Quantcast
Advertisement

Oak Hills Authority touts ‘stunning’ business in seasonable May

NORWALK, Conn. – Business has been brisk this month at Oak Hills Golf Course, making up for revenue lost in a cold April, Oak Hills Park Authority members said Thursday.

Actually, May has been “phenomenal” and “stunning,” they said.

The enthusiasm comes as the Authority prepares to spend $1.5 million in state money to upgrade the course, and as Common Council members scrutinize the park’s financial information with occasional references to maybe forgiving $1 million of the Authority’s debt to the city.

Oak Hills Park Executive Director Shelley Guyer.
Oak Hills Park Executive Director Shelley Guyer.

Although OHPA ended April with $1,000 less than it had at the end of April 2014, between $5,000 and $15,000 has been coming in weekly in May, OHPA Chairman Clyde Mount said. “What we should see in May is that we’re doing better,” Oak Hills Park Executive Director Shelley Guyer said, going over the accounting report. “… If we look at current month vs. prior month, we were only $5,000 worse on total income versus April last year.”

A $20,000 payment will be made Tuesday on the $80,000 borrowed from a bank to get through the winter, Guyer said. The plan is to pay that off $20,000 a month through August and then qualify for the line of credit again next year, he said.

People just didn’t want to come out in April because of the weather, Guyer said. But while the rounds were down 14.5 percent the revenue was only down 8.5 percent, with some of the difference made up by golf ID cards, he said. “All in all, considering the weather and everything, I think it was actually a pretty good month,” Guyer said.

“We are just crushing it compared to last May,” Guyer said.

“May is going to phenomenal,” another member said.

“The last few weeks have just been stunning,” Ernie DesRochers said.

“This weekend looks huge again,” Guyer said. The course utilization was at 70 percent capacity Thursday even though the temperatures were in the low 60s, he said.

“Why is all of this happening? There’s a few things happening,” Guyer said. “Obviously, the condition of the course is huge. A lot of the other courses I have been around –a nd I have been to recently, Yale – our course is in better shape than Yale, both greens and fairway.”

Gene Horne, a citizen who spoke to the Authority at the beginning of the meeting, said he had never seen the course in as good condition as it is now.

Neighboring clubs aren’t doing as well, Guyer said. There’s a green closed at Woodway Country Club in Darien and golfers are saying that Oak Hills’ greens are in much better condition than those at Stamford’s Sterling Farms Golf Course, he said.

People are also coming to Oak Hills to use the deals they got through Groupon, which expired Thursday, Guyer said.

“We are surprised by the Groupons and where people are coming from. I mean, Manhattan,” Head Golf Pro Ed Ruiz said.

“Three millennials from Stamford bought nonresident cards,” Ruiz said. “They got tired of how long it was taking and they like our course better.”

There is a Connecticut State Golf Association Amateur Qualifying round Tuesday at Oak Hills, Guyer said. While he was disappointed that there are only 65 people taking part, at least 50 extra rounds are likely to have been played as practice when all is said and done, he said.

“I think all those things combined is why we are seeing much more activity,” Guyer said.

Expenses are “well under control and in most cases lower” than last April, with the net ordinary income “only off $6,000,” Guyer said.

“That is just to me stunning, considering where we were six months ago,” DesRochers said.

“Considering what happened in March and April, yes,” Guyer said.

Council members briefly considered Oak Hills at the last Finance Committee meeting.

“In terms of the P&L (profit and loss statement) year to date they are pretty much overall on track to where they were a year ago,” Finance Director Thomas Hamilton said, on May 14.

It was wise of the Authority to obtain a $100,000 line of credit before the winter started, he said.

Two previous meetings have been marked by prolonged discussions about Oak Hills. In March, Council members indicated a willingness to forgive $1 million in debt, while Hamilton protested. In April, DesRochers said a driving range would make Oak Hills solvent and he could get financing if the previous debt was taken care of.

It wasn’t discussed in May.

“I’ve stayed in touch with Finance Department,” Finance Committee Chairman Bruce Kimmel (D-At Large) said. “They have been meeting with the Oak Hills folks and working on some proposals. Hopefully next meeting we will be able to dig into this a little bit more and satisfy everyone.”

“(We’ve) met with the mayor, had some discussions, working to bring something back with potential ideas and recommendations on ways to potentially move forward,” Hamilton said. “… What we come back with next month may not be final-final, maybe still kicking around ideas, but at least some reaction from the administration, from the mayor, from my office, and some ideas to kick around.”

The Authority recently got the final approvals it needed to begin receiving the $1.5 million it was awarded by the State Bond Commission.

The first Request for Proposals, for architectural services, went out two weeks ago, DesRochers said Thursday.

“It is the basis for everything we’re going to need to have, including golf course improvement designs we have to have, the welcome center design and any other construction things that go into the golf course,” he said.

Nine firms attended an informational meeting, Jerry Crowley said. “There appears to be a lot of interest. People stayed around and talked about it afterwards,” he said.

Based on feedback gotten there, the RFP has been amended. Instead of requiring that a golf architect get the contract, it now says that a golf architect be hired by the winning bidder, Crowley said.

“We, collectively as a group, want to avoid all the BS that went on with the construction of the  restaurant because when you have a qualified architect involved who kind of understands all the idiosyncrasies of a golf course and it really can cut to the chase pretty quick, that’s kind of what we want,” DesRochers said. “If we’re going to do a, I won’t call it a redesign but basically a facelift of the golf course, you want to have the best possible talent working on it.”

The master plan committee is “full bore on Phase I,” DesRochers said.

“Our goal is to actually be in the ground in the fall,” DesRochers said. “It may take a lot of work to get there but we are bound and determined to get in so that next spring at least the golf course will be in better shape than it is now.”

Meaning new cart paths and other improvements.

Mount expressed skepticism that all city approvals could be obtained in time to begin work in the fall ,but DesRochers said he had been assured that the bureaucracy would not hold the project up.  It’s in the best interest of the city, he said.

DesRochers floated another idea: Because so many people criticize the park for not having a pool, perhaps it would be a good idea to buy the vacant house next door and put a pool there, he said.

“If the city really wanted to do that it would be just the perfect spot for it, because it wouldn’t take much to expand the parking area over by the tennis center,” DesRochers said.

Former OHPA member Jane Walters said that had once been considered but there are buried oil tanks there. DesRochers and others said that could be dealt with. The idea would be looked into, they said.

Comments

36 responses to “Oak Hills Authority touts ‘stunning’ business in seasonable May”

  1. John Hamlin

    If they are doing so well, no reason for the City’s taxpayers to rescue them.

  2. Paul Cantor

    In April we lost money but: “May has been phenomenal.” “We are just crushing it.” “Just stunning.”

    Nevertheless we want taxpayers to give us $1 million dollars in the form of loan forgiveness on top of the $1.5 million grant they already gave us. And we are going to use a good chunk of that money to demolish a perfectly good Pro Shop and construct a welcome center and pro shop in a different location. But please understand that we are moving the pro shop in order to make room for a taxpayer financed multi-million dollar state of the art driving range.

    Previously, we thought we needed the driving range because user fees would never be able to cover the cost of the 18-hole golf course we manage. But now we realize we don’t really need it because “May has been phenomenal.” Nevertheless we want it and it will only cost $4 million to construct. And trust us: it will generate more revenue than the restaurant we constructed.

    So again, please give us another million on top of the $1.5 million grant we were given because “May has been phenomenal.” “Just stunning.” And don’t worry about the $4 million for now. We won’t ask you for that money until we have moved the Pro Shop. But in any case with all the challenges our city faces can you think of a better use of our taxpayer dollars than to use them to subsidize an 18-hole golf course?

    Note: According to the lease of the Park to the Authority: “the amount of rent that shall be payable” for use of the park shall be negotiated. But the Authority doesn’t pay rent to the city because it can’t even cover the costs of the 18-hole golf course it manages even though it is situated on tax-free land. So instead of paying the rent it calls on taxpayers to help it cover those costs.

    Note: From the lease of the Park to the Authority: “In the event that the city is requested to provide any administrative and/or technical service to or for the benefit of the Authority, the city will be reimbursed for the actual cost of said administrative and/or technical services.” But the OHPA has not been reimbursing the city for all the time its Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, and Director of Management and the Budget, Robert Baron, and purchasing agent, Gerald Foley have put into helping it with financial matters.

  3. TReynolds

    Same old, same old from the naysayers. I like the idea of a pool out by Fillow Street. The sound of laughing children will fill the air.

  4. Kevin Di Mauro

    It’s nice to hear that the OHPA plans to pay back the $100,00 it borrowed from a bank to help get through the winter. It would be even nicer if they paid back the $1,000,000 they owe Norwalk’s taxpayers rather than asking for debt forgiveness.

  5. Tauber

    Perhaps Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, and Director of Management and the Budget, Robert Baron have not asked to be reimbursed. It seems to me that your talent lies more as an Ombudsman than the leader of an 11 person contingent hell-bent on shutting down a profitable golf course. Perhaps you should ask the Mayor for an appointment.
    You complain that the OHPA cannot cover its expenses. Now that they are proving they can rake in the dough you are still complaining. What’s your real motive.

  6. Kevin Di Mauro

    A $100,000 line of credit was obtained from a bank, and $80,000 of it was needed just so OHPA could survive the winter. Why doesn’t the OHPA ask the bank to forgive the debt? They don’t seem to have a problem asking Norwalk taxpayers to forgive $1,000,000 of debt.

  7. Jim Perkins

    Ok, lets get this straight….

    “Although OHPA ended April with $1,000 less than it had at the end of April 2014, between $5,000 and $15,000 has been coming in weekly in May, OHPA Chairman Clyde Mount said.”

    So they have $1,000 less in the bank at the end of April after borrowing $80k from a local bank that has to be paid back so realistically they are $81K worse then last year at this time when you read between the miscued lines.

    It’s very nice they are having a great May (obviously due to all the good weather)but, they are so far in the hole now borrowing $80K to get through the winter how will they pay back the loan due to us taxpayers this year.

    I think they should pay back the taxpayers first then the ridiculously dumb bank that loaned this losing operation money. Only time will tell…..

  8. Suzanne

    This really is a form of insanity punctuated by adjectives: every year there is this, let me think of another pretty word, “incredible” boost in May when the course is finally dried, the weather forgiving and winter is at an end.

    Every year, there is this talk, this cheerleading about the public park, that is the private Oak Hills, doing so very, very well (no real rounds nor income numbers I see), then the other shoe drops: loan forgiveness, borrowing, reorganizing debt owed to the City so payments can be met (no kidding: one year a partial payment was such a remarkable, shucks, pretty word again, occurrence, a large presentation check was shown being given by the OHPA director to a representative of the City and it MADE THE PAPER!)

    What is the OHPA good at? Spending. Spending, spending, spending. A bank loan for the winter, loans from the City, a grant from the State. Then, like a kid whose gone over his credit card limit, the OHPA is back to Papa Norwalk, hat in hand, asking the rest of the town family to pay for this privatized public park.

    NOW, they are talking a pool on a site that apparently has buried oil tanks which, cavalierly, could “easily” be remediated according to yet another golf person so yet another golf person can say, “How lovely! Let’s spend that money. Yes, trust us to spend the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars so we might hear the laughter of children’s voices in the air.”

    If I didn’t know it already existed under another iteration, I would call this the OHPA’s version of “As the World Turns.”

    You all want to play on this gorgeous spot looking better than Yale and Sterling Farms? Pay for it. If we can’t use it, those that can and do should pay for it. Pay for your private play or give this public park back to the public.

  9. Paul Cantor

    December 5, 2012. Oak Hills Park Authority Robert Virgulak claims, “a driving range is needed so the golf course will survive. Without that additional revenue, there’s no way. We need another source of revenue and the only one that makes sense is a driving range.”

    September 8, 2014 Independent Auditor’s Report by Walter J Englert, CPA: “Oak Hills Park Authority incurred a deficit of $107,672 for the year ended June 30, 2014 which raises substantial doubt about it’s ability to continue as a going concern.”

    April 9, 2015 Oak Hills Park Authority Financial Analysis: “The financial issues facing Oak Hills are serious and must be addressed immediately. The winter of 2015 was one of the worst experienced in years and that has caused us to use a greater part of our bank credit line than expected as we have not been able to generate round revenue due to snow conditions. Our ability to make our September debt service payment and leave sufficient working capital for next year (other than tapping our line of credit), is the best outcome we can expect.”

    From the article above: “OHPA ended April with $1,000 less than it had at the end of April 2014.”

    And Tauber claims the course is “profitable” and raking in the dough?

    Well then Mr. Virgulak is wrong and there is no need for a driving range. And we should expect the Authority will be making good on its debt to taxpayers and covering its operating and capital costs in the future.

  10. Wineshine

    The Oak Hills course is a gem. It’s in incredible playing condition which is a testimony to the course management and the OHPA. It should be a source of pride instead of a bone of contention. Too bad the kvetchers here can’t see past their own selfish needs. If some folks took a nice walk for four hours they might be a little less cranky. Maybe when I open a water park on Fillow Street they’ll come and relax.

  11. Suzanne

    Wineshine, I am sure Oak Hills is a “source of pride” for those rare individuals who live in Norwalk that get to see it. The rest of us? Well, we are just a little bit cranky because we have to pick up the paycheck.

    Equivalent to, say, those lucky golfers that play at Wee Burn, for example, having you pick up the member fees and the check for their play.

    Money is tight and getting tighter for the middle class nationwide (per NPR report yesterday.) And, yet, you who pay for membership at Oak Hills do not cover your costs. We get to!

    Oak Hills is a public park with a private membership playing an expensive sport that many do not have the time nor money to participate in. Cranky? You bet! That park is a Norwalk public park. We should not have to pay for it and not even see it much less use it because of the few privileged club members who have time and money to play a sport.

    Parks are for picnics, flying kits, playing frisbee, heck, even a stroll – you get to, we pay for it, we don’t. Pretty clear equation that is somehow dissatisfying to this taxpayer who is paying for you because what you pay for doesn’t cover the privilege.

  12. Yvonne Lopaur

    @ Wineshine,

    “Too bad the kvetchers here can’t see past their own selfish needs.”

    I totally agree with you. So why are you kvetching?

  13. SaraSikes

    I’m against spending another dollar on the golf course or restaurant. It doesn’t look like they will ever break even.
    A swimming pool, however, would be a wonderful asset that many would use. Every Norwalk child should learn how to swim as a survival school before they graduate elementary school.

  14. Wineshine

    @Sara, that’s hysterical. The neighbors are upset about traffic and noise, so I doubt a public pool would be near and dear to their hearts.

    As far is OH being a public park, I have to tell you, in 35 years of living in town, and playing Oak Hills 100+ rounds, I’ve never, ever, ever once seen anyone at this “park” who wasn’t playing either golf or tennis.

    Suzanne, the misconceptions about golf being an elitist, and expensive sport is like saying that driving a car is prohibitive. Do some research. You can buy a Tesla, or you can buy a Ford Fiesta. The choice is up to the individual. One can assemble a set of golf clubs from the “used bin” and any golf shop for around $300 including driver. And they never, ever wear out. I have a club that was given to me by my dad’s friend that must be 40 years old, and it still works just fine. Shoes can be bought at the end of the season on sale for 50% off and the last for several seasons. One can spend ridiculous money on golf balls, but frankly, for hackers like me, any little white dimpled ball will do. I get them at a discount, again, from the “experienced” ball bin. My advice to those who complain about cost of balls is to play better golf and you won’t lose your expensive balls.

  15. Suzanne

    Wineshine, you are writing to a golfer who loves the sport but can’t stand the whiney OHPA requests from the City to constantly monetize “their” sport in lieu of ALL of Norwalk playing on that beautiful land.

    Time is money, too. Lucky for you all, you have the hours to play while the rest of us work to support you with our taxes.

    When I played and I played a lot, I played the front or back nine holes of a course because that is what I had time for. I wasn’t any good but I enjoyed my time immensely. I was taught how to play golf by Vinny Grillo at Oak Hills.

    My beef is this: since Vinny’s departure, there has been a string of debts that have not been repaid and the OHPA has become more and more emboldened to request those debts to be paid by Norwalk citizens who can not see nor use the public park.

    We don’t need the discount golfer’s shopping list to know that the OHPA is living beyond their means.

    Time and money: golf, by any measure (except for maybe equestrian activities or race car driving) is an expensive sport.

    P.S. What do you think you have been playing on all of this time? A private club course? Look it up: the place is called Oak Hills Park for a reason.

  16. Wineshine

    I know this is not supposed to be a chat room, so Nancy and Mark, forgive me, but Suzanne, we should go play a round or nine together so you can get to know me instead of making all the wrong assumptions.

    I pay a fairly large five-figure real estate tax every year, which by the way increased 28% (still hurts to think about it) on the last reval. I’ve never put a kid through school here, so I hope you parents are enjoying my hard earned money. I work all day every day, so, no Suzanne, you do not subsidize my recreation. I own my own business, and work constantly to make what I earn.

    As for Vinny, no offense intended, and he was a good club pro, but the course was in horrible shape when he left. I mean horrible. Ask any member.

    And PS- no I don’t ever think of OH as a private club. I know there are some locals who do, but it’s a public course, open to all. The argument otherwise is absurd, and I’m not sure why you made that statement.

  17. Kevin Di Mauro

    @Wineshine

    You are wrong. Every Norwalk taxpayer who does not play golf will be subsidizing your sport if the $1,000,000 debt currently owed is forgiven as requested by the OHPA.

    Since you seem to be quite a success story, why don’t you and your golf buddies pick up the tap on your own.

  18. Kevin Di Mauro

    @Wineshine

    When the OHPA had to restructure its debt a couple of years ago it was done on the shoulders of all Norwalk’s taxpayers. The vast majority of Norwalk taxpayers do not play golf, but we were all forced to subsidize YOUR recreation. As a person who doesn’t play golf, I hardly think Oak Hills is open to all.

  19. sofaman

    @Wineshine

    When I see people try to make this argument personal, I sense there’s no real defense.

    Oak Hills survives on the back of the Norwalk taxpayer, most of whom never get to enjoy the park. The fact you use the word “pride” to describe that is embarrassing.

  20. Wineshine

    Kevin, it’s a golf course. Get over it. There are thousands of these beasts around the country and tens of thousands worldwide. It’s not “my” golf course, nor is “my” sport. Just to make sure though, I will cruise by today to see if the sign has been changed to “Wineshine Hills”. Then we can both sleep better.
    I’m a casual player who enjoys a few rounds each year. Taking your side for a second, as painful as it feels, it can be said that we are one, because technically, by my infrequent play, I am subsidizing golfers who play several times each week.
    I’m merely taking a liberal and objective (oh no!!) view of this issue. You don’t use woman’s restrooms (I hope) so should we close them all? Would you plan a family picnic in the DMV waiting area? Nope. Why? Right! Because it’s not a picnic area. What do you expect to happen at a golf course? Right again. People play golf. But because you can’t see the value of the sport, […you believe] that it shouldn’t exist?

    So until you start to use women’s restrooms, or party at the DMV, please try to consider that there are those who don’t enjoy your beneficently charitable use of the planet where every feature must serve all. And by the way, click on the safety on your gun. Your trigger is way too sensitive.

    This post was edited to comply with our policy against personal attacks.

  21. Wineshine

    @sofaman, I don’t use bike lanes, Cranbury park, public schools, tennis courts, or community services. These all exist on “the backs of taxpayers”.

    This is a classic case of NIMBY and making a mountain out of a molehill. The city operates in the black. Parks and Rec is budgeted at over $4M. The golf course is asking to forgive a loan, once, that amounts to one third of one percent of Norwalk’s one year’s fiscal budget. A fly speck. The golf course is, on a bad year, subsidized to the tune of less than 4% of the total Parks and Rec budget. The Maritime Aquarium had a larger loan forgiven. When was the last time you visited that fine establishment?

    The reason your arguments have not gotten a foothold is because they hold as much water as a divot on a fairway.

  22. Suzanne

    Wineshine, a public park, unlike a women’s restroom or the DMV, has potential uses for all kinds of activities, not solely golf, for the public.

    Education vs. golf? As a community and as a country, I think the value of education for all children is well-established as inviolate. Golf? Not so much.

    A casual player, a frequent player, a once a year player: all have agreed, when they play at Oak Hills by virtue of the conditions under which it was developed in the first place, the Charter, to a responsibility to see that their golf games cover the cost of the course. Oak Hills is not managed by nor regulated by Parks and Rec requirements.

    These same conditions do no apply to the Aquarium or Parks and Recreation. Whether that is appealing to those that play Oak Hills or not, that is the constraint and that is the requirement the OHPA does not seem to think applies to them.

    Why do I write that? Their actions and their spending: forgiveness for debts, restructuring loans, asking for more money of the taxpayer who has no access to this technically public park does not meet the requirements of management of the Course.

    I don’t understand why there is so much squirrelly behavior around this issue. Assumptions are being made on all sides. However, one only has to stand up to speak with a prepared statement at a public OHPA meeting: the rudeness is beyond belief and certainly not an acceptable way to forward any understanding.

    Why are there not clear numbers about what this course costs to maintain for the few who golf? Why can’t there be a little honesty about the constraints under which the course must be managed? Why can’t the two be put together to see what fees would be required for what number of rounds to maintain Oak Hills as a golf course without coming to those who don’t play golf to pay for those fees?

    Instead, the taxpayer gets the same shenanigans of other Norwalk City agencies: avoidance, rudeness, deception, defensiveness, to name a few behaviors.

    OHPA, come clean. What are the real numbers? Is it even possible for this land to be devoted to golf any longer to the Charter requirements?

    Based on previous years’ rounds numbers, do fees need to go up or down to meet the expenses?

    In taking on the debt (and I sincerely hope there is not some wishful thinking going on here regarding coverage of driving range expenses) service of additional features, how much more fee monies will the OHPA need to raise over how many years to break even?

    Based on the continued need for outside funds the OHPA is seeking, it seems they are at the helm of sinking sand traps. There has yet to be made a clear, concise argument as to why a driving range can fill in the gaps of this ongoing financial saga and save the course based upon the document under which it must be managed.

    The value of this land in this current iteration actually keeps traffic down and noise to a minimum: few people can use it and few support it.

    A true public park use would draw more people to a wider range of activities, an assumption I realize, but in any case, is not an argument based on NIMBYism.

    Currently, there IS no NIMBY – the back yard that is Oak Hills, a park, is not available to Norwalk residents who live here. Opening up the course to other activities increases the potential number and range of people who could enjoy this rare environment.

    Perhaps the greens were not in great condition under other management. My guess is that improvements cost money. While not being the financially successful other public courses in the area, the OHPA decided to up their game beyond their means to compete. They are winning, apparently, the greens game but not the greebacks game (sorry.)

    There are many more issues in Norwalk, especially at present (like pre-K education, administrator flight from the NPS, infrastructure issues like roads, sidewalks and bridges) to make this preservation of a beautiful park being held for the few, a lesser consideration – make it a beautiful park for everyone.

  23. Debora

    Okay, here we go again!

    @Tauber: “Perhaps Finance Director, Tom Hamilton, and Director of Management and the Budget, Robert Baron have not asked to be reimbursed…You complain that the OHPA cannot cover its expenses. Now that they are proving they can rake in the dough you are still complaining.”

    The BET does not have to “request” reimbursement. The lease between the City and OHPA is a structured debt repayment, one that OHPA has not been able to meet the terms of for many years. In fact, if the City forgives the $1mm debt, it is giving away MORE than $1mm, because the lease lets the City get some upside if OHPA actually earns more than it needs to pay back the the lease “rent” in any given year. So if we forgive the debt BEFORE the driving range suddenly showers OHPA in money, we are losing our percentage of THAT money as well.

    I don’t understand why anybody can’t grasp this notion that money borrowed from the City is no different from other borrowed money. If this were a house, and it was mortgaged out since 1998, refinanced twice, had delayed payments everytime the weather got bad, and then they went to the bank and said “hey guys, if you’ll just forgive the mortgage to so I can go get a loan on the property from someone else”, they’d get laughed out the front door.

    Unfortunately for the OHPA board, bankruptcy proceding aren’t available to them to get a financial do-over.

    @Wineshine: “Kevin, it’s a golf course. Get over it. There are thousands of these beasts around the country and tens of thousands worldwide.”

    Actually wineshine, you are confused by the presence of golf clubs and golf carts. This is an OPEN SPACE PARK, and cannot be anything else. That is the promise Norwalk made to the state in 1966. Open Space has a legal definition. That legal definition provides that certain activities are permitted because they meet the open space goals. Golf is one of those activities.

    We wouldn’t even be having this fight if Norwalk hadn’t tried to isolate the expense of running a municipal golf course from the City’s finances by creating a municipal authority. The assessments would be made every year by the BET, the Parks dept and the Common Council. Attempts to turn this into a commercial enterprise without the consent and full recompense of Norwalk’s and Connecticut’s taxpayers should be met with swift penalty.

  24. Suzanne

    Debora, I very much appreciate the familiarity with which you write regarding the documentation that binds the OHPA to management of Oak Hills Park.

    What are the repercussions of not meeting the requirements? While the OHPA lauds their brief honeymoon in this article, how long is the consistent mis-use of the property based upon that documentation, i.e., consistently carrying and increasing debt in order to operate, allowed before the land must revert (or must it?) to an Open Space designation (per your 1966 notation?)

    You state this means opportunity for a variety of uses.

    Building upon clarity rather than self-interested obfuscation by the OHPA needs to begin now.

  25. Kevin Di Mauro

    @Wineshine

    You are wrong again. I don’t own a gun, and I don’t like what you are implying about me.

  26. Kevin Di Mauro

    @Wineshine

    Also, with regards to the OHPA and their request for debt forgiveness, driving range, etc., I have not yet begun to kvetch.

  27. Wineshine

    Kevin, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I made no mention of a gun nor was I implying anything personal. Sorry you took it that way.

    Mark- I’d love to know what needed editing.

    Debora, it IS a golf course, and more, and citing actions of fifty years ago do not negate that fact. You may be confused by the presence of trees and rocks on the vast acreage behind the restaurant. It’s not the out-of-bounds area. Your research should have shown that this area is part of OHP, and you may have been led to wonder why, in the decades and decades before this brouhaha developed, no golf-hating, nature-loving fine citizen or group thereof ever thought to lead an initiative to further develop that “open space” for family use. It’s a fine area, rife with wildlife and vegetation, and I urge those who want so much to commune with nature, and can’t be bothered to use Cranbury, Mathews, Fitch, Fodor, Veterans, or any of our other dedicated parks to contact the current administration, and urge the Mayor and Common Council to that end.

    You should also know that with all the talk by golf-haters over the past months no mention has ever been made to the effect that there is a walking trail on that land already.

    As for the fiscal aspect of the equation, I just watched the city be extorted for a $2M+ payment to an overzealous group which prostituted religion to gain profit, and now the very residents whose needs were served by that are griping about a loan that benefits some of their fellow citizens, many of whom showed up at City Hall in their defense. The 2015-16 city budget is almost a third of a billion dollars, and people are complaining about a figure that is less than one third of one percent of that, and doing away with an entity that enhances the city. I thought our leaders were all about moving forward, and growing this city. You know about Wall Street, the SoNo Collection, Heritage Park and all that. Why do some now choose to tear down an institution instead of improving it as an asset? Bottom line is, one can get the lawyers and accountants involved and spout all they want about legal ramifications, but that’s just legacy work, isn’t it?

    And when you speak with the Mayor, please ask where he plans to hold his annual Mayors Golf Tournament fundraiser.

  28. Debora

    @Suzanne,
    Thank you. The underlying assumption that there is misuse of the property is not quite correct. A golf course and even a driving range are permitted in an open space park. The restaurant is another story, but the OHPA’s plans to acquire the additional land to expand the nature center may “cure” that breach.

    One possible repercussion is for the State to ask for it’s money back. I haven’t been able to take the time to FOI a copy of the original grant agreement, but the CGS is pretty clear on what constitutes an open space use. And it is something that attaches to the property in perpetuity. There is no reversion, but the money was a grant. I suppose if there is really an appetite, the state could revoke the operating provisions of OHPA from the city charter, but I’m guessing state legislators who gave more state grant money to an agency that was already violating it’s previous grant restrictions won’t be doing that.

    The “mis-use” you speak of, in which OHPA’s finances are being questioned, goes more to the terms of the lease. I have look at the finances in the past, and I don’t believe that they would look bad in this regard if the operation of the OHPA hadn’t been so messy from 1998 to 2004. They are doing a reasonably good job of working with what they have, save for the fact that they don’t want to count the debt service.

    That having been said, the responsible thing would be to cut back on the dreams of going from a concern that needs loans to get through the winter months to a “world class” golf course in one giant leap. A good faith effort to pay back some of what they owe before putting in yet another risky financial bet would be the prudent thing for a municipal entity operating a city-owned property on behalf of the tax-payers.

    @Wineshine, it is a MUNICIPAL golf course INSIDE an OPEN SPACE PARK. At the time the “actions of fifty years ago” were undertaken, the golf course didn’t exist. The land was referred to as the “Oak Hills PARK tract”. The park is the box, and the golf course is the present inside the box.

    I don’t wonder why the citizens didn’t lead an initiative at all. It was the job of the OHPA to manage the entire tract, not the citizenry (who get told to butt out every time they speak). Suggesting that the rocks and trees need to be “developed” shows that you don’t understand the opposition’s positions at all, or don’t care to. OHPA works for the people, not for itself.

    “You should also know that with all the talk by golf-haters over the past months no mention has ever been made to the effect that there is a walking trail on that land already.” This statement is so patently false, it doesn’t deserve an answer.

    “The 2015-16 city budget is almost a third of a billion dollars, and people are complaining about a figure that is less than one third of one percent of that, and doing away with an entity that enhances the city. I thought our leaders were all about moving forward, and growing this city. Why do some now choose to tear down an institution instead of improving it as an asset? Bottom line is, one can get the lawyers and accountants involved and spout all they want about legal ramifications, but that’s just legacy work, isn’t it?”

    To (mis)quote Everett Dirksen, “A million here, a million there…pretty soon you are talking about real money.” Shall we phone up the Norwalk school board and ask them if they wouldn’t just love to have Norwalk or the state cough up a million bucks to augment their special education program? Would the golfers still have a golf course if we didn’t forgive the loan? Of course (pardon the pun) they would, because the city has committed to it by securing the land for open space use, borrowing money to build and improve the course, and creating a municipal entity to manage it. We are talking about a “want” here, not a “need”.

    Dismissing the legal foundations as “legacy” would be a profoundly irresponsible thing for our city to do, perhaps even criminal. I would suggest that anybody elected or appointed to a position of authority needs to know better.

    “And when you speak with the Mayor, please ask where he plans to hold his annual Mayors Golf Tournament fundraiser.” Why don’t you call him yourself. (203) 854-7701

  29. Kevin Di Mauro

    @Wineshine

    Try reading your own words at 8:53 am today,” Kevin, it’s a golf course. Get over it………And by the way, click on the safety on your gun. Your trigger is way too sensitive”.

  30. Wineshine

    Kevin, Really? While I think that 99.99% of readers probably took my comment as the metaphor intended, you either missed it, or chose to take it out of context. Either way, I’m not worried about you shootin’ up the town. Are we clear?

  31. EveT

    Thanks, Debora, for contributing facts and reason to the discussion.
    If only the restaurant management would get their act together.

  32. Wineshine

    Debora, since you took exception to the existence of a walking trail, you can take a look at this:

    http://www.oakhillsgc.com/rest/oak-hills-park-walking-trail-map

    On a separate page, the OHPNAC refers to this area as “existing”. If you find fault with this, you can contact them.

    Beside your misrepresentation, the fact remains that this was never an issue until the driving range proposition met with opposition from the courses neighbors. These are the folks I referred to in the term, “legacy work”. You seem to have mistaken that as well.

  33. Debora

    @wineshine,
    I took exception to the statement that the “opposition” never mentioned the trail. They were regularly using the trail and defending it publicly. They even maintained the trail themselves before OHPA finally decided to dress it up in service of the master plan.

    The latest version of the driving range fight sought originally to wipe out what little acreage there was left in the park that wasn’t already dedicated to golf or tennis, so yes, some people who were paying attention fought it.

    A little history lesson. Back in 2004, OHPA sought to use money already borrowed to build this range and the council said no. Golf was doing a lot better then than it is now and there was no economic case for the driving range then either.

    Despite your continued accusations that i am misrepresenting things, my facts don’t change when you try to refute them. You on the other hand,keep putting words in my mouth and changing what “is” is.

    Here is another “fact” that won’t change either. OHPA was entitled to fund a capital account up to $250,000 a year. Had it done so during the last ten years, it wouldn’t need to ask anyone for money at all.

    One more. If the OHPA had done any independent fundraising at all, those funds would have been exempt from the debt service payments (aka the rent on the lease).

  34. Debora

    @EveT,

    You’re welcome. It’s hard to make an informed contribution to the public debate without information. This arrangement is fairly complicated and it is easy to say things that are technically true, but still misleading (both sides are doing it).

    I got involved originally to protect the last of the woodlands in the park from being taken for the driving range. I have walked the trail that wineshine accuses me of not knowing about.

    The constant impugning of each other’s motives is not helpful.

    OHPA wants to do right by the golfers…that is clear. Those that want the park to include other uses are also trying to do what they (and I) believe is right. Those that are concerned about the finances are also trying to make sure that the City (and the State) are prioritizing responsibly.

    Motivations change, and can be hidden. But the rules governing these decisions are all down on paper. If we don’t honor our commitments when they are already written down, then we don’t have citizen government, we have anarchy. If we constantly forgive debt arrangements to our various municipal authorities, I worry about our ability to continue to qualify for our AAA bond rating.

    Let us hope that cooler heads prevail.

  35. EveT

    Thanks again, Debora. The only other thing I would add is that although contributing to a capital provement fund would have been wise and prudent, it simply may not have been possible. It’s like saying that if I put aside $5K a year for x number of years, I could afford a new car without taking out a loan. But if I’m just making enough to pay my current bills then I won’t be able to set that “car fund” money aside.
    It appears that OHPA is now investing in the course to make it as profitable as it can be. Maybe in another year or two they will be in a position to build up a capital improvement fund.

  36. Debora

    EveT,
    No quarrel with that at all, except to point out that the lease gave OHPA their first six years with no payments on the debt. We know of at least two years in which loans were needed as well.

    If 8 out of 18 years they couldn’t afford a capital fund AND the debt service, that’s pretty much exhibit A in why the decision to put a municipal authority in charge of the park may not have been the right call.

Leave a Reply

Secret Link