Highlights and Lowlights
Link to the YouTube recording.
·
Approval of the Treasurer’s Report
o
Director McAdam asked management if the Carry
Forward money, which is currently 2.7 M more than last year, could be
illustrated differently. Management
agreed to publish it on a quarterly basis.
· Acceptance of the Management Report
·
Director Collins asked if management was
assured that not draining the Lagoon at Viewpoint Lake while fixing the water
seepage issue might come back to haunt them in the future.
o
GM Cook thought that in order to drain the
lagoon, all they would have to do was shut off the waterfall; they would not
have to drain the entire lake.
·
Director McAdam asked if it would be possible
to break down the 84.4% of rounds played by cardholders and their guests into a
figure that illustrated members versus nonmembers to assure that the members are
getting the times that they need and want to play over nonmembers.
o
Brian Duthu said that could be included in
future reports.
o
President Lehrer asked that if this breakout
was going to be shown for golf, should it also include all other sports. She
reminded Director McAdam that in the future she might want to make this into a motion.
·
Director Lenefsky gave an update on the Ad-hoc
Bylaw Committee. They have begun meeting
weekly on Mondays at 1pm in the Executive Meeting Room at Lakeview Center.
·
An in-depth, well-researched PowerPoint Slide
show was presented by Long Range Planning Committee’s Steven Oaks illustrating
a particular brand of fitness machines and the need for Sun City to provide
this type of equipment to its members.
o
Director Lenefsky made a motion to try a few
pieces of this equipment.
o
It was brought up that there is no
infrastructure in place at any of the facilities that could handle these
machines.
o
GM Cook asked if it was in the best interest
of the Corporation to spend this money out of the Carry Forward monies. He regards that as a Rainy-Day Fund and is
afraid a precedent will be established of working outside the budget.
o
He asked to wait and have this place in the
budget for next year.
o
Various remarks from each of the Directors
ensued: Allan, do we wish to stay status quo on this issue?; GM Cook, do we
want to compete with gyms and other types of facilities when they already have the
machines out there?; Director Fimmel, put it as a budget item for next year. It’s important to start now bringing in this
type of equipment to attract the younger of our 55+ audience; Director Collins
asked why the Carry Forward monies couldn’t be used; he said we already have
two reserve accounts; Director Nowakowski said to follow procedure; President
Lehrer said she saw a need, we’re already behind but wasn’t sure we would have
the bandwidth.
o
She asked where this machinery could be set up
and it was decided that the new Mountain View center made the most sense.
o
The Motion passed on a 6 yes, 3 No vote. (Yes
– Ege, Collins, Fimmel, Wilson, Lenefsky, Lehrer; No – Adkins, McAdam,
Nowakowski).
o
GM Cook then asked what his budget would be
and after discussion, $125,000 was mentioned.
·
Director McAdam moved that the existing 90-day
moratorium on the Mountain View project be extended for 30 days.
o
At least 20 members spoke on the topic with
the majority leaning toward voting down this motion.
o
Director McAdam cited her reasons for asking
for this extension; She stressed the Six Values she believes a Board of
Directors needs to serve under. They are Quality, Service, Communicate,
Cooperation, Integrity, and Fiscal Responsibility.
o
She maintained she felt like unless this
moratorium was passed, all six of these values were being broken.
o
She also said that we were planning to rip out
items that didn’t need to be ripped out;
o
that we should use the data that we have for
driving this discussion.
o
Other Directors wondered if the projected
proposal did indeed fit on the property.
·
Director Lenefsky who proposed the original 90-day
moratorium asked GM Cook what will the next steps be on April 11th.
o
GM Cook said that he and Mike Wiprud, Building
and Infrastructure would have to update the proposal; they would have to sit
down with the contractors; that it would take 12 – 18 months to do the design;
that interested parties (clubs, members) should be brought in to consult on
what they needed.
o
Ege asked if in Mike’s opinion the Board had
completed a thoughtful process.
o
Director Wilson called for a Point of Order.
o
The extension of the moratorium was defeated
by a 7 to 2 vote (Ege, Adkins, Collins, Fimmel, Wilson, Lenefsky, and Lehrer
voted against it; McAdam and Nowakowski voted for it.
·
Under new business, Director Nowakowski added
a motion to temporarily remove the Viewpoint Lake daily fishing limit allowance
since the lake was going to be drained, and we didn’t want to endanger any of
the fish in doing so.
o
The vote was unanimous.
o
The vote was also unanimous to waive the
second reading.
·
Director Collins mentioned that the Nixon
group would be having a Shred-A-Thon tomorrow and members should bring their
documents to their office for shredding.
Meeting Adjourned
Submitted by:
Jean Totten, Advisory Panel Sun City Advocates
2 comments:
I watched in stunned silence as the meeting unfolded. I didn't care one way or the other. The simple reality is we need to spend the 1.5 million dollars on the architectural drawings so we could put the damned thing out for bid. And to be clear, the comment was made, a minimum of 18 months to 2 years before the work even starts. For some of us, that's a lifetime.
The most shocking comment was from president Lehrer where she told us point blank, we use "bogus numbers." To try and be reasonable, they have argued in the past, the numbers they post on PIF budgets are just "place holders." The problem of course is this; when are the numbers accurate and when are they just "bogus?"
The 27 million dollar price tag isn't chump change, it is nearly 4 years worth of the PIF money collected. We already know, the Viewpoint lake proposal was passed at $6 and went up 33% four months later (due to inflation). We also know the general manager pointedly told us, not another penny will be asked for to do the lake.
The Viewpoint lake rebuild will be a great test on accuracy. The meeting they held with home owners on the lake was very good. The projection was for an 18 month start to finish project. That means the lake redo will be done before they even start the Mountainview renovation.
We'll know if the 8 million dollars was the real deal or just more "bogus" numbers. We'll also find out if their projections on time lines are close or just whispering in the wind.
Something else that I find interesting is the Bylaw that now says, at the Annual Membership Meeting, all matters relating to the business affairs of the corporation shall be referred to the Board for study. It use to say that it would only be referred to the Board for study if the President requested to do so?
So it looks like it depended on the mind-set of the President and whether or not he/she was on the side of the Membership or was he/she on the side of retaining corporate power?
I'm not in favor of either option. I think the Members deserve carte blanche to be able to make motions and amendments and vote at their own meeting!
Post a Comment