Correction on Golf Course
I have incorrectly stated in the past that the city employee lives at the golf course for free. I was wrong. I repeated information that is very out of date. I spoke with Ernie and he corrected me, and I apologized for my mistake. He told me he has not lived there for fifteen years. Ernie works six days a week and puts in long hours to keep the course beautiful for citizens and guests.
While we are on the subject, let me further clarify things. I am a supporter of the golf course. I think it is one of the city's best assets. It is an important part of Marfa life and provides physical activity for young and old, recreation and social opportunities, and athletic opportunities for students. It brings visitors to Marfa. I play occasionally. In fact, I keep maintenance down by spending so little time on the fairways because of my swing!
He mentioned that this financial issue comes up every year. I believe him. The city thinks about it only during budget time. I have listened to the debate. Everybody has valid points, but every year the same conversation happens. At last night's meeting, Lanman and Sauceda wanted to take Parks Economic Development money and use it to pay the salary for the golf employee. With benefits, this is $33,000 next year. This is just an amateur attempt to move money around based on poorly thought out plans.
Not only is this plan an illegal use of money, what are the priorities here? Do these two really believe that golf is more important than fixing the condemned playground equipment? Is golf more important than fixing the baseball fields? The actions of city hall show no coherent plan, simply an attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul by shuffling budgets. The money used for the golf course comes from the same fund that pays EMS. What are the priorities?
Should taxpayers fund the golf course? That is a valid question that council was elected to decide. There are good points on either side. But few people ever look at this from a creative perspective. How can we increase revenue at the golf course? How can we get more members? More visitors? Could we enter into a management agreement with a private company? I understand that some departments like EMS and Police operate at a deficit to provide basic services. Golf is not a basic service. We should start the discussion with the idea that it is self-funded.
You cannot start this discussion without putting all the facts on the table. Council does not know how much money moves through the Marfa Golf Association. I have seen them shrug when the subject comes up. If Marfa helps pay MGA expenses, we should have full disclosure and work together to make it self sufficient. We should not give money to MGA unless they share all their numbers. Ernie says that they do. Council does not have this information and therefore is not able to make an informed decision. Let's put the numbers on the table and thinking caps on our heads and come up with a win-win solution. Marfa is lucky to have such a beautiful course and a hard-working professional employee.
While we are on the subject, let me further clarify things. I am a supporter of the golf course. I think it is one of the city's best assets. It is an important part of Marfa life and provides physical activity for young and old, recreation and social opportunities, and athletic opportunities for students. It brings visitors to Marfa. I play occasionally. In fact, I keep maintenance down by spending so little time on the fairways because of my swing!
He mentioned that this financial issue comes up every year. I believe him. The city thinks about it only during budget time. I have listened to the debate. Everybody has valid points, but every year the same conversation happens. At last night's meeting, Lanman and Sauceda wanted to take Parks Economic Development money and use it to pay the salary for the golf employee. With benefits, this is $33,000 next year. This is just an amateur attempt to move money around based on poorly thought out plans.
Not only is this plan an illegal use of money, what are the priorities here? Do these two really believe that golf is more important than fixing the condemned playground equipment? Is golf more important than fixing the baseball fields? The actions of city hall show no coherent plan, simply an attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul by shuffling budgets. The money used for the golf course comes from the same fund that pays EMS. What are the priorities?
Should taxpayers fund the golf course? That is a valid question that council was elected to decide. There are good points on either side. But few people ever look at this from a creative perspective. How can we increase revenue at the golf course? How can we get more members? More visitors? Could we enter into a management agreement with a private company? I understand that some departments like EMS and Police operate at a deficit to provide basic services. Golf is not a basic service. We should start the discussion with the idea that it is self-funded.
You cannot start this discussion without putting all the facts on the table. Council does not know how much money moves through the Marfa Golf Association. I have seen them shrug when the subject comes up. If Marfa helps pay MGA expenses, we should have full disclosure and work together to make it self sufficient. We should not give money to MGA unless they share all their numbers. Ernie says that they do. Council does not have this information and therefore is not able to make an informed decision. Let's put the numbers on the table and thinking caps on our heads and come up with a win-win solution. Marfa is lucky to have such a beautiful course and a hard-working professional employee.
posted by RobC at 3:53 PM
4 Comments:
Another major blunder. The BBS low keyed the fact that Flo and the Mayor have already screwed up the timetable on the Library grant by leaving the contract that was supposed to be turned in in July on the Mayor's desk until just the other day. Our highly paid grant administrator is not able to tell inquiring minds whether or not competitive bids for architects and engineers have to be submitted. DUH!!! Of course it is a requirement!!! Rio Grande Council of Govts let him slide 3 deadlines on the first Solid Waste grant and one deadline on the current one but we are now dealing with the State and they don't play nice. I am amazed that the pool grant made it. Course we had Painter and Tom Nance holding Flo's hand on that one.
I have discovered that on October 22, the City would have lost the Library funds by not returning the contract within 60 days of August 22. And furthermore, when Flo discovered his mistake he called the state to request an extension of two months to start the grant clock and was refused so now there is some rigamarole about requesting an extension during the construction phase like he did on the pool. SCARY! and we pay him $15,000 extra plus whatever he squeezes out of the current budget debacle.
What do you want to bet that Flojo conveniently "forgets" to ask ORCA to move the project's start date to September, as well as asking them if grant monies for administration can be used instead for construction (since we already have a well-paid grant administrator in Flojo himself).
I'll bet Flojo just "files" these requests on some stack on that desk of his.
It wasn't too long ago that Big D sat at the council table and reminded Sterry several times that "the clock would start ticking as soon as the monies were received." He was his usual rude self, and kept insinuating that she and the library were incapable of getting the monies spent correctly and in the allotted amount of time--that the library would be representing the city in this ORCA grant and they had better be on the ball in order not to be an embarrassment to the city. HA!
How do you like your CROW, Big D? Well-done with a dash of salt?
Every department, including the library, is in a mess due to mismanagement on the part of Flojo and Big D. I have always heard that two heads were better than one, but NOT IN THIS CASE!!
I think you are right. I watched in shock as council agreed to Lanman's request to give Greenwood a $9,000 bonus for work completed because the money would otherwise return to the state (aka Texans) for use by other rural communities (e.g. Marfa or our neighbors).
I was equally shocked when Sterry asked Sauceda to route that $20,000 to constrcution instead of padding his wallet for doing absolutely nothing. His response, "It's up to council." That man has bamboozled council at every turn. "Program limitations! Staff is working on that! I'll have to get back to you! I'll work on it!" Council eats it up and then never follows up.
Citizens have a role in this. With Lanman's encouragement, Sauceda gets richer and the employees poorer. I guarantee you this: If it were not for the active involvement of citizens, that $20,000 would slip quietly into Sauceda's pocket and council would rubber stamp it. He knows we are on to him on this one, but there are always more chances to pull the wool over our eyes. Keep your eye on that one.
Post a Comment
<< Home