I couildn’t make the meeting last night and, anyway, as I pointed out in my Monday preview article, there was nothing contained in the Village Board packet that delivered on Village President Dave Stavropoulos statement, as reported in the minutes, to

“…review financing options relative to the decision resolving the condition of the clubhouse.” [Emphasis added because nothing in the agenda packet addresses how any money to be borrowed will be financed, e.g., general obligation bonds, debt certificates, alternative bonds, etc..]

Here is a chart from Monday’s agenda packet showing the money to be borrowed:

Steve Willson was kind enough to jot down his views of the meeting in a message to the Board:

To the Board:

You know, it’s a shame how this process of examining the need for a new clubhouse has proceeded.  You only needed to do four things.

• First, show the cost of repairing the existing clubhouse.
• Second, prove how much space you need.
• Third, show the costs of the alternatives.
• Fourth, show you have the money.

You finally did well enough on the first point. 

Bids would have been the best evidence, because bids would have provided a dollars-to-dollars, apples-to-apples comparison. 

The evidence provided last night was not as good as bids, not really conclusive, but it was probably good enough. 

If you’d done that up front instead of simply assuming the clubhouse couldn’t be salvaged and fighting the demand for proof, the whole process would have gone more smoothly and credibly.

As for the second point, we heard anecdotal evidence last night, but the plural of anecdote isn’t data. 

How hard would it have been to show us square footage for the current facility, what it’s used for, and what more you need? 

Based on what I saw, I would say you could probably justify several hundred more square feet, but that still hasn’t been done. 

Data, people, data!

I don’t see ANY evidence that you need 8,000 square feet, and proving that would require strong evidence that with more space there’s a very high probability that you’d have X more gatherings that would generate Y dollars. 

We’ve seen none of that, and this is a financial decision with ramifications for the taxpayers. 

As I said last night, if a hotel turns away guests a few times a year, that doesn’t prove the hotel needs to increase capacity by two-thirds. 

And the evidence from other local golf courses, which is the best evidence we have, is against you.

As for the third point, you did okay on that, but not well enough. 

$275 per square foot is optimistic compared with the costs other local governments have paid for space. 

You could have found the cost per square foot of other recent governmental buildings in the area for comps, including the cost of other municipal courses’ clubhouses. 

That would have been better evidence, and that information is readily available. 

Clearly no one sought out this information.

As for the fourth point, you finally did okay on that. 

The whole “capital fee” thing is baloney. 

Money’s fungible, and if RedTail doesn’t produce enough to cover its operating costs, then there’s a deficit, whether some money is bookmarked as dedicated to capital projects or not.

BUT, while RedTail hasn’t been profitable in the last several years (ignoring the bad year because of COVID and the good years because of COVID), it wasn’t losing much money. 

And clearly you’ve been able to raise the price per round recently and still be competitive. 

Worst case, I figure you should be able to generate $100,000 per year. 

(Using the average of 25,000 rounds is wrong.  The average is appropriate for trendless data, but the trend, until COVID, was negative.  So 25,000 rounds is probably reasonable, but 20,000 rounds is more prudent, and prudence is key when risking taxpayer dollars.)

But instead of a straightforward, to the point presentation, we got two marketing presentations, with loaded language, misleading and in some cases downright false statements, loads of bad alternatives followed by the desired conclusion, but without a chain of reasoning or evidence showing the desired alternative is really the best.

Your process cost you credibility. 

Why should we trust anything you say when you’ve made clear that you’ll feed us hogwash? 

And, by the way, attack anyone who challenges you?

Finally, I’m appalled at the “not invented here” syndrome I see. 

The best information for this project is information about the local market, and it’s readily available. 

For my research, I spoke with someone from every golf course in the area about rounds played and banquet operations. 

And I asked if any of them had ever heard from anyone at Lakewood. 

The answer was no. 

If you’d contacted them, it would have provided you with insights about how to proceed and with useful evidence. 

And, as I said above, you could have gotten better building cost data, too. 

But the whole process was insular.

You still have some work to do. 

I hope that you proceed in a logical fashion and develop the data you need to prove your case. 

And if the evidence doesn’t prove your case, I hope you’ll show that in a straightforward manner and adjust your recommendations appropriately.