Proposed Military Hotel/Complex

[carolinegraves]

I believe that all Dauphin Island property owners should be aware of THE TOWN/DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED MILITARY COMPLEX TO BE PUT ON THE POA PROPERTY, BEFORE THEY VOTE FOR ANYTHING.

[JBJ]

As has been explained many times--the most recent at the POA meeting last Wed --there are no plans, special arrangements , or secret deals to do a military hotel on POA property. The POA is working with the Town and other entities to attract the facility to the island because we think it would be a positive. At some point the POA may be approached about use of our property and if that happens we will listen and respond. Keep i mind, before the POA could enter into any long term lease or other encumbrance, the members would have to amend the constitution to allow it. I remind the previous poster of the old saying-- we're all entitled to our own opinions , but not our own facts...

[carolinegraves]

Bruce, post the letter that you signed to the the Commander, Navy Installations Command. Why would you sign it unless the POA was considering it? It is time for true disclosure.

[JBJ]

Here's one of the letters --this one informing the Mayor that the POA board adopted a resolution supporting the pursuit of a military rec facility on Dauphin Island.

Some background--most likely know that there had been a military rec facility on the island for years. It was located down behind the sea lab and campground and operated by the Coast Guard. It was damaged beyond repair after Ivan or Katrina. So there's been am interest in rebuilding the facility, but at a better location and bigger/better. So that's where we are now--in the vetting process, and as part of that process the interest/support of the local community is assessed. The other letter referred to was co-signed by representatives of the Town, PBB, WSB, and POA, and expresses support for the project and itemized the amenities that the community would like to see included.

[JBJ]

Attachment was too large--probably the letterhead--I'll try again

[JBJ]

Here's the resolution:

Dear Mayor Collier:

The Dauphin Island Property Owners’ Association (DIPOA) is proud to announce that the following resolution was presented and adopted at our board meeting held August 21, 2010 at Town Hall on Dauphin Island, Alabama:

“Be it resolved:

The DIPOA fully and enthusiastically supports the Town of Dauphin Island in its effort to obtain a hotel on Dauphin Island and will provide any help within its capabilities for this much needed and worthy project. In addition, DIPOA urges Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to do everything necessary to convince the Department of Defense to enter into a public-private partnership with the Town of Dauphin Island to finance, construct, and operate the hotel.”

We sincerely hope that this will become a reality and will be one of the projects that will assist in the economic recovery of Dauphin Island.

Sincerely,

Board of Directors
Dauphin Island Property Owners’ Association

[carolinegraves]

Bruce,

Doesn’t the DIPOA Master Plan mention a Military Hotel?

1. If the POA puts The Town/developer’s Military Hotel on the Isle Dauphine property, who
will own the Hotel?

2. Isn’t it true, that only Military personnel will be able to use the Hotel?

3. Name one benefit for the Property owners.

4. Who is the “public-private partnership” that will finance, and construct and operate the
Hotel?

5. Is it just a Hotel or is it really a Military Complex that will spread out all over Dauphin
Island?

Bruce, please disclose all documentation that are associated with the “Armed Forces Recreation Center Hotel/Recreation Complex (AFRC)” to be put on Dauphin Island.

[Forum Administrator]

Since there are some discussions going on about the possibility of a military hotel/complex being built on the island, a new thread has been created to discuss that particular issue.

In December 2010, a letter went out from the Town, the DIPOA and the PBB to the Department of Defense (DOD), soliciting them to place a military hotel or complex of some sort on the island. The idea is that it would bring more visitors to the island, increasing revenues for island businesses.

It is unclear as to whether any particular parcels of land are currently being considered for the complex, should the DOD choose Dauphin Island as the location for this project. Some members are wondering if DIPOA property might now or in the future be among the parcels considered. Therefore, this thread has been moved to this board (Parks & Other Land Holdings).

Please discuss the military complex on this thread. Thank you.

[JBJ]

I've been asked to post the referenced letter, and may do so if none of the other parties object. One objection to publishing the letter is that it could give competitors--if there are some in the area, I don't know--an advantage. But when you read it you'll see that it simply expresses a concerted invitation to bring the project to DI, highlights some special positives about us, and lists the amenities/features that we would welcome. But it makes no commitments other than cooperation, writes no blank checks, suggests no specific locations, and makes no open promises.

So what's next? The AFRC organization's vetting will continue and at some point we'll hear whether we make the cut or not. If we do, then at some point we'll begin to get into details. The POA, the PBB, the Town, and/or private property owners may be approached about providing property under some arrangement. If/when that happens, then we'll have to decide whether we want to do it or
not. But keep in mind, if POA property is to be encumbered , the POA membership will have to vote on it.


If we don't make the cut, then we'll have to find something else to get all worked up about

[carolinegraves]

Bruce,

To solve this right now, would the other board members and you be willing to sign a document to state that you personally have no knowledge or documentation about the AFRC to be put on POA property and the POA has never consider and will not put any part of the Military Complex on the Isle Dauphine property.

Isn't the "referenced letter" a public document?

[ambergreen]

Request to the DIPOA Board:
Please post the letter to the DOD on the DIPOA website, if this has not already been done.

The argument that it might give a competitor ideas is a weak one. The odds that a competitor might stumble across the DIPOA website and read the letter are fairly remote. And even if so...no doubt the DOD is already well aware of the offerings of our nearest competitiors - Gulf Shores with more choices of activities but more crowded beaches and more traffic, and Biloxi with casinos but more traffic.

All DIPOA Board activity and discussions (other than confidential discussions related to DIPOA employees) should always be disclosed to members, and documents published, in short order after such activity or discussions have taken place or documents created.

Most particularly, whenever a Board member signs a letter or document that is sent to an outside party for solicitation or other such purposes, even if said document is completely benign, and even if clearly to the benefit of the organization, it should be published to the DIPOA website for all members to read. The Board members represent all of us, and all property owners have a right to know what their representatives have said and signed.

I have read the letter and it is clearly a positive solicitation that merely highlights the amenities the island has to offer to anyone, military or otherwise, who comes to visit or seeks to build here. But it should still be posted on the website so that all members know what their representatives are doing for them.

[JBJ]

Feb 19, 2011 17:20:45 GMT -6 carolinegraves said:

Bruce,

To solve this right now, would the other board members and you be willing to sign a document to state that you personally have no knowledge or documentation about the AFRC to be put on POA property and the POA has never consider and will not put any part of the Military Complex on the Isle Dauphine property.

Isn't the "referenced letter" a public document?

This is a puzzling suggestion in light of my previously posted explanations of where we are now, and what possibly lies ahead relative to this project. Maybe it would be helpful for you to review my previous posts.

The letter may be public record--I'm not sure.

[carolinegraves]

Bruce,

Doesn’t the DIPOA Master Plan mention a Military Hotel?

1. If the POA puts The Town/developer’s Military Complex on the Isle Dauphine property, who
will own the Hotel?

2. Isn’t it true, that only Military personnel will be able to use the Hotel?

3. Name one benefit for the Property owners.

4. Who is the “public-private partnership” that will finance, and construct and operate the
Hotel?

5. Is it just a Hotel or is it really a Military Complex that will spread out all over Dauphin
Island?

[JBJ]

Those are all good questions and I'll attempt to answer them.

-- Yes the Vision Plan mentions that the Coast Guard would like to reinstate their rec facility and suggests that the proposed Isle Dauphine lodging component might accommodate this need. Keep in mind, though, the vision plan is a concept of what the whole property could become if substantial investment were to be made in it. It's main reason for being put together and released was to help the POA and DI "get in line" for any available economic development funds that might have been--even may be--available following the oil crisis. ( See discussion around the deed restriction
removal)

1. Re. who would own. It would just depend on how it would be set up. I'll speculate a bit--my guess would be that if it were to be a AFRC project, then that entity would want to own it outright. If that were the case then the POA would have to have some incentive to sell/longterm lease all or part of our property. We'd have to see what was offered but I don't see this as a possibility.

2. Re. who can use. It's my understanding that they they do them both ways--i.e. some are open some are closed. I think the AFRC facilities tend to be closed while the public/private p'ship ones tend to have rooms open to non-military. The Coast Guard facility on DI was military only to my knowledge.

3. Name one benefit. The tone of this one suggests that you don't believe there are any--and that's the nature of a large, diverse, org. People disagree on what a "benefit" is, or what "progress" is.
But the basic plus for this concept is that it would bring more visitors to the island --restaurants, gift shops, etc. gain, and word spreads and more visitors beyond just the military come and we rent more vacation lodging, etc. The Town gains taxes, etc.
From the point of view of the POA/Isle Dauphine facilities it's possible that a project like this could benefit our operation thru direct investment, or just --in the case of the golf course--more players.

4. Who is the P/P partnership? There's not one yet that I know of. The Town would have to be involved.

5. One location or many. Again it would depend on the scope of the project. Might have amenities at multiple locations--depends on how much share vs. how much exclusive use.


To me a share scenario ( hotel open to the public and the military guests use our facilities rather than build their own) offers much more for us. E.g. if we could get some improvements at our , say, golf course, in return for some favorable green fee/reservation arrangement that might be a win-win. A totally private military facility would not seem to offer as much.

[JBJ]

OK--here's the letter we've been discussing.

Attachments:

[Dennis Knizley]

That is an interesting concept to be entertained by the Town of Dauphin Island and the POA. I am certain there is much more involved in this proposal than can possibly be gleaned from the letter or chatter on this forum, but the idea of the POA being as a signatory to the letter is a matter that the POA should ensure apprisal of to all members. On this point Mrs. Graves appears to be clearly correct.

As this forum is to discuss issues affecting DIPOA members, and consequently the Island community, the thought that the POA may involve the clubhouse, pool, POA beach, golf course or other interests in such a project should be throughly aired here. All information, not just this letter, but the substance of POA involvement should be made available in some medium.

POA members will have widely varying opinions. The thought of a military "hotel", which brings a significant national government presence to the island, may or may not be what property owners want, regardless of what potential economic benefits may accompany it. We could get that traffic light after all, whether we want it or not. This sounds like a totally different situation than what was at the Coast Guard base, and any analogy to it by the POA leadership does not seemed to be warranted. Disclosure of all information in connection with this potential project, that is known to the POA leadership, would be appropriate. The current popular phrase is "transparency".

Any time taxpayer money, that is, money that does not belong to the decision maker, is involved, high scruntiny should follow. Here we have Town funds and federal funds, as well as assets of a quasi-public entity, the DIPOA, being considered. Please totally inform the property owners of any involvement the Association may have in matters that could affect a change in their lifestyle on the island.

[JBJ]

You're right--there is a wide range of views re. whether the presence of this facility would be good, bad or in between. Part of the uncertainty is that the "facility/project/concept" is at present undefined. We'll have to see the details ( where the devil resides) before we can say. And even then we'll continue to have a wide range of views I will predict.

At some point we (POA) may be presented with some kind of an offer involving our property and we will respond. But keep in mind that the board doesn't have the authority to encumber property and any such arrangement would have to be voted on by the members. And I hope the members have enough confidence in the board to act prudently.

[sgraves1]

To JBJ,

I am pleased that you elected to post the letter to Mr Warnken since 1) it was discussed at the January board meeting, and that it was even shared with Laura at that meeting. 2) the letter was written on the Town of Dauphin island's letterhead, which made the letter a public document available to the public. I had requested and received a copy from the Town and was planning to post the letter if you did not, per the above reasons.

As you know, I did not believe that the letter should have been co-signed by you (POA) without discussion and authorization from the Board. We disagree on this point (and some on Board felt the same as you) and that is fine. Unfortunately co-signing the letter occurred before the letter was divulged to the Board as a draft, or at least to me.

Again, I thanks for posting the letter.

[bob323]

My compliments to 'ambergreen' for her well-stated position which I agree with 100% - i.e.,

"All DIPOA Board activity and discussions (other than confidential discussions related to DIPOA employees) should always be disclosed to members, and documents published, in short order after such activity or discussions have taken place or documents created.

Most particularly, whenever a Board member signs a letter or document that is sent to an outside party for solicitation or other such purposes, even if said document is completely benign, and even if clearly to the benefit of the organization, it should be published to the DIPOA website for all members to read. The Board members represent all of us, and all property owners have a right to know what their representatives have said and signed."

[carolinegraves]

Bruce,

1. What document do you have that states that the Military Hotel Complex is open to the public.

2. Haven't you talked to the Town and Rod Grimm about The Town's/Developers Military Complex?

3. Is the entity that you state that would own the Hotel, is the Developer or the Navy?

[Dennis Knizley]

According to the JBJ post, Mrs. Graves post is a bit premature. However, if the Association has the information she seeks, absent some compelling reason, disclosure may be appropriate. The inquiries should not deteriorate to asking for less significant details that are not informative enough to justify the effort to post them.

If the federal government establishing a large presence on Dauphin Island, a hotel, is an issue in which the DIPOA even considers being involved, all aspects of the involvement need be made known to the membership, absent some realistic concern for public disclosure. It does not need to be in this forum, but notice here that all information is available at the POA office, and inquiries can be left and answered there, would suffice. Posting here is an option as well, assuming the creation of this forum contemplates the dissemination of such information.

The DIPOA getting the property owners involved in such an undertaking is important. Please let the property owners know all the information you can reasonably share.

[carolinegraves]

Bruce, Are you sure that the Membership and the voting being tied to the "Mandatory Dues" are not tied to the Town/Developer's Military Hotel?

Wouldn't limiting voting and adding extra Entities voting to the membership, be advantageous for you in the future voting on selling the POA Isle Dauphin Property or a long term lease??? How long has this plan to sell or lease the POA property been in the works?

[JBJ]

I'm actually quite sure that my motivation for supporting the proposed dues amendment has no connection at all to the possible ARRC or similar facility. My reasoning has been expressed here and through other media--and I hope we will continue to have discussion from more members seeking to understand the proposed change.

It's hard to predict just how this change would affect any given future vote. To start, it doesn't necessarily limit the number of voters--it could very well result in an increased number of voters. Now the number of members will --in my prediction-- likely decrease significantly. Keep in miind that the POA has 2800+ members but our elections normally have around 500 or so voters ( from memory I think there were maybe 800--900 voting in the west surf beach issue) So as it stands most members don't vote or pay dues. It's hoped that this change would pave the way to a POA that consists of interested members who will be more involved, informed, and willing to help lead.

[JBJ]

Feb 23, 2011 0:51:52 GMT -6 carolinegraves said:

Bruce, Are you sure that the Membership and the voting being tied to the "Mandatory Dues" are not tied to the Town/Developer's Military Hotel?

Wouldn't limiting voting and adding extra Entities voting to the membership, be advantageous for you in the future voting on selling the POA Isle Dauphin Property or a long term lease??? How long has this plan to sell or lease the POA property been in the works?

What do you mean by..." this plan to sell or lease..."

[amydune]

Why is this thread in just about every forum?

@bruce - I would stop answering the questions that are being asked over and over again. This is a volunteer position and I want to thank you for your time and not waste it.

[carolinegraves]

The question is not the amount of the mandatory dues; it is what benefit will the property owner receive from the dues.

Bruce, isn’t it true that after voting for all of the Constitutions changes that the POA board is requesting, the property will be come in essence “public”? I believe that mandatory dues will be used to keep up the Isle Dauphine club for the Public. As I stated at the last board meeting, a family of 10 from Mobile could spend the day at the pool and beach, have the use of the showers, chairs and tables, and free parking, etc., for a total of $60 dollars. I think that is $1 dollar more a person than the public would pay to use the West End Beach owned by the Town. If this is just about the quest of money that the board is pursuing, all they would have to do is put an ad in the Mobile press-register and people will come.

Question is---Will the mandatory dues off set the costs for the upkeep on the chairs, tables, cost of the water for the showers, towels, clean up, liability, etc., for all of the public use?

Will we still have to pay the Mandatory dues when the Town/Developer’s Military complex is put on the Isle Dauphine property?

Why was the Military Complex Thread removed from the different areas? Isn’t the Military Complex the reason for mandatory dues and constitution changes? Bruce, since you are the moderator of this forum, do you know who moved the thread?

[JBJ]

It is not true that the property would become public. The removal of the deed restriction would allow--not require--the POA to manage the property as "open to the public for a fee" (as we are currently doing and have been for some 30 years). The removal of the restriction would not prevent the POA from reverting back to a "members only" operation should we so choose.

Will the "mandatory dues" offset the cost of upkeep..........? We don't know--it depends on how the total amount of dues intake is affected. But keep in mind, the expenses to which you refer are being incurred already--and won't be directly affected by any of the ballot initiatives.

I think that the dues payment as a condition of POA membership is a sound concept and should continue if an AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property.

There is now a thread for the Military Hotel/Complex, in the Parks and Other Land Holdings Forum. The posts re. the AFRC project were consolidated there.

[carolinegraves]

Bruce, I am sorry I did not know that I was wasting you time to ask you about putting the proposed Town/Developer’s Military Complex (AFRC) on Dauphin Island Property Owner’s Association property, Isle of Dauphine property. Whom should I ask? Should I write to Secretary Mabus, CNIC or to the State for this information?

According to the POA website, the POA Board of Directors, “Vision Plan for Isle Dauphine” summit a proposal for the Town that states, “Economic Development Proposal for Dauphin Island Alabama Submitted by: Dauphin Island Property Owners Association” …. Dauphin Island is in dire need of a commercial hotel. It will be widely used by tourists, but also business, academic, research/science and environmentalists who frequently conduct work on Dauphin Island. The Dauphin Island Sea Lab, one of the area’s most renowned cultural attractions, is in constant need of lodging for visitors. It would also be desirable to provide a hotel that can serve as a military R & R component. The U.S. Coast Guard would like to provide facilities for their retirees and active duty personnel to be able to vacation on Dauphin Island. It is possible that the hotel could be guaranteed a certain number of reservations per year by the Armed Services.”

Bruce, isn’t it true that an “a military R & R component” AFRC Town/developer’s Military Complex is for military personal only. Also, why isn’t the Military Hotel going on the Coast Guard property instead of the Isle of Dauphine Club, when the Town/Developers will get the Coast Guard property in exchange? What will the Coast Guard property be used for? How many Hotels are planned for Dauphin Island?

I have been wondering about all of this since I found that the POA and the Town has been concentrating only on the East end of the Island since 2007.

So that all property owners can be fully informed before voting on any changes to the Constitution, and as a property owner and a member of the Property Owners Association, I am asking you, as President of the Board of Directors, to disclose all information, meeting, and documentation that you know about or have concerning the Town/Developer’s Military Complex (AFRC).

[JBJ]

Caroline,

See reply #15 in this thread. That's still about the best answer that I have to the questions about the potential AFRC project. We will just have to wait and see what they propose --if anything. Then we can begin to assess the merits, and--if POA property or other involvement is included--whether we want to participate.

[carolinegraves]

Bruce, Your comments that "I think that the dues payment as a condition of POA membership is a sound concept and should continue if an AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property."

Why would anyone want to be a member and pay mandatory dues to the Dauphin Island Property Owners Association, when the POA board is going to build the Town/Developers Military complex.(AFRC) on the property owners property and the property owners would not be able to use it? Since the Town/Developers Military complex.(AFRC) is the reason behind everything that the POA is doing, why isn't it a part of the other discussions threads, too. Since you are the moderator for this forum, I hope this isn't a one sided forum. I thought you wanted to be transparent. If not put the Military Complex AFRC back on each thread.