Mr. Rosen said, “he thinks it would be worth while to engage a broker to see what they believe the value of the golf course is” and “and maybe someone is out there that may want to buy the golf course and operate it“. Read the article in The Roanoke Times today and my article that will be in The Roanoke Star-Sentinel online Thursday and out on Friday.
.
At the 2:00 PM Roanoke City Council meeting Court Rosen threw a monkey wrench into what was going smoothly and on "course" for a 5 - 10 year Request For Proposal for operation of the golf course. There was a 40 plus minute debate Monday afternoon that became clear that we have Council members working their way into selling the property. Mr. Rosen wanted financial data on the city's debt obligation compiled and a broker to assess it's sale value. He quoted some erroneous capital costs stating that the cart path repairs were 1.2 million dollars. With grass it is $25,000 and full pavement is $180,000. SEE corrected numbers below from Mr. Townsend. LISTEN AND WATCH HERE - pick 2:20 PM.
.
It is not rocket science what the finances are with the golf course and it has been available for years. Mr. Nash, said Rosen was " mixing apples and oranges". The debt service is "apples" and the "operational costs" are oranges. WE ARE TALKING ORANGES. The golf course has sustained itself since its inception in 1967 and as Mr. Nash pointed out "something happens to THINGS when the City buys it". Meadowbrook, the current operator, has under reported their profit since taking over operation. Why might you think that Meadowbrook under reports it's profit? Why might you think that they might just want the $17,500 yearly lease reduced even further for a 5 year lease. Yes, rounds are down because of the state of flux but as any smart business would do - not report their actual profits to keep their lease cost low. I know that to be so in this case. It has not been marketed and heck, people say "Oh, I did not know it was still there".
.
There are other local golf facilities wanting to operate the golf course. One in particular that has past experience in caring for the golf course had just called me between the two Council meetings Monday begging to be able to do a presentation to City Council. So now we know that they are out there but just can't get in.
.
As I have been telling City Council for 2 years the almost $4 million loan on the property is financed at Carter Bank, amortized for 15 years at 6.25%. Have they ever heard of an amortization schedule? So exactly what can't they figure out in about 5 minutes? If I here "we can never have too much information" one more time well just say my hair is on fire. There is more to this than meets the eye. There are members of Council hell bent on having it sold for whatever reason. One thing that Mr. Rosen said, "we need money for neighborhoods and schools". So I guess we are not a neighborhood. He also said he did "not hear any citizens say they wanted to keep the golf course during the election". Well, Mr. Rosen, must not have listened or more precisely turned a deaf ear. It came out in forums where he said "we can never have too much information" and I will have to "study it". Roanoke City is NOT a corporation and City Council works for the people. City Administration is the business side of our local government and City Council members are the balance that weighs that with the well-being of the citizens. This is not the Pharma lobby he had been a spokesman for in Washington, DC, prior to coming to Roanoke.
.There was a briefing Monday as well on the NEW REC CENTER planned for Fallon Park. What's wrong with this picture? Let's take some of that amphitheatre money just sitting there and pay off this loan. Just think how much could have been saved these past years in interest. Way over 1/2 million in interest only now.
.
Buena Vista BUILT a municipal golf course that sustains itself - Vista Links is just one example. Ms. Burcham is wrong when she said she could not find golf course that are not subsidized by the City. Looking at the financial figures she picked up from other golf course - they had "depreciation" as an expense. Well Countryside has ITS OWN equipment and there was NO depreciation on Countryside's disclosed financial information. The golf course operation has cost them not one red cent - it has made money as Mr. Nash stated. The debt service is the fault of the City and should be taken care of separately. Why is it that other projects seem valuable enough to put money into but Countryside not only sustains itself while other parks have to be subsidized by our tax dollar? I don't have to repeat the projects that get funding here. Again NOT ONE red cent has gone into the golf course and the debt - well the City got themselves into that by financing like a mortgage so they just need to deal with it!
.
Mr. Rosen does not realize or does not care that we have no recreation in this part of the City. Mr. Rosen though cares for a dog park and has no concern that a "memorial tree" is planted right in the proposed location of the Highland Park dog park.
.
NEW information just received on current operator's offer:
The cost to replace the irrigation system is $850,000. The golf cart repairs would be $300,000 with full pavement replacement and minor repairs to the clubhouse at $50,000. Meadowbrook wants $1.2 million upfront for these repairs. In turn Meadowbrook for a 10 year lease offered rent payment of 7.5% of total revenue or the following:
2009 = $30,000, 2010 = $50,000, 2011 - 2018 = $100,000
**Total revenue reported by Meadowbrook in 2005 was $917,839, 2006 was $912,319, and 2007 was $815,174. This would relate to the 7.5%.
11 comments:
Did Countryside require any additional money from the city?
Have you ever thought that the highest and best use of the land might be as an open park? THis would not take away any green space, but would alleviate a significant amount of lost resources.
Have you ever considered that the golf course is not for the benefit of the entire community, though a park would be?
Have you ever considered that questions asked on finances may in fact be just that?
Anon,
Not sure your first question. Maybe the answer is in the last paragraph.
Why take away something that earns its keep with something that does not. A park would be totally tax funded as the golf course at a minimum pays for itself. I attended all the P & R work sessions on the Master Plan and the consultant kept stating the best park is one that pays for itself.
The golf course is used by the entire city, out-of-towners staying at the airport hotels, student golf lessons. The CS women's team is in the Hall Of Fame and just one first place in city-county tournament. See what Randy King says about it.
Mr. Rosen brought up selling.
Valerie,
Thanks for your response. Have you thought that Mr. Rosen's idea may in fact actually improve the situation we have been dealing with for several years?? He never said a word about changing the course from an operational golf course into anything else but green space (a park is green space, and keep in mind, it was only one remark he made that shouldn't be read in to to deeply). We need to keep our goal of green in mind
The reality is that his question was good and it was wrong for Mayor Bowers, who I actually voted for, to turn this into something other than providing citizens (I am one) with an accurate accounting of the costs associated with continued ownership of the course.
I know, as you did during the campaign, you point to Mr. Rosen having worked for Pharma and go after him for being in business. I'm not sure how that's relevant in any way and it actually makes you look less credible, except to say that a business perspective is a good thing for the city.
Think about it: a private operator with an ownership stake will likely, with hotel and tourism partnership that was LACKING when the course was previously in private ownership, may make the course much, much better. I have played Countryside for 12+ years and happen to think that Mr. Rosens line of thinking could very well be best for our future enjoyment of the course.
The sooner we get it OUT of the hands of the city and IN to the hands of an owner who wants to run a golf course for profit (and also likely make it much nicer and in better shape than it is), the sooner we will know that we have a coursethat many of us have spent a lot of time and money enjoying over the years.
I have read your blog for a long time, and am disappointed that you have turned to personal attacks when, and you may not agree with him on everything, but Mr. Rosen probably really does have the overall best interests of the community, yours and mine, at the the forefront. Being responsible with OUR money is good for every corner of the city. Don't be so quick to rush a article onto here without thinking about it,
Thanks again for taking the time to respond to me.
Anon,
Perhaps if you were other than "anon" I could respond but not knowing who you are I cannot.
Anon....If you read Mr. Rosen's blog, you will see that he clearly states he is a "real estate developer", so does he really see Countryside as having potential as a golf course or does he see it through his eyes as a developer? I can't say, but I have my ideas. As for name calling, I don't really see that there has been name calling in this blog. However, I personally know that Mr. Rosen pointed a finger at a fellow council member and accused that person of being what I'll call the "problem" regarding his proposal at yesterday's meeting. So, if you are going to say Ms. Garnder is name calling, let's be sure to include Mr. Rosen in that category as well.
Valerie,
1) You allow Anon posts and 2) while I appreciate your willingness to be out front on this, I simply dont want to be publicly involved. I fear that your not answering is an indication of a more emotional rather than both emotional and rational responses.
Anon 11:33,
Saying because someone is in real estate development without being more specific is like saying just because you are a medical doctor you can perform open-heart surgery. The point: If you simply googled Rosen you would see he is in residential real estate. If the course did happen to be developed ever, it would likely be light industrial or commercial. Those who deal with residential property are specialized generally in that -- there is a difference between the two areas just as different md's have different medical specialties.
Thank you Valerie and this is my last post. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and hope that your responses are truly thoughtful hear, anon or not -- i only say disallow anon posts if you are not willing to allow us the opportunity to share our thoughts without being public.
thankyou
Valerie:
You have been out front on this issue for several years now, and for that entire time you have presented your side of the story in a matter of fact style that serves to keep us all informed and up to date as events unfold. You have provided a valuable service to the public that your supporters truly appreciate. I completely understand that the recent turn of events has taken you by surprise, but if you allow your frustrations to get the best of you, your credibility on the issue will be destroyed. The squeaky wheel might get the grease, but unfounded accusations and personal attacks don't accomplish anything.
Other Anon,
I think the person knows what he does for a living and made a mistake. At least that is the way I see it. No need to attack them.
Anon,
According to Mr. Rosen’s blog he seemed to think it is political. I myself am NOT doing anything politically. I was there to cover for a weekly paper. This is what he calls anything that he does not agree with - this way he can blame his mistake on someone else. It is like calling someone who opposes the dog park - "a dog hater" or someone against the war as "unpatriotic". I saw none of that. Mr. Rosen is trying to smooth things over as he knows he opened a "can of worms" to quote "Dick and Dave" of Q99. This is what a spokesman for a lobby does which he has had some practice.
Are you another neighborhood member, are you Court Rosen himself, are you a business man, are you Duane Howard, are you Jess Newbern, do you live here. I can't respond to someone unless I know where they are coming from - it makes a difference. You sound like these two people who would come from different agendas. I don't know how to respond unless I know who your are.
As Mr. Nash pointed out the golf course is a landmark. It has a history and in 1967 it was the first integrated golf course I've been told. As Mr. Nash pointed out "something happens to things once the city owns it". I don't see anyone attacking Mr. Nash over his remarks that were "right on".
Mr. Rosen made put the option of selling the property on the table as others chimed in. It sounded like a setup to me. He wasted 45 minutes of Council time on something he could have done without a motion. Heck, I ask for information all the time as a citizen and promptly receive it. Just yesterday I received the Meadowbrook offer for operating from Mr. Townsend.
The “debate” or whatever you call it was not to sell than have a party operate the golf course continuously. This was clearly in the conversation you can listen to on the webcast. He, himself, admitted that he did not even have to put to a motion "getting information". Bring it up at the meeting as a motion was political on Rosen's part. He may have the best interest of YOUR community in mind but not ours. We were not consulted nor have ever been consulted on what we want and we live here. Now look at the dog park ARB decision. It took into consideration the OSW neighborhood and their support - this is the way it should be for ALL neighborhoods. Remember we have nothing here for recreation and we will not use the County's Rec Center. Fallon Park - really nice for them but we will not use it way over there. Look at the money to be spent for that. The total capital projected for major repairs of the golf course is 1.2 million dollars. That is a drop in the bucket for what is spent on other projects. Besides look at what the city will get back over 10 years. The repairs completed and the 1.2 million back over this time. In the mean time the debt service will almost be paid off.
Taking something away from one community to give to other communities is devisive. This may be the plan - divide and concur I don't know. Those that get something and those that get nothing or have something taken away for the "good of another neighborhood".
If someone buys it to keep it forever a golf course then fine. There are course owners locally wanting to operate it and after improvements and testing would buy it. They don't want to buy it without trying to test it for awhile.
Anon posts - yes, I have had a few posts I had to delete that were very inappropriate but not lately. I will allow anon posts unless they really become nasty or vulgar but it does inhibit resonding especially to such a detailed post as yours.
If you read my current post you will get an answer on why I feel that City Council is not the board of directors of a corporation and the Mayor is not the CEO. The org chart has the Citizens of Roanoke at the very top hence I think that is where Mr. Bowers is coming from. You know what Corporations have been doing lately - looking at their bottom line, laying off, doing away with pensions, and off-shoring for starters - is this what you want for City government. ONLY by the numbers and steamrolling over the citizens.
You did not say if you listened to the whole 45 minutes on the webcast. Mr. Nash was so rational in his thought process. Mayor Bowers wears his heart on his sleeve and respects the citizens' input. Mr. Lea has experience. The dual RFP suggestions (Rosan and Trinkle) combining simultaneous RFPs tells me they are inexperienced. I watch Ms. Burcham and thought to myself she might just pull her hair out - how does she compose herself when she can't even get an urgent decision on offering a 5 and/or 10 year lease. These things tell me they have no sense of how RFPs need to be written.
Chris,
You are admittedly playing both sides. This ruins your credibility.
All I have tried to do is examine the issue from different points of view. I haven't staked my reputation on it, and I have nothing to lose by playing Devil's Advocate.
In response to Anon's reply to my comment about Rosen being a real estate developer....I have googled Rosen. I found out quite a bit about him before the election including some very "interesting" and "disturbing" comments he made while he was a spokesman for PHARMA. While that is part of is past, he has a variety of positions that he has held in the past. Just because a person is a "residential" real estate developer doesn't mean he will remain in that real estate arena.And, yes, I know it's in C'burg. As soon as he found out I had relatives living in the NRV he switched the conversation from city issues to asking if my relatives might be interested in buying a house in his C'burg development. Anyway, if you've been following the Countryside saga, you know that a great deal of the property is looked at as "residential" development.
Post a Comment