A Modest Proposal for the Amenities Vote

Well, after the first amenities presentations, it's clear that:

THE BOARD HAS THE AMENITIES; BACK ON TRACK! | image tagged in train off tracks | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

A meme's worth a thousand words, so here are a couple of memes:

The decision the Board wants the Owners to think is their only option:

The decision that many--probably most--Owners actually want to make:

The Board's caught between a rock and a hard place. The Board likes to pretend that the decision of doing the entire amenities project at once is "settled." But they refuse to give the Owners the choice of doing the projects one-at-a-time. Here's their problem: if "everyone" wants to do the projects all at once, wouldn't everyone vote to do them all at once if they had a choice between everything at once and one-at-a-time? The answer is obvious to everyone who isn't on the Board.

Frankly, the Board's public position that if the "raid the capital fund and do everything at once" proposal is voted down they'll do nothing this year is gaslighting--pure and simple. If the Board's proposal is voted down, either the Board will propose doing the Dye first, or I'll get 30 signatures and force a vote on doing the Dye first as soon as the Board's proposal is voted down. Don't get stampeded into making a  false choice--just because the Board claims that the common sense alternative has been considered and rejected by "everyone"--it hasn't. In an extremely non-scientific poll (at the Dye Clubhouse bar earlier this week), seven guys wanted to do the Dye first and one guy (not me) didn't want to do anything. I'm sure that many Owners do want to do everything at once. But I'm pretty sure that even more Owners want to do the Dye first and reassess when we see whether the Dye project meets expectations. I'm even willing to throw in the tennis center in Phase I.

Here are some questions that every Owner should be asking:

  • Who has been accountable for the 34% increase in the project cost from $14.8 million to $19.9 million (excluding contingencies in both costs)? How were they held accountable?
  • Has the so-called "guaranteed maximum price" contract ("GMP") been negotiated?
    • If not, how in the world do we know what it means?
  • What will be excluded from the GMP contract?
    • Everyone who watches HGTV knows that every major reconstruction project runs into snags--who pays? Mold? Structural issues?
  • What other capital projects will the Club be faced with in the next five years?
    • Roads and paths?
    • Leisure trails?
    • Golf course maintenance (irrigation systems? Nick greens?)
    • The Board has an annual list of prospective projects. Maybe they should disclose that list to the Owners? Because of the capital and reserve funds are drawn down to pay for the amenities, the money will have to come from an assessment or a borrowing?
Distracted Boyfriend Meme | THE BOARD; MAINTAIN EXISTING ASSETS; NEW AMENITIES | image tagged in memes,distracted boyfriend | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
  • What are the Board's plans to raise the capital contribution (currently $40,000)?
    • The proposed changes to the governance documents provide the Board with the authority to raise the capital contribution as high as they like.
    • Please note that money doesn't grow on trees--increases in the capital contribution will result in a lower sales price to selling Owners, even though the check is written by the buyer. If you're planning on selling your house soon, you should be worried about writing this blank check to the Board.
Here's my proposal for a ballot:

Option One: do the Dye, the Athletic Center, and the Tennis Center for $21 million, as proposed by the Board.

Option Two: Do the Dye and the Tennis Center first and pay for them out of the $20,000 assessment already approved.

Option Three: Do nothing and return the assessment.

If 2/3 of the Owners don't vote for Option One, a vote for Option One is deemed to be a vote for Option Two. Then the Owners decide.

This modest proposal is such a crazy idea, it may actually work!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Seawall Settlement: Promises made--promises kept?

As noted in two recent posts ( here  and  here ), there are a number of issues involved in the seawall settlement known only by the Board and the 12 Owners who have sued the Club. A video exists of Keith Wandell making an unequivocal promise to submit any settlement relating to the seawall to the Owners for a vote. Fortunately, the By-Laws empower the Board President to call a special meeting of the Owners--with or without the concurrence of the Board. Here are some things to ponder: -     No details on the settlement have been made available to the Owners. -     The Owners are already on the hook for the 1/3 of the J-Lot seawall owned by the Club. The settlement will deal with how much of the remaining 2/3 of the costs are paid by the Club. -       There are three types of costs involved: (1) past maintenance and repair costs; (2) the reserve for future maintenance and repair costs that should be established; and (3) future...
Read more

No excuses. A correction and an apology.

When I arrived at the United States Naval Academy on June 30, 1969, I was told that you can make it through life with five "basic responses": (1) yes, sir; (2) no, sir; (3) aye aye, sir; (4) I'll find out, sir; and (5) no excuse, sir. Fifty three years later I need to revert to my basic responses. On Saturday night, I published a post stating that the Board's statement at the annual meeting that the Third Quarter Financial Results had been published was a "lie." In fact, the Third Quarter Financial Results had been published, but were mis-labeled. In any event, an administrative error is not a "lie." I was wrong to refer to the administrative error in posting the Third Quarter Financials as a "lie" and wrong to use a sarcastic post to do so, and I have no excuse for making that post. I unreservedly apologize for the post. It was premature and unfair and I very much regret publishing it. I have deleted the post, but this post will remain o...
Read more

The Board Announces New Assessments

On Monday, November 29, the Colleton River Club Board announced increases in assessments and fees for both the Owners and Invitational Program ("IP") participants. For 2022, the annual assessments will be: Full Members:                  $23,565 Lifestyle Members:          $15,874 IP (Local):                        $18,000                   IP (National):                   $14,625 The assessments for Full and Lifestyle Members do not include the $20,000 assessment approved for the amenities in March 2021. Owners who elected to pay the special assessment under the five-year installment plan will pay an annual assessment of $28,015 (Full) or $20,324 (Lifestyle). Please recall that IP participants do not pay special assessments. Here are some fun facts: Full Dues (2017): ...
Read more