|
Post by ambergreen on Jan 31, 2011 3:40:41 GMT -6
The DIPOA is considering making dues mandatory.
I'm not sure of the exact wording of the proposal, but I think the idea is that if you pay the $100 per year dues, you will: -- be permitted to vote for Board members in the elections each May, -- be permitted to vote on property issues (such as whether or not to sell portions of DIPOA property), and -- get discounts on using the pool, golf course and renting the clubhouse.
As I understand it, the proposal is that if you do not pay the dues, you would not get these benefits. You would still be allowed to attend DIPOA open Board meetings and post comments on this discussion forum, so at least your voice could be heard. But you could not vote.
This would require a change to the DIPOA Constitution. The members would have to vote on it during the next election cycle.
I've heard some say that the original deed grants all property owners partial ownership of (and therefore, a vote on) DIPOA-owned property, regardless of whether or not they ever pay dues, and regardless of what the DIPOA Constitution says.
I think several legal opinions are needed from different attorneys.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Feb 15, 2011 7:19:56 GMT -6
Thought Id try posting to see how if works--and if I can work it At the board meeting Wed I expect to gain approval of a constitutional amendment --to be placed on the ballot this spring--that if approved by the membership will make dues payment a condition of membership. That is, only PO's who are current with their dues will be members of the POA. So we would no longer have dues paying members and non dues paying members---we would just have members. So PO's may choose to just be a PO, or they may choose to also be a member of the POA, and if so must pay dues. I think once the concept is understood, most will consider it simpler and more practical. Once the POA board has voted , we will post the exact language of the amendment here and on the POA website.
|
|
|
Post by ebroach on Feb 15, 2011 16:18:58 GMT -6
I too am responding to see how this forum activity works... For the record...I agree that members should be paying members.
|
|
|
Post by kelbylinn on Feb 17, 2011 10:37:26 GMT -6
Makes sense that paying members should have privileges above and beyond non-paying members such as discounts at the facilities, etc. My only problem is the possible "non-voting" part for non-paying property owners. A lot of property owners live elsewhere and are not capable of using the facilities or taking advantage of discounts, but I feel should still have a say in voting matters. For the record though, I feel all property owners as members should pay their annual dues in support of the organization.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Feb 17, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -6
OK--I'll see how this works. The proposed amendment re. membership and dues should be attached. Well I found out you can't preview attachments--so I'll just post it and hope it's right. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by bob323 on Feb 18, 2011 7:35:01 GMT -6
Every development/subdivision I've lived in (including the current one here in GA), requires payment of POA dues as a condition of membership, including voting rights. And failure to pay dues owed not only negates the right to vote but can result in a lien placed on your property by the POA.
Net-net: my view is payment of membership fees should be considered a prerequisite for voting privileges (UNLESS, however, there's fine print in the property deeds that states otherwise which, if such is the case, dictates a legal opinion)
|
|
|
Post by bob323 on Feb 18, 2011 8:13:33 GMT -6
JBJ - questions for you re voting rights now that I've read the amendment:
1. What is the definition of 'entity', versus a single individual, in the context of the amendment? 2. What is the thinking re a multi-unit condo complex - one vote per unit, one fractional vote per unit which collectively add up to one vote, voting privileges of entity-owned (i.e., unsold) units vs individual-owned units? etc, etc 3. Likewise, what is the thinking re an individual or a business who own multiple parcels/lots - one vote per parcel?
Thx.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Feb 18, 2011 9:52:53 GMT -6
OK-- 1. An entity is any non-individual(S)--e.g. a corporation, LLC, Partnership, etc. This ten was been in use so we kept it. 2. This again is a continuation of past practice--a condo is a parcel same as an individual lot. 3. This one is more subjective but thinking is a bit like this. The current practice is that all owners of record are members--but only one owner per parcel can be a voting member. The change will allow multiple owners to become members up to the number of parcels--such that each person is "tied" to a separate parcel. Seemed like a reasonable arrangement, but that's not to say it's perfect Re. the entities it again seemed reasonable to allow a few members from a company that owns several parcels, but not an unlimited number --hence four. So if Acme, Inc. buys up 100 condo's, instead of having 100 members and votes --as some say they should--they could name 4 members each, of course, with a vote.
|
|
|
Post by kelbylinn on Feb 19, 2011 20:43:15 GMT -6
Moderator: I am glad you set up another thread for this topic. Per your new general rules and policy, highjacking of threads is not allowed:
I quote: "NOT ALLOWED ON THE FORUM • Profanity • Name-calling, personal attacks • Thread hijacking..." etc.
A previous thread regarding "mandatory dues" was indeed highjacked resulting in this separate thread. If this forum is to survive and allow input from all, such highjacking must not be allowed going forward by any one person trying to make their own specific point non-related to the thread in place. Hopefully this new thread will stop the highjacking of other threads and hopefully the moderater of this forum will be quick to act if it does not by banning the highjacker.
|
|
|
Post by Forum Administrator on Feb 20, 2011 0:24:29 GMT -6
There is a difference between going slightly off-topic due to inexperience with the etiquette of discussion forums versus intentional thread hijacking. Some forum members simply have not yet learned when it is appropriate to start a new thread, or they may not know how to do so.
It could be argued that the topic of the military hotel is tangentially related to some of these other issues such as the deed restriction removal, and changes to the constitution which will affect the voting block, and therefore, any votes that may be taken in the future regarding the military hotel, if it ever comes to pass.
Nevertheless, since the military hotel topic has implications of its own which are unique, discussion of this will be better served in its own thread. Moving threads when they begin to veer off-topic will hopefully educate those who are relatively new to this brand of communications channel.
|
|
|
Post by thowes on Feb 21, 2011 5:59:16 GMT -6
Okay,this topic started out with "mandatory dues" and seems to have ended up with the AFRC;however,back to mandatory dues. I think we should pay them. I am a member of another property owners association and we pay annual dues to vote and don't even have a beach to walk on or an ocean to swim in.
|
|
dave
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by dave on Mar 5, 2011 10:41:01 GMT -6
I do not have a problem with making POA dues mandatory for voting privileges. I think there should be a very transparent disclosure of what our dues go to support. We need to encourage members to want to pay their dues and have them not feel that their dues are being squandered on projects that benefit only a few. Our dues should benefit all members as much as possible.
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 11, 2011 22:33:55 GMT -6
What benefits do you receive in return for the dues that you pay to the other propery owners association of which you are a member?
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 11, 2011 23:07:22 GMT -6
I don't feel that anybody should vote to pay mandatory dues until all is disclosed about what they will be used for. I am not worried about paying $250 dollars. I would have paid that voluntarily . I am talking about the future uses of the Isle Dauphine club that the dues will be used for will be used for. Bruce, I thought this was supposed to be a truthful forum. Since you are the moderator of this forum, are you the one that keeps changing my remarks about the dues being used for the Military complex to the other thread because you are scared for anybody to see them?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Administrator on Mar 11, 2011 23:13:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 15, 2011 18:04:14 GMT -6
Bruce,
When you ask the owners to pay mandatory dues, you need to state exactly what the dues will be used for and the expenses involved.
For all of the owners information, and before voting on the Mandatory dues, you might tell the owners how much money each part of the Club cost (the pool, the tennis courts, the golf course, the grill, club house)? How many different individuals use each part. Example, not how many rounds of golf is played, but how many actual different people play a round of golf. Example, Jeff stated in a Board meeting that there are 36 members to the golf club and I think he said out of that 15 of them were snowbirds. What I am trying to find out are the property owner paying for the golf course for just the few to play golf, even if they play every day of the week. What is the ratio between the owners and the general public who play golf?
How much money does each part of the Club make gross and net?
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Mar 19, 2011 19:09:48 GMT -6
Wow! You sound like most POA members on DI....wanting something for your money! Besides the obvious... What benefits do you receive in return for the dues that you pay to the other propery owners association of which you are a member?
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 19, 2011 21:15:28 GMT -6
Whistlingdixie, what is the obvious??
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Mar 20, 2011 8:08:23 GMT -6
Your dues help keep the buildings maintained, as best we can. Your dues pays the wages of the staff. Your dues help make mailings and ballots and literature available so that you can be informed of the issues. Your dues help maintain the golf course, the pool, and help groom some of our other holdings. That is the obvious. Personally, I have always said that mandatory dues is essential to the operation of the POA as a business, even if it is a non-profit.
|
|
|
Post by parrothead on Mar 20, 2011 9:59:14 GMT -6
Whistlingdixie, what is the obvious?? Since you and your constituants never use our facilities, what you recieve back for your mandatory dues is the priviledge of a vote AND all the aforementioned by whistlingdixie....the obvious!
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 30, 2011 9:56:24 GMT -6
Actually, our dues are directed at offsetting the annual operating losses of the golf course. That is the major reason behind the present $100 dues requirement that was established in 2005. All property owners need to come to the realization that their dues are used to subsidize the golf course. This is a fact which is not readily known or appreciated by most POA members. The POA Board does not clearly articulate that critical information at their monthly meetings or in their follow-up newsletters. Based on the POA's own financial data (see attached table), the golf course consistently operated in the red in each of the last 11 years between 2000 and 2010 for which complete data is available. Over that period, the golf course lost a cumulative total of $868,385. What has become evident to the Board, but not explicitly stated to the membership, is that the golf course cannot continue to operate unless it is subsidized by membership dues. Since the present dues of $100 are not sufficient to offset the annual golf course losses, the Board is proposing that the dues be increased to as much as $250 per year, with the exact amount being established at the sole discretion of the POA Board. According to the 2010 POA Business Plan, the Board is counting on at least 1,000 members to pay the increased dues, many of which do not play golf. A question that should be asked and answered is: Why is the golf course a sacrosanct facility that the POA must continue to operate, even while it is leading to the financial ruin of the POA? A related question that should be asked is: Is the continued operation of the golf course in the best interest of the POA membership as a whole? I am completely in favor of paying dues to the POA. However, I want more in return for my dues than only receiving the right to vote and to attend the monthly Board members. Since I and most POA members do not play golf, I believe the POA should provide those of us with alternative recreational options. I no longer want my dues to be used to subsidize a failing golf course. What time has clearly proven is that the POA is incapable of profitably managing the golf course, or even so that it breaks even on a consistent annual basis. Should our membership want that practice to be continued and dependent upon non-golfers having to contribute their dues to that end? During the 5-year period 2006-2010, the POA received a total of $500,603 in dues. Of those dues, $457,089 were required to compensate for losses incurred from operation of the golf course. If the golf course losses had not consumed +91% of those dues, the POA would have operated at a theoretical net profit of $408,837 over that 5-year period. Thus, $408,837 would have been available to pursue alternative recreational facilities that could have been used by all members of the POA. Such facilities could have included the following: - Construction of a "real" pool that would be available for the exclusive use of members, their guests, and/or renters. The pool could be located on POA beach property near the Isle Dauphine Club, other POA property, or on one or more of the interior island lots that are for sale.
- Development of the POA owned Jefferies Park located on Little Dauphin Island Bay. The improvements could include a boat ramp, picnicking facilities, and other park amenities that would be available for the exclusive use of members, their guests, and/or renters.
- Establishment of a kayaking ramp and related recreational facilities on POA property along Salt Creek. Similar facilities could be constructed on other POA waterfront properties.
- Construction of piers at POA owned waterfront lots. The piers could provided temporary mooring for POA boat owners and improved fishing platforms.
- Develop scattered POA properties into small neighborhood parks.
If a property owner plays golf, he/she probably is okay with 100% of their dues being directed to offset the golf course losses. However, those property owners that do not play golf may find that to no longer be acceptable. That is why I am opposed to the "mandatory dues" proposal. If, in developing the proposal, the Board had assured a significant portion of the increased dues would be directed at POA membership projects that would benefit non-golfers, I would have no problem with the proposal. However, that is not the case. That is why I am voting NO against the "mandatory dues" proposal.Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 1, 2011 0:31:14 GMT -6
I would love to see a beautiful pool and tennis courts. A golf course is a great selling point for the people coming to the island. I would love to see it all. the question do the owners of the property want it and are will to pay for it. The upkeep is very expensive and who pays when hurricanes happen.
I just don't want to see the Town/Developers building a Military Complex on the Isle Dauphine property that the owners will not be able to use, but the property owners will have to pay the MANDATORY DUES to keep it up.
Bruce, I didn't understand the comparison of the Grand Hotel to Isle Dauphine golf course on the “members only” thread. Do you think the members of Club connected to the Grand Hotel would mind paying MANDATORY DUES for a club and not be able to use it? I wonder what the residents of Point Clear would think about a Military Complex being put there? Bruce, maybe, Point Clear would be a better place to put the Developer's Military Complex instead of Dauphin Island.
|
|
|
Post by skipgrizzle on Apr 11, 2011 13:37:13 GMT -6
I am attempting to gather as much information as possible concerning the issues at hand so forgive me as I make observations that may be elementary to some of the forum veterans. Concerning mandatory dues, we have always paid the annual dues since purchasing our property on the Island 8 years ago well before we built our house, primarily because we felt like "it was the right thing to do". In fact we took pride in the fact that we were now a property owner in a unique location that we have loved since childhood and we feel fortunate to now own a home in our little slice of paradise.
Having said that, I have to admit that some of the information that has been presented concerns me greatly... primarily the info that a substantial amount of the dues is going to keep the golf course afloat. I tend to agree that use of the dues to offset the golf course losses is a poor use of funds that could be used elsewhere to the benefit of more property owners. If it was such a good public relations draw, the course wouldn't need bailing out at the current levels. I will continue to gather as much information as I can over the course of the next few days prior to finalizing my voting decisions, however at this point I am questioning the wisdom of where my money is going. I look forward to further information.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 12, 2011 16:31:52 GMT -6
Here is a document explaining and supporting the dues amendment Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 13, 2011 22:43:03 GMT -6
Since the Board of Directors is asking for mandatory dues to be a member in the POA and to vote, I thought it would be a good idea for the Board to informed the property owners how successful the business plan has been for the past year before the annual meeting.
I was curious how each assets performance has measured against established monthly goals that is stated in the business plan.
I am sure that the composers of the Business plan have been keeping up with the success rate of the plan and can post all of the net profit information to this forum.
The business plan states, "MAKE dues mandatory in 2011 and increase them in 2012 while providing added benefits." What are the increases of dues going to be in 2012? Why would you need to increase the dues when the Business plan states that the POA will make a $44,080.00 net profit in 2012? What are the added benefits that the POA will be providing to the owner as stated in the Business Plan?
Has the POA made any profit this year to consider any performance-based bonuses? Since the DIPOA is a Corporation, I am sure that one of the officers will be able to answer these questions quickly.
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Apr 15, 2011 18:42:58 GMT -6
I am wondering if the fact that the POA has never charged mandatory dues to its property owners might contribute to its functioning in the red for the last few years....a business, even a non-profit, has to expect and anticipate enough revenue to run its various enterprises.....you can't run a business on no money....and you have to know you can generate a certain amount of money to even begin to operate the business....I, for one, would love to see this POA begin to operate as a business which is not for profit, but that is interested in having the funds necessary to reach the break even point....and I also think that the property owners, if they continue to want a board, should be willing to pay for the operation and function of that board and its responsibilities....folks, you can't have it both ways...no free ride, buy your ticket or get off the roller coaster. It is true that the golf course takes a large portion of the revenue the POA generates, but it is also true that it is the ONLy source of sizeable income for the POA, besides dues, which are not mandatory, but voluntary.......and round and round and round we go.....
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Apr 15, 2011 19:55:36 GMT -6
|
|
cliff
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by cliff on Apr 15, 2011 20:37:35 GMT -6
Excellent point. The DIPOA is the only organization to which I belong that has "optional" dues with all of the privileges of membership.
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Apr 16, 2011 7:43:26 GMT -6
Yes....the whole concept is absurd, IMHO! I have voted to make dues mandatory.........and I would hope that everyone would do so.....I will repeat what I put in another post....we are letting our nostalgia (It has always been this way) get in the way of our best self as an organization. I think that we, as humans, get comfortable with something and change is unknown....it keeps us from moving forward and binds us to things that don't work anymore. Let's make a change, work to make it function better, and move on. Excellent point. The DIPOA is the only organization to which I belong that has "optional" dues with all of the privileges of membership.
|
|
|
Post by amydune on Apr 16, 2011 7:57:58 GMT -6
I'll gladly pay my .27 per day for membership and to vote. The dues may go up, they may not - regardless, I'll pay and I'll pay up to .68 per day. The clubhouse, golf, tennis and pool is one of the areas of the island people can utilize. And being in the tourist industry people do ask about golf, etc. People who prefer to rent a house and not a condo, do ask about a pool for usage. I will do what I can on my end to make sure the POA stays solvent.
|
|