Michael G Balog of San Antonio wrote an interesting letter to the EAGLE 9/7/2011 askig pointed questions about the sale of Travis Bryan Muni Golf Course and the purchase of BriarCrest Country Club, and who would profit the most from these sales, and 'transparancy' in Bryan city politics. Any insights from the public?

http://www.theeagle.com/letters/Letters-for-September-72011-09-06T22-00-22

Link to the letter

Transparency is a good thing and how hard can it be to get a list of equity owners at Briarcrest? Hey City Hall, this info needs to come out! But the Muni a "gem"....no way. American Golf ran it into the ground and it has not gotten any better.

My preference-sell the Muni and get out of the golf business. Sterling Golf has a deal with A&M, it will soon be closed & renovated. AND Briarcrest isn't private now so why buy it?

quote:

---

One must wonder what the real motive is to write a letter to the editor full of unsubstantiated claims about the city council and members of the Briarcrest Country Club. Could it be that Michael Blalog stands to make money if the course doesn't sell?

How much moneyy will Blalog make if it doesn't sell? Maybe he should publish a list of his associations with people who stand to gain if it doesn't sell.

Travis Bryan Municipal is a money pit. Why run a golf course as a city? What is the hurry to waste more city money on it? What would the city care what the new owner did with arsenic?

How about a little honesty and transparency for a change? What really happened with the previous city manager? Why is Bryan still in the hotel business? What else is Michael Blalog hiding from us?

---

FIFY!

[This message has been edited by Aggeepop (edited 9/7/2011 5:08p).]

I don't live in Bryan, and I don't care what the city does or doesn't do.

But I read Mike Balog's letter today, and my reaction was, "Spot on."

Listen, for someone on this board to question what Mike Balog gains or doesn't gain is comical. He's just a guy who lives in San Antonio.

The real question is the one Balog raises: Why should Bryan sell one course just to buy another? How does this benefit the taxpayers of Bryan?

Great question. I'd be interested in the answer.

If this is the Michael Balog I am thinking of, he and his wife just moved from BCS to San Antonio this summer. He was the Poli Sci advisor at A&M for a long time.

Think its the same Mike Balog.

Can people not question their elected representatives, aggeepop?

Think we were on this topic a couple of weeks ago.

http://mybcs.com/Content/Forums/Replies.aspx?tid=1899280

quote:

---

The real question is the one that I raised using Balog's letter as my template: Why should my baseless claims about Balog be any more ridiculous than his own? How does this shamelessly accusatory letter benefit the taxpayers of Bryan?

Another great question that I'd be interested in the answer; how is tradishun so obtuse that he couldn't recognize the heavy sarcasm and irony in my post.

---

FIFY!! Again!!

Can't blame the city for wanting to upgrade their old golf course and facilities. That parcel of land would be much better suited to a university or office park of some kind, anyway.

It hardly warrants conspiracy speculation each time a city government tries to improve things.

If they don't want to spend the money to maintain the existing location, I wouldn't expect the newer, "better" location to be kept up. It would obviously require a bigger budget. Interesting priorities, Bryan City Council.

That's a new one Turk. Being positive is trolling? Made my evening right there.

Eh. If you're going to attack me for being positive, so be it. At least it's a departure from your usual snide remarks.

Good night and God bless you, Turk.

whether or not the city should be in the golf business, I think they should care about the arsenic.

I think the man should have said even more - like, who has plans for and who will profit from the land on the other side of Hwy 47 across the bridge to nowhere.

The question is “should the city be in the recreation business?” not just golf. Probably plagued some Romans with the Circus Maximus and Coliseum construction as well.

Briarcrest according to the CAD has an appraised value of $2MM, about what I’m told COB offered for the property. A search on CAD for “Briarcrest” yields some very interesting numbers. For example the CC has 125 ac valued at $2098/ac. Then there is a ’commercial building’ of 25,690 sq ft for abt $1.7MM.
Now I don’t know about commercial property values but seems to me they are on the TAX ROLLS for a sweetheart deal. Given the CoCS experience with Chimney Hill can’t blame COB for low balling.

The really troubling part of the story is the willingness to abandon a recreational facility without the commitment to replace it in kind. AND yes there is that pesky matter of arsenic, COB would like to abandon as well.

techno-ag, The City of Bryan is having the "sell Bryan Muni GC" on the November ballot asking the citizens if they want to sell the Muni GC?". But, what the City of Bryan really is making the citizens vote on without telling them straight out is "Do you want to sell the 117 acres of PARKLAND that sits at the corner of Villa Maria & S. College Ave?" You see, it is a law that the citizens have to vote to sell PARKLAND. The way the referendum will be worded 'tho, the non-golfing citizens will vote to sell a golf course through the City's lack of transparency that Mike G. Balog talked about in his letter to the editor. Once that land in non-parkland, the City can sell it to commercial developers because the TCEQ requires more remediation on that sight for residential development. {2 EAGLE archive articles on February 12, 2008 "Bryan advisory panel back in business and Council weighs arsenic issue. }
Again, transparancy? Who gets the commission? The dollars from the sale go to the Parks and Rec Department by city rules, but commission? Also, once that land is sold, there goes a large piece of green-space never to be gotten back from under its concrete shroud.

Eh. Let Bryan improve itself, especially in an easy to get to area close to the main campus. Yes developers will make money on the deal. They usually do, and that's not a crime nor is it evil.

bell_lady, You just asked an interesting question. The one about the HWY 47 'bridge to no-where'. If Bryan's Golf Course and Country Club machinations have made it all the way to San Antonio and have elicited a response from a resident there, surely something as fascinating as the "bridge to no-where that starts unconnected to any road and goes over 47 and ends in someones cow pasture connected to no road again has to have an even a much wider reach than San Antonio. I do think (my opinion-remember) that this project did not have its beginnings in Austin. I think that it began (my learned opinion again) very close to home.

quote:

---

and that's not a crime nor is it evil.

---

How about unethical, then? Especially, if it turned out to be someone with the clout to get it on the Council agenda? Of course, the Council has postponed many times their ethics workshops, so guess that lesson was missed.

quote:

---

whether or not the city should be in the golf business, I think they should care about the arsenic.

---

They do. They cared enough to get a settlement!

COB, has for the past three years, been the operator/manager of the Muni. Prior to that the operation was under American Golf (20+yrs) and Golf Solutions (3yrs). The American Golf contract paid the city $35K + 5% of green fees or at least $700K to the general fund over the life of contract. The other contract was a fiasco generated by the COB council. During this period of management little or no capital improvements were made to infrastructure, the only visible exception was to comply with TxDOT’s requirements along Villa Maria.

Under the management of the COB Parks Dept has, according to public records, generated income in excess of $125K per yr return to general fund over the last 3yrs. In addition the $800K used to purchase equipment has been returned at a rate of $165K per year.

The Muni is a recreational facility not a championship golf layout nor a country club. The Briacrest complex has faculties the city can subsidize in direct competition to tax-paying businesses.

As a legitimate recreational facility the Muni is no more or no less justifiable as are lighted ball fields, and soccer complexes, all of which can be replicated by private investment.

As a for fee recreational facility the Muni should break even, which it apparently does. IF this is correct, and the price of Briarcrest is higher than reported, then one must question the motives of COB’s elected officials.

If you consider the numbers above excessive then @ a conservative return of $20 per round/avg vs the reported 35000 rounds we have a gross of over $700K. There is somewhere north of $400K to be used to cover operational expenses.. most of those jobs are minimum wage/student jobs. NO lighted ball field or soccer complex will return this type of $$$ to community.

Etj- I bet water and maintenance eats up a lot of that income.

Honestly, it's not the best place for a golf course. Maybe it was back in the day when it was the Bryan Country Club. But now it would make a great office park, or a college campus. Let the city improve itself. There's no scandal in that.

I think I would prefer the current greenspace remain a greenspace. If that means buying Briarcrest and closing the Muni - maybe. The city would gain a pool, tennis courts, places to meet etc. Although I have heard that there is quite a bit of deferred maintenance that the city would have to pay for. What I don't want to happen is for the citizens to be bamboozled by the wording of the issue and give the council any more ideas of "development". They already have delusions of grandeur. The money being spent on the "bridge to no-where" - millions that have not been budgeted and which will push current capital improvement items even further down the list - is really a shell game that the development staff along with the real estate group of 4 on the council is forcing on the the citizens of this community. If the state wants it so bad - let the state pay for it.

Is the COB being upfront with Muni Plans? In 1995 COB received $4.8MM is settlement of arsenic contamination. Obviously this was not spent on the Muni’s needed arsenic remediation. As noted in “Council weighs arsenic issue,” By APRIL AVISON, Eagle Staff Writer, Feb 2008 www.theeagle.com/local/Council-weighs-arsenic-issue . It was determined the contamination “posed no human health risk” . After 2008 the dire“Contamination’ warning signs were removed from Muni.

It is also noted the state’s environmental arm feels some additional remediation is needed to maintain a park to ‘residential standards’. TCEQ determined that ‘commercial’ development was probably the only way to go. But COB was working with TCEQ (in 2008) to see if this was really necessary. A search of records has not reviled this was ever followed by COB. It is apparent they only heard ‘commercial’ and decided to go that route.

Questions to COB. Where did you spent the $4.8MM? Why wasn’t remediation done to protect citizenry in 1995? Where do you stand with TCEQ on the arsenic issue and is it really necessary?

[This message has been edited by etj77845 (edited 9/8/2011 5:59p).]

bloody url

[This message has been edited by etj77845 (edited 9/8/2011 6:00p).]

That is very interesting - has anyone done a study of the "dirt" there. Would you want your young family playing in that stuff? Maybe one of our environmental companies could do a sample and let us know. Supposedly up wind areas in Bryan have residual amounts of stuff that make them not so great places to live - of course our real estate professionals don't disclose that information to unknowing buyers - assuming of course that the owners even know.

quote:

---

Honestly, it's not the best place for a golf course.

---

Who decided this?

COBVOCS:

Can't help on 'dirt', but a GOOGLE search using 'Elf Atochem arsenic Bryan' shows a lot of data to wade through. Good hunting.

Here's a novel idea. Why don't all of you take your concerns and confront the members of city council that you feel are committing fraud against you and the citizens? That's why they have that portion of the city council meetings. Make sure that you bring with you your extensive evidence to back up your claims; especially the letter from Balog. After all, if it was in print then it has to be true.

Imagine my shock to find out what a bunch of crooks the members of the council really are. I know most of them personally and have dealt with them extensively and except for becoming part of the council; I don't know anything about them that has changed. And yet, now they are being accused of all sorts of devious plots. But, how can I argue with such well thought out accusations that are so thoroughly researched and proven to be true (again, if it's in print it must be true).

Kudos to all of you junior conspiracy theorists for sniffing this thing out and bringing it to the forefront. I know that my Christmas card list just got a little shorter.

Maybe the ones that are crooks on the council were crooks before they were on the council. Being on the council just makes it easier to be a crook.

Part of Bryan's problems resides in the fact that the "old boy's network" is alive and just a bit too well entrenched in the city's management and development. And despite their "good" intentions, the result just seems to benefit the few rather than the many.

And Ageepop - it does no good to voice a concern or a complaint. Just look at the debacle of the "Rose" homes. The Council as well as P&Z had more than ample evidence that these homes were not what they seemed to be - Who was right in this issue. It certainly wasn't the Council - one member actually called Rose an "angel". give me a break. They didn't do their homework, the P&Z ignored the concerns of the neighbors and what we now have is a situation where the downtown carriage horses are better taken care of than our elderly. YUP that's exactly what I want from the Council!

Only have a small dog in the hunt, but do like to dig for information. An obscure student thesis “ DISTRIBUTION AND PROCESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITY IN THE BRAZOS VALLEY, TEXAS” caught my eye., discussing the then (2007) mindset of COB.

http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/5733/chanchett_thesis.pdf?sequence=1
Starting on page 43:

“When discussing the Elf Atochem site, a city administrator expressed interest in purchasing tracts of land from Arkema Inc. (the current owners) for use as low income housing, as the land has been remediated and believed that it could pass an environmental impact statement (HanchettF 2007). However, the representative from the ESD admitted to knowledge of “hotspots of contamination” left on the facility’s site (HanchettD 2007). A witness for the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against believes that it would be “criminally negligent to encourage anyone to live there- it would be homicide” (HanchettG 2007). Two individuals associated with non-governmental agencies in the city stated that the company offered individuals associated with non-governmental agencies in the city stated that the company offered to sell land to their organizations for residential development, but refused (HanchettB,C 2007). One said “[our clients] have enough problems with the loss of respect and dignity. We didn’t want to add to that by making them live on top of poison” (HanchettB 2007). “

The report continues with a description of the activities of the Bryan Business Council..

IF indeed the Muni can not meet TEQC standards for ‘park-land’ (as reported by The Eagle in 2008) and remediation is too costly and IF commercial development is the only solution available THEN why not just tell the voters?

Thank you etj. Good digging. Your small dog must be a bassett or a dachshund.

They don't want to tell the voters anything that might arm them with information. This is the way they(the council and the staff) work. The voters have not been able to impact the council on anything - especially if it based on information. If you keep information on a close hold then YOU(the council) have all the facts - sharing the information may cause the citizenry to ask questions and YOU(the council)might have to answer intelligently. Our council does not discuss issues for the public to see or hear - everything is done behind closed doors and/or in executive session - No transparency. Can't debate a subject if the subject is never allowed to be discussed.