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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand your concern about the Board appointments, I feel strongly the Board is first and foremost for the community of Dayton. I feel the majority of the Board members will be objective in their decisions and have the ability to make difficult and possibly negative decisions concerning the Oak Park Golf and Rec Park if those decisions are warranted.
Your statement that “the golf course lost $107,000” is in my opinion a bit in accurate. First, Oak Park Golf and Rec has not yet been in existence for one year. There may be additional revenue collected before their first year ends. Secondly, the loss for the first year includes the capital improvements made to the course, including major one-time expenses to the club house (kitchen, shingles, deck, and heating).
I fully agree with your statement that the City’s tax asking will not substantially decease in the near future. In approx. 4 years, our bonded indebtedness for the lagoon and the water treatment plant will be satisfied. At face value, this would mean that our taxes would decrease by approx. $4.00 per $1000 property value. However, due to the age of our City and the condition of our streets, --it is a certainty that our Council will again have to incur debt to improve our streets.
Bottom line, the sooner we can activate the Board, the sooner they will be able to make the decisions that move Oak Park and Rec towards self-sufficiency or closure, whatever is more beneficial to the residents of Dayton.
The golf course is not going to raise their rates to golfers. This could help in defraying costs to the taxpayers. From my understanding this is not even being considered.
ReplyDeleteWith this board being so heavily pro golf course does anyone even think that they would ever consider anything but throwing good money after bad.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why the city attorney can't work for the community, instead of being the Mayors private attorney and showing him how to dance around the law.Keeping everything in the gray area is not what I call working for the community makes me wonder about my tax money. why can't the city be honest about the money spent and what is going to be spent so everyone can be on the same page. how do you argue about a page in a book when two people are not even reading the same book. And last of all if a 5 year old put there last dime in a bubble gum machine and got nothing in return would they borrow an other dime and try it again or would they say it was broke.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who believes this white elepahant will ever make money or break even is sadly mistaken. That is the reason we the city now owns it. It was losing money and mismanaged for years and now we will have the some of the same faces on the new board. Correct me if I am wrong but our current Mayor was on the liqour license since 2003. He knew where the place was headed before the city bought it. What it comes down to is a few want to play golf and party at the clubhouse at the taxpayers expense. I would suggest that the 106 members or whatever the number is each put up $2,000.00 and buy it back from the city and do with it what they want. Of course they won't do that since it is not financially feasible and hence it would cost them not the taxpayers money.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't have a problem with the $107,000 figure. Ok, the golf course may make roughly $3,000 till the end of the year. However that means they still "lost" $104,000. You can argue yes they made capitol improvements, but all these improvements were made to what I think most view as the big money loser: the restaurant. Also no matter what the golf course lost $43,000 dollars, which still is too much of a burden on Dayton as a town.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Mayor being on the liquor license since 2003, that is an error in that the license is set for only one year. He has not been on the board for all that time.
ReplyDeleteWOW let's get a grip!!
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that there are people bashing a Parks and rec board that hasn't made one decision yet. How about we see what they do before we say they are "pro-golf and will do anything it takes to keep the golf course open". These people are taxpayers just like you. It's silly to believe that they would want to pay more and more taxes.
I understand everyones concern about money spent on the golfcourse, I have the same concerns. But, I believe that recreation/tourism is about the only thing this small town has to base it's future on. We don't have industry or major businesses on our side. All we have is events(rodeo, ETC.)and recreation(camping, fishing, golfing,)as the draw to our town.
Let's give the new board a chance, to see if they can make this work. I think they will make the right decisions after they've gone over all the numbers and information.
It's time to stop with all the finger pointing, badmouthing, backstabbing, and being so darn negitive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think a most of us want the golf course to succeed, I do. Now, whether I believe it is feasible or not is a different story. From what I understand of the mayor's appointments they do seem to lean more for the golf course. Yet again though I don't think anyone hopes they fail, but they have a right to question the nominations if they think they are not good choices. Saying that, I do believe the council should have had the right to vote on approving the appointments. With how important the board is one person, no matter how qualified, should not decide it singularity.
ReplyDeleteAs for the future of the town. I personally believe that the high property taxes that are caused by the golf course will hurt more than whatever golf brings into the town. People enjoy golf, but I have serious doubts on people moving into a town with high taxes and a golf course rather than to a town with low taxes and no golf course(especially if one's one a short drive away).
On the subject of negativity I believe this argument has only been used against those against continuing ownership of the golf course (believe me no one is anti-golf course) and I am sorely disappointed by that. I don't think many are being negative, but rather pragmatic.
(Sorry about deleting the previous post, missed a key word)
I wasn't really talking about people moving into town because of the golfcourse. But, if you have someone that's going to move into this area, they may choose Dayton over Pilot Mound, Lehigh,Boxholm,Stratford, because of the golfcourse.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was really saying was, that it brings people into town for no other reason but to play golf. Just like the rodeo brings people into town for no other reason than to see the rodeo. And as everyone knows, every dollar that's spent in a town multiplies by seven. So if there is say, $100,000.00 spent in Dayton it turns into $700,00.00
I forgot to comment on a couple of your points.
ReplyDeleteI can see your point about the council having a say in the appointments. I can also see the mayors point on wanting to get a board in place ASAP. We've seen how long it took to get the ordinance amended. Just imagine how long it would have taken to go through all the appoinments. And the golf course could not survive much more of a delay. The terms on these board members vary, there will be one seat open in one year, so if that person isn't doing things the way the people think they should be, citizens can go to the council when the new apponitment is being considered and voice thier opinion.
When you find fault in everything that is said or done. That's being negitive, and there are people out there that are doing just that.
Basing a small town's future on a golf course or recreation in general is not a good idea unless you can develope it into another Adventureland or some such place. Losing money on a golf course that has a proven track record of losses is not what you call economically sound. Let's take care of business first and then worry about recreation. Maybe after a few years of losses we could have a ghost town tourist attraction. That is all that will be left after giving basically the whole budget to the golf course.
ReplyDeleteFirst any way we can get a quote feature?
ReplyDelete"I wasn't really talking about people moving into town because of the golfcourse. But, if you have someone that's going to move into this area, they may choose Dayton over Pilot Mound, Lehigh,Boxholm,Stratford, because of the golfcourse."
If I was moving into an area the first thing I would look at is property tax cost for the home I buy. With being roughly $3 over the second highest city in Webster County, I would really doubt I would move into Dayton meaning I would be less likely to go to Dayton and do any businesses. That is one reason why I'm more concerned about the property tax rather than a golf course. Then about the golf course being a draw, I also don't really see it. The golf course in my opinion is in no way shape or form as important to the town as the rodeo. The rodeo is a huge event, the golf course has only 118 members with little room to grow (again in my opinion). This to me just doesn't seem like it is that big of economic boom to me, especially with deteriorating infrastructure and many outside people thinking the town is going downhill. Most of the time before town ownership, the golf course broke right around even or lost money, now with a restaurant that seems to be a losing proposition, (not by lack of effort of many individuals) I don't see how the golf course is good for the community.
I had company several weeks ago. They stated they were shocked to see how Dayton had changed in a few short years, the roads, and the general appearance of the community. I also feel that we all have different views.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean my view is negative because it not the same as yours. I think we could agree to disagree and not make this a personal problem.
It would be interesting to see how much money the rodeo costs the Dayton taxpayers. Electricity, water, xtra police protection. Not that it matters because this a draw for the town. And in the long run it's worth it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think someone's negative because they don't agree. I do think people are being negative, when they start ripping into the new board before it even gets started.
You know most people say it really isn't about the golf course. It is purely economics. Any intelligent business person will tell you that you can't keep putting money in a losing business and expect to make money. Of course that seems to be the mentality of the whole country today. I have never been against having a golf course, but am against draining Dayton's resources for the good of 116 or so golfers. By the way the quote earlier of "And as everyone knows, every dollar that's spent in a town multiplies by seven. So if there is say, $100,000.00 spent in Dayton it turns into $700,00.00." I would like to know where that proven fact comes from. And if that is the case who is going to bless the golf course with 100,000 and where will we see the 700,000 pop up? According to a sheet of facts that came from City Hall, the total revenue from the golf course was 200,337.49, with total expenditures of 307,966.39. Those are the figures that shows the 107,000 loss. Now at the rate of 7 back for every 1 spent we should have received about 1.4 million back from the golf course and if you subtract the 200,000 spent on it we actually made 1.2 million on it. Sounds like either someone has their facts wrong or someone stole a pile of money. Let's get real.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about Dayton in general, not just the golfcourse. Every dollar spent in Dayton equals seven. Look it up.
ReplyDeleteI believe what people are referring to when they say every dollar spent in Dayton equals seven is the multiplier effect. In general, if one spends a dollar at the grocery store or the golf course, that dollar does not disappear, but becomes wages to people or revenue to suppliers.
ReplyDeleteThat 7 to 1 is all fine and good, but if it is not increasing revenue then what good is it? I never believed that stat anyway and I have heard it before. This town is not set up with a lot of jobs where that really holds true. If that does not apply then what good is the stat anyway. How many of our wages are earned in town and how much is spent in town? I shop local when I can, but Ft. Dodge is the closest town with most things needed. I am not trying to be negative, but we need to look after the welfare of the whole town, not just a few who like to golf.
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason we need things like the golfcourse to draw people into our town to spend thier money here.
ReplyDeleteI believe post 8:56 AM is correct in that a lot of our revenue goes to Ft. Dodge (just a fact of the matter). For example, if we spend a dollar in a local business, that business may take part of that dollar and need to spend it in Ft. Dodge to replenish supply, etc. To say $1 spent in the community will turn into $7 might be a little off base. Generally, what might happen is that $1 is used 7 times over in the same community. However, as 8:56 points out most things needed is found in Ft. Dodge and that's where a majority of us go for our regular supplies. This does not mean we do not support the local economy as I think a majority of us do buy locally also.
ReplyDeleteWhat 8:56 and the observer said is correct the majority of our money does end up in Fort Dodge. And if most of our money is going to Fort Dodge, how do we get money coming into our town? By having things like the rodeo and the golfcourse, and anything else we can come up with to draw people to our town to spend thier money here.
ReplyDelete8:56 here again. Webster City has a golf course, Gowrie has a golf course, Don Williams has a golf course, Ft. Dodge has a golf course and you think people are going to flock to Dayton to play golf? The only people playing here consistently are local and they are not paying enough to keep the think solvent. Maybe we could host the US Open and get Tiger Woods to come play here. That would draw the crowds. In the meantime lets be fiscally responsible to all Dayton citizens and not just golfers.
ReplyDeleteThe rodeo costs the taxpayers money every year that we don't get back. Maybe we should get rid of the rodeo and the golfcourse, just think of all the money we'd save!
ReplyDeleteHow does the rodeo cost taxpayers money every year? Please give me the specifics if you can?
ReplyDeleteThe city pays for the electicity, water, extra police, city maintenance workers, city equipment is used.
ReplyDeleteCould someone involved with the Rodeo please post a response to the above posts. I know that there is much more to it than the last post before this one. Thanks
ReplyDelete