Home › Forums › Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Assoc › POA Board of Directors › "Special Newsletter" from POA Board
January 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm #2691
Any comments concerning the "special newsletter" released January 19.2009
Attached files SPECIAL NEWSLETTER11909.pdf (13.5 KB)ÂJanuary 20, 2009 at 12:48 pm #2690
The insurance settlement on the Marina was for $1,200,000. The contract for construction of the restaurant calls for the POA to put up $1,000,000 for a new one. What happened to the other $200,000………. Let me guess……………..how about the golf course????????
I note with laughter the final paragraph where the POA states that it refuses to engage in any kind of discussion about its affairs except in a one on one situation in it’s offices.
Have they got something to hide????? Don’t cockroaches hide from daylight?????? Isn’t this the way Banana Republics conduct their affairs?????January 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm #2692
i circulated contracts that i received from Purcell. Purcell received them from our Board. I do not know if mine are the contracts that they are referring to that are misleading or incomplete, but, if the unsigned contracts i circulated are the ones they are talking about, i wonder why Purcell was given misleading information. as far as teh one on one meetings…. i couldnt even get mario to tell me if the silver slipper patrons could use our boat launch, i still dont know the answer. i was offered a one on one meeting…. very disappointing lack of transparency. the silver slipper contract makes me furious and i seriously do not understand why they would sign a potential 30 year contract with very little increase in rent and why they would grant use of our amenities to silver slipper patrons. HEY why live in diamondhead and pay dues? just go get a silver slipper players card. i hear that if you have one you can use our amenities.January 20, 2009 at 4:23 pm #2693
also, until recently mario was happy to answer questions via email, he suddenly stopped around the time that i sent him a list of very direct questions, several others sent him questions as well. i have one email he wrote to a property owner stating he was happy to answer questions, yet my questions were answered with an invite to his office. interesting… i also wonder where the extra 200K from the insurance went as well as the interest that should have been accruing for a few years.January 20, 2009 at 4:42 pm #2696
The POA used some of the insurance money, along with a Tide Water Grant recieved after Katrina, to rebuild the piers, boat launch and fuel station. None of the Marina money has ever been used for any other purpose than Marina related projects prior to June 21, 2008. The interest earned from the Insurance money was rolled into the General Fund. That was decided by the Ramirez Board.The insurance money was in CDs and upon reaching maturity date, of the CDs, the money was put into the POA checking account by the current POA Board.January 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm #2697
thank you for that info PMucho. That is an important clarification. now if we could just get the current board to provide answers concerning the slipper, jacobs opposition, their plans for the southside instead of supporting jacobs, and the unending rumors about other situations and/or problems we would be in great shape. thanks again for taking the time to clarify where the insurance money was and is.January 21, 2009 at 5:38 am #2700
Thank you, Diamondhead News (Online), for staying open and providing a second (and third) opinion.January 21, 2009 at 1:13 pm #2703
At the Diamondhead Democratic Club meeting a couple of tuesdays ago Feola stated that DH community had
> 17 different covenants and a vote of 85% of the property
> owners in any one area guided by their covenant determines
> how that area is to be. He stated that the Purcell Corp.
> owned enough (85%) of the land in the Oaks to amend the
> covenant that eventually changed the zoning. And, the POA
> Board was powerless since the majority property owner
> Purcell amended the covenant.
> > He went on to say that this 85% situation is little
> known because any one of the 17 covenant areas could vote to
> amend a covenant, even vote not to pay POA dues.
> > I am a little suspicious and here’s why. Feola
> invites anyone to meet with him in his office one on one; to
> question, view contracts and budgets, etc. Why does he
> always emphasis one on one and not a more public forum?
> Yes. I know why.January 21, 2009 at 5:29 pm #2704
i am not understanding wesley4212. all of diamondhead falls under one set of covenants. is what you are saying that mario said there are 17 separate sections of diamondhead that can vote on their own to change covenants? if so, i dont believe that that is true. as far as the Oaks zoning, i have no idea what happened in that instance, but all of Diamondhead falls under one set of covenants. i went in recently to pick up a copy and i wasnt asked what section i live in. something is very misleading here. now, i can see that maybe the Oaks has there own covenants just like harbor house and maybe purcell owns 85% of that, but, at least in the case of harbor house, above and beyond their own covenants, harbor house must also abide by diamondhead’s covenants. just like everything else it seems, every answer to every question is foggy at best. thanks for the info wesley, let me know if i have what you are saying right.January 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm #2705
This “Special Newsletter” says we are going to receive $60,000.00 a year when the Restrant is operateing. I understand, possibly with some error, that there approx 6000 residents in Diamondhead, why cant we charge about 10 bucks a round as a golf surcharge to cover course deficits and utilize the $60,000.00 to reduce our POA fee by about 15 bucks and still come out ahead???? Seems as plausabe as anything our current board has come up with to control costs. Ask your board why they cant do something like this instead of soaking non-gofers for course excesses.January 21, 2009 at 9:58 pm #2706
$60.000 a year rent from the Slipper. That will just about cover the annual inventory loss from the golf pro shop.January 21, 2009 at 11:10 pm #2707
i think that $5K a month for the rental of the waterfront restaurant property plus access to our amenities is quite a bargain for the slipper. i am sure the silver slipper folks are very pleased with the deal they got.January 22, 2009 at 6:49 am #2708
Mr. King, Not all the losses reported at the Country Club are related to the sport of golf. The majority of the losses are directly related to non-participation of the Country Club facilities. The fewer people, golfers and non-golfers, who dine out at the C.C. the greater the losses will be. When the Slipper opens at the former Yacht Club site, the losses will be even greater! That facility will drain the C.C in my opinion. More residents need to utilize the C.C.. This will offset the losses and they will be able to enjoy the food vs. just paying $10 to the POA. Golfing fees for 2009 were increased again for the second year in a row. Remember it was this Board who elected to move the 19th Hole, a non-budgeted item, to the cost of $150K – $175K, not put it out for bid and now there is no way to track says in the 19th Hole seperately from the Country Club business. I would like to know how my $10 per month,portion of POA Dues ear marked for street paving, is going to be spent since there is $113K budgeted for Capital Improvements in 2009! You do the math: $10 mo. x 11 mo x 4900 property ownersJanuary 22, 2009 at 7:37 am #2709
With all you have stated, and let me commend you for your participation in this open forum, can you explain the logic of moving Tennis World to the East Recreation Area when common sense in business would dictate that the move should have been near the underutilized Country Club?January 22, 2009 at 8:37 am #2710
There once was a plan to move T.W. to the current walking trail location across from the main swimming pool. A new walking trail was to be made in the large Oak tree area in front of the Country Club. I think when the rumor was T.W. was to be located “in front of the Country Club” many understood that to be in front of the circle directly in front of the C.C. That was incorrect. There was thought the Country Club would be utilized more for food & beverage, especially during tournaments. There was no need to build a full size Tennis Clubhouse then and only a Tennis Pro Shop similar to the Golf shop. would be built to sell merchandise and serve as a buuilding to house bathroom facilities. However, there was concern about changing the landscape, cutting down pine trees and blocking the view of the Country Club from Golf Club Drive, and the noise emitted from T.W. during play. There was a petition signed by @ 100 residents requesting an alternative site. So it was. It was moved to East Rec. where it was over budget and complaints of sharing the bath rooms with swimmers and lack of Tennis Pro Shop. Many tennis players do not like the new location.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.