By Curmudgeon
[Prelude]: During the public comments time at the Council meeting that preceded the work session, Mr. Bill C., speaking on behalf of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course Mens' Association, told the Council that the hastily called public meeting for Wednesday night had not given his group enough time to prepare statements and alternative plans for the golf course. He and his group did not understand the perceived “urgency” [as Mayor Godfrey put it] of the situation. He told the Council that the Mt. Ogden Golf Course Men’s Association was preparing alternatives to the four outlined by the Mayor, alternatives that would not leave winners and losers in their wake, but would make everyone involved with the golf course a winner. He urged the Council not to rush to judgment but to wait for the Men’s Association to complete its recommendations, which he said would be done within a week. He said he did not intend to challenge the Mayor’s figures regarding the golf course’s income and costs — “They are what they are” he said. But the Association would be talking about how original mistakes that were made in funding the course, about the origins of the current debt, as well as how to deal with it. He insisted the recommendations the Association would make would “not divide” the community but would unite it.
The Work Session convened following the close of the Council Meeting. Mayor Godfrey began by congratulating the management of Mt. Ogden Golf Course [MOGC] for all they had done over the previous four years to turn things around, to increase the number of rounds played so that the course at least broke even. But, he said, it hadn’t worked, and the course was still losing in the area of a quarter of a million dollars a year. Rounds played would have to increase by about 30K a year over what they were not before that would change, he said.
The Mayor said the City’s auditors, two years ago, had told the city that it could no longer go on as it was, simply adding MOGC’s growing debt to the books, that the city had to come up with a plan to retire the debt, principle plus accrued and continuing interest, and had to do it now. Council members asked the Mayor why the golf course debt could not simply be written off in the same way the Mayor recommended that several million dollars in RDA debt be written off. The Mayor explained that (a) that RDA debt was incurred before he, or any still sitting member of the Council, had been in office (b) that those RDA obligations represented a hope that they would be paid, not an expectation (c) that the projects they financed had been built as public projects, and the Council at the time simply hoped, that if the projects were wildly successful, the city would like some of the money back. “A hope, not an expectation,” he said. That RDA debt did not, in short, represent “real money.”
The MOGC debt, the Mayor said, was something entirely different. It represented real money that had been taken from two city funds, the Cemetery’s Perpetual Care fund, and the sewer maintenance fund — taken from them, and loaned to MOGC for construction, and it had to be paid back, along with interest. Why? Because if the two funds had not loaned the money to the golf course, that money would have drawn interest over the years, that could and would and still should be used to pay for cemetery costs and sewer projects. [There was some discussion about the cemetery’s “Perpetual Care Fund” which had loaned money to the MOGC. The consensus seemed to be that since that was a trust fund, that debt could not be, legally written off.]
The Mayor said the money loaned to MOGC, and the interest on it, could be written off if the Council chose to do so. “That’s a policy decision the Council can make if it wishes, “ he said. But that would mean that the losses to the sewer fund would have to be made up elsewhere, or that sewer projects would have to be delayed or cancelled.
Under questioning from the Council, the Mayor said that complaints that aggressive marketing for the MOGC would solve the problem were merely slogans, rhetoric that served no useful purpose. He, assisted by MOGC superintendent and golf pro Todd Brenkman, recounted efforts to better market the course, which included partnering with the Ogden Convention and Visitors Bureau on some out of state advertising. That had produced no significant increase in business. Mr. Brenkman did say the MOGC had a very limited advertising budget, and it was doing all it could with it. Mayor Godfrey spoke of research that showed that when people travel long distances to golf, they generally went to areas that were established as golf destinations already, that advertising MOGC alone out of state would not work, that Ogden would have to re-brand itself and the area as a regional golf destination, which would be “very difficult.”
Mr. Brenkman also spoke of other problems he had trying to make the course particular a destination for corporate events, like charity tournaments. One had to do with having an insufficient number of golf carts during busy times. He said he had a golf cart shortage “two or three times a week, “ and when he booked a large tournament, he had to rent 20 cars from SLC and pay transport to and from Ogden, which cost far more than the carts rented for at MOGC. But he could not book tournaments and then tell players he had no carts for them. The tourneys would never play MOGC again if that happened. He also said the club house was insufficient to even house big events, and he needed, at least, a pavilion next to it to seat 150 people to continue booking tournaments.
Mayor Godfrey said, regarding the four options he laid out [reported in the SE earlier this week], that he thought any additional outlay, or continued deficit funding for MOGC was something the taxpayers had not agreed to when the original loans were made to MOGC. Writing off the loans, issuing new bonds, or continuing funneling tax money to MOGC was something “taxpayers need to sign up for.” He said the redesign necessary to make the course popular and financially successful would cost an estimated $6 million, that number coming from course design professionals who had made recommendations to the city.
There was considerable discussion about moving the club house from its present location to a site closer to WSU at the other end of the course. [Head of 36th Street presumably.] Mayor Godfrey said some of the best golf course designers in the nation had looked at the course “pro bono” and all of them made the same suggestions regarding making it financially successful: it had to be made easier, fairways widened, layout changed. And all said the club house should be moved to a site easier for the public to access. Mr. Brenkman concurred about the club house. Council members wondered if improving street signs, directing people to the course as called for in the Mt. Ogden Community Plan, would help. The Mayor replied with derision, saying it would work only if the Council thought there were people with golf bags in their cars riding around Ogden looking for a place to play, and leaving when they couldn’t find one. Mr. Brenkman, however, took the suggestion more seriously and said he thought signs would be a very good idea, since he had gotten cell calls from people heading for MOGC who were lost and asking how to find the place. He noted the club house was not on a major street and was pretty hard to ferret out if you were not already familiar with the neighborhood. Signs would help. But he agreed, not enough to make the course profitable.
There was extended discussion about the playability of the course. Mr. Brenkman reported that out of staters who played it for the first time were very happy with it, considered it a real find. But the course could not make it on occasional out of state golfers. It’s bread and butter was the residential golfer who played a lot. He’d gone to civic clubs, etc. and kept being told “the course is too hard.” He’d ask people when they’d last played it, and they’d say ten years ago. The course, he said, has been made significantly more golfer friendly since then, and people who come back to it are happy with it. But there have not been enough of them.
Part of the problem was competition. Mr. Brenkman said following the golf boom of the eighties and early nineties, courses were overbuilt. That there are 110 courses now in Utah, and forty or so, most of them new, within a 45 minute commute of Ogden. And the numbers, he said, are plain: flatter, easier courses in the area, whose prices are competitive with those at MOGC, see about twice as many rounds played annually as MOGC.
Some questions were raised about why the numbers provided by the mayor in re: golf course operations, revenues and debt only went back four years. The Mayor said that prior to that, the golf pro there received no pay, but owned the concessions, and so that comparing financial reports before things changed circa 2004 and after they changed [the MOGC now owns and operates its own concessions— food, pro shop, etc] would be comparing apples to oranges. Councilwoman Gochnour and Wicks asked that the administration provide the council with some brief explanation of why the numbers were not comparable. The Mayor and Mr. Brenkman agreed.
Council members pointed out that the MOGC had not been very well promoted even on the city’s website. The Mayor agreed that many Ogden attractions had not been well promoted in the city website “which is why it is being well-designed.” Councilwoman Gochnour asked why MOGC was not included in the excellent recent brochure the city and the Visitors and Convention Bureau did promoting Ogden as a high adventure destination. [Note: I hoped against hope that Ms. Gochnour’s comment would not draw forth the inevitable jokes by Council members and the Mayor that when they played golf, it was indeed a high adventure experience. My hope, alas, was not fulfilled.]
The Mayor replied that there were many Ogden attractions left out of the brochure because they had just so much space, and golf had not seemed a high adventure sport. Councilwoman Wicks added that there were extended discussions about what to include and what not to, and that there was a very limited amount of space. The Mayor said the city had gone with what it thought were the best options to promote Ogden as a high adventure outdoors recreation destination.
Questioned about why the urgency, the swift calling of a public meeting with little notice to the public, the Mayor replied that his administration had been wrestling with the MOGC problem “for years.” That it offered as a solution selling the course to a private owner who would continue to operate it as a public course, but “we couldn’t generate enough community support for that” and so dropped the idea and began looking for other solutions. [Note: the Mayor did not mention that that plan also involved having the new owner build hundreds of vacation villas on the course in a limited access gated community.] The Mayor, replying to Councilwoman Wicks who asked about why all the haste, said that Wednesday’s public meeting was not the end of the process, but the beginning. That people were already calling and writing in with suggestions... “some of them good ones...” and that the administration would keep seeking public input, and hold as many more meetings as necessary until a good plan with public support could be developed. He hoped that would be soon enough for the new budget year, because the city was going to have to write a big check to the sewer and cemetery funds [the auditors have given us no choice, he said], but if it took until next fiscal year to work out a good solution, so be it.
Mr. Stephens, I think it was, asked if it would not be wise to establish a public advisory committee, similar to the ones that proved to be very helpful in the Mt. Ogden Community plan drafting, and the drafting of the water policy. The Mayor as a little skeptical, saying that probably everyone who might be appointed to such a citizens committee had already been consulted informally by the administration or by MOGC superintendent Brenkman. Mr. Brenkman indicated that as well but that he didn’t object to forming an advisory committee. Wicks and Gochnour supported Mr. Stephen’s suggestion, adding that when people met as an advisory committee, a useful synergy often developed that was not there when they were consulted one on one. Some discussion about whether it would be an ordinance-generated ad hoc committee, or a more informal one. That topic was put aside when Councilman Garcia said he wanted to think some about how it would be best to proceed. There did seem to be a consensus that an advisory citizens committee of some sort would be a good idea, if only to give the public some sense of ownership in whatever plan was finally adopted.
There was as well considerable discussion of MOGC financials. Administration pointed out that the charge for leasing vehicles from the city’s Fleet Operations department included gas and maintenance, that this was not always understood. Mr. Brenkman said accounting procedures at MOGC had recently been changed to make all that more clear, that the figures had been disaggregated for clarity, so people could see how much of the lease payment went to gas, how much to maintenance, etc. The Administration did point out that any city agency that thought it could do better than leasing vehicles from the city motor pool was free to opt out if it wished. This included MOGC which could opt to lease from private vendors rather than the city if it thought it could find a better deal.
The Mayor hoped people would show up Wednesday night [tonight] for the public input meeting. He said the format would be “town meeting format” but then described something different. He said there would be six or seven “stations” at which city officials, accountants, etc would stand, Mr. Brenkman included, to answer questions. There would be a place for people to make suggestions. [Did not sound like “town meeting format” to me.] There would as well be “conceptual” sketches of what a redesigned, easier course might look like.
