To: HSV Board of Directors
From: Chuck Alvord, HSV resident
Date: September 15, 2019
Re: Balboa Golf Course and Clubhouse Project
Dear Board of Directors,
Please, please be careful
This is a huge project beyond our financial capabilities. The proposed Balboa Golf Course and Clubhouse project information is a collection of ideas, not a plan. Nothing has been finalized, costs have not been investigated and financing feasibility is at best questionable. Financing costs and operating costs have not even been considered. Committing the POA or POA assets to this project on that basis would not be prudent and could catastrophically lead to bankruptcy and/or incorporation.
Authorizing the POA to proceed with killing the golf course grass commits the POA to the full golf course renovation currently envisioned as costing $6.4 million. If costs turn out to be higher than expected, or needed financing is not available at acceptable terms, the golf course will have been destroyed and the POA may be committed to a project we can not complete.
The elephant in the room is that the costs of the project recommended by staff will overextend the POA to the extent of precluding other important projects that are being planned or may come along. That includes the ability to obtain emergency financing in the event of any disaster. It seems we have totally forgotten the devastating 2012 tornado, the ice storm a few years prior and the unforeseen Hydrilla invasion.
Financing
Plain and simply we don’t have the money and there is no financing plan. All that has been suggested are naive and unfounded financing ideas. Proceeding without committed financing is irresponsible. We could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars only to find out we can’t complete the project. No new sources of revenue would be created and any increased revenues are 100% speculative, unsupportable and gambling property owners’ funds.
The following suggested financing sources are amateurish speculations and not options:
- Revenues from a golf surcharge would not be collected until after they were needed. The amounts they could generate are pie in the sky speculation that could just as likely result in decreased golf revenues.
- Revenues from increased assessment fees resultant from encouraging owners of vacant homesites around the Balboa Golf Course to build would similarly not be collected until after they were needed and are another pie in the sky speculation. $40,000 per year of those envisioned revenues erroneously depicts the POA selling the same lots every year (not a confidence builder).
- Significant revenues from gifted funds, donations and sponsorships are untested pie in the sky.
- Using existing capital is using funds slated for other purposes, aka robbing Peter to pay Paul, forcing us to borrow more money for those projects.
More realistic options would normally include the following but in this case are problematic:
1. Substantially increase assessment rates or a one-time assessment. An assessment increase would not provide funds before they were needed but could be used for debt servicing. Neither will likely pass a vote of the property owners so it is immaterial.
2. Third-party financing. The problem with financing is that it incurs interest and must be repaid. Neither has been considered. Repaying a $4,600,000 ten-year fully amortized 7% loan for the golf course only, requires $53,410/month, or $640,000/yr, debt service. Where would that come from?
It may not matter. Lenders will have these same concerns and it is doubtful such financing will be readily available at affordable terms or without collateralizing/pledging and risking other POA real assets. Pledging would be akin to selling POA assets (buildings, golf courses, lakes, etc.) and I don’t believe could be done without property owner approval.
Golf Course
The Balboa Golf Course is an active, playable, popular golf course. The golf cart paths are in poor shape but that is a stand-alone issue. The grass may not be pure, but it is far from “contaminated” and no worse than most courses.
The major issue is the sprinkler system needs frequent repairs which have been estimated at less than $30,000/yr although the POA isn’t giving us the actual numbers. We‘re told we need to replace the entire sprinkler system which requires tearing up much of the golf course so we’d be smart to just replace the entire course at an estimated cost of $4,600,000. Spending $4,600,000 to save $30,000 per year doesn’t seem so smart. As calculated above, financing the $4,600,000 costs us $640,000/year in debt service to save maybe $30,000 a year in maintenance costs. Brilliant!
All that really needs to be done are repairs to the cart paths and to keep repairing the sprinkler leaks/breaks as we have been doing for years. The “all or nothing”, no other options hard sell is unwarranted. There are always alternatives.
Clubhouse
We are currently using around 5,000 square feet of the Balboa Clubhouse’s 21,000 square feet. It may seem a good building but in today’s Village it is poorly located for anything other than a golf course clubhouse and the configuration is impractical. Unused buildings are far from free to own. The unused space has been vacant for 7 years while we subsidize about $4.05/sf or $85,000*/yr in operating costs on a mostly vacant building.
Renovation of the existing clubhouse is estimated at $3,000,000-$5,200,000 after which it will still be an unrentable, poorly located facility for anything other than a golf course clubhouse with the same $85,000 operating costs to subsidize. Gratuitously making it available to clubs, groups or others will about double the $85,000 */yr operating cost subsidy to cover the added costs of things like increased utilities, maintenance, on-site supervision, and daily janitorial services.
If we do anything to the clubhouse, right-sizing it to about 5,000 square feet makes the most sense but the exact use first needs to be defined to determine the right size.
*At the August Board meeting CEO Nalley stated annual operating costs were currently running $85,000/ yr ($4.05) sf) on the existing Balboa Clubhouse. Such costs normally include taxes, insurance, utilities, janitorial, normal maintenance, supervision and similar. Major repairs and replacements are normally additional.
So again I ask, please be careful
This project is a big deal that will affect everyone in the Village for years and could be a disaster. It is not an emergency and there is no real urgency.
Thank you for your consideration.
by Chuck Alvord, September 15, 2019
John Dethardt
09/16/2019 — 6:46 pm
Well thought out, thanks for your time.
Mike f
09/16/2019 — 6:52 pm
On point. Thanks
Judy Weatherly
09/16/2019 — 7:18 pm
Great job! Thank you. Your points make a lot of sense.
Andy Kramek
09/16/2019 — 7:33 pm
There is so much common sense in this assessment that the only ways it could be ignored would be if:
[1] The decisions have already been made and contracts signed.
Given the levels of transparency and openness displayed to date I would certainly not rule this one out.
[2] The incentives promised should the proposed ‘plan’ be put into effect are so attractive that common sense is no longer a factor.
Again, I would not rule this one out (follow the money is always a good rule).
[3] The “politician’s syllogism” (i.e. We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this!).
Of course this requires total incompetence on the part of the decision makers. Given their track record to date who would question their ability to make such decisions rationally.
Kirk Denger
09/16/2019 — 9:30 pm
You’re right Chuck, The Balboa Golf Course is an active, playable, popular golf course with only normal maintenance problems. Killing the grass with poison is an environmental disaster for our drinking water supply that could bring severe problems for decades. However, agreeing with right-sizing the clubhouse plays into the inebriated thinking that restoring what we have is not a frugal option and that somehow tearing down what is perfectly sound and borrowing money to “RIGHT SIZE” is cheaper. Is “RIGHT SIZING” a DPZ “TERM”? We have seen the historic Fay Jones Olympic DeSoto Pool and solid cedar Bath House “RIGHTSIZED.” Half a million to RESTORE and $1.25 million, plus demolition costs as well as losing a major heritage of our Village, cost to “RIGHTSIZE” our pool. What we ended up with is a pool that is basically a flooded basement design, so close to the fairway that severe injury or death very easily may happen from golfball hits to the brain, that is half the size at three times the cost. this CEO must be stopped now. Remove the entire board and re-elect a new board that will terminate the CEO’s employment at HSV.
AndyK
09/17/2019 — 1:39 pm
Well, the recent (June 2019) 27th Annual Congress for the New Urbanism had at least one session advertised as “Member-Led – Just Right Sizing”.
I wonder which member was leading that session…
T J Creech
09/17/2019 — 7:33 am
It is urgent if certain people want to make money on rebuilding.
Tom Blakeman
09/17/2019 — 5:53 pm
Thanks Chuck. A sensible, rational and reasonable analysis. The correct decision is obvious to most of us. But I’m afraid no one in our leadership is listening.
John Traylor
09/19/2019 — 6:42 pm
Thank You for the letter it has all the facts
Craig
09/20/2019 — 7:50 am
I say close the course. Make it a beautiful park, with walking and biking trails. Ponds. Trees. Quiet. Nature…wow, it’s already done!!! Just pull the flags, plug the holes, and we are there!
Who wants to live on a golf course anyhow? The crazies hit balls into your house and yard…swear when they miss a shot, and talk way too loudly. Enough is enough.No more good money after bad. Just close it. We would still have way too many courses, but closing this dog would be the best thing we can do.
Why fight it? With the losses mounting each and every year it will have to be closed at some point…maybe even all of HSV will be shut down…that’s usually what happens when there is no money left to run something.
Linda Anderson
09/29/2019 — 11:15 am
Is there any thought to being sensible, reasonable and conservative when it comes to financial decisions. the POA says they have a plan. Let’s see if they can first put their plan in action. Raise at least 1 Mil. in available capital before committing to this project. In other words, SHOW US THE MONEY. Then show us how much money can be added to that from the budget. It’s time to take a hard look at available capital. Then why not look at the Balboa Club House as the first objective. It is a structurally sound contemporary building. Why not restore it first? Make it Great again. Look at the homes that have been restored in and out without tearing them down. We need to get back to reality of using our money effectively without putting the Village at risk one step at a time.
Laura ramoly
07/22/2021 — 5:21 pm
it possible to do one hole at a time. Choose the worst hole and start there. Or start with hole 1 and the worst hole for presentation purposes. Is there a way we could invest in the controller for the new sprinkler system bringing on one hole at a time (zone) while adjusting the existing oneS until the are replaced since it was mentioned it doesn’t have to be torn out? Did I read 2.00 dollar assessments were incurred from balboa to build Magellan Isabella and Granada. If so why can’t we increase assessments to those courses in those until renovation is complete on balboa at least the first 9 holes to see how well it goes. Renovate the restaurant and clubhouse since they will bring in income and lease oust the rest for profit not cost or to break even. If we are doing maintenance on the current courses, cart path replacement green and course grass maintenance and sprinkler installation or repair would be considered maintenance. Of course we need a firm long term plan including requirements analysis cost assessment plan rfp’s and a viable project plan with firm start and completion dates and controls and inspections built in. I would say raise dues permanently to address ongoing maintenance but due to political corruption lack of expertise and pervading priorities/emergencies I believe those dues would rarely be spent in maintenance. Closing the course for 18 months is not an option due to the lack of any funds raised for that period of time and inconvenience to homeowners. Suggestions to close the course Are not an option for homeowners who came here and bought on balboa specifically for the course. This is after all a golf community and one of the major reasons people buy houses here. If we do decide to close the course please give us a year notice so we can sell our houses now
HSVP C
07/22/2021 — 5:34 pm
Laura, this article is close to two years old. There are several recent updates. Here are a couple:
https://hotspringsvillagepeople.com/brandon-kogut-signs-restaurant-agreement-hsvpoa/
https://hotspringsvillagepeople.com/hsvpoa-balboa-comprehensive-renovation-proposal-board-retreat/