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