Reply To: 2024 BOD Election: Time for Change – Let’s be real with facts!!!

#4815
rsfposter
Participant

Thanks for your perspective, and some background that is new to me, some thoughts here…

  • The PPP loan discussion has been hashed and rehashed to conclusion. It’s time to move on and especially since two of the Board Members in position when the Board was in power are part of that faction that constantly stirs the pot and friends of the authors.

Agree

  • It should be noted that 100% of the Golf Course renovation was financed and paid for BY GOLF CLUB MEMBERS. Not a dime was paid by RSFA Members

Agree

  • What has transpired from the renovation is a significant increase in the average home value in the Ranch compared to neighboring communities, an increase in transaction activity, an increase in the interest in joining the Golf Club.  The reason – Golf Course Renovation that no RSF Association Members paid for…

Sure the renovation made for a more attractive course, but correlation is not always causation with regard to Covenant home values and transactions vs competing areas like Fairbanks, Crosby, etc. Can you share specific granular data? The ‘new members’ section of The Divot is quiet over the last year so don’t get the sense there is a sustained boost in membership from the renovation.

  • Member Assessment rate increase has been documented for months!! It had been at 14c for years. Anyone heard of “inflation”?

The total assessment = property value X rate. The property values and resulting revenue to the Association have increased as a result of inflation, so inflation is already reflected in the property values. Any base rate increase needs to be justified by reasons other than inflation.

  • It should be noted that over 40% of the revenue at the restaurant is from Non Golf Club Members… Why should all the loses of this community benefit be solely borne by the golfers?

Agree it’s a community asset, though given over 60% of members are non golf the 40% of revenue is low, which I guess is expected in the sense that a number of restaurant bookings are after golf rounds, so golf members will over index.

  • OD Scott Thurman, golf club member, repeatedly states in all BOD meeting of his fiduciary responsibility being to the RSFA ahead of the Golf Club. To the surprise of many at the Golf Club he was the one passing a motion during a BOD Meeting to reduce a planned contribution on Restaurant Losses by the RSFA which had been proposed at $500K to $300K. Director Gamboa has taken several stances that are RSFA first over Golf Club first even though he is a Golf Club Member.

Thanks for pointing this out. I’m glad to hear Thurman and Gamboa have very clearly put their RSFA interests first but I’m dismayed the other golf member directors haven’t been more clear and overt about their fiduciary duty to RSFA wide interests first. I hope golf member candidates this year make a pledge on fiduciary duty to RSFA wide interests first.

Overall I think the tone of Golf President Neal in his Divot columns and other public communication is divisive and aggressive.

His personal jab at a member who chose to circulate a petition wasn’t professional and turned me from being agnostic to wanting more explicit fiduciary commitments to RSFA wide interests.

Just call out an opinion on the petition, not the member.

Fact is RSFA Golf Club is not a traditional private club given its intertwining with a broader HOA and community where a majority are not golf members. So there is a built in conflict that puts otherwise well meaning residents against each other on certain issues.

Personally my opinion is softening up the rhetoric against allowing non golf members some limited access to golf would go a long way to mending fences.

Take a data and open fact driven look at limited access for non golf members as a way to increase golf club revenue and profit to further reinvest in the club. That’s probably not full reinstatement of 6 and 12 packs a la 2018, but there’s ground in between.

If the club is accepting tee times from Inn at RSF guests (which by the way competes with the club restaurant), there must be a viable way to allow RSFA members to have some transparent, limited access to the course. That broader access might also help with restaurant profitability and support of the golf club.

 

 

 

 

  • This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by rsfposter.
  • This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by rsfposter.