Council and Countryside

Today, during City Council's 2PM session, I made the request of the City's Director of Finance that she put together a projection of what the debt service, capital needs and other necessary expenditures will be over the next five and ten years if the City retains ownership of Countryside. During my request, I made mention of wanting to have as much information as possible, and as a businessperson, the most effective way for me to look at the future of the course is to, as part of that outlook, know what the numbers will look like.

I made the mistake, admittedly, of mentioning that as we rush to put out a Request for Proposal with five and ten year terms for management of the course, we should not eliminate the option of selling Countryside if it makes the most sense. As you might imagine, this set off a firestorm amongst the mayor and a few members of the audience who are strong advocates of permanently keeping Countryside as a golf course. I was not intending to debate the highest and best use of the property itself, though it provided a political opening that was taken advantage of.

I have learned my lesson in terms of being more direct and clearer in what I am requesting.

I believe one can never have too much information. As our national, state, and to a lesser degree, local economies contract, we as a City government must also contract budgetarily. To me, this isn't a matter of politics, it's a matter of fiscal responsibility and the ability to be disciplined when times are tough and the budget is tight.

After forty-five minutes of banter about the merits of selling Countryside or seeking private management or the City itself managing the course, we finally came to a vote on my request (for the record, I really was only requesting information so no vote was actually needed).

The mayor stated that the voters had spoken and that they clearly wanted Countryside to remain a golf course. First, I am not sure who "the voters" are and when they made a decision on this particular issue, and second, the request was for information, not a determination on the future of the course (again, the request was not a vote on the highest and best use of the property). It was simply a request to have all the information available when deciding whether to contractually obligate the City to a five or ten year lease. If we don't take a look at the numbers now, it may be ten years before we can revisit this decision.

Council Members Price, Mason, Trinkle and I voted to request the information. Councilman Nash wants the information but did not like the process and how we arrived at needing a vote for information, and the mayor voted "no." I simply don't understand how one could not want more information to make a decision that could have such significant and long-term implications for the financial stability of our community.

Sometimes, you've got to put being good stewards of the taxpayers' money and a willingness to learn as much as possible ahead of politics. Let's take one step at a time, know what our options are, and understand the impact the decision we may make today will have on our community ten years from now.