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.
Not about this post, but I heard from reliable sources that there are some dirty politics involved in the hiring of the new greenskeeper. Apparently after the council voted to hire him, the parks and rec board has decided against him. This is dirty politics if there is no valid reason. Let's get integrity.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm not sure what exactly happened with the new greenskeeper. I thought the council voted on his employment at the last meeting. Maybe someone from the board can tell us what the situation was.
ReplyDeleteThe minutes are interesting. I wonder why they waited until now to get the 25,000.00 and use it for the payment.
ReplyDeleteIs it true about the greenskeeper. I don't think you can hire someone and without a really good reason not hire them or I think they would have a really good lawsuit.
Any specific discussions about an employee or potential employee would happen in closed session. The community is not legally entitled to that confidential information. That would be a legitamite reason for a law suit.
ReplyDeleteThe Parks and Rec board was under tremendous time pressure to hire a grounds keeper. If 2 city council members had been more concerned about our tax payers money rather than their own personal agenda, the board could have assembled more quickly and had a more reasonable time frame for hiring.
9:21, I hope you are not speaking of Benson and Vegors. Those are the only 2 on the council that seem to be concerned with the taxpayers money.
ReplyDeleteI hope someone knows why the City Council waited until now to ask for the light board money, apparently they waited until now, ran out of money, had a loan payment due and said we will steal from Peter to pay Paul and no one will know ever know the difference. I think this has been happening a lot, and we are just finding out because of the open records law. Shame on you and shame on us for putting up with it.
ReplyDeleteHas there been a closed session on hiring the greenskeeper? I just thought they had hired one and now I read this post and I wonder. I think you need to quit blaming others and look at what is happening. I keep hearing all of this blame and I am starting to wonder who really is to blame or have several become scape goats.
ReplyDeleteSamAdams I agree with you. Worried about taxpayers money, it appears no one worried last year about spending lots of money Now look where we are at. Could this be a continuation of a hidden agenda of several others?
ReplyDeleteMaybe we need to have a Tea Party in Dayton.
ReplyDeleteWe would probably need to call it something else.
After reading some of the toxic and irrational posts that have been put up tonight, the general opinion of the people on this blog is that everyone involved in this golfcourse are crooks.
ReplyDeleteI've tried to answer any and all questions openly and honestly, and this is the thanks I get.
I've had enough of being ridiculed and bad mouthed by you people. So, as of right now I'm done with you AND this blog. You will here nothing from me again.
You have the right to ALL the information but, you DON'T Deserve it.
And the town will be lucky after this to get anyone to serve the community.
Board Member
Al
Sorry Al but I haven't posted tonight and I see some questioning posts but I wouldn't call them Toxic or irrational. I'm sorry you are so upset. Thank you for all of your information.
ReplyDeletepost 10:52
ReplyDeleteYou don't see it because it's not you that they are talking about day after day. I wouldn't blame Al or any of the other board members if they just quit. A person can only take so much.
Al, I hate to see you go. So far you were the only known(not by name) board member. I do disagree with your statement: You have the right to ALL the information but, you DON'T Deserve it. Due to the fact we as taxpayers are paying for the golf course we do deserve it. A lot of people are just plain upset that the city's money is like the Energizer Bunny and just keeps going and going and going. I have yet to see anybody else on the golf board really come on here and explain anything except for you. I have yet to hear any pro-golfer explain in rational terms just what this course provides the majority of citizens. It lost a ton of money last year and is slated even conservatively to lose around $20,000 this year and that is from figures from that list of changes being looked at. I believe it has been said that approximately 30 memberships are from the citizens and the rest out of towners. That means the majority of residents pays for the minority to play. So Al, if you are done then have a good one. Been nice chatting with you and I hate to see you go.
ReplyDeleteI also hate to see Al go. The way I see it is that people are getting upset about all the money being spent with really no answers. I think this blog has asked some very fair questions and brought light to some areas that were never really discussed before. I heard people get upset tonight about potentially higher taxes and no answers. For instance, there might be an approximate $20,000 operating loss. Also, this post made a good point in that the $25,000 loan was meant for improvements originally but instead was used to pay off a note. What happened with the hired groundskeeper? No one seems to answer these questions and people get pissed. It might seem anti-golf, but it also might be anti-losing lots more money. $25,000 is alot of money. $20,000 is alot of money. I would say those 2 councilmen are worried about taxpayer money. If the conversation seems toxic, I would say it is just people getting pissed about not knowing where their money is going. Also yesterday was the first time I have ever seen the golf course changes proposal, was that ever going to be released to the Dayton Review or put in the minutes? Al, I am sorry you think this was a toxic conversation tonight but I disagree. I am very sorry to see you go and thank you for the insight that you did provide. We do appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteWell said 1:36 AM.
ReplyDeleteWe hate to see you go Al. We just really don't want the city to own the golf course. We know you and the other Parks and Rec board members are doing your best to make the golf course run as financially responsibly as you can. However, if you succeed, we will fail in our attempt to get the city to get rid of the golf course.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who wrote this but it is not anyone that I have talked to about this issue.
ReplyDeleteI think someone wrote this to make the people who are not for the tax increases look bad. NO ONE has ever said this on this blog or have personally mentioned this to me. I think have tried to write ideas to help the golf course and to look PR areas. So if this is an attempt to make those that don't want an increase in property taxes it is blatant and way, way below playing dirty pool. Do you feel good about yourself. When I first found out about the tax increase and stated my belief I was innocent enough to think that people could be honnest and have different belief's I guess I was really wrong. I do hate to see AL stop talking on this blog, this person has been polite and stated their beliefs. This has demoralized your arguement if someone would post this like it was someone else, because I KNOW of no one with the adgenda and believe me I have talked with many people.
Correction: because I KNOW of no one with this adgenda and believe me I have talked with many people.
ReplyDeleteI hope you can sleep at night. This kind of stuff really makes me wonder what is happening to our town and our country. Does anything really go, it furthers our own agenda whether is is true or not? Honnest or not?
11:25 am - When you speak of "we", do you have a mouse in your pocket? The golf course would be a great asset if the golf course was self-sufficient and sustainable. This has been a lot of people's positions. I know of no other poster on here that has ever asserted "However, if you succeed, we will fail in our attempt to get the city to get rid of the golf course," other than you.
ReplyDeleteThis blog has posted many valid questions. Such as the post regarding the original purpose of the $25,000, what are some of the metrics that the rec board will be using to measure success, will financials be updated and released as the spring/summer months go on? I have yet to hear answers to these questions. People are concerned with where their money is going and when will they get paid back (or see a return on our investment). For the most part, I hear no answers to my above questions.
Al was a very good poster and had answers to many questions. I appreciate Al’s contributions to this blog. Thank you Al. As for 11:25 am- I think you are the only one who has ever asserted "However, if you (Al and the board) succeed, we will fail in our attempt to get the city to get rid of the golf course." You stand alone in this claim. If the board succeeds in making the course self-sufficient and sustainable, I will be the first one to applaud congratulate them.
Thank you D.O. Amen
ReplyDeleteNice post D.O. I think 11:25 is just being sarcastic and is obviously a pro-golf course at any cost person. Basically poking fun at those of us that are concerned with the real issue which is fiscal responsibility with the taxpayers monies. No one that I have talked to wants the course to fail, just to see it fail. I would be glad if it could just break even and pay it's own way. That is all any of us want.
ReplyDeleteI want it to succeed also, but I would like to see it achieve this in an honest and open manner. I would probably say that most of us want that, but all we see is dishonesty and trying to hide things, that is what has us all questioning what is going on. Please, don't be hiding issues for your own agenda, the whole city of Dayton owns the golf course, respect that. Don't treat us like we shouldn't know what is going on. Be transparent.
ReplyDeleteSo everyone on here agrees that their motive is for the golf course to succeed. In previous posts at least some have agreed the Parks and Rec board was a good motive in which to achieve success.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the Dayton Observer's last post, "I want to hear answers to these questions...For the most part I hear no answers to my above questions."
I read through the official posted minutes from the last Parks and Recs meeting in the newspaper. I did not see anyone identifying himself as the Dayton Observer or anyone else asking these questions at the meeting. Who knows if the Parks and Rec board members are even reading this anymore. Al left. If you have questions then ask the questions at the appropriate place and time.
The 2:26 post states; "All we see is dishonesty and trying to hide things...Please don't be hiding issues for your own agenda." Wow! So exactly who are you accusing on that board of being dishonest? There's a big difference between dishonest and not getting the answers you want to the questions you didn't go to the meeting and ask.
Then a few post about how they really appreciated Al but don't think their being toxic or irrational. Really? If I was sitting on that board and was accused of being dishonest or hiding issues over questions I was not officially asked at a meeting, I'd be offended as hell.
If you really want the golf course to break even or at least get some answers about the expenses VS revenue; then support the people volunteering to help get those answers. These people have full-time jobs and families in addition to volunteering on this board. Lets be a little realistic and give them time to find problems and solutions, and fairly ask questions of them. These people have the integrity to go participate and have their names posted in the paper along side the way they vote.
If you really want the golf course to break even or support itself; then support the people who are trying to help. Be transparent.
I am as about as transparent as they come. I have a relative that says anyone can take one look at me and tell what I am thinking. I have been transparent on this blog also. I do hope that the "new" board and the golf course succeeds. I didn't get from the posts that people think the new parks and rec board are dishonnest. I personally think the new board has a chance of making it and making the golf course a success. I do feel that they should make their own decisions and possibly not be to influenced by others and I'm not going to name names that could be swaying some down the wrong path. I am now being transparent. You sometimes have to make your own decisions even though they disagree with others, maybe even some above you in the chain of command. Even I don't believe in breaking the chain of command but common sense must be used.
ReplyDeleteCan the city legally use the 25,000 dollars from the light board to pay off a note when it was voted on to use for different circumstances, or should it go back to council for another vote, just to keep it legal and above board. Let's keep it transparent and legal.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the greenskeeper they hired should be reading this blog.
ReplyDeleteWas there a greenskeeper hired? I read anything about this. I know I read somewhere in one of the posts that the council voted for one. The way I think I understand it doesn't the rec board interview and do all the stuff then have the council vote. I'm really confused on this one.
ReplyDeleteto 3:38
ReplyDeleteIf you don't think there are any toxic posts in this section, try looking at the FIRST post. It accuses the board of dirty politics. Another one a few posts down accuses them of being dishonest. Go back through posts from the past topics. Some of those basically said that the Parks & Rec Board members were worthless, had a hidden agenda, would do anything, and spend any amount of money to save the golfcourse. If these aren't toxic to you, then you need to look it up in the dictionary.
About the $25,000. The golfcourse never took it. The vote by the Light Board the other day specifically asked that it be loaned for paying a note that was due. It is considered a brand new vote. It has nothing to do with the vote from last year.
I thought this was freedom of speech! I know now that the Dayton Observer is taken out what they only want you to see!!!! Since my post from 5:15 is no longer posted!!!!
ReplyDeleteThat is another reason why we hope the golf course fails!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteDid the council specifically ask for a new loan from the light board, like they did a year ago? Or was that one of those items that wasn't placed on the agenda according to open meeting laws? I haven't seen in the minutes printed in our paper stating the council voted on a request of new loan. Is this another cover-up?
ReplyDeleteto post 5:27
ReplyDeleteYou ARE dumbass
If you want to find out the facts!!! Go to the meetings and sit and listen. You then will get eduacated!!! (we can only hope)
ReplyDelete5:24 and 5:27 are probably the same poster, look at the use of the exclamation point. I would also like to know where the new loan was asked for. I take it from the 5:05 post that this must have been a different loan with different strings attached. From my understanding with the greenskeeper, the one approved by the city council will not be the new greenskeeper per some on the new rec board. I am not quite sure why, but hopefully that gets cleared up.
ReplyDeleteI think this blog helps to educate us all.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter what anyone says, you think their all crooks and have hidden ajendas. I think the only ones who have the hidden ajendas are half the ones posting on this blog.
ReplyDeleteJust to correct some misunderstandings. The loan given last week was not a different loan, it was the same loan that was voted on last year by the city council for golf course improvments.
ReplyDeleteTo 6:09
ReplyDeleteTo correct your corrections.
The Light Board specifically voted on loaning the money for paying the note off. Check the minutes when they come out in the paper. So it is a new vote and a new loan.
Dayton Taxpayer: Regarding your response to the person who posted at 2:26, I don't see to where they were referring to the park board. As a matter of fact I have been looking and can't find references regarding the park board. Could they mean someone else?
ReplyDeleteTo poster 5:42pm Which half of the posters do you think has hidden agenda’s? Just wondering. I don’t think everyone thinks they’re crooks. They just want to be educated.
ReplyDeleteIf you educate people in an honest and open way usually all s____ will not hit the fan, they may be upset but will usually see the reality and truth in the end.
Did any of the light board make any comments at this meeting. I will read their minutes when they come out in the paper. But usually not all comments are printed.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it is possible the 2:26 post meant someone else.
ReplyDeleteThe 2:26 post was referencing current information about the golf course. The Parks and Recs board is currently (just starting) directing the activities and policies of the golf course.
Maybe the person posting at that time should clarify who they were insinuating is dishonest and hiding information. Those are strong alligations.
To 6:40 P.M. We had better see some action from the city council as to them voting and setting terms to new loan, or I believe they have to ask again, hiding issues like this is not going to work. I would like see a council member ask for light board loan, greenskeeper hiring, and if parks and rec can spend money that has not been O,K. by council and not in thier budget yet? I hope the council would question the validity of minutes and light board meeting, maybe having light board members,and park board members there, so the public can come and hear for themselves as stated in a previous post. I have never observed an agenda in the paper, from a council vote to request funds the light board. Maybe we all should get an opinion from the attorney general if all this legal?
ReplyDeleteDayton Taxpayer: I agree these could be strong allegations. I could also be wrong but from the tone of most of the posts, I don’t think it’s the “new” board that is being questions so much as maybe some that remain involved in another capacity. I could be wrong but I am assuming this. Assuming is sometimes; Ass-U-Me. But I still feel this way.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am not getting this, but reading minutes from year ago last March to fund improvements for golf course from loan from light board, the council made a motion to do this. If this is a new loan, where can I find the minutes from council approval to use proceeds from new loan from light board to pay loan payment and other bills. Can anyone help with this? Didn't this have to happen again?
ReplyDeleteIn its opinion in KCOB/Inc. v. JasperCounty Bd. of Sup'rs, 473 N.W. 2nd. 171 (Iowa 1991), the Supreme Court set forth several guide lines for meeting notices and tentitive agendas. These include: 2. "The sufficiency of the detail on tentative agenda must be viewed in the context of surrounding events." Here the Court said that the test for a tentative agenda was whether the information was reasonably sufficient to alert interested people as to the subject matter to be considered. Question: Did the tentative agenda for light board meeting in regards to 25,000 loan to City pass this test?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how the meeting went tonight?
ReplyDeleteHad other commitments or else I was going to go.
I read the minutes in the Dayton Review tonight and they don't really follow what has been said in some the earlier posts on this blog. I don't know what to believe.
ReplyDelete