A Voice From the Past
Rivera, Cynthia via bounce.secureserver.net 3:23 PM
to David, City
From: Ken Parker [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 10:02 AM
To: Rivera, Cynthia
Subject: Re: Golf Course
I have a lot of historic info about the golf course. I will be glad to meet with Scott and any other Council member since none have any background on the history of the course that includes the Mayor. He was not on Council when the course was approved and debt issued.
I would want to review minutes from 1989 and the water and sewer bond issue in 1990, 1991 or 1992. Those bonds have been called and refunded, too. They were used to build the course.
The value of the course when completed in 1992 was about $10 million. The developer made sufficient investment in the course. He was required to bring the course to within 2 inches of final grade.
What a lot of people forget is the golf course was part of the program to eliminate sewer effluent from the Halifax. The course should be an asset of the water and sewer fund.
The other thing that people forget is the course and Cypress Head were the impetus for the entire south Williamson development. The developer had to extend water, sewer and reclaim water lines. He was required to pave south Williamson. The City did upsize the mains to support all future development in the area.
I look forward to talking with any member in order to provide background on the course.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2014, at 4:15 PM, “Rivera, Cynthia” <CRivera@port-orange.org> wrote:
Scott Stiltner has some questions about the golf course. (See below) Do you have any historical information you could provide for any of these or where our new staff could look for these answers?
I’m going to give him your phone number and/or email as well if that is okay with you.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
19 thoughts on “A Voice From the Past”
I will review and try to get up to date on this golf course issue.
Ken Parker’s background info will be good for city council to get.
I may be premature lacking the info Ken Parker may deliver to city council people, but whatever the reason or reasons the golf course was first planned I don’t think are going to change what we need to do now about the golf course. But I will be interested in the background.
Granted, that there were good reasons for building the golf course, the facts now in 2014 are that it does not make money, and is not expected to be a money making entity. Is it in 9 years that the deed will release us from maintaining the golf course? I think it best to not invest any more money in the golf course, and just barely keep it going until 2023.
Port Orange News @poimages · 8m 8 minutes ago
See Stiltner on City golf course https://www.port-orange.org/meetings/?p=view&video=113494012& …
Slide ruler up to 02:34:05 Cypress Head-golf not doing good these days. see video
The argument to support renovating the golf course is that it is needed to keep the course competitive. Course revenues have been declining for the last three years (I think see note below). The course in most years pays for its immediate costs, the losses are seen in the course’s frequent failure to pay back the year principal due on the loan from the Sewer and Water Fund. Interestingly this municipal course requires far less subsidy than most other municipal courses. The argument is being made that failure to keep the course competitive will further deepen losses costing in the long run more than payments on the proposed renovations.
Further confusing the debate is the convoluted book keeping of the Finance Department. I have asked for clear figures including all accounts of golf course expenditures and income. At this point I think I know what course losses are but will not be sure until we have updated figures which should be available shortly.
Bob it will take the better part of the year to get transparent financial records says the City Manager in the most recent City Manager up date on the city web site.
And so verily I say to you, at least stop the closing of the golf courses until such time as we get reliable figures for the golf course.
I ask this. Was the Cypress Head community being built when the planning board wanted to submit a memo to the city council to put a moratorium on further construction in Port Orange because the city was not following concurrency laws? And in this instance Mr. Parker refused to pass that official memo request to the city council. Was this the related instance when every morning and late after noon rush house, thousands of vehicles on what was then Airport Road were stuck in time consuming delays and gas money guggling expense? If this was so, why the rush then to continue with construction and why the rush now to push through renovations? Are they all related somehow or am I thinking about the wrong moratorium requested.
Maybe we can find out why Allen Green’s company was involved in construction of the club house while he was vice mayor.
This comment is precisely why we can’t get successful business people to step in and run for office. The public thinks they have to stop doing any profitable business activity in town once they get elected. Most business people won’t suspend their business endevers to serve in public office. Thus, we get represented by career employees (union guys in our case) who don’t have the private sector experience/pressure of making payroll, paying bills and overcoming challenges only the guy responsible for the bottom line experiences.
Again, no matter how much someone try’s to improve his community, he’s continually kicked.
Parker’s comments says why AGC was a contractor… when the bid was out Green was not on council.
I agree and it’s kind of my point…just because of Mayors current or past tenures, everybody thinks he getting an advantage or a kick back. Good business people just do good business.
Thank you Mr. Onlooker. I must admit that I thought being on city council or planning boards or Mayor might give some advantages to realtors, construction people, bankers, mortgage companies, developers and those other kind of good business people. Thank you for setting me straight and telling me there are no such advantages for that lot, but there are for union guys.Do I have it correct now?
As I understand you, those who have business experiences have not been in city council work? And thus we have not had people who” experience/pressure of making payroll, paying bills and overcoming challenges”. Very Interesting–hmmm – hank
No Hank, we’ve had some business people on council, but not as many as union or normally employed ones. Kennedy, Polman, Ford, Bastian, Stiltner (who I think has great potential), George S, Hukill (a career politician), even potentially Don B. (I dont know enough about his job or the mortgage business itself to make that call) all come to mind. All are either union associates, employed by others or career politicians. In my experience, sense of urgency and common sense decisions are traits that are naturally forced upon business people. Large unfunded pension debt and long term vacant tax draining Riverwalk land both point to those not being the priority of recent past councils as a whole. I’m not personally attacking any of the names above and respect all of there education levels and career efforts. But life experiences does mold people and there decision making. All I know is my personal experiences, and the most successful people I know are not highly educated, but all have a high level of common sense, an aggressive decision making mindset and a real understanding of what they can and can’t afford to commit to. I’m not saying the Mayor has no responsibility in these issues the city has had, but I believe the best path to getting out of it is getting more business minded people more involved. Ted have actively spoke about getting us a city manager from the private sector and I agree. So, going back to the original comment that started this conversation, always assuming that a current or former elected official is doing something underhanded when he or she does business with our city doesn’t make sense to me. And, I have no idea what your “hmmmm” means.
To Onlooker: It is the nature of our democratic process that people from the business world will be attracted to politics sometimes for business reasons. Can you agree with that?
Certainly some could be attracted for that reason, but I don’t always assume the worst in people. If you research, Not looking to change your mind, just trying to keep my thinking where I want it.
To Onlooker: advantage yes. No smart business man can be in politics without gaining some advantages. Need I spell them out?
Kickbacks? Oh no, don’t take us there. I won’t support such suspicions.
To onlooker: you think it would be unethical if someone went into politics for its business advantages? You prefer not to think that? Am I having a dialogue with Bob Pohlmann?
To PleaseRead: Wow, what a fortunate coincidence that Mayor Green was not on city council when he got the contract to build the clubhouse at Cypress Hills. Imagine that!
Who built Cypress Head?
Who were the vendors and subs out there?
Who continues to benefit?
Was the original financing a standard method in other cities?
Signs dont lie
I’d say 9 out of 10 folks today would say this is a direct conflict.
Usually that plaque is done when the building is dedicated. So your comment is correct the sign doesn’t lie but can you tell me when the contract was awarded and when Allen Green was back on council?