My dog is honesty and integrity. That is the point to the use of funds. Could the Board legally spend the insurance proceed - I guess - and they did… Should they have?? With the financial position the POA is in??

Better discretion may have been called for instead of spending it like there was no tomorrow. Which really illustrates what you will have with the new capital fund!! This is the community’s blueprint on how things will play out.

Accepting the fact we don’t live in a perfect world, do we REALLY need everyone of these things. Our personal lives and spending budgets are dictated by our means (unless you are subprime and due to get your gov’t bailout for irresponsibilty).

Do we as a commuity on a whole (not a select portion) need a Village Hall?

I am not saying the community doesn’t need more $$ in the coffers. IMO we should have zero debt. But maybe we should be grown up about paying/reserving as property owners.

If the fund is set up as suggested in a painless way to new proprty owners (and should be a flat fee as the access to the facilities/ upgrades are equal to each individual property not by the value of one’s property), the community has seen how a board with next to zero accountbility will spend it. Not on needs but wants and desires.

Another thought…the upgraded facilities you would hope would’t cost more to operate, but what about the new facilities/expansions. We don’t live responsibly now as a community…

We all came here for different reasons, but wonder how those feelings may have changed.

Norton

That being said, it would appear the board took the original $10,665,000 budget and added the $3+M insurance proceeds to it to come to a Nov 2007 figure of $13,430,000 for the 7 amenity projects plus contingency. The overwhelming majority of increases occurred with the clubhouse (no surprise here). The original November 2005 projection was for $6,895,000 as a clubhouse total. In Nov 2007, the clubhouse total was $10,433,000, including 1) $800K for the added cart barn, 2) $900K for additional design/testing/legal/architect fees, and 3) $600K in additional site work/road costs.

On the other projects Golf costs went over by $40K, the North Gate went over by $43K, Tennis over by $85K. The origianl contingency fund of $1.1M has been reduced to $350K.

If I assume it was OK for the board to use the insurance proceeds to increase scope of the projects by $3M without formally addressing a membership that voted for a $10.6M project, it would appear budgeting is on a reasonable track.

1. How much money is really needed from the CIF projects?

I count 5 or more multi-million dollar new, or replacement, buildings listed in the post above.

Our new Sconti restaurant was priced, and approved by the membership, at $4,000,000. It is now approaching $12,000,000.

2. Again, how much money is really needed for the buildings listed in the justification for the CIF?

3. Don’t we need to know and to understand the reasons for the new Sconti restaurant over-runs before we approve any more money for additional buildings?

4. Would the LTFC members please read Promise #5 of The Six Promises? (Link to The Six Promises web site is listed on the Home Page.)

5. Would the LTFC provide the property owners with an “independent” “full disclosure” audit report on all of the costs of the new Sconti restaurant and include a full disclosure accounting for the reasons for the over-runs (and also include the POA Board’s “Executive” Summary)?

Until the LTFC steps forward and asks the POA Board for a full disclosure accounting on the Sconti restaurant rebuild costs, and until the information called for in question 5 above is given to the property owners, I will vote no on any new income sources for this POA Board.