1. County Assessor statement ”the highest and best use of the property to be a non-golf course recreational area”. This has been put out in the draft business plan as a statement with no back-up. What other uses has been considered? No supporting documentation of the valuation has been done. I find this incomplete and containing “conflict of interest”. How can the buying party in a transaction also be the independent appraiser. An official appraising of an independent evaluator need to be done and other uses need to be considered, including continued operation as a golf course by another entity than Course Doctors, since they obviously has decided to close the course.At the Village meeting Monday, both Mr. Edney and Mr. Riddle tried to emphasize that this document is just a draft, but at this point, it's the only thing in writing that we have so we have to assume that this is their actual business proposal. I have a pdf of this document, so email me at friendsofhighlandlake@gmail.com if you would like a copy.
2. The soccer complex is not a profitable operation. It has a projected operating loss of $62,731 – $269,938 depending on use of the fields and ability to bill. See the Draft Business plan. Thus the county is entering into an obligation to continue an enterprise that from day one is a loss operation. This is not in line with current plans for overall county economy.
3. The built-in contract of contracting Course Doctors (the seller) to perform the modification from golf course to soccer field seems to me like a “conflict of interest”. The modification activity has in this way been taken out of competitive bidding for public works contract. Still public funds is going to be used for the investment.
4. I question the right of the county to make such a substantial change of use of the land without more detailed scrutiny and a public hearing process. Concerns of traffic, safety, crime prevention, environmental impact due to increased use of fertilizer and lawn chemicals of various kinds, and impact on water usage for irrigation. The soccer field is from these aspects a major departure from the impacts caused by the golf course.
5. The zoning is R-20, this means residential use (not recreational use) with 20 units per acre. It does not automatically include an athletic field. A golf field is not an athletic field. An attorney with land use and real estate as specialty should be engaged in this and review the plans. I think a public hearing process is required from this aspect as well.
6. Barrier zone. Inspecting aerial photography (Google Map and Mapquest can be used to easy review aerial photos of the Park) of Jackson Park and based on a trip through Jackson Park showed me that the housing at Jackson Park is much better shielded with open forest and nature. Only some units at the intersection of Glover Street and Jackson Park Road are more direct exposed to the park. I was astonished by the unsightly 8 ft tall chain link fences that surrounds each field. There was no additional physical barrier installed. Spectators are free to roam the area with no possibility to control. I saw one sheriff’s patrol car (empty) parked at one of the parking lots....
8. A comment in the original article was that the local business will benefit from this soccer field complex addition. Unless other business is than existing (if so what kind of business) is forecasted I do not see the existing business in the vicinity of Highland Lake Road to be of the type that a soccer field audience would be interested of....
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Business plan analysis
From Bo Oscarsson, a good analysis of the Henderson County "Business Plan for the Proposed Highland Lake Park" draft document:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Friends,
ReplyDeleteI tried to respond to Bo Oscarsson’s post on your site but was told that my response exceeded the 300 word limit. The counter at the bottom of Word says I only have 244 words and they all fit nicely into the box on the site. Oh well. So, I am writing you directly in this format including my post below.
I have three sets of questions I need answered before I become a complete fan of the proposed park.
1/ To shield residences why doesn't the proposed park layout include high berms covered with tall fast-growing evergreens to block light and noise pollution and trespasser-deterring prickly plants such as pyracantha, Oregon grape. blackberries, or Rosa Rugosa?
2/ What were the other uses considered for the property? Are there any other buyers interested? Was the property listed? If not, why not? How did the other uses stack up concerning tax revenue vs. benefit to the community?
3/ Why wasn't the park maintenance contract competitively bid and shouldn't it be? Or was it?
However, 1/ There ARE several local businesses that would be positively impacted by the proposed park: Hubba-Hubba Smokehouse, the Exxon Cafe and gas station, the Flat Rock Village Bakery, and the Flat Rock Wood Room Restaurant, and maybe even Pita Express.
2/ Golf IS a sport and golf courses ARE an athletic use of land. Anyone who has ever had a golf ball break a window will tell you there ARE drawbacks to living backed up to the course.
3/ There WERE five public hearings held by Parks and Rec. asking for community input dating back to last August and covered by the newspaper. 4/ All public parks are "loss operations" unless you add in the inevitable increase in property values due to walkways, bike trails, playgrounds, green space, and, yes, soccer fields.
Thank you,
Pam Danz, Flat Rock