dayton the best possible information regarding the health of the golf course. This information will allow us to determine what should be done with the golf course later this year or early next year.

Don't get me wrong, I love to golf. In this situation, I am just trying to be pragmatic. This is where I don't understand the negative attitude shown towards Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors this past month or so. It seems they have been asking the pragmatic questions regarding this golf course. However, being pragmatic has been characterized as being an obstructionist. The Dayton Review evidences this obstructionist idea perfectly by subtitling the main article in the recent issue as "Benson, Vegors vote no." These Councilmen are asking very important questions and raising concerns about an issue that will affect Dayton for years to come.

I do see the other side of the picture. There are people that are passionate about golf. I get that. They feel this golf course is vital to the town of Dayton. However, this issue seems to be placing what many consider to be an amenity above the overall health of the Dayton community. This is not being very pragmatic.

Therefore, it is very important that we have people like Councilman Benson and Councilman Vegors continuing to ask these very important questions and raising their concerns, even when some portray them as obstructionists. It is also very important that the council hears your questions and your concerns because the city council and the mayor are working for you.

dayton.observer@gmail.com

A Couple Quick Notes from Today's Dayton Review

I wanted to comment on some observations I made in today's Dayton Review.

First:
The Review incorrectly states that Councilman Benson presented the petition. Correction: This was Ms. Kristi Ott's petition. This was made clear in last Thursday night's council meeting.

Second:
I am not sure how the city attorney came to the conclusion that this was not a conflict of interest. I have included pertinent Iowa Code sections related to conflict of interest with respect to city council voting issues. Statutes and courts have widely found that a council member who has a direct personal interest, a financial interest, or an appearance of impropriety in a matter coming before the council is not eligible to vote in that matter.

Third:
I recently reprinted Mr. Jason Ott's letter to the editor of The Dayton Review. There seems to be some discrepancies in the numbers Mr. Ott presented and the numbers Councilman Diehl presented. Mr. Ott indicated in his communication with me that he received his numbers from the Dayton City Clerk. Councilman Diehl states that his numbers came from the fact he researched the financial/bookkeeping records of Oak Park Golf & Recreation.

This point relates to some of the posts I made earlier, the citizens of Dayton should be able to see these financial records also. This would clear up any discrepancies that are being made in The Dayton Review article. Also, the citizens of Dayton are shareholders of the golf course, which I believe entitles us to viewing the financials in order to properly determine how well the golf course is doing.

Next:
The Dayton Review stated that 88 paid members reside in the SWG school district, all of whom are taxpayers. This statement does not mean all these taxpayers are paying for the golf course because the SWG school district also encompasses communities and areas outside of Dayton. Therefore, I do not see the importance of the statement "all of whom are taxpayers."

Finally:
Tomorrow night there will be a council meeting. If you are able, whether you agree with The Observer or not, please go to this meeting. The third reading of Ordinance 232 is going to take place. Ordinance 232 is very important because it will establish the board to oversee the golf course. I have already posted how important that this board be comprised of independent members, as well as someone with a financial background. The meeting will take place at 7:00 pm. Let your voice be heard.

dayton.observer@gmail.com

Tuesday's Thoughts

Yesterday, I discussed how we can be seen as shareholders of the golf course. I decided that I wanted to expand my discussion of that thought.

When a person buys a stock in a company that person is protected by the Securities and Exchange Act. In essence, a company must publicly disclose all material information related to that company. This information disclosure was meant to protect the purchasers and shareholders from buying or holding onto a bad company's shares.

Why do I bring this up? As shareholders of the golf course, I do not believe that we have received material information related to the golf course. In this instance, I am talking about the financials of the golf course.

A corporation must issue quarterly and yearly financial reports to all of its shareholders. The same kind of information should be made available to all of us, the citizens of Dayton. We would be able to ascertain whether or not the golf course is a viable asset to the community. I am not saying we need a quarterly report. However, the best information in the current situation would be a line item budget from last fiscal year. This is the type of information that would be the most material to the shareholders of this golf course and helping to determine whether the golf course is a viable asset.

A thought that I will not go into great depths about unless others would like me to: alternatives.

Why was the golf course bought for $170,000 vs. buying the golf course when the course would have went into bankruptcy? This seems like it may have been a sensible alternative. Dayton would have been able to purchase the golf course at a much cheaper price potentially. Also, this kind of purchase would have saved the taxpayers of Dayton money.

Another quick thought: Dayton could always lease the golf course out to a private party to run. In return for leasing the golf course out, Dayton would receive lease payments. The burden would then be on the private party to make the golf course a profitable business and not on the town of Dayton. Therefore, our taxes would not be increased each time there is a shortfall in the golf course's business operations.

Finally, I encourage everyone to attend tomorrow night's City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 pm. Be a part of your local government's decision making because in the end it is you who will be footing the bill.

Feel free to e-mail or comment if you have questions regarding anything I have talked about. Even if you disagree with my posts, I welcome your input as well.
dayton.observer@gmail.com

More posts soon!

Monday's Musings

I will start out by saying that I love golfing.

However, running a golf course is a business. As we stand now, the golf course lost $107,000 last year. How is that money being recouped? The answer is our taxes must be raised in order to meet that loss. Seems like more money to a currently losing proposition.

This may be ok in a good economic environment if the golf course was on the right track (more on that in a second). However, the economic environment is not good. People have lost their jobs at Electrolux and other various employers. People need this extra cash to buy groceries and other basic necessities.

What happens next year if the golf course loses money again? Taxes will need to be raised again in order to meet that shortfall. This would be another tax burden on the citizens of Dayton.


A quick note on the golf course being on the right track. I have not seen a business plan to try and make the golf course profitable. I do hear the arguments that the citizens just need to give the golf course time. However, the current economic times does not allow the golf course to have a lot of time to get profitable. I understand that the council is proposing ordinance 232 to implement a board to oversee the operation of the golf course, and the argument may be made that this board will have the answers to make the golf course profitable

If this board is the answer than the board should be comprised of people that are independent of the golf course. What do I mean by independent? Remember Enron? Enron brought Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley, in general terms, states that an audit board of the corporation must be made up of at least one person with substantial accounting background. Also, the audit board must be independent of the corporation that the board is tasked with auditing. This independence reduces a potential for a conflict of interest between the audit board and the corporation. Therefore, shareholders of the corporation know they are getting accurate financial statements.

We, the citizens of Dayton, can be thought of as the shareholders of the golf course now. I would argue that this board to oversee the golf course should be independent, and have at least one person with a good financial background. This would allow the board to review the financials and determine what financial condition the golf course is in. The board would also be tasked with reporting back to the City Council how well the course is doing.

Have we, the citizens of Dayton, seen any of the financial statements to see what assets, liabilities, and equity the golf course currently has? I believe the answer to this question is no. There is too much potential for the fudging of numbers to make the golf course look better than it might really be. Of course, the golf course may be in great shape, but we, the shareholders of the golf course, should know the financial condition of the course. Unfortunately, accounting rules allow for the fudging of numbers to make a corporation look better than it really is. This could be happening with the golf course. I would say it is imperative to see something like a line item budget so we can verify how solvent the golf course really is. If the numbers are good, all the better. If the numbers are not good, well that might make for some interesting discussions ahead.

The Observer understands this post is sounding very anti-golf course; however, this is an argument that must be made. Even if this was about any other business that the town of Dayton bought, The Observer would be making the same argument.

The Observer would be happy to hear from anyone who has thoughts, opinions, or anything else he or she would like to talk about. The Observer may have another post with other thoughts later today or tomorrow. Thank you again for reading The Dayton Observer.