RSS Feed
Email Us
Follow Us
Like Us
Photo Gallery
GeistTV
Volunteers from the Geist Recreational Facility Committee (“Geist Rec”) working to save the Geist Clubhouse presented their argument last night for purchasing the 10+ acre amenity and bringing it under the GHPOA umbrella. Jim Felli led the presentation and was accompanied by approximately 8 other core committee members.
Felli argued that the declining enrollment at the Clubhouse over the last 4 years was due to the increase in price and reduction of services. When the GHPOA board originally looked at the purchase in 2007, the primary objections cited by the Clubhouse due diligence subcommittee were the operating losses and a low 4.5% participation rate by GHPOA residents.
Proponents foresee a Geist Harbours Community Center, purchased through a one-time special assessment to all GHPOA residents, and subsidized annually by a dues increase somewhere around $58 per household. Outside memberships could be sold to residents in the greater Geist community, including the Marina Limited Partnership who will continue to market the facility as an area amenity.
Two operating models were presented: One of a full membership model with an across the board dues increase and another based on a user fee model where only those that elected to purchase an annual membership would participate with subsidies coming from a smaller dues increase. In the examples shown, GHPOA dues would increase $70 per household per year under the full membership model versus a dues increase of $25-$50 per year under the usage model with a $125-$150 per year membership fee.
Petitions were circulated by Geist Rec volunteers to show resident support for the clubhouse purchase. Petitioners were supporting “an increase in (my) association dues to acquire this asset” and calling for a special meeting of the residents in the event the GHPOA board does not begin negotiations to purchase the facilities. In all, 719 petitions were signed with a majority of residents supporting the purchase from Admirals Sound, Admirals Woods, Crossing South, and Feather Cove III. (Note: There are 2,350 homes in GHPOA)
Opponents to the purchase, Ron Tuthill and Jim Sweeden of Feather Cove I, spoke briefly after the presentation. In short, they argue that the Geist Clubhouse has little or no impact on their property values given their distant proximity to the facility. When asked, they were not opposed to polling the entire GHPOA membership but predicted that their sentiments would prevail in Feather Cove I, Masthead and Beam Reach which are farthest from the Clubhouse.
Afterwards, GHPOA board members discussed their options and agreed to solicit feedback from their constituents by way of a letter and return proxy form indicating a “yes” or “no” vote on the purchase. A smaller subcommittee volunteered to draft the correspondence which will be presented at the next GHPOA board meeting for approval on December 15th.
Assuming that the GHPOA get their wishes and purchase the Club, what would happens if the club continues to run in the RED, who is going to absorb the losses? The answer is clear, it will be the responsibility of all residents.You will see a special assessment (probably every year) and also an increase in annual dues to satisfy the losses year after year. This Club house is a DEAD HORSE, please let it die.
Absolutely no interest in supporting the purchase of the Club, brings no value to my location. Agree with Mike, please let this horse die an honorable death. For those that would like to acquire it, form a corporation, pool your funds and buy it.
Mike. Get in touch with the facts for heavens sake!!! The cost of the club/land/pool will be easily offsest by sustainment of your property value.
Hi Mike,
If the GHPOA owns the Club and more importantly the LAND, it always has the option to sell it to an outside developer at some point in the future. Therefore, to answer your question if we assume, as you have, that the club continues to “run in the RED” then residents can sell the property and recoup at a minimum their investment. More likely, the land will appreciate in the coming years and thus could be sold for far more than we will pay for it now. One other point is the asking price of 690K was presented in 2007. What have land/home prices done since then? I would estimate a significant decline. So, I believe that the chances of paying less than 690K for this property are great, but we have to sit down at the negotiating table to find out.
One other point is that if you only used the club house for one Monday-Thursday event per year that would more than cover you dues. If you live in one of the far away communities are you telling me you don’t need, or haven’t paid for in the past, a place for a birthday party, family get together or some other occasion? The last time I rented a small room at a not nearly as nice place I paid about $200.00 for a few hours. The Club House is much nicer and offers much more potential for the many gatherings and other types of group meetings. So even if you never use the facilities to swim or play tennis, I don’t believe the 4 minute drive is unreasonable to hear an interesting speaker, listen to your children play piano, celebrate a grandmother’s 80th birthday, see your son achieve Eagle Scout, and the list goes on. I understand the sentiments of those living in the farther neighborhoods when it comes to pool use. However, I believe if everyone thinks about the use of the facility, they will find that they have paid for the use of something similar in the past year for no small sum of money.
These are my thoughts. I hope they are taken with the sincerity in which they were made.
In closing, I’m sure that this situation you describe can be specifically addressed in the document governing the purchase of the club house by which the property would be sold by the GHPOA if it can not be self-sustaining after a certain time period. Once purchased, we can control what happens to the property, which might be to sell it if doesn’t turn into the community center that bridges the reservoir to bring friends from both sides of the lake to a common gathering place for a sharing of common interests and a greater sense of community.
Thank you for listening,
Steve
Is Steve suggesting that use of the clubhouse Monday-Thursday by GHPOA members will be without charge…? I wonder hom many of the 719 signatures came from outside the Admirals? I doubt that you’ll be able to convince people in Masthead and Beamreach that their property values will increase because there is a pool and clubhouse in the Admirals. I live in Crossing South which is fairly close to the Clubhouse and I’ll be voting NO.
There are a number of things that were presented to the board that opposed this purchase. Respectfully and disappointedly Tom Britt failed to bring these to light in his atGeist communications.
1. Those residents asked to sign a petition were in many cases told that apartments could be put up on site. Several people from the Feather Cove 2 neighborhood were told this, as was the VP of the Board, Terry Fulk. In addition, others, myself included were told that their property values would definitely go down if this amenity would go away. Due to these fmisleading falsehood, the number of signatures can not be used, as many were obtained fraudulently. This was the comment from the board.
2. I understood this was to be a board decision, and my first hope would be that the board would vote as it has done in the past and vote NO. If this WOULD go to a vote, I would want each person’s vote to count. That would mean 2380 votes. In a proxy, as I understand it, there is something called a quarom, whereby at some point this could come down to a majority vote of those present at a special meeting. To that I would be opposed.
In the event that there is no choice and this would go to a proxy, I wanted to make sure that FACTS and opinions of those opposed and for this would be represented. If not, I would be oppose to that.
3. It is a fact, not an argument, that the value of this amenity to the property value of home 4 miles away in another neighborhood is NOT the same as its value to a property owner 2 blocks away. No one argued this point at the meeting.
4. In Jim Felli’spresentation, there was no discussion or figures that showed what would happen when the clubhouse needs a new roof, when the pools crack and need to be replaced or repaired, when energy prices to up, when it’s decided to tear something down and build something else, etc. etc. etc. This was brought up by the opposition.
5. It was also presented by the opposition that this was more an Admirals amenity open to all Geist residents, due to the integrated environment north of 86th St. Further, independent realtors with no vested interest in this issue have stated consistently that while any amenity certainly couldn’t hurt the salability of your home, this amenity would not devalue or make the difference in its purchase for those homes further away from it.
6. Also presented buat not in Tom’s article was that, of the 4.5% of the 2380 residents who had intersest enough to have memberships, 84% or 8 out of 10 are from Admirals Bay, Point and Sound.
7. Also presented in opposition was information actually presented by the geistrec committee from a study of the National Association of Homebuilders. In that study under 50% of the respondents said that the TOP 5 amenities that would influence their purchasing decision were biking and hiking trails, parks, playground, lake, and pool. Of these the GHRF has ONE. Community center was also not on the list.
The committee is asking ALL to pay for this in a large part because it makes the purchase “affordable.”
Consider these One-Time, Special assessment and annual dues figures
a. IF Admirals Bay residents purchase GHRF (365 homes)
= $1890 each + $384 per year
b. IF Admirals Bay, Point, Sound purchase GHRF (987 homes)
= $699 each + $142 per year
c. IF Existing members purchase GHRF (156 homes)
= $4423 each + $898 per year
d. IF all GHPOA residents purchase GHRF (2380)
= $290 each + $59 per year
(Annual dues based on 140,000 operating costs per year)
I would push back on affordability for ALL and say that B makes the most sense. The greater benefit is tin the Admirals and according to one supporter, using the facility for just a party or two would more than make up the costs paid. AND, those that truly want this, own it. They can do what they want with it.
If this does come to a vote, EVERY HOMEOWNER MUST TAKE THE TIME TO VOTE, if it comes to that.
Hi Mike S.,
Yes, use of the Club House for ALL GHPOA members M-Thursday would be FREE of charge under one of the models being suggested.
Please see the following document under the “Full Membership Model” where by there is the $300 to purchase the property and $70 per year in additional dues.
http://www.geistrec.com/GHRF%20Finance%20Bullets%20(15%20Nov%202008).pdf
If you held an event that went from 5pm-11pm how much would that cost for this type of facility?
There are many pluses to having your party, meeting, etc. close to home. The one that comes to my mind is in the case of a party where members may over indulge in the adult beverages. I find it would be a huge benefit for all communities not to have members driving from downtown or other remote places under those conditions.
I am asking that Masthead, Beam Reach, and Feather Cove I to read this document and take this into consideration.
Thank you for listening,
Steve
Hi Ron,
I’ve read and considered all your comments below and have added my thoughts below each. I hope that my reasoning can help explain why I feel this should be supported regardless of which community you live in. In addition, I hope this helps other community members with his/her decision.
Thanks for listening,
Steve
——-
“There are a number of things that were presented to the board that opposed this purchase. Respectfully and disappointedly Tom Britt failed to bring these to light in his atGeist communications.”
Response: Whatever information Tom Britt reported, I am appreciative of. As anyone who has had to take minutes knows, you often rely on others to add, correct, etc. whatever you heard at a meeting. Unless you are transcribing, not all points will be captured. Frankly, regardless of whatever Tom has reported, I’m thankful that we have someone who does report information on the board and other Geist happenings in such a timely manner. I can’t be totally sure, but I’m thinking the salary for this position is pretty low
. Thanks Tom for all your hard work and someone I think has tried to see and represent both sides of the discussion and done so admirably.
“1. Those residents asked to sign a petition were in many cases told that apartments could be put up on site. Several people from the Feather Cove 2 neighborhood were told this, as was the VP of the Board, Terry Fulk. In addition, others, me included were told that their property values would definitely go down if this amenity would go away. Due to these misleading falsehoods, the number of signatures can not be used, as many were obtained fraudulently. This was the comment from the board.”
Response: Once the property is sold, a developer can do anything they want to the property if they achieve the necessary permits, zoning changes, etc. as often happens when a developer wants something to happen. If they achieve this then apartments, a strip mall, etc. could be put on that land. I’ve seen developers do some amazing things that you would think would be unheard of, but still done. So that was not a lie that apartments “could”, not would be put up. Just as the other items I mention, anything is possible, which is why turning this decision over to a developer should be unthinkable.
I talked with Masthead residents and never discussed property values since there are other reasons for farther away neighborhoods to support this proposal. I’m sure whoever gave you that information was referring to the property values of most homes in our neighborhoods. I hope you don’t believe that this was done maliciously and with intent to deceive. Another fact is that your home may very well not sell as easily because if you are not able to check those boxes referring to pool, tennis courts, etc. Not in all cases, but in some cases that would definitely pull your house from the search results. We all use the internet for selling and looking for homes today, so it would be wise to ensure that your home is seen by as many buyers as possible. The right buyer missing your home because of this would eat up your investment in the club house in the blink of an eye (I’m not a real estate agent, but have experienced this first hand).
“2. I understood this was to be a board decision, and my first hope would be that the board would vote as it has done in the past and vote NO. If this WOULD go to a vote, I would want each person’s vote to count. That would mean 2380 votes. In a proxy, as I understand it, there is something called a quorum, whereby at some point this could come down to a majority vote of those present at a special meeting. To that I would be opposed.
In the event that there is no choice and this would go to a proxy, I wanted to make sure that FACTS and opinions of those opposed and for this would be represented. If not, I would be opposed to that.”
“3. It is a fact, not an argument, that the value of this amenity to the property value of home 4 miles away in another neighborhood is NOT the same as its value to a property owner 2 blocks away. No one argued this point at the meeting.”
Response: True. However, the same argument can be made for the walking paths and any other improvements made to the neighborhoods that are 4 miles away from the Admirals. Nevertheless, I am ok that in some years these neighborhoods will get more benefit from my annual dues than others.
I would also reiterate that the use of the facility as a place for meetings, etc. M-Thurs for FREE is of value to ALL residents and does not hold a significantly higher value as long as you are < 5 minutes drive from the facility. I would also argue that listing this with your home most certainly adds value or at the very least might be the difference between your home being purchased and the one across the street in the neighborhood who may/may not have a facility but it charges $200 to rent it out to residents. You never know where that tipping point will be.
“4. In Jim Felli’s presentation, there was no discussion or figures that showed what would happen when the clubhouse needs a new roof, when the pools crack and need to be replaced or repaired, when energy prices to up, when it’s decided to tear something down and build something else, etc. etc. etc. This was brought up by the opposition.”
Response: If you examine the financials, it assumes that a small surplus will exist that will cumulate from year over year. If we do a better job of marketing the facility than has been the case in previous years this number will be larger. The number used is conservative. The purpose of this surplus would be to take care of these type of non-annual repairs and/or make improvements to the property that increase its marketability to others outside the community. It would be our job to complete due diligence in an inspection of the facilities as they are today to ensure that there are no significant repairs that will be needed in the next few years to allow this surplus to accumulate. If we do our jobs well, then there won’t be any surprises. I think we may have a few people in the neighborhood that are experts at this type of building/facility inspection that would be willing to assist.
To address your specific example the roof was replaced not very long ago and has many years of life left. However, it should still be inspected.
As with any purchase if there are existing issues, then these would be addressed after an inspection. As with the purchase of a home we would have the right to ask these are rectified prior to closing.
“5. It was also presented by the opposition that this was more an Admirals amenity open to all Geist residents, due to the integrated environment north of 86th St. Further, independent realtors with no vested interest in this issue have stated consistently that while any amenity certainly couldn’t hurt the salability of your home, this amenity would not devalue or make the difference in its purchase for those homes further away from it.”
Response: This is duplication of the point made in number 3 above and my explanation there I speak to this.
“6. Also presented but not in Tom’s article was that, of the 4.5% of the 2380 residents who had interest enough to have memberships, 84% or 8 out of 10 are from Admirals Bay, Point and Sound. ”
Response: This is not relevant because the services being offered are not the same as what is being offered under this proposal. The cost of the pools and tennis courts for 1 season was in excess of $400 and I was not allowed to use the facility without incurring an additional charge. Therefore, this drove away many customers. In addition, they did not want to add value to the facility. I proposed that a neighborhood swim team be formed. They have all the equipment from previous teams, but said there was no interest from the community. When pressed I was given the real reason in that it was not “profitable”. These are the types of events that bring people from different neighborhoods together. Not, the ability to swim in a pool, but rather the chance to see our kids competing in a community gathering. When run by parents these events actually do make money due to sales of concessions. This is just one example of where the previous owners did not expand the use of the facilities so the benefits could be enjoyed at a reasonable cost by all of us.
“7. Also presented in opposition was information actually presented by the geistrec committee from a study of the National Association of Homebuilders. In that study under 50% of the respondents said that the TOP 5 amenities that would influence their purchasing decision were biking and hiking trails, parks, playground, lake, and pool. Of these the GHRF has ONE. Community center was also not on the list.”
Response: First, our community, not the Club House, does have these. The study refers to what a community offers, not what a location within that community offers. Therefore, our community has biking and hiking trails, parks, a lake, and a pool. The only one, that I am aware of, which we don’t have is a playground.
In addition, I would point to the fact that we have biking and hiking trails, but none that run along Carroll road or 86th street. That would be a nice amenity, but we do not enjoy those. These are too far away for me to use since they are on the other side of the lake and to get there is treacherous at best on bike or foot. However, as I’ve said before I still believe this adds value to the community even if I will not benefit financially from there existence. I’m sure these will need repair, replacement and maintenance in the future. I’m in favor of making sure they are maintained even without any tangible benefits for me.
In the end, it’s not about what is good for me, my house, or my neighborhood. It should not be an “us against them” issue. We are supposed to be a community of homes. The GHPOA Board is to act in the best interest of the whole, not the dissention of a few. Therefore, it makes me worry about how much of a community we really are when I hear that this does nothing for certain communities and that everything is being done for particular neighborhoods. We are a community not individual states.
The point is to look at everyone involved and determine the best result. I have no doubt that in the future there will be things that other communities far away from the Admirals will need. I would expect that we would rally around that need and make it happen as I hope that my friends from around the lake will in the case of saving the future GHPOA Community Center. By forming and encouraging community activities at the center it is my hope that in the future we will be able to unite on many fronts because we won’t think of each other as separate neighborhoods, but rather as the Geist Community.
“The committee is asking ALL to pay for this in a large part because it makes the purchase “affordable.””
Response: I believe it is our last chance to be a community with community events that so many other neighborhood associations already encourage. In today’s age of being busy all the time, we must make an effort to salvage neighborhood relationships. As I’m sure many of you can attest to when you were a child you knew everyone in your neighborhood and many of the surrounding neighborhoods. This was primarily due to the fact that we got out and did things in the neighborhood, which caused us to interact. With the advent of so many distractions that keep us inside and away from our neighbors it is up to us to create opportunities to kindle those same type of relationships we had as kids and as ultimately memories and friendships that last a lifetime.
“Consider these One-Time, Special assessment and annual dues figures
a. IF Admirals Bay residents purchase GHRF (365 homes)
= $1890 each + $384 per year
b. IF Admirals Bay, Point, Sound purchase GHRF (987 homes)
= $699 each + $142 per year
c. IF Existing members purchase GHRF (156 homes)
= $4423 each + $898 per year
d. IF all GHPOA residents purchase GHRF (2380)
= $290 each + $59 per year
(Annual dues based on 140,000 operating costs per year)
I would push back on affordability for ALL and say that B makes the most sense. The greater benefit is tin the Admirals and according to one supporter, using the facility for just a party or two would more than make up the costs paid. AND, those that truly want this, own it. They can do what they want with it.
If this does come to a vote, EVERY HOMEOWNER MUST TAKE THE TIME TO VOTE, if it comes to that.”
Response: I don’t believe the GHPOA has the ability to purchase this on behalf of some part of the residents. I might be wrong here, but I don’t believe the governance would allow it. Therefore, if B was adopted, I don’t think that it would be lawful to exclude residents because of where they lived. By the fact that you are part of the GHPOA, you would belong. I would add that even if possible, you’ve added a level of administration to mange different dues and more administration in the running of the facility. However, the most important reason to purchase as a community is that I don’t believe we want to get to where every improvement in our community must benefit all equally. I’ve given an example above, and know that there will be improvements in the future, which I will pay for that I will never use or will not improve my home value. I accept this as being part of our community and making it better for everyone.
Again, I appreciate your time in reading my lengthy responses,
Steve
I have been following with interest, the “Save the Geist Clubhouse” campaign. I hope that you are successful in keeping these wonderful amenities within your neighborhood communities. As someone who has lived for sixteen years in a neighborhood (Admirals Landing) that owns its pool and tennis courts, I certainly know what they mean to our family and our neighbors.
In reviewing the PowerPoint Presentation, the current financial snapshot that has been submitted appears, respectfully, to operate in a vacuum and makes many broad assumptions. I noticed a $35,000 number for mowing/maintenance/repairs, but I did not see any projected costs as a result of the committee doing a Replacement Reserve Study Analysis (RRSA) of all current and future Capital Expense (CapEx) needs.
The rational for this RRSA, as well as CapEx items included, are when and how will you fund the repair or replacement of major components? Items like pools (resurfacing, coping, pool heaters, pumps, furniture and other equipment) tennis courts (surface fill and repair, net replacement, complete resurfacing), parking lot repair and resurfacing, Clubhouse repairs and replacements (including roof, mechanical equipment – HVAC and water heaters – kitchen equipment, computers and peripherals, software), common area irrigation systems, signage, lighting, replacement landscaping, etc.
Also, I did not see a property tax number in the cost analysis. While there is a $23,000 tax number, it appears to be associated with payroll costs.
If not done already, I suggest that the committee quickly complete as a companion to the current analysis, a three to five year income-and-expense plan (similar to a business pro forma) and a preliminary one to seven year plan that behaves as your detailed RRSA of all current and future CapEx needs. This will aid you in establishing a means and time line to adequately fund these inevitable costs. Furthermore, you can provide all stakeholders (homeowners) with a complete view of what this acquisition will cost them over the next one to six years. The $690,000 is merely the price of your admission ticket. Moreover, these other analyses can allow you to more accurately forecast and adjust your HOA dues to adequately cover these costs. This will reduce the need for additional future special assessments (kind’a like a second round of funding).
Realizing that none of this may matter to some and this is purely a defensive acquisition designed to hang on to something that you already have, I respect that. However, it’s important to have this additional perspective anyway.
Again, best wishes and I sincerely hope that you are able keep these great amenities for yourselves and your neighbors.
Steve King
President, Admirals Landing Homeowners Association, Inc
In a recent edition of the Indy Star there was an insert and in the insert was a story about on the Geist Clubhouse issue. The story appeared to be pretty fair and balanced. But one thing concerned me. In the story it mentioned that soon a ballot would be sent out to all residents and included in the ballot would be cost estimates and benefits of owning this ammenity. Who is going to write this? Everyone involved with this has an agenda. What one person considers a benefit may not be considered a benefit by all. This ballot innitiative should be treated like an election. There is plenty of time for people to gather information and to come to there own conclusion on whether they support this or not. On the ballot itself is no place for someone to opine as to whether this is a good thing or not.
I vote NO, but of course the “promised letters that they said would be mailed by Dec 22nd have not arrived. Deadline of January 20th fast approaching I expect to see my letter next week. I have already complained to the Home Owners Association that no letter has reached my door. How about anyone else? Have you seen your “voting” letter??????
No letter yet. It will probably show up on Jan. 19th!