RESIDENT RANT

Every now and then I get an email that needs no further comment. This is one of those emails:

Well, here we go again, folks.  Remember the debacle of the two bond issues spearheaded by Irene Loretto, our board president?  Remember the $40K that was spent on architect fees etc?  That was our money as owners, not approved by the residents here, and we will not be able to recover it.  It is just lost money now.

And how is the search for our new general manager going?  It seems that the board of directors didn't want to spend money on a “headhunter” as it would be too expensive.  Really?  They usually ask for a flat fee or a fee equal to the first month's pay. Remember that $40K that went down the drain after we voted to veto the bonds?

I feel we can afford the headhunter as it is of the utmost importance right now.  It will NOT cost another $40K for a headhunter, nowhere near that.  Not to mention it would be going to a good cause. We'd actually get something for our money this time!  We need a new, credentialed and unbiased general manager as soon as possible. But things move slowly at Farmington Woods as evidenced by this:

The following is from the minutes of the July 30, 2012 Board of Directors meeting:

Search Committee Report

Carol Kardas reported on behalf of the Search Committee, Phillip Schenk (19 Applewood Lane), Richard Kisiel (1 Centerbrook Court), Peter Decker (44 Heritage Drive), Margaret Cory-Darby (27 Ashford Drive) and Bob McKeon (36 Applewood Lane) for the purpose of selecting a new General Manager. The group has not met as of this date. An advertisement has been placed in the Community Associations Institute website. More information will be forthcoming.

Carmine Fortino moved to hire an interim manager. The motion was not seconded.

So, search committee formed has not met and an ad has been placed with only the CAI website.

One intelligent, lonely member of the board, Carmine Fortino, moved to hire an interim manager.  Makes perfect sense to me.  Lord knows we really need somebody with the proper credentials to stand in until a permanent general manager is hired.  

But the motion was not seconded.  I find this unbelievable!  Nobody feels we need an interim manager but Mr. Fortino?  Of the nine board members who were present and could have voted, not a single one had the guts to second the motion, let alone vote to carry it.

But have no fear!  Here's what they decided, taken from the minutes:

After discussion, the function of General Manager will be absorbed by the current staff of Directors, Managers and Supervisors and the the Officers of the Board. Irene Loretto to oversee the Administration Department, Max Warren to oversee the Maintenance Departments, Michael Marchese Golf Operations and Harry Dermer Clubhouse.

Nowhere in the minutes was it noted that a motion had been made, seconded and carried by the board to agree to the above. What happened to Roberts Rules of Order?

Oh, and guess who is taking over the MA?  None other than Irene Loretto, board president, the person who spearheaded the bond debacle and lost us $40K to boot, without the proper qualifications required by the new state law. She doesn’t even possess a real estate license. 

Remember her article in the Valley Press where she was quoted as saying all realtors lie?  She's not popular with our area realtors now. Just who we want overseeing the MA.  We can't seem to get the “old boys club” to let go of the stranglehold they have on all the committees and boards, let alone our complex.  Not for lack of trying, I can assure you.

Since this will be a full time task she has taken upon herself, I feel she must step down from all committees, as well as the ad-hoc and ex-officio positions she currently holds  Conflict of interest, folks. 

And that’s just my opinion as an observer and owner at Farmington Woods.


Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

$150 IS ALOT OF MONEY, $200 NOT SO MUCH

It never fails. Make a big deal out of a mistake you made in the past and someone will find another one for you in the blink of an eye.

In my last post, "Blinded by the Game" I mentioned that the interim president of Women's Golf at Farmington Woods had stated at the Executive Board Meeting of 7/30/12 that "residents were being "charged back" somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 per year to keep the course open." It didn't take long for me to be corrected.

Today I received an email from that very interim president telling me that she was "misquoted" and asking me to post a correction to my blog. Since my usually reliable sources had all quoted her as saying $350 a year, I asked that she forward her presentation to the board to me so that I could see for myself what was said. I also offered to place it on my blog if she so desired.

She has declined to forward the presentation to me, but in the spirit of fairness I am willing to print the part of her email that dealt with the quantitative difference between the report I received and what she says she said. 


Lee,

I choose not to send a copy of my statement, however I will give you the numbers I mentioned:

Golf operating losses from FYE 2010 through 2012 equaled $503,000.  Divided by 1084 units and 3 years, that equals approximately $155 per year.  The operating losses are in the financial statements available at the MA.

In the spring of 2009, an amount equaling $47,500 was removed from the golf budget where it had been for many years.  This yearly amount of overhead was estimated and assumed to be attributable to golf by the MA.  It was based on the idea that a certain percentage of the time of MA employees was spent on golf matters.  in 2009, it was determined that there would be no reduction in office personnel whether golf was around or not as we needed the same staff to perform all of the functions related to Farmington Woods.  

It could be argued that with 1/3 fewer members, the amount would be even less today, but for the sake of argument in regard to dues differentials, I chose to cite it.  I rounded up to $50,000 per year, divided by 1084 units, equals $46. So $155+$46 is $201, or approximately $200 per year which is being picked up by each condo unit and which I ask the non-resident golfers to do likewise.  So, we have not reached the level that you cite from the ad hoc study.


(I must say at this point that I do a lot of research and when done correctly it calls for the use of primary sources whenever possible. The above is not the primary source, the original transcript, but a secondary one that I have chosen to publish in spite of that fact.) 

So, if I get this correctly, there's a huge difference between non-golfing residents ponying up $200 rather than $350 per year, but the fact that we're being taxed at a minimum of $200 per year to keep the golf operation going is no big deal. I'm sorry, that's just the way I see it. And let's not forget those club minimums. They amount to $450 per year when you include tax and an 18% gratuity.

But the numbers in the above email represent the past three fiscal years and not the one we're in right now, 2013. In this fiscal year we somehow came up with at least $100K to begin the irrigation system that was voted down in May and we're already projecting a $124,352 loss based on 225 members. 

According to the golf committee we are at 200 members now, if frozen memberships are counted. There are 9 of those and 13 juniors. It takes 300 members to break even.

When it comes to the golf operation at Farmington Woods it's hard to get a handle on what is really being spent. Was the $50K the board spent researching the bond project included in the calculations above? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

I was able to get some numbers for the golf operation for you to chew on; I don't know how they relate to what the interim president quoted, but I offer them for your edification. Keep in mind that this does not include any funds contributed by the Farmington Woods Tax District for irrigation systems and cart paths.

Date: August 6, 2012

To: FW Golf Members

From: John Dunham, Golf Committee Chair

Re: Overview of Golf’s Finances

This memorandum provides a brief summary of golf’s current financial status.

Fiscal Year 2011-12. The Finance Committee budgeted for income of $1,053,250; it budgeted for expenses of $1,178,802, including a built in deficit of $125,552. Golf’s actual income was $936,271.77, and its expenses were $1,127,991.59. Thus, in addition to its budgeted loss of $125,552, golf incurred an additional loss of $66,167.82 for a total loss of $191,719.82.

Our income fell short of budget in three areas. First, membership fees were budgeted for $710,000, but produced $650,633.28 for a difference of $59,366.72. Secondly, greens fees were budgeted for $120,000, but produced $103,776.17 for a difference of $16,223.83. Third, cart rentals were budgeted for $150,000, but produced $116,719.02 for a loss of $33,280.98.

Our expenses were $1,127,991.59 which represents a savings of $50,810.41 from our budgeted expenses of $1,178,802.

Fiscal Year 2012-13. The Finance Committee budgeted for income of $1,023,350 and expenses of $1,147,702 for a built in loss of $124,352. Membership income is budgeted for $707,500 ($315,000 for resident members and $392,500 from non-resident members). This figure is based on 225 members. Based on our current membership numbers, membership dues will generate $642,051 for a projected loss of $65,449. When combined, these two loss items total $189,801.

Also, in order to reach the budgeted deficit amount of $124,352, the Finance Committee made
additional reductions of approximately $80,000 by reducing the course superintendent's ground
supplies by $5000, reducing the major equipment purchase account from $40,000 to zero, reducing the contingency account from $20,000 to zero, and reducing the golf operations payroll by $15,000. The effects of these cuts would be felt if the need arises for replacement equipment, additional chemicals or the use of the contingency fund.

Golf's Challenges for FY 2012-13. Our major challenge in FY 2012-13 is the elimination of losses in excess of the budgeted loss of $124,352. Revenue generation is the key factor in pulling ourselves out of this hole and in providing financial stability for golf at Farmington Woods in the future. The major source of revenue is membership dues. Retention of our current members is a top priority of the Golf Committee and, retention, along with marketing Farmington Woods golf to potential new members represent the keys to our success. Your Golf Committee looks forward to hearing ideas and receiving guidance from the membership in these areas as we plan for the future.

Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

BLINDED BY THE GAME

Most of the time the information I get here at Farmington Woods Insider is accurate and reliable. In five months of writing this blog I've been misinformed once and it came back to bite me. But it happened again in the last week and I'm afraid others may have taken a bite for reading and following up on my last post called "Golf Pow Wow".

I had it from two sources that this meeting was open to all residents for the purpose of at least beginning to look at a resolution to our golf problem: seven years of deficits now growing exponentially. But I was misinformed and for any of you who attended the meeting I can only say I'm sorry; I make mistakes too.

If you did attend and your experience reflected what my anonymous contributor experienced, it wasn't all for naught. You got an inside look at the golf faction, for lack of a better term, that runs Farmington Woods and controls all politics here. 

And from what I can gather after reading the following report, speaking with attendees and from emails I have received, the only community that this faction is concerned with is their own. Their number one mission is to save the golf operation regardless of the long term cost to the majority of residents and the resulting deterioration of at least some sections of the condominium community.

At last week's Executive Board meeting the interim president of Women's Golf casually stated that residents were being "charged back" somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 per year to keep the course open. If you add the $450. minimum we pay as non-members of the golf club to the clubhouse operation, that's $800. per year! 

That's serious spending money even for residents of our upscale community. It equates to one week's take-home pay for a professional making $60K per year! And are they satisfied with the level of sustenance being provided by non-golfing residents? Hell, no. The newest idea is to make Farmington Woods more "country club-like" by allowing non-resident golfers and their families use of our pools and tennis courts, amenities that we all pay condo fees and taxes to maintain and insure.

It was revealed at this meeting that the estimate of $43K to begin the course irrigation project, you know, the one that residents turned down in May by a 2 to 1 margin, has now ballooned to $100K. And if you read the budget report, the golf department began the year with a $125K loss with the district kicking in $25K for golf cart paths. That's a cool Quarter of a Million Dollars to begin with folks and it's only going to get worse.

How do I know this, you ask? I know this because I have heard the propagandistic mantra of leaders and golfers here for years: that this is a community and that the golf course defines and is integral to the very concept of community at Farmington Woods. I'd like to believe that but I have to believe what I see and not what I hear.

The real truth, as evidenced by the following report, is that the only community this particular special interest thinks about, cares about and has concern for, is the golf community. Not one attendee at this meeting even raised the question of why they were entitled to the support of the rest of us when driveways look like the one in the picture but "no cart path is left unpaved."

The driveway in the picture? That's the scenic view. A panoramic picture would show the cracks that frost and mammoth garbage trucks have created and the ugly patch job that was done after I complained about it three years ago. It hasn't been repaved in 20 years.

The $350 per year that the 18 residents who use that driveway contribute to the course this year, could easily repave this ugly mess. I do believe it could even cover repaving the cracked sidewalk (a fall waiting to happen, considering the average age of the residents of this four-plex is 80) leading back to the unit my neighbor has  been trying unsuccessfully to sell for the last year. 

And yet, our entitled special interest group cannot see this. For all their talk of the "Farmington Woods Community" they only see one, their own. It is for this reason that I titled the following report:

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

On Aug 6^th I went to the Golf Pow Wow. The room was filled with the usual suspects and our board president sat in the back. The moderator told the audience that only members of the golf club were allowed to make comments, so if you were just a lowly member of the condo association, aka a resident, your voice was not to be heard.  

The purpose of the meeting, he said  was to focus on  business suggestions for building golf membership. It was interesting to hear the suggestions which ranged from using resident funds to have a TV commercial produced, to having golf members solicit other friend and families to join FW golf club.

Yes, that’s right, it’s finally been decided that Farmington Woods truly is a golf club and not a country club. That begs the question as to why every resident of this condominium community pays minimums to the clubhouse when they are not members of the golf club. It seems to me the “clubhouse” was built as an amenity for the “golf club”. 

If Farmington Woods was really a country club that would make sense, but by their own admission, it is not. The logic of this was lost on the group so the question was not asked by any golfer or the president. And as I mentioned before, I was forbidden to ask.

There was mention of the price structure, allowing monthly payments as opposed to annual payments of membership dues, which by the way seems to be the rub for many golfers. You may be interested to know that if you elect to pay your annual membership fees monthly there is a 10% additional charge to carry a balance. There was also a mention of being able to pay by credit card which apparently you cannot do at this time.

And here is one more thing I learned at that meeting. If you’re a resident and want to play golf during the day, you can’t. Residents can only play after a certain time on a certain day even if the golf course is empty. That idea seems self defeating when we are trying everything possible to break even with this operation.

One golfing resident spoke of the hardship of having a wife and new baby and trying to play here. He said he would love to be able to play when his time permitted as opposed to having Farmington Woods dictate his schedule. So why are we turning away money, ($125.00 to $150.00 per game) I wondered? The answer came from someone else in the room. In order to play when you want one must be a member of the golf club. And since his membership had lapsed, he was out of luck.

But did the people who came up with this rule ever stop to think that maybe times have changed, lifestyles are different and not everyone is geriatric and retired? Many younger members in the room said they only fit in 9 holes of golf after work so why are they required to be members at all? Seemed like a reasonable question to me. Why not lift this rule and try a different model?  What’s the harm with seeing the affect that would have?

I also heard many golfers talk about being “nickeled and dimed” by all the separate charges. They would like to see golf carts included in the cost of a round of golf. Again, why not?

And then there was one person who felt it necessary to perpetrate the 2009 ad hoc Select Committee to Study Golf lie just one more time: that it would cost just as much to keep the golf course as open space as it does to keep it operating as a golf course.  If that’s the case, problem solved. Turn it into open space for all to enjoy and no one will complain about paying for it. But that isn’t this group’s focus; they just want to play golf and if the rest of the residents have to chip in and do without new driveways or better landscaping, so be it.

Once again, the Billy Casper Golf Management Group came up in conversation as if it was the end all and be all in golfing. I seem to recall that the Essex Golf Group was going to come up here and evaluate our golf club and facility for free. We never took them up on this offer and no one at this meeting saw fit to bring that up either. Why? I suspect they are afraid of what the evaluation will reveal.

And what about those golf fees? Resident golfers pay lower fees and every resident, club member or not, is paying to keep those fees down and the golf operation going. But since residents have no access to the course, that seems a bit unfair to me.

One audience member said if we offer pool and tennis to all golf members, residents and non-residents alike, we would be perceived as a country club and that may attract more new members. Another person in the audience said it was suggested years ago but that residents went “crazy” over the idea.

He added that considering all residents are now paying well over $100K this year to begin the irrigation project which they rejected in the May referendum, they might be more amenable to it now.  

My head is still hurting from trying to find the logic in that bit of reasoning.

Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

GOLF POW WOW 8/6/12

A meeting will be held Monday, August 6th at 7pm in the North Lounge of the Clubhouse to discuss the future of golf at Farmington Woods.

Golfers and non-golfers alike are invited to discuss all options for the course.

Everyone is welcome to attend.

EXERCISE IN FRUSTRATION

From time to time I get an email from a frustrated resident asking why we have money for cart paths and course improvements but none for landscaping or driveway paving. I have answers for them; it's pretty obvious. 

But I can't provide solutions. And if you think you're going to get them by attending the monthly executive committee meetings, you may want to read an email from a resident who's been there, done that, and now wears the T-shirt: DON'T BOTHER!

I guess I'm just jaded from everything I've seen and read from others while writing this blog, but I've come to the conclusion that the government we have here is anything but representative. It doesn't have to be. It's a corporation. A not-for-profit corporation, but a corporation nonetheless. 

I have stocks in lots of corporations and they don't listen to me either. That's just how it is.

And since our leaders are bound by corporate law and insulated from lawsuits, they don't have to answer to anyone but the special interests they support. 

Dear Farmington Woods Blogger,

Just returned from another pointless executive board meeting. Why do I call them pointless? First of all, most of the residents who attend these meetings are on one committee or another. Resident attendance is low and very few choose to speak even when they have concerns.

Because many residents have never been to one of these meetings, let me explain how they are run. Before the meeting begins the Board takes questions and comments from the audience. You are given 5 minutes to make a statement or ask a question unless you’re the interim president of the eighteen hole women’s golf club, then you receive unlimited time to pontificate.

The rest of us are held strictly to the 5 minute rule. According to their rules of order, they are not supposed to answer you but occasionally the president will bend the rules with a sassy reply. During June’s meeting a woman asked where they were going to get the money to pay for the irrigation system that residents rejected on May 10^th.  Here the rules applied, so no answer.

At this meeting I asked a simple question: Since the bond vote, why is it that no committee or executive board member sees fit to discuss our two failing operations: golf and the club house/restaurant operations. No answers or remarks, board members just sat there silent.

So why ask questions at all you’re wondering? I guess because you’d think the Board would take those questions back to the responsible committees including golf, restaurant and finance and demand answers. They don’t.

Your questions and comments fall on deaf ears. And if you don’t attend these meetings, you’ll never know what concerns other residents have because questions and comments from residents never appear in the minutes of the meeting.

Now I understand why working residents don’t attend these meetings. They’re a waste of time, effort and money. The Farmington Woods Executive Committee is back to business as usual.

“So don’t worry, be happy. We’ve got this covered.” In the end they exercise self interest and hardly represent the concerns of the majority of residents: making the golf/restaurant operations self-sustaining.

And that means doing away with the ridiculous restaurant assessment imposed on non-golfing residents in 1998. It’s been increased twice since and it will happen again as long as we allow it to. Let’s face it, we not only have two failing operations here, we also have an executive committee that fails every non-golfing resident every time $30 per month is added to their condo bill.

It seems to me that leaders here are having a gay old time listening to Perry Como and tipping back Rob Roys like it’s the 50’s again. “We’re in the middle of a recession? It’s a good thing we live here at Farmington Woods because we’re recession proof! We have 1.084 residents that provide us with endless pots of money to spend as we please.”

And spend they do, regardless of what we, the residents want.

Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

MIDSUMMER WAKE-UP CALL

Wow! Heat waves, Greenland's melting and we're looking at hail and possibly tornadoes tomorrow. After last fall's "October Surprise" I tend to pay more attention to the forecasts.

All in all, however, it's been a pretty pleasant summer in Connecticut and Farmington Woods as long as you had AC. 

And as usual, it'll cool off and we'll get relief come September. But it could also heat up again in September if the best and brightest of us decide to participate in the political process here at Farmington Woods and get us back in the black again. And I'm not talking about the kind that comes when trees fall on power lines.

I'm talking about getting Farmington Woods caught up with the 21st Century by changing the way we do business here. There's no shortage of people with really creative ideas to make the clubhouse a profitable operation again, not by increasing minimums, but by doing away with them and making that operation work as it did for 27 years before the clubhouse assessment was imposed on residents in 1998.

The golf course? That's a pretty hard nut to crack, but a solution will be found, either by choice or out of dire necessity sooner rather than later. But it will take people who care enough to participate in the process here before any of this will happen.

That said, I received the following information from the MA regarding cut-off dates for both board elections. If you live in a district that is up for grabs you might want to consider running for one of the openings mentioned. For the District Board you can live in any district.  

Executive Board openings exist in the EVEN districts (2,4,6,8 and 10) and applications need to be submitted by August 17th.

Applications for District Board positions should be in by September 10, although there can also be nominations from the floor at the meeting October 30, 2012. 

Here's how it breaks down:


Master Association Executive Board

                                                            District

Irene Loretto, President                        1

Jim Killian*                                           2 (term up)

Jamie Cladwell                                    3

Harry Dermer, Vice President*             4 (term up)

Carmine Fortino                                   5

Max Warren*                                        6 (can run another 2 years if  he wishes)

Michael Marchese, Secretary              7

Martha Dixon, Treasurer*                    8 (term up)

Mary Ellen Quinn                                 9

John Buckey*                                      10 (term up)

* Even number elections - September 2012

District Board of Directors

Irene Loretto, President

Caroline LaMonica, Vice President*

Heinz Rosskothen, Treasurer

Dan Sullivan, Clerk*

Dirk Aube, Director*

Adam Briggs, Director

Nancy Landwehr, Director

Richard Matt, Director

Ivan Mendelsohn, Director

*Term Expires October 2012  -  all 3 can run again if they wish.

District Representatives

District 1 Joan Skydel – Chair, Barbara Ringwood

District 2* Kathy Apuzzo - Chair, Lauren McCoy

District 3 Sandy Rickard – Chair, Mike Hamlin, Sarah Lapuk

District 4* Peggy Winters – Chair, Carole Connolly, Audrey Hunt

District 5 Barbara Smith – Chair, Corinne Benninger

District 6* Joan Thomas – Chair, Mary Healey, Tom Heavren

District 7 Betsy McQueeney – Chair, Linda Murphy, Janice Glass

District 8* Gail Standish – Chair, Sue Grosch, Sy Reitman

District 9 Barbara Marsh - Chair, Bob Chamberlin, Patricia Santoro

District 10* Inez Bromberg – Chair, Jane Keeney, Marian Grey

* Even number elections - September 2012  all can run if they wish.


Call Jennifer at the MA for more information.

8,000 PAGEVIEWS

I realize people outside of Farmington Woods are reading this blog, but that's still a sizable number of pageviews in just four months. I get emails offering me political advice, others telling me to keep doing what I'm doing. The other day I got an email from someone looking to move here. He was not at all concerned with our ongoing struggle, but he was happy I was speaking up. He visited our little community and found it to be quite lovely. I do too. Just wish that the people at the top would listen to the average resident more.