Seriously lacking initiative . . .

With the renovation of our signature golf course on the radar for some time, the day has finally arrived for property owners to cast our votes on September 8th for or against the proposed project.

While we have been struggling with pandemic restrictions and other issues, a group of eight property owners, assisted by three staff members, has been working since May developing a proposal or educational campaign  known as the Creek 9 Initiative.  (1)  It’s fancy.  It’s glitzy.

It is our POA resources being directed to a marketing and propaganda campaign to solicit our favorable vote.

But this is not an argument about golf.  It is a discussion of processes and priorities . . .

As has been noted by this writer previously, it is acknowledged that the irrigation systems and rusted pipes are due for replacement.  (2)  Absolutely no argument there.  But what is important here, is that the replacement of those essential components does not necessitate the renovation of  other components of the course, and an itemized breakdown has not been provided to determine the dollars allocated to essential vs. non-essential or renovation.

And while presently unable to verify, if the 2016 reserve study coincides with the depreciation schedules, the fairways, greens and bunkers would not be fully depreciated until later years (2025 – 2030) (3a) and could require a write-off of significant dollars.  The book value of these components should be verified as that scenario does not reflect an efficient use of our resources and must be given consideration in the approval of the project.

Beyond the glitz and power point slides . . .

We learn that we know little more than the proposed cost of $2.3 million (4a).  The lack of actual detail or information presented to property owners for a project of this magnitude is frankly shocking.  Lengthy video presentations are no substitute for written specifications, itemizations of cost and RFPs.

Although the board and BJL jointly participated in the selection of the golf course construction firm,  the actual project was put out to bid by Bill Bergin rather than the POA as he will be acting as the architect, project manager AND general contractor.  (1) (4)  Bergin obtained seven bids “ranging from $2.2 – $2.8 million”. (5)  Unfortunately, there is no other mention or evidence of three bids for the general contractor as is required by board policy and procedure.   (Note:  With Bergin chosen to act as the general contractor, the construction contract will be between Bergin and the POA, rather than one of the subcontractors and the POA.)

This unusual combination (architect, project manager and general contractor) not only creates a potential conflict of interest, it also raises additional questions.

Where exactly are the three bids for the general contractor? . .

• Were all requirements of Procedure 153.1 (6) followed pertaining to the bid process?
• Further, is the Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal (RFP) available for property owner review to determine, for example, the breakdown for irrigation, pipes and renovation of the #5 and #6 holes. (7)
• Is a draft of the construction contract available?
• Where and what is Bergin’s fee?

Further, according to a recent Inside the Gates article (8), Bergin has selected Green Irrigation Solutions to design a modern and reliable system.   This is even more confusing as this appears to be a second vendor.  What is the cost of this component and is it in addition to the bids received from the golf course construction contractors?

An interesting read . . .

The August 5th closed work session notes (5) bring forth additional details, and one must wonder if the terms of the contract were excluded from the RFP or invitation to bid as the board voted to “pursue contractor negotiations”.  Typical commercial contracts include items like retainage, required insurance limits, draw schedules, warranty information and any requirements for performance bonds.   Further the notes indicated that additional engineering work and detailed design drawings would not be completed until after the property owner vote.  Seriously, how can any contractor provide a “firm-fixed-price bid” (1) without all of the aforementioned information? 

And what about the 2010 ADA requirements when altering or renovating a golf course . . .

Think about it.

“We already have the money” (4b) . . .

This was a recurring message throughout the presentation with it being noted that the Board Designated Cash-Capital Fund would have an approximate year end balance of $2.2 million.  This continual reference seems to illuminate leadership’s possible motivation for transferring all available cash to this fund throughout the year while deferring road paving and other essential capital expenditures  (9) and even transferring the proceeds from real estate sold at a loss. (10)  It is definitely easier to obtain that affirmative vote if property owners can be convinced “we already have the money”.  In actuality, the additional assessment targeted for master plan projects will account for only $952k of that $2.2 million year end balance, and the POA will be playing catch up for sure on deferred projects in 2021.

Problems on the horizon . . .

In addition, leadership and the community is presently faced with several issues which should be considered and resolved prior to approving any $2.3 million capital expenditure.

• • Results from the updated Reserve Study are still pending.  

Without this study, the appropriate funding level of our restricted Capital Reserve Fund  and/or amount of cash that should remain available for the replacement of our currently obligated capital components can not be determined.

• • Publication of the updated GeoSynTech report regarding the condition of Petit Dam.

“The dam in Big Canoe has been reported having conditions with soft spots/damp sites cited near the spillway.  GeoSynTech has been contacted to research the conditions.  This work will require decompression devices with the divers working some 99 feet down to uncover the inspection site under layers of sediment.”  (11)

Should this problem require immediate repairs to the spillway, the obvious financial impact would be huge.  In fact, according to the 2012 Reserve Study, replacement of the spillway was scheduled for 2017 at an estimated cost of $2.5 million.  (12)  For whatever reason, when the Reserve Study was updated in 2016 by another vendor, the scheduled replacement was deferred to 2053.  (3b)  As these vendors rely on information provided by management, it would be interesting to understand the reason and logic for making that change.

• • Bocce Court project deemed unusable long term.

And lastly, a blistering analysis was provided by the Audit Committee at the July 27th closed work session regarding failures to follow procedure, obtain bids and missteps of the board during the 2019 construction of the bocce courts.  (11)  This analysis was aptly followed up by the general manager at the open work session explaining the procedures that would be followed for constructing a new bocce  facility and any  future capital projects.   Given the original $133k bocce project may have to be scrapped, it is imperative that those same mistakes not be repeated on the Creek 9 project.   Unfortunately, the lack of substantive details and information along with questions posed by this writer alone, give the Creek 9 project the potential of becoming a repeat of past mistakes.

And what if the proposal doesn’t pass . . .

Most importantly, as property owners, we should not be fearful that failure to vote yes will result in catastrophic failure and damage to the course.  Instead, the FAQ section on the Creek 9 initiative website clearly states that “significant repairs to the infrastructure of the Creek 9 Golf Course will be made regardless of the outcome of this ballot initiative.”  (1) (5) 

All that said, a simple No vote will eliminate renovations that may be unnecessary, possible ADA complications and other bells and whistles without compromising the infrastructure and appropriate maintenance of the course.  Consider this, and

Please vote No.

. . . . .

Please feel free to share your comments on this site 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. https://creek9.org/

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

3. Big Canoe POA – Reserve Management Plan, August 7, 2016 (a) pgs. 19-20 (b) pg. 30 (POAWebsite>login>POA>Reports and Studies>Reserve Study 2016)

4. Creek 9 Initiative Presentation, August 12^th, 2020, a) 39:05, b) 48:00, 1:09:50, 1:10:25(POAwebsite>login>POA>meetings>videos>….)
5. Notes from Board working session on August 5^th, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (POAwebsite>login>POA>meetings>BoardDocuments>WorkSessionNotesAugust5)
6. Big Canoe Policy No. 153.1, “Capital Expenditures and Competitive Bid Requirements” , Approved September 19^th, 2019 (POAwebsite>login>POA>GoverningDocuments>BoardDocuments>BoardofDirectorsPolicies&Procedures)
7. https://www.insidethegates.org/2020/01/16/golf-course-improvements-necessary-important/
8. “Keeping our Golf Course Green and Healthy”, August 2020, Inside the Gates, pg. 23 https://www.bigcanoepoa.org/files/ITG_2020_08.pdf
9. “The Metamorphosis of our Capital Funding”, July 7^th, 2020, bcmatters.org
10. “Hubbard Road Revisited”, May 26^th, 2020, bcmatters.org
11. Monday Board Meeting Minutes, July 27^th, 2020 (POAwebsite>login>POA>meetings>BoardDocuments>WorkSessionNotesJuly27)
12. Replacement Reserve Report 2012 (POAwebsite>login>POA>DocumentArchives>Reports&Studies>Reserve Study2012)