Even if Blinn were allowed, I imagine people around the campus off 29th and Villa Maria would not agree that it has helped their neighborhoods. Traffic and parking is not good in those areas.

I don't think those designations are necessarily permanent. Also past reports said 89 of the 149 acres are indeed suitable for development.

Well, first of all, the Parkland Designation Proposition is only about the 117 acres (which actually sounds like it includes the water portion, too and not the approximately 150-ish acres -- ie, 117-89 could possibly then equal the Country Club Lake).

Second of all, I said that if you had read all the the many, many pages that are included in the links that are in this 'thread', you would deduce that parkland can be economically viable to a city. The reports even give the formulas a city can use to quantify the value in hard dollars. Real-life examples were given, and some of the examples were actual cities in the State of Texas.

Rosemary I agree park land is good for a city in general. But that golf course has been there nearly 90 years. The neighborhood is not that great but it's on a major thoroughfare and is relatively close to campus.

It's time to develop that space into something useful.

IF the muni property is developed, then tax generating (both property and sales) development needs to occur. Blinn or something related to the HSC or anything else public or non-profit should not occur unless it's on only part of the property so that the other part can help ease my tax burden. Too selfish?

Btw, I haven't decided how I'm voting on the two propositions. There are pros and cons to yes/no votes on both.

Agrab it's muni owned now as it is. At least with university development you'll see an increased interested in renewing surrounding neighborhoods. Same argument was used for the new S&W hospital at RP & 6.

Techno, I realize that. But if the idea is to take tax paying briarcrest cc off the tax rolls, then we should put muni, or at least a good part of it, on the tax rolls. I'm also not real sure about renewal in the surrounding neighborhoods. There's been some around blinn, but not that much, and from what I hear, a lot of folks in memorial forest still don't like blinn being so close.

Anyway, I just think it's a mixed bag and I'm not sure how I'm going on this one yet.

[This message has been edited by agrab86 (edited 10/17/2011 8:16p).]

Eh. Even if Briarcrest CC goes muni, I think with 90 years as a golf course, development of Bryan muni into something more significant like a college campus will benefit that neighborhood.

I kept hearing that the municipal golf course was making money. I could not believe my ears, so I did a little snooping. Here are the facts: In 2005, the golf course had income of $677,928.95 and expenses of $877,532.52, which is a loss of $199,603.57. In 2006, income was $778,049.84, expenses were $876,208.32, which equals a loss of $98,158.48. In 2007, it lost $123,232.31 ($767,180.81 income - $890,413.12). In 2008, income was $905,270.45 with expenses of $957,026.01, which equals a loss of $51,755.56. In 2009, the income was $1,017,753.93 and the expenses were $1,537,809.32; this equals a loss of $520,055.39. In 2010, the course lost $66,261.86 ($882,202.18 income minus $948,464.04). In 2011, the golf course lost $76,722.32 through July 31 ($640,808.86 in income versus $717,531.18 in expenses). These numbers don't include the $730,000.00 that the City borrowed in long term debt associated with the golf course related to new carts and other equipment. The losses also don't include the deferred maintenance that was supposed to be done on the course that was not performed due to lack of funds, which is estimated between $3.5-5 million.

Whether you want a golf course or not, whether you want a park or not, whether you want Briarcrest or not, it makes me no difference. Vote however you want on the referendum because I don't care about that either. But, at least have some intellectual honesty and give out the real numbers. If they support your position, great. If they don't, then support your argument on some other intangible basis or your own personal feelings.

Oh, and another thing. City council members get paid $10 a month. They don't get commissions on real estate transactions. What they actually do is give up a whole bunch of personal time trying to do what they think is best for our community. The least we can do is not accuse them of illegal activity and assassinate their character every time we disagree with their vote/opinion.

+infinity atp2007

Well stated atp! More reasons for Bryan residents to vote yes on both propositions.

One other thing that I forgot to mention -- when parkland is sold, the money received can only be used for parks. If/when Bryan sells the municipal golf course, they can only spend that money on parks - fixing old ones, adding features, building new ones, buying Briarcrest etc. That money won't be sucked into the general fund. So, from a parks capital standpoint, selling muni golf course has a net zero effect on the amount of park assets (land + cash) in Bryan. Just thought I'd clear up that misrepresentation too.

quote:

---

City council members get paid $10 a month. They don't get commissions on real estate transactions.

---

They do if they are the agent that sells a particular property.

quote:

---

They do if they are the agent that sells a particular property.

---

If they do what you are implying here, they go to jail. So, while you may be technically correct, your comment makes no common sense. But, that seems to be running a muck in this thread so, it doesn't really stand out.

And your comment shows a certain naiveté as to the workings of the good ol' boy system of government in Bryan.

Your saying proof no wrongdoing has been uncovered is evidence of a conspiracy Newbomb?

quote:

---

Your saying proof no wrongdoing has been uncovered is evidence of a conspiracy Newbomb?

---

I think I know what this disjointed run-on sentence means. Are you saying that just because no wrongdoing has been uncovered (if anyone was looking for it, that is) that it does not exist?

[This message has been edited by Newbomb_Turk (edited 10/18/2011 4:23p).]

Unless and until you explain your implied personal knowledge of the said "good 'ol boy system", you are simply spouting off rhetoric that you are pulling out of your arse. And I'm not talking about generalities of things from 10 and 15 years ago when no one on this council was serving. Come up with specific details about this specific council and how they are willing to commit crimes as sitting council members or STFU! Because now you are borderline libelous and I will recommend to staff to block your posts.

Are you having an illicit affair with someone on council? Because you are really wound up about this.

Getting back to the facts, rather than the unsupported rumors, the number of rounds played at muni has dropped significantly over the past 3 years. In 2009, golfers played 40,011 rounds of golf. In 2010, the number of rounds played decreased to 34,937. In fiscal year 2011, the rounds played decreased to 31,256.

Of course, we could skip a discussion of the facts of muni and just go back to talking about non-existent real estate commissions if you would rather.

Rounds are going down because the course sucks. It's 90 years old and a millstone for the city. There are now much more attractive courses for area golfers. I recommend Bryan voters vote Yes on both propositions.

It's not Traditions or Miramont, but I always have fun when I play there. I recommend voters vote NO on both propositions.

[This message has been edited by RosemaryVollmar (edited 10/18/2011 6:45p).]

So, "atp2007", just how many rounds of golf do you suppose were not played at Briarcrest and all the other golf courses the fiscal year, too, due to the oppressive weather we have had this season?!? LOL

On page 61 of Bryan's published FY2011 Budget in the Parks and Recreation section expenses are shown for the Muni golf course: FY2009 expenses, actual, $744,314; FY2010, amended, Operations-$244,523, Maintenance-$388,267

On page 62 of the same Budget, the revenues from the Muni golf course fees are: FY2009, actual $1,017,755; FY2010 amended $1,020,200; FY2011, adopted $1,034,500
{I am sure these dollars have been rounded off to make it easier for the typist}

Taking the FY2009 actual expenses (O&M total) for the Muni golf course and subtract that from the fees revenues of the Muni it would show a non-negative dollar amount. [ $1,017,755 - $774,314 = $243,441 ]

For FY 2010: Fees revenues of $1,020,000 - Operating expense of $244,523 = $775,477 - Maintenance expenses of $388,267 = a positive dollar figure of $387,210

http://www.bryantx.gov/resources/FINAL_Adopted_Budget_Document-online_version.pdf


[This message has been edited by RosemaryVollmar (edited 10/18/2011 6:41p).]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3RABRF39E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDn46K0oHKs&NR=1

[This message has been edited by Newbomb_Turk (edited 10/18/2011 6:41p).]

Rosemary--

I took a look at the budget from the link you posted. I found the issue.

The 2009 numbers are exactly what I posted. Income of $1,017,753.93 (or the rounded number you had from the budget). The operational expenses you listed did not include capital expenses, which amounted to $763,491.48. If you don't include capital expenses in 2009, they made a profit. The problem of course is that any business person would have to include capital expenses when actually determining if they made a profit.

The 2010 numbers you cited were purely budget numbers, not actuals. The actual numbers are exactly what was listed in my earlier post. As you can see from my earlier post, the number of rounds was a significant decrease from 2009 to 2010, so none of the projections (whether initial or amended) for budget purposes turned out right.

The 2011 numbers you cited were also purely budgeted numbers. Unfortunately, when you look at the actuals, the course lost money again. Again, this was due in large part because the number of rounds played is decreasing.

Between 2009 and 2011, the course has lost rounds played by about 25%.

Ultimately, the course is doomed to financial failure because it just does not make a profit, it has too much debt service, and there is so much deferred maintenance that eventually will have to be dealt with. When that blow comes, the course will be seriously under water.

Well, unfortunately, municipalities don't function as businesses, and if you scroll up a tad on that link, 'ATP2007', you will read the Mission Statement for Parks and Recreation. Also scroll down a bit a see that the cemetary and swimming pools are having decreased revenues while still having expenses. Should we empty and close them, too?

I'll take your suggestion about using opinions. So, after reading hundreds of pages of reports and articles, I still come to the conclusion that there is value to cities and their citizens from greenspace, and it should be preserved.

What is your take on the City and The Texas Reds? Would you be willing to come and talk at City Council during Hear Citizens? This was a thread started after I read the Balog letter in the paper about a city's lack of transparency. Hard to believe, eh?

[This message has been edited by RosemaryVollmar (edited 10/18/2011 11:44p).]

quote:

---

Also scroll down a bit a see that the cemetary and swimming pools are having decreased revenues while still having expenses. Should we empty and close them, too?

I'll take your suggestion about using opinions. So, after reading hundreds of pages of reports and articles, I still come to the conclusion that there is value to cities and their citizens from greenspace, and it should be preserved.

---

No one is saying cities shouldn't have greenspace, Rosemary. The problem is, this greenspace can be better used for something else that might actually help the city rather than just suck down taxpayer funds.

The old Bryan Municipal golf course is a boondoggle. It's decrepit, it has tons of deferred maintenance issues, and it's a revenue vampire. Let the City of Bryan make some lemonade out of that thing, and vote Yes on both propositions.

I'm no Crompton, but I like greenspace.

You'll get greenspace through parkland designated funding from the sale of old Bryan Muni. You'll also get urban renewal in the Villa Maria and College area.

It's win win. If you like greenspace, vote Yes on both propositions.

techno, keep it up. I'm sure you're winning people over.

Ah shucks. Only a couple hundred people on here paying attention. Seriously doubt any conversation here will change anybody's mind.

But just in case, vote Yes on both propositions and improve your city.

do you even live in Bryan, techno?