This issue warrants a separate thread: Look at what's up for a vote at the January BOD meeting: I MOVE for the release of $1.5M in Preservation and Improvement Funds for the previously approved PIF project to include demolition and re-construction of the Lakes East/West golf course and grounds maintenance facilities. Discuss
Before we get too far afield here, let me clear up a couple of things so we are all on the same page. Just so you know R, the board never answers questions on here, i've tried a dozen times. Aggie initially posted this expenditure had been moved up from 2024, so when i saw this thread i went to the last long range planning budget posted from 2016. You can find it here. If you scroll to the bottom of the page you will see the 2024 allocation was for the East/West Lakes golf car storage/snack shop/patio rebuild. That one came from a board/member exchange when a bunch of golfers from East/West showed up and wanted improvements to their patio similar to Riverview and the North course. The easy way to placate people is to put it on the plan well into the future. That was 1.2 million and is still there. The move they will be voting on in January is for the Lakes East/West golf course maintenance building. If you look at the linked plan, you will note all of these golf course maintenance buildings are to be rebuilt, but they were left open as TBD (to be determined). They had projected costs of $750K. This one is for double that. I know that maintenance building is in shambles and needs to be rebuilt. That's why i said, they always come to the board with dire warnings of eminent danger and exploding costs if action isn't taken and the board without exception blesses it. It is one of the reasons golf expenditures both from PIF and capital spending got so bloated. When we write here we tend to assume readers know what we are talking about. Rather than plowing ahead, let me try and enlighten those not familiar with how the RCSC shows PIF distributions. These days we (the RCSC) holds an annual meeting during which they release a pie chart of where the PIF dollars has been spent. In it there are two allocations (if memory serves me), one for facilities and one for golf. The good news is, it is only PIF dollars that fall into pie, so what you see is actually where the Preservation and Improvement Fund monies are spent by the RCSC. The bad news is somewhere along the line someone determined the golf maintenance buildings should fall on the facilities side of the equation. All of which prompts my question for the Board (that will never be answered on this site): Why in the world would golf maintenance buildings be allocated towards the facilities side and not the golf side of the ledger?
The last statement on that linked page is as follows: Lakes East/West – expand snack shop, patio and golf cart storage 1,200,000 I don’t see “Lakes East/West golf course and grounds maintenance facilities.” On that link. Are the Lakes East/West golf course and grounds maintenance facilities the same as “snack shop, patio, and golf cart storage”? Snack shop, patio, and golf cart storage does not say TBD and is scheduled for 2024. Where is the 1.5m number coming from and what does it cover? I thought all expenditures over 750k were to be voted on by the membership or am I thinking of something else.
It isn't on there specifically for Lake East/West SCR, what is there for 2019 is to replace "Golf Maintenance Building TBD." They left them open to the discretion of management. Not that it really matters because none of this Long Range Planning budget means much. as you have noted they are changing it with a motion and vote at the monthly meeting. They still have listed for 2024 expanding the Lakes East/West snack shop, patio and golf storage which is a separate building from the golf maintenance building. PIF expenditures require no vote by anyone other than the board. What the Articles of Incorporation say is the Organization cannot incur indebtedness of 750K without a vote of the membership. The PIF was created so they could pay cash for things and not incur debt, hence avoiding any vote.
Nope, what i am saying is they have cash in hand so as the bills come due, they can pay them, therefore avoiding the vote of the membership. No indebtedness.
This might be a stretch, but if you sign a contract for 1M but only pay a portion of that to start a project, you are indebted whether you have the cash or not.
