And now we will decide . . .

Since the launch of the initial Creek nine presentation, discussion on all sides of the proposal has been extensive.  (1) (2) (3)  Meanwhile leadership and management continually promote the project across all available media.  And yet, with delivery of the ballot package only days away and based on information available today, questions and many loose ends remain regarding this $2.3 million renovation project.

Breaking it down . . .

The fundamental request for an itemized breakdown of the components is reasonable yet remains unanswered.  Understanding that other enhancements represent 15% or $345,000 of the project total, what percentage or dollar total is attributed to:

• • drainage
  • irrigation, and
  • greens

As stated earlier, (1) (4) this author fully supports replacement of the irrigation system and drainage components, but the necessity of the remaining components are questioned.   And unfortunately, it does not appear that anything less than approval of the entire project will appear on the ballot.  This is a valid request, and this information should be readily available.

And why is this breakdown important? . .

While we have been told that the Creek nine components are fully depreciated and will not require an asset write down, the following points must be emphasized.

• • Power point slides utilized in the presentation and on the Creek 9 website demonstrate the greens to be in the early mid range of expected life cycles. (2)
  • The 2016 reserve study indicates an estimated replacement date for the greens at 2030. (5)  For whatever reason, leadership’s vision for replacement appears to have changed significantly since 2016.

Regardless, each property owner must decide if they believe it is reasonable to replace the Creek greens at this time.  Knowledge of the cost of the green replacements would be useful information in making that decision.

And what about the Cherokee and Choctaw courses . . .

According to the 2016 reserve study, both the Cherokee and Choctaw courses have irrigation systems scheduled for replacement in 2023 . . . long, long before the estimated replacement date of the Creek greens at 2030.

• • What will come of those systems if we fund the Creek 9 green replacements prematurely?

Additional confusion comes from the leader of the Creek 9 initiative’s declaration at the August 28th Community Coffee  that projects dealing with the Cherokee or Choctaw nines would not be up for consideration in the near term as other master plan projects would be taking precedence.  (6a)  Although sounding  like good news on the surface, is that not an example of leadership deferring necessary maintenance?

Perhaps the forty plus year old irrigation and drainage issues for all the courses should have been addressed while deferring green renovation and course enhancements to later years when an actual business plan and financial projections might also be available.  For that matter, perhaps that scenario would have been met with less property owner resistance.

And as a side note . . .

Consider that it is quite possible and even likely that the irrigation and drainage components could be replaced without closing the course for any significant length of time or loss of revenue.

Course renderings provide additional details . . .

The recent addition of Bergin’s course renderings to the creek9.org website provides a visual of the proposed changes along with added detail.  Although impressive and beautiful, the renderings along with the supporting narrative bring forth more questions.  It is obvious that the scope of the work is extensive as it not only includes the reshaping of greens and moving of others, but it also includes enhancements such as changes and additions to tee boxes, changes and reshaping of bunkers, selective clearing of trees and dredging of some areas of the lake.  One might ask how all those enhancements can possibly be funded with only $345k?

Structure of the construction contract remains unclear and problematic . . .

The precise role of Bergin in the Creek 9 project remains somewhat murky as an article in the September issue of Smoke Signals reverts back to the general contractor distinction. (7)  However, utilizing the clarified arrangement as described by the Creek 9 Initiative, Bergin will be functioning as “construction supervisor” rather than “general contractor” while the POA will be placing contracts with the subcontractors.  (8)

Meanwhile, the POA general manager asserts something entirely different by noting that one of the golf course construction firms that bid the job will function as the general contractor.  (6b)

Details are critical.

So much money and so little information . . .

And now, quite unbelievably, as property owners, we are being asked to vote our approval for a $2.3 million project with:

• • no business plan or financial projections,

• • no itemization of the details of the project,

• • no clear consensus or understanding of the general contractor distinction,

• • no written commitment of how the course might be utilized in the future by non-golfers (walking, etc.), and

• • no information regarding increases in membership and green fees for golfers that will be implemented by BJL once the renovation is complete.

All this with results of the updated reserve study, other master plan proposals (9) and conclusions regarding the Petit diving expedition somewhere out there in the very near future yet beyond the conclusion of this vote.  All of these factors make any informed decision virtually impossible.  Consider this, and pass it on.

Please vote – and please vote No . . .

. . . . .

Please feel free to share your comments regarding these suggestions or contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion.  Likewise, should you wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification.   Meanwhile . . . take care and stay safe.

Patricia Cross (10438 Big Canoe)

References:

1) “Seriously lacking Initiative”, August 17^th, 2020, bcmatters.org

2) https://creek9.org

3) “Deceptively lacking Initiative”, August 24^th, 2020, bcmatters.org

4) “About that $5,000 Fee”, November 18th, 2019, bcmatters.org

5) Big Canoe POA – Reserve Management Plan, August 7, 2016 –

(POAWebsite>login>POA>Reports and Studies>Reserve Study 2016, Pages 19-20)

6) Creek 9 Community Coffee, August 28th, 2020, a) 1:09:00 b) 1:01:30

(POAwebsite>login>POA>meetings>videos>….

7) “September Vote expected for Creek rejuvenation”, September 2020, Smoke Signals, Pg. One

8) “A response to BC matters”, pgs. 3-4, at https://creek9.org

9) Notes from Board working session on August 17th, 2020

(POAwebsite>login>POA>meetings>BoardDocuments>WorkSessionNotesAugust17)