RedTail Golf Clubhouse Warning Mailed Posted on 05/22/2023 by Cal SkinnerMay 22, 2023 Arriving in Lakewood maiboxes is this letter about the proposed RedTail Golf Clubhouse:
If this Board wants to appeal to everyone and not just a few overweight golfers, take a tip from Disney.
Include a Gus the Field Goal Kicking Donkey or Apple Dumpling Gangland Experience.
I prefer to golf at the Woodstock and CL Country Clubs myself.
Slap, what’ll it take to get you into a round at Red Tail today?
Wilson shouldn’t be the county GOP chair
, not the gay flag waver Buehler.
I meant should be, above
“Can the existing clubhouse be repaired” – The clubhouse structure can not be repaired. This was confirmed by two previous administrations.
“Redtail lost money in 2018, 2019 and 2020” – Capital improvements were not amortized over their expected life and one time write offs were not taken into account. True profitability can not be established without adjusting for one time expenses.
“Likely to be stuck paying for this project” – May we see the data analysis backing up this statement?
“Impact fees” – (1) A great majority of the impact fees were generated when homes surrounding the golf course were built. The value of those homes is, in part, supported by a thriving golf course. (2) Impact fees would be used as a down payment, decreasing the mortgage balance, thereby reducing the monthly carrying costs as well as potential liability for ALL Lakewood residents.
“Find the lowest cost option”. Agreed, however, we differ on how to get there. I support productive, engaged conversation between residents and our elected officials. Scared people do not make informed decisions.
I pay over $10K annually (including Dinning Rooms) to use these two Clubs for membership.
Red Tail and Turnberry are not personally enjoyable and for a different group of people.
My wife enjoys the social amenities.
I golf a few times a month for social reasons.
I’d pay $65 – $75 dollars for 18 holes including a cart outside of these memberships.
Pay the piper! Didn’t Paul Serwatka straighten that damn town out?
Yes, he did!
He got rid of the corrupt police chief.
A few meetings ago, the board passed a motion, 6-0, ordering the administration to put repairs for the clubhouse out for bid. Yet it never happened. This would be almost a zero cost effort to confirm the facts.
We have twenty years of numbers showing the club is barely break even. That’s what shows the taxpayers are likely to be stuck. What evidence would YOU use if NOT historical numbers?
The impact fee ordinance is black and white: it says the money must be refunded.
Oathkeeper, who was the corrupt police Chief?
When they get done it will be a lot more than $200 per household.
Can’t stop laughing!
Bring on minor league baseball.
Bishop, you were a bad atty. I should know.
The current administration had two contractors inspect the trailers. Those contractors determined they were not repairable. This is a fact.
At no point did I say not to use historical numbers.
I said the historical numbers should be viewed under proper context which includes recognizing capital expenditures and one time charge offs.
Ignoring those pertinent facts skews the numbers.
The impact fee discussion was settled.
It is nothing more than selective outrage in hopes of stopping the project.
I’m still waiting for data to backup blog claims that residents will “Likely to be stuck paying for this project”.
Why do we ask governments to put things out for bid? Why don’t we want governments to just pick a couple of firms and hand out contracts?
Because it’s good public policy.
It is an issue of transparency, and guarantees that favoritism isn’t shown to any firm or individual.
Consider when the Village wanted to create a TIF district.
They hired a firm to give an opinion that the TIF district would be a success.
The firm dutifully gave the desired opinion, as they had 50 times in a row before that, approving every single TIF district they were ever hired to approve.
And so getting two contractors to give their opinion is not the same as putting it out for public bid.
Now, do you disagree with this basic principle of public policy, that public bidding should be used whenever possible?
If you don’t disagree, then say so, and then explain why this was an exceptional situation in which public bid should NOT have been used, even when ordered by the board.
With regard to historical numbers, you claim that capital expenditures and one time charge-offs have skewed the numbers.
Even if that were true for a year or two, it’s not possible to have 20 years of one-off charges.
And the historical numbers show that, over the long run, the golf course has been barely break even.
Further, you provide no evidence to support your claim.
Please show us a table of the Village’s reported numbers for the last 20 years, and show the changes you would make, with evidence to support your adjustments.
Only then will you have made a prima facie case for your claim.
Without that, you have simply made an assertion with no evidence.
Further, if the administration believes the situation is suddenly about to change, then it is incumbent upon them to show strong evidence for a change from the long-run trend.
They have not done so.
They have asserted a change without evidence.
Therefore, the best evidence is 20 years of history, with the last several years detailed by Cal in prior articles.
As for the impact fee issue, the ordinance says in black and white that the fees must be refunded.
You have not refuted that claim.
You simply said it would be nice to use the money for the clubhouse.
You can’t simply ignore what the law says in black and white and claim the issue is settled.
And insults about “selective outrage” are not evidence.
Here is evidence:
At the meeting tonight (yes, I go to meetings) I heard that the State’s Attorney has asked the Village to justify not refunding the impact fees, and that they’re not satisfied with the Village’s response.
(The Village has never publicly acknowledged these inquiries.)
So this is not the settled issue that you claim.
Now, please don’t argue that the State’s Attorney is wrong.
That’s shifting ground.
You stated this was a settled issue, and questions by the State’s Attorney show it is not a settled issue.
Contractors are not going to waste time bidding on a structure that can not be saved.
You can certainly view the financials in what ever light supports your position. I will look at them according to standard accounting practices.
To date, neither you nor Cal have provided any financial backup for your claims.
The States Attorney is not an investigative body and they do not enforce Village ordinances.