From March 22 editorial Golf course proposal is a risky one.:

In the meantime, Thane continues to ignore the glaringly obvious method to increase the profitability of the golf course: Privatize the maintenance that is currently done by Department of Public Works employees, a move that golf course superintendent James Derrick has called for since 2005.

Doing so would cut $200,000 to $250,000 of the annual operating expenses.

From March 29 editorial What’s the Message? :

Yet, she refuses to shift the labor at the golf course from full-time Department of Public Works employees to seasonal hires, a move that could save the city between $200,000 to $250,000 annually.

From April 1st story Golf Course Discourse Continues:

It’s a proposal that Golf Commission Chairman Frank Natale said has been asked for for years and one that course superintendent Jim Derrick estimated would amount to $18,000 annually per employee in savings to the golf course.

“We’ve asked for it for the past three years; it’s an economic decision,” said Natale.

Of the five DPW union employees who started work at the golf course this week, Mayor Ann Thane said the mechanic’s position would have to remain. The foreman should stay too, said 4th Ward Alderman William Wills.

Flippin’ here: The editors emphatically and repeatedly claim a savings of $200 to $250K yet the numbers in their own story get us no where near those savings. At best, it’s $90k per year (assuming all 5 positions)  but likely somewhere around $50K (assuming 3 positions). Or put another way, there would have to be 11 to 14 positions to cut from the golf course to get the claimed $200-$250K savings. Total rubbish.

The bottom line is that you can in no way get to the numbers in the editorials no matter how many times you print it– not the cuts in expenses and not the claimed impacts of price on revenue; but if you repeat something often enough, then it must be true. You betcha!

A few thoughts on Muni:

1) It is not unreasonable or unfair to question the governance and operations of Muni. It is a municipal golf course, not a private golf course. If you do not think the public should delve into the policies or finances of your municipal golf course , then you should join a private course.

2) It is not unreasonable to ask that the course charge fair prices and to the extent possible return a fair return to the municipality. While I support the course and oppose the more extreme suggestions of turning the course into condos, I also don’t feel that I should accept that the course cannot do better and the only metric is whether the course ‘pays for itself”. It’s clear the operations do not pay for themselves — why else require a public bond for $400K in capital improvements– and it’s also clear that prices are lower than what they should be from a fair market value. Again, a principle of fairness from both sides of the debate would move us along to a healthier debate.

3) It’s clear that pricing for golf is not, to use an economics term, perfectly elastic regardless of what the Recorder editors and others may falsely claim. In fact revenues increased the year of a price increase and declined recently when I do not believe that a price increase went into effect. There is no material evidence supporting that a price increase would reduce revenues; it’s a financial fact that the most recent price increase raised revenues. Also from an economic perspective the other courses are not perfect substitutes for Muni as they either do not represent the same level of play or they impose additional costs in travel and time versus playing at Muni.

4) It is intellectually dishonest to frame the issue as a `choice between raising prices or managing costs; you need to do both.It’s glaringly obvious that the debate is intentionally shifted from fairness of pricing to the costs of DPW versus private contractors. Nice try.

5) It’s fine to attack the Union Business plan but you need some basis upon which to reason.

6) If you are going to demagogue that the price increase is an unreasonable increase on senior golfers with fixed income, you can have a choice:

a) Keep senior rates the same and effectively pass the discount to the non-golfing seniors on a fixed income to make up the difference.

b) Keep senior rates the same and adjust the increase even higher to current members. It would seem to me that the golfers so concerned with their fellow seniors should have no issue with this.

The bottom line on my position centers on fairness: I support Muni if the members pay a fair price and if the course is operated in the public interest of the city not in the collective interests of its members.

The Recorder editorial claims this as the basis and ‘proof’ of not supporting a rise in membership fees (from Golf course proposal is a risky one.):

The mayor needs only to look back to 2005 when the city raised membership fees by $50 and lost revenue from the year before.

Somehow percentages starting with 8% and 9% are all the rage of late  (from story here):

The council have approved the initial project list but have yet to allocate funding for the list as well as several recently added requests. The list includes about $4 million in borrowing for general fund-related projects, $200,000 for water projects, $80,000 in sewer projects and $440,000 for golf-course related projects. The list would have an 8.25 percent increase in taxes for 2010-11, but several items were cut on Thursday, including halving the $1 million request for demolition, removing a diesel four-wheel-drive truck with a plow for the Department of Public Works and spreading a request for two plow trucks over two years.

Oh, and by the way, don’t mention the golf course finances: the public demands no accountability or profitability from the operations of the golf course. The public can finance it but we can’t demand accountability for said  financing. Nor should we question what ever happened to the rather detailed plan and analysis developed by the Union College MBA students. That would be untoward. Move along kids nothing to discuss here.