Good catch aggie, never looked at their new charge under the board. Seemed to me they had their hands full trying to get their arms around looking to the future. Looking at golf course maintenance barns may have some value, just not sure what it might be. I do like the second portion of your post relative to their duties. That one is clear, concise and hopefully it will be the main thrust of what they are actually doing. The biggest problem now is the amount of committed monies to projects in the short term and how quickly they can build up their reserves after all the money they and will be dumping into golf.
I was on the board when we approved the 4.5 million dollar buy-out. It made sense because owning the system was far more attractive than the 20 year lease. The only problem was that as a non-profit we couldn't buy the system and get the tax advantages from the rebates and other incentives. We had to lease for a time (i think it was 66 months). As you noted that price has climbed by near on a million dollars. Perhaps that issue belongs in the Accountability thread eh? I'm more concerned about the degradation of the panels and whether the inverters are holding up like they are supposed to. Again, we don't own these yet and they should be covered under the lease/maintenance clause in the contract. I've been told that may not be the case, but have no idea if it is true or not. That's where transparency would play a much more important role. One of the best things about recording the various meetings is they are now open to being seen and replayed at one's leisure. Far harder to bury an ugly meeting before a small crowd with no video don't you think?
Thought i should revisit this topic, only because the Long Range Planning Committee met again after the summer break. Being off 3 months, with committee members being assigned "homework" and the Mountainview Rec Center town hall meetings scheduled, i assumed they would have a mountain of ground to cover. Silly me. You can read the summary here, but i will spare you the click and tell you the meeting lasted a whopping 25 minutes (according to the summary, i hear it was actually a third less). Included in that time frame was a historical presentation by Ben Roloff. No disrespect to anyone involved, but is this really what the board was trying to accomplish when they reestablished it? Seriously gang, is this the best you all can do? If i didn't know better, it looks more like you are trying to insure it fails than to use it to help shape the future agenda for the community. And then people wonder why i get crazed about how the board functions and what their real goals are?
