HLRGazette Archives

Relive some of our best stories.

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size


E-mail Print PDF

 In order to prevent this permit from being approved prior to public concerns being expressed we must write letters to TCEQ requesting a public hearing. If we do not write letter's requesting a public hearing this permit will be granted. Please address your letter of concern to:

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Office of the Chief Clerk
MC 105, TCEQ
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087

RE: Permit Application and Intent to Obtain Water Quality Permit
Proposed Permit NO. WQ0014820001
EPA I.D. NO. TX0129739
Wood County, Texas.

 ForeSeasons: To Be Or Not To Be?

That is the question, but what's the answer?

Most HLR property owners are not overly anxious to close the doors on the Fore Seasons, but they surely do want the bleeding of red ink to stop.
It's important to devote at least as much time to evaluating the possible closure of the Fore Seasons, as we did in opening the Fore Seasons.

Most agree the worse case scenario would be to close the Fore Seasons, only to find that we had not stopped the hemorrhaging.

Some proponents of closing the Fore Seasons forecast savings of as much as $20,000 per month would ensue as a result.

That sounds good, but first assumes all of the $30,000 per month losses are being generated by the Fore Seasons section, which is not true.

In calendar year 2005, the 19th Hole lost $94,000. (After subtracting prepaid items relative to Fore Seasons. Ref: Holly Lake Ranch administration Budget Summaries for 2005.)

That is an average of $7,833.33 per month loss for the 19th Hole, before there was a Fore Seasons.

Since January 1, 2006 the two restaurant sections have been viewed as one restaurant operation for accounting purposes.

However, conventional wisdom is that the 19th Hole most likely continues to lose approximately $8,000 per monthly.

So now we are looking at losses for the Fore Seasons section at $14,000 per month or less. There would be a reduction of perhaps 90% in labor, 90% in food costs but 100% in revenues. Many expenses items would still remain, such as electricity which runs about $2,000 per month. None of the above items or certain intangibles were ever taken into consideration by the proponents of closure of Fore Seasons. Proponents favoring closure of Fore Seasons would do well to weigh all of the factors into the mix if they want to reflect an honest and realistic savings projection. In the final analysis, the option of a restaurant redeemable voucher system, might be a more attractive alternative on the road towards a break even facility.

M. L. "Marv" Myers, Chairperson
2006 Food Service Work Group

Last Updated on Friday, 24 April 2009 14:19  

The only searchable local paper.