One Homeowner’s Synopsis of AC Country Club Purchase: Historical and Current Events

Please allow me to join the ongoing website discussion about the proposed purchase of the AC Country Club (ACCC) from the Friends of ArrowCreek (FOA), by going into a Joint Venture (JV) with the Arnold Palmer Managing Group (APMG). I would like to put together some of the major facts as I know them from HOA meetings, briefings, and reading pertinent literature so far. I freely disclose that I have made use of and copied documentation available to me. Some of it has been said before, but I feel it cannot be said often enough.

Concerns about the Process:

Early in 2014, the HOA created an advisory committee to study the pending bankruptcy of the ACCC and to make recommendations to the HOA board. Tom Gurney and Gary Pestello were charter members of this committee. In the ensuing months, Mr. Gurney and Mr. Pestello would form the FOA and would become managing partners of the FOA LLC. In August of 2014, the HOA Board unanimously agreed to pursue the purchase of the Golf Club, go into a joint venture with APMG, and revise necessary governing documents. During the Aug. 26 meeting of the HOA Board, the advisory committee’s research results were presented as the “green,”  “brown” and “Community Club” options.

The FOA, a group of private investors, was able to buy the ACCC at the bankruptcy court hearing on 09/24/2014. Sam Fox, President of the HOA Board, declared in a written legal brief submitted to that court, that the HOA Board supported the FOA as a bidder. One of the reasons given was that the FOA had a strong long-term financial outlook. This brief also stated that the FOA gave the HOA the option to purchase the Country Club within 9 months after the effective date. Other than the previous owner, Charlie Leider, there were no other interested buyers.

As this time line shows, the HOA Board worked together with the advisory committee and then unanimously supported the FOA and their efforts based on recommendations made by the advisory committee that included future FOA members.

As to the FOA’s business plan that Sam Fox attested to in the bankruptcy court brief: in the AC Frequently asked Questions (FAQ’s) recently posted on the
arrowcreek411.wordpress.com website, it is stated that the HOA Board even at this time (January 2015) is still in the process of determining the final itemized purchase price of the golf club property and assets, negotiate the details of the transaction and business plan with the FOA and APGM. The deadline for the JV vote as stipulated by the FOA is in April/May of 2015. However, the FOA is on record, per its spokesperson Gary Pestello, that they have plans to run the Golf Course on their own should the HOA members decide against the purchase of the ACCC from them.

As of December 2014, the HOA Board includes a Golf Club member, owning a home on the golf course. That new member admitted to potential conflict of interest on her application. Another newly elected board member did not disclose that he lives on the golf course. None of the HOA applicants that expressed concerns about the JV during their campaign were elected. One of them was verbally attacked by a HOA board member during the Meet & Greet the Candidates meeting.

Some of the current Golf Club members and members of the FOA are individuals who involved the ACCC in repeated litigation which was in part responsible for Club Corps withdrawing their offer to buy the ACCC about 6 years ago. Senior managers of Club Corps are now working for Arnold Palmer. The FOA has declined any requests to reveal the names of their investors. It is not known whether APMG is aware that former litigants are currently members of Golf Club and FOA.

The AC CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation (AOI) define the ACHOA as a nonprofit community. The purchase of the Golf Club from the FOA and operating the golf course with the APMG would require changing the ACHOA to a “for profit” community. Our AOI stipulate a requirement of a two thirds majority for any change to the AOI. The vote for the purchase of the club, approval of the Joint Venture and revision of ACHOA governing documents to reflect AC as a “for profit” organization is at this time set up by the HOA Board as an all in one vote requiring only a simple majority vote (50 % plus one) to approve.

Financial Concerns:

If the HOA members vote for the purchase of the ACCC, they will be buying or paying for:

  • the Golf Course and Club House
  • all current debts and future operational deficits (average of $600 – $800 K/year)
  • Arnold Palmer Golf’s management fee (accrued fee until JV vote, then waived for 2 years, then starting at $150K/yr beginning year 3
  • all needed capital investments, legal administration and liability, bank loan interest rate, all expenditures, fees, miscellaneous costs incurred by the FOA since Sept. 24, 2014, plus 12% interest rate

With the 12% interest rate added to the purchase price and all expenditures of the FOA, the FOA will profit without any risk since the HOA Board agreed the FOA will “be made whole” for all expenses. The current loan interest for property is between 3% – 5%.

The proposed increase in HOA fees currently is $99 a month. In the bankruptcy hearing HOA brief, Sam Fox quoted a monthly HOA dues increase of $ 75-80. There currently is no cap on the monthly HOA fee, special assessments, and capital calls. The HOA board can increase the monthly fee without a vote of the HOA membership. As stated in the FAQs: about $30,000 were already spent on this endeavor, and about $60,000 more have been budgeted in the 2015 HOA budget for further expenses associated with the JV initiative, above and beyond capital investments needed.

During their presentation on 12/09/2014, APMG did not reveal any details about their contribution to the financial burden and legal liability in a Joint Venture. They admitted that there was no concrete short-term nor long-term business plan at the time and that they do not anticipate finalizing plans before 3 or 4 months. The JV vote is scheduled for April/May 2015. They stated they were not involved in the calculation of the proposed $99 increase in HOA fees.

In the Skyline Golf Community in AZ, APMG’s managing fee is scheduled to increase from about $165K to about $600K in year three. In the Skyline community this increase of $435K in management fees of the Skyline Club required homeowners’ annual fees to be increased by 20% each year for three years and remain at the heightened level for the following 22 years. Applied to our situation that would mean that our $317 monthly fee would increase to about $547 a month by year three.

The ACCC has never been profitable even at the peak of its membership. Some of the reasons are that the ACCC is off the beaten path, surrounded by other golf courses that are cheaper, more beginner friendly, thus more attractive to a larger population of golfers. Our course is often closed for several months during the winter, and more expensive to keep green related to soil, climate, and terrain reasons.

The golf industry remains in a recession. More golf courses have closed than have been opened during the past few years. Based on national statistics from the Professional Golf Association after an average of 15 years, major repairs are due to the turf and the
irrigation system (currently $750K for a 18-hole course in Hidden Valley). Our course is 17 years old. Rich Kenny admitted in his briefings in November and December that “major capital investments” will be needed for the roof, the kitchen, and parking lot of the Golf Course. Capital calls can be issued to pay for those expenses. Capital calls are additional costs to the ACHOA as a JV partner and will require additional funding from the ACHOA
not covered by monthly HOA assessments. These capital calls can and mostly likely will result in special assessments to be paid by the ACHOA members.

Research supports that property values beyond 100 feet of a golf club are not affected. The significant costs and liabilities associated with a golf course may negatively affect home values. (see: “The Moral Hazards of Mandatory Membership in Private Clubs”,
available on line, and
http://www.hoaevaluations.com/the-golf-course-a-source-of-contention/ )

We are the community with one of the highest HOA fees in the area, even before the increase. There is no gated community in the immediate Reno area with a monthly HOA fee greater than $300 a month.

Liability Concerns:

100% of all people owning property have agreed to the current state of affairs in the ArrowCreek HOA as a non-profit organization. Any person not in agreement with the Joint Venture or changes made to the governing documents may sue the HOA, i.e. ourselves. Please remember the litigation by golf club members against the previous owner Terra Brook and the ACCC about 6 years ago. Please also see the literature collected on the
arrowcreek411.wordpress.com website about HOA law suits.

If the Joint Venture goes forward, any law suit involving the Golf Club and its assets will involve all HOA members as part owners of those assets and partners in the Joint Venture. Furthermore, the HOA’s liability as a partner in the Joint Venture will expand to include any workman’s comp claims, personal injury claims, and personal property damage or theft claims. In short: any AC resident will be responsible for lawsuits against 2 entities: the HOA and the JV.

One real life example of possible litigation is the idea being promoted that in the winter, one amenity offered to ACHOA members if we owned the golf course could be the use of the fairways for sledding. The following article reflects what municipalities throughout the U.S. are facing in terms of litigation due to sledding on public property. This liability would be the same situation for ACHOA members if someone is injured on “our” golf course.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/274413/speedreads-more-cities-are-banning-sledding-thanks-to-lawsuits

Some obvious questions are:

The Process:

Have we been in control of the process when by now the only option we seem to be left with is a yes/no vote on the JV? What about exploring and voting on other options?

Why did Sam Fox in the bankruptcy hearing brief commit us to vote to support the FOA’s acquisition of the golf course before asking our opinion?

Has the JV process been unbiased and will it be unbiased?

Can we realistically meet the deadline of April/May 2015 for a vote based on real numbers and a thorough evaluation of a business plan for the JV?

If the deadline expires, will the asking price go up, or will it go down, or will the FOA just implement their “business plan”?

If it is really true that the HOA wants “to bring the community together”, why is the HOA Board satisfied with the lowest requirement of a 50% + 1 vote for the JV vote? Why are our AOI ignored, that require a two thirds majority for any change of the AOI? Will there be a separate vote to change the AOI?

How can we think of going into business with the FOA if we do not know who they are?

The Finances:

Are we really “taking control over our destiny” by buying a golf course or are we buying into something that will be out of our control, both financially as well as legally?

Why not let the FOA do what their spokesperson Mr. Gary Pestello said they would be ready to do: operate the Golf Club on their own?

If the AC Golf Club is certain to be profitable under Arnold Palmer Golf as the FOA and HOA claim: why does the FOA not want to keep it? Remember, at the Nov. 4 meeting of the ACHOA board, Gary Pestello made it quite clear, the investors of the FOA expected to make a profit if they invested their money. Why does the FOA not put the Golf Club on the market for sale? Why not simply recruit voluntary members for those that want to be members of a Golf Club rather than pursuing mandatory membership via an HOA vote? Have all the ArrowCreek residents that wish to be Golf Club members already joined? For those that do not want to belong to a Golf Club: going to a restaurant for dinner and happy hour would be much cheaper than paying a minimum increase of $99 a month in
HOA fees.

APMG is in the business of acquiring and managing golf courses: why does APMG not want to buy the ArrowCreek Golf Club? Why has there been no other interested buyer?

The Joint Venture promises us life style improvements and expansion of services. We are already paying for an activities coordinator and an operations manager. Our Reserve funds are well funded. We are one of the HOAs with the highest monthly fee. Why are plans to improve the livability for all of us in a community of common interest tied to the Joint Venture proposal? Is that not extortion? What is keeping us from making such investments and improvements with the fees we are already paying?

How will our property values be affected by HOA fees potentially increasing from about $200, to $300, $400 and $500 a month and capital calls whenever needed to support the Golf Course?

Our HOA board consists of volunteers. Who will be qualified to oversee a business such as running a golf course?

The Liability:

Does APMG, the HOA Board, and all AC residents know, that we will be doing business with former litigants if the JV goes through?

How is the HOA Board and the JV going to protect ArrowCreek residents against litigation from former litigants or anyone else who is not in 100% agreement with the JV process, and any of the many possible reasons for law suits?

What are the “real” reasons the FOA does not publish the names of their investors?

15 Responses to One Homeowner’s Synopsis of AC Country Club Purchase: Historical and Current Events

  1. Pingback: Synopsis: The First Addendum Has Its Own Page Under The Synopsis Page | ArrowCreek 411

  2. bob kirtley says:

    It continues to be seen if a golf course can be self sufficient in ArrowCreek. I echo the comments posted above about visibility. My biggest disappointment (of many) in the FAQs is the comment concerning the risk of running a golf course. The HOA says investing in a golf course is “low risk”. This is patently untrue. I have advised other groups on a similar investment in Texas and could never make the cash flows work. As the course was in Austin, it was open year round and had much better community support.

    With respect to the reserve study: The reserve study is only a nice to have. Developing a capital budget is about 20% of the financial analysis surrounding the type of plan needed to project the cash flows for a golf course. …..not to beat a dead horse but the cash for funding the capital improvements have to come from the course operations. At this juncture the study is meaningless as the operating plans have not been disclosed. Any person who is a competent finance person can run the cash flows and ROI and determine if the FOA have based their plans on achievable cash flows. I’m looking forward to the disclosure of the operational plans so I can test their model
    Best regards,
    Bob Kirtley

    Like

    • synopsis writer says:

      Synopsis: 1st addendum
      I would like to update the synopsis previously posted on this website based on my knowledge as a long time AC resident and information obtained from the ArrowCreek 411 website, the Associa website, and from local newspaper and TV reports. The synopsis and this update are an attempt to sort through and organize information for myself to the best of my ability. I hope, that sharing this information might be helpful to others who are trying to get their arms around this. Constructive corrections or additions are more than welcome.

      The Process

      Joint Venture Process:
      Our community is represented by the HOA board. After the elections in December 2014, it became public knowledge that the five board members that were elected were supported by the FOA. The FOA are a group of about 36 investors that bought the ArrowCreek Golf Club at a bankruptcy hearing in the fall of 2014. The ArrowCreek Community Club Committee (ACCC) is a committee established by the HOA Board to analyze the options regarding the purchase of the golf club. The HOA board also established a communications committee to relay vetted information from the HOA board to the residents and provide board approved answers to HOA member questions (for example: FAQ’s). We also now know the names of a few of the litigants that involved the Golf Club and the developer Terrabrook in multiple lawsuits from about 2006 to 2008, contributing to the decision by Club Corps to not buy the Golf Course in 2008. (Key managers of Club Corp now are with the Arnold Palmer Management Group). Below is a list of members of each of the aforementioned groups. Names of those that have multiple roles in our community are highlighted. Pertinent information is added as available regarding those key players in our community.

      HOA BOARD:
      President: Sam Fox: FOA supported
      Vice President: Robin Rakusin: lives on golf course, 6th hole, verbally attacked James Keller, Board candidate (not FOA supporter) during “Meet the Candidates” meeting
      Secretary: Charles Dickinson, FOA supported
      Treasurer: Alan Liebman, FOA supported, lives on golf course 7th hole (in his letter to Arrowcreek friends and neighbors on 11/14/14 he said: I “do not live right next to the golf course”, and on his candidate application he denied any conflict of interest)
      Director: Steven Elliott, FOA supported
      Director: John Krisch,
      Director: Joyce Seelen: FOA supported, Golf Club member, lives on 8th hole: admitted to potential conflict of interest on her candidate application form

      ACCC:
      Rich Kenney: Chairman, spokesperson for the committee / presenter at HOA meetings, served HOA: on the Board, Board president, Board Treasurer, Design Review Committee, Budget Committee, presented HOA on the Unsecured Creditors Committee in the bankruptcy proceedings
      Robin Rakusin: HOA Vice President
      Norm Reeder: ACCC member, Golf Club member, former Golf Club Member Advisory Board President
      Gary Smith: former Golf Club member, former HOA board member/president

      Communications Committee: (incomplete list, obtained at the Nov 17th HOA meeting)
      Paul Burkett: former golf club member, former president of HOA, temporary HOA board member in 2014, Chair of HOA Budget Committee
      Norm Reeder: ACCC member, Golf Club member, former Golf Club Member Advisory Board President
      Hal Albright: FOA member, Golf Club member
      Added volunteer members on 11/1714: James Keller: HOA Board candidate, not a Golf Club Member; John McGhee: former co-chair of The Group of Volunteers (GOV) pursuing transparency and open communication during the 2008 Club Corp negotiations, not a Golf Club Member

      FOA: (incomplete list)
      Registered Agent: Rew R. Goodenow
      Manager – Tom Gurnee: member of ACCC until December 2014, Golf Club Member
      Manager – Alan E Humphrey
      Manager – Gary Pestello, FOA spokesperson, member of ACCC until December 2014, Golf Club member
      Manager – Joseph Petite, Golf Club Member
      Manager – Mark Wimbush, Golf Club Member
      Joseph Morabito: Golf Club Social Member
      Hal Albright: communications committee member, Golf Club member

      Former Litigants: (incomplete list)
      Gary Pestello: FOA, Golf Club member, member of ACCC until December 2014
      Paul Burkett: former golf club member, former president of HOA, temporary HOA board member in 2014, Chair of HOA Budget Committee, communications committee member
      Tom Motherway: FOA investor, former HOA board member
      Other litigants: Bob SKACH, Richard HARRIS, Alan E. HUMPHREY, Rick MEYER, Gary GAUMER, Manny MARTINEZ, Christie CORT, Don PARSONS, Mark TOOMEY, Paul JASZEWSKI

      The above lists show that several HOA board members are/were ACCC members at the same time. Other ACCC members have strong connections to the Golf Course. The communications committee also has other members who are either members of or are in support of the Golf Club. Litigants are/were in the ACCC, in the communications committee, on the HOA board, and are FOA members.

      Question:
      How can the work product from the HOA board, the ACCC, and the communications committee be unbiased? The concern would be if these individuals can be trusted to serve the community or will they serve their own interest. If anyone has more information regarding FOA members, board or committee members, please share with all of us.

      Permissibility of FOA 12% Interest Earnings per the Articles of Incorporation:
      A concern regarding the FOA and their business proposal is the 12% interest the ACHOA would have to pay on all expenses incurred by the FOA. Paraphrased, our Articles of Incorporation do not permit any activity that would result in the direct financial benefit of any ACHOA member.

      In the recently posted correction of previous statements, it appears that the HOA Board defines the FOA, LLC as a separate entity from the ACHOA Corporation, and thus “there is no direct profit to members of the ACHOA Corporation (ACHOA homeowners)”. They are seeking advice from a tax expert to clarify if profits from the Joint Venture will affect the non-profit status of our HOA. This issue is on the agenda for the HOA meeting on 2/24/15.

      The Vote:
      Currently, the HOA board is proposing a simple majority vote on the JV based on an encompassing question that includes the purchase, operation and amendments to all governing documents. In January, an AC resident sent a notice of violation of voting procedures to the HOA board. In addition to the permissibility of the 12% interest earnings by the FOA, two other key concerns are: a) whether the conversion of our HOA from a non-profit to a for-profit corporation violates the Articles of Incorporation, and b) whether the vote based on a 50 % + 1 vote majority as currently proposed by the board violates the Articles of Incorporation that require a two thirds majority. In the recently posted correction to previous statements, the HOA board states that it is unclear whether the Articles of Incorporation have to be amended. The issue is on the agenda for the next HOA meeting on 2/24/15.

      Liability

      The HOA posted the following in January 2015 regarding potential law suits and HOA residents’ liability:

      “If judgments exceed the procured limits of coverage, the NRS requires that the ACHOA Board of Directors assess the membership for the shortfall. At this point in time, all ACHOA member Homeowner policies with their HOA assessment coverage will be triggered and the ACHOA member will be reimbursed to the limits of insurance purchased in their homeowner’s policy. Many ACHOA members are
      procuring $25,000 to $50,000 limits to cover this contingency for both catastrophic property and casualty losses in their home owner’s insurance policy.”

      Question:
      Have you purchased an umbrella rider on your home owner’s insurance policy?

      Financial Risk

      Zoning and Home values:
      The HOA board posted the following in the FAQ’s regarding rezoning of the Golf Course land:

      “There are a myriad of encumbrances on the golf course property with respect to
      legal and administrative open space requirements established by multiple local and
      federal agencies as well as archaeological restrictions. Consequently, it can be
      assumed that the application process to rezone this property would be long and
      arduous. Whether or not such an application would be approved cannot be speculated.”

      The HOA board subsequently posted the following on the Arrowcreek 411 website regarding rezoning of the Golf Course land on 1/29/2015:

      “If ‘The Club At ArrowCreek’ failed to thrive, a land speculator might buy the golf course from the FOA investors in the expectation that the developer would be allowed to build hundreds of additional homes in and around our existing homes.”

      Question:
      With the above HOA statements, the question remains if we have to fear rezoning if the JV is not approved by the residents.

      Costs:
      About $30K have been spent for the Joint Venture. $60K have been budgeted for the Joint Venture. The costs incurred for legal counsel to date, and the tax lawyer are not known. The HOA Board also commissioned two studies: the property valuation study, and the demographic survey. Cost unknown.

      Private and Public Options failed in the History of the AC Golf Course.
      At the beginning of the ArrowCreek development, there was a phase when all ArrowCreek residents were social members of the Golf Club. Then the developer Terrabrook started the concept of equity membership, rescinding the social membership of the HOA residents. Over time, promotional membership fees had to be increased, resulting in a substantial loss of Golf Club members. In 2006, in an attempt to increase membership, the Legends course was made a public course, while the Challenge course remained private. The golfing industry peaked around 2006. Around that timeframe, the AC Golf Course “had 450 members and operated at a $1.5M annual deficit” (in RGJ: as per lawyer for the litigants, Mr. Gunderson). In 2008, when the developer Terrabrook sold the Golf Club to Charlie Leider, there were about 400 members. During Charlie Leider’s ownership, more attempts were made to raise private as well as public membership. In 2014, Charlie Leider had to declare bankruptcy. The Golf Club has never been profitable. Therefore, in the history of the AC Golf Club, both private and public membership concepts have failed.

      Recently, the FOA and Arnold Palmer management have decided to make both of the AC 18-hole Championship Golf Courses private courses once again. According to the Reno Gazette Journal: “Arnold Palmer says it has a goal of enrolling about 400 new members by July. They admit it’s a lofty goal, but say they are well on their way to reaching it.” The last available membership number is about 130 members, meaning that in a few months membership would have to be more than tripled (and as mentioned above: with 450 members, the annual deficit was $1.5M). The timeframe for promotional “recallable” membership rates of $250 for nonresidents is not specified on the golf club’s website, and $230 for AC residents is guaranteed for only 1 year. Social membership is $95/month. The vote on the purchase of the golf club and the Joint Venture proposal is now delayed. According to the latest HOA Newsletter no date has been set.
      Questions:
      Will newly recruited members remain members in the future when promotional membership fees will have to be raised to sustainable levels? Will we have a true picture of the potential for success or possible failure of the Joint Venture by the time we will be asked to vote? Can a 36-hole golf course be successful without continued subsidies from the HOA residents when there is so much surplus of golf courses in the Reno area and with the golfing industry remaining in a recession? In 2013 about 157 golf courses closed, while there were only 14 openings (National Golf Foundation)

      Special Assessments:
      To just cover the purchase price and the water bill debt the HOA board published the following in January 2015 describing a potential special assessment of about $2500:
      “The ACHOA Board and ACCC have been reviewing the Nevada Revised Statutes and the ArrowCreek Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Section III – Assessments – Section 5 Special Assessments with Board legal counsel. The question being pursued is whether a “Special Assessment” approved by the ACHOA members for the acquisition of “The Club at ArrowCreek” would be allowed. If we estimate that the purchase price is between $1,600,000 to $2,000,000, that would require a one-time assessment per lot owner of $1,473.30 to $1,841.62. [1,086 ACHOA lot owners] However, there is still the need to fund the past due water bill of almost $900,000 and that would increase the special assessment by $828.73. With these types of numbers, there may be a need for some type of a payment plan and a need for short term capital to make such a purchase.”

      Question:
      We know that the golf course and the club house are in need of substantial capital investments. The proposed increase in HOA monthly fees by $99 roughly covers the yearly operational deficit based on information from past years. The question is how will these capital investments be financed?

      ONCE THE VOTE TO APPROVE IS IN THE PAST, THE BOARD HAS NO REQUIREMENT TO ASK THE MEMBERS (US) IF WE AGREE TO INCREASED MONTHLY HOA ASSESSMENTS OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO PAY FOR CAPITAL CALLS FOR THE GOLF COURSE OR COMMUNITY CLUB.

      Like

  3. Pat Ulrich says:

    Those “Ghetto” speed signs are potential lifesavers. I think they are much better than putting in speed bumps throughout ArrowCreek. Anybody that has a problem with the speed signs is obviously violating the speed limits. I really don’t think it is too much to ask for people to slow down when we have children walking around our neighborhood, but maybe I am crazy when it comes to trying to protect our families.

    I would like to hear the board comment on why our monthly HOA fees have never gone back down even though they should have funded the reserve fund by now, and, if they haven’t, why are we considering making such a large purchase when our reserve funds are dry? I don’t see how we can trust anything the board says about the fees in regards to the golf course when they haven’t followed through on their word regarding our fees in the past.

    Finally, if there is such a demand for the golf course from such a “large” number of people, why don’t they agree to pay one fee that lets them use the course, and the rest of us pay a much smaller fee? I don’t feel like I should have to help support the leisure activities of other people. If they want me to pay for them to golf, then maybe they can pay for my season pass to one of the local ski resorts. I’m sure they will argue that it is completely different, but it really isn’t. If they want us to finance their sport, then they should be willing to finance our sports.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anti-Speed Sign Guy says:

      Speed signs are a joke. Just ask anyone that lives by one. The second a “deadly speeder” passes the sign at the observed 25mph limit, they accelerate again at a high rate of speed without any recourse. There is a reason these signs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL in our Great State of Nevada. Just one more way for the ACHOA to make money off of our backs. This is my favorite quote, “I think they are much better than putting in speed bumps throughout ArrowCreek.” Speed bumps are PROVEN to slow traffic in residential neighborhoods, speed signs are not. Speed bumps require very little to maintain, unlike your ridiculous speed signs. Ask yourself these questions, who calibrates these signs? Who’s trained to view the footage and accurately and legally tell if someone is violating the posted speed limit? Speed bumps placed a logical distance from one another makes it more difficult for one to reach a dangerous speed and sustain it. Oh, and speeding over speed bumps ruins your vehicles suspension, so the pocket book hit comes in the form of you having to fix your vehicle, not pay the ACHOA. Wait, what if you don’t have a front plate (which is another NRS violation)? Oh that’s right, then you don’t get a ridiculous speed sign ACHOA ticket, because they can’t capture your vehicles information (oops, guess they didn’t figure on that one). Again, doing absolutely nothing to make our neighborhood safer.

      My fear, as a parent with small children inside Arrowcreek, is the drunken elderly who leave the club and travel our streets in hopes they make it home. Why isn’t this an addressed concern? That’s also another concern with the push by the FOA to get “new members” from outside of Arrowcreek to join the club and use our ACHOA facilities. If you think Arrowcreek residents have a lack of regard for the speed limit inside our gates, what do you think non-residents will do? There have been at least two alcohol related vehicle collisions inside Arrowcreek within the last six months. – Was speed a factor in those collisions? Who knows. I am certain that those ridiculous speed signs didn’t do anything to make them safer.

      There isn’t another HOA in our area with these ridiculous signs. I know it is off topic from the whole golf course issue we should be discussing, but maybe the ACHOA should read NRS 484A.600 – This basically states that the use of photo radar in the State of Nevada is illegal by a government agency or agent. The civil lawsuit that may come from someone fighting the legality of a fine based on these silly signs will be a good one to watch. I enjoy my freedoms, one of which is not being photographed in my vehicle as I drive in my own gated community, speeding or not. Just some thoughts.

      Like

      • George Nastor says:

        Excess Speed
        I would appreciate not dying in front of my house … On 2 occasions, I requested Security for speed bumps on our street, and was told it would hamper emergency vehicles. I was in front of my mail box, when a truck roared passed me and my dog by no less than 18 inches. More recently, a woman that was focusing her attention to what was in her lap then driving. That one, I needed to jump out of the way onto my lawn because I don’t think she saw me. I didn’t think leaf blowing at the curb was hazardous.

        Like

        • Anti-Speed Sign Guy says:

          The old “hamper emergency vehicles” argument is comical from the ACHOA and their less than lack luster security contingent. So, speed bumps inside a restaurant parking lot or large shopping complex hampers emergency vehicles as well? Nope, those locations see far more emergency vehicles on a daily basis than Arrowcreek sees in a year. That argument was given to justify the security staffs need for a job and the ACHOA’s need for $50 (or more) a ticket gravy train which is the speed sign. Speed Bumps save lives, period. Also, I am sure you don’t live on Arrowcreek Parkway George, so a speed bump on your street would be beneficial, if you don’t live on the parkway, you don’t get a “super life saving” speed sign. I say we petition the board now to get these illegal devices removed immediately.

          Like

  4. Shawn T. says:

    I too appreciate the work that went into the synopsis. It is very difficult to stay on top of what is going on regarding the purchase of the golf club and look at things from various angles. I could see expanding the document and filling in details about the process, the financial, and legal concerns, as they develop. I second Mrs. Pat Raysik’s opinion about why the author may want to remain unidentified. I have personally witnessed Mr. Pestello and Mr. Gurney, both FOA members, pacing, shouting, pointing fingers, and verbally attacking and intimidating residents that were merely expressing their concerns or asking questions during HOA meetings. I was there when Robin Rakusin, HOA Board member, and current VP, verbally attacked one of the candidates, Mr. Jim Keller, during the candidates’ evening. Even her constituents, the FOA and club members verbalized how out of place she was.

    I agree with the point made in the synopsis, that there is reason to question whether or not the process regarding the purchase of the golf course has been unbiased and will be unbiased until the actual vote. FOA members have been members of the HOA’s Community Club Committee, and have been advising the HOA board. It does not matter when they technically/legally became members of the FOA as the answers to FAQ questions 14 and 15 in the FAQ’s would want to convince us of. The new HOA Board now has a member, Mrs. Joyce Seelen, who admitted on her application that she may have a conflict of interests because she is a Golf Club member and lives on the golf course. Mr. Alan Liebman, newly elected board member, did not disclose that his home is situated on the golf course, and consequently did not declare any potential conflict of interest. At the very least, in my opinion, those two members should have to recuse themselves from any involvement in the golf course/Joint Venture discussion or decision making process. In 2008 the entire board was advised by legal counsel to recuse itself since all members were golf club members and the situation was not nearly so dire.

    The attempts by the HOA board in the FAQ’s and the recent answer to Mr. Duncan’s question about the reserve study, to make it appear as if costs to the Joint Venture somehow are not costs to us the HOA members are outright demeaning and humiliating to him and each of us , treating us like fools. Note to self: the money for the Joint Venture and the ACHOA comes from one wallet: mine. Mr. Burkett’s answer on 12/29/2014 to Mr. Duncan’s question about the vote necessary to change the Articles of Incorporation uses a lot of words (and in this case math) skirting the heart of the matter (see arrowcreek411 website). The authors of the Notice of Violation to the ACHOA board were able to look through this smokescreen, reminding the board of what is stipulated in our own Articles of Incorporation: a two thirds majority to change the AOIs. They also shine the light on another very important issue and that is the FOA’s demand of earning 12% interest on every penny they spent. Thank you!

    Is this how it is going to be then: those who voice concerns and questions will be bullied into submission, and will be pummeled by a barrage of lengthy answers in the FAQ’s and direct answers to questions posted on the ArrowCreek 411 website, avoiding the real truth and hoping we will not be able to see the forest for the trees?

    The whole process of forcing a vote on us to purchase a golf course, is totally un-American and against freedom of choice. Those who want to belong to a golf club have the freedom to join, those who do not want to should have the freedom to spend their money elsewhere and any way they please. I agree with those people who have stated that they did not buy a house here in ArrowCreek with the intent to become part owner of the Golf Club.

    If the FOA really were friends of ArrowCreek, and not just friends of the Club in ArrowCreek and of their own pocket books, and were not friends with former litigants, we would know their names by now. If the HOA board really wanted to bring the community together, there would have been much more transparency of the process from the beginning on, and more opportunity for open and free communication. The board cannot even give us a functional website, and they want to operate a golf course? A frightening thought.

    If we want to protect our home values, we cannot allow ourselves to become the bottomless piggy bank for the endless needs to finance a golf course. REMEMBER, and this cannot be stressed enough:

    ONCE THE VOTE TO APPROVE IS IN THE PAST, THE BOARD HAS NO REQUIREMENT TO ASK THE MEMBERS (US) IF WE AGREE TO INCREASED MONTHLY HOA ASSESSMENTS OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO PAY FOR CAPITAL CALLS FOR THE GOLF COURSE OR COMMUNITY CLUB.

    If we want to protect our home values, we have to protect our reputation as a community and not allow ourselves to be drawn into litigation by former litigants, or anyone else.

    SOME MAY SAY WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS JUST AN OPINION, NOT BASED ON FACTS, OR SAY IT IS SCARE TACTICS. I SAY IT IS COMMON SENSE.

    Like

  5. Gary W Pestello says:

    This blog posting has far more opinion than fact. This is evidenced by the fact that it does not have the signature of the author.
    Gary W. Pestello

    Like

    • REreno says:

      OK, Gary, tell us the facts. Things you would ask of anyone wanting to rent an apartment from you.
      – Who are you? Is that too much to ask of FOA?
      – Credit Check. Let’s see the financials on the golf courses and future projections.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ron Duncan says:

        Gary, Gary, Gary,
        Your ranting, if it’s intended to intimidate anyone, is really unbecoming of the spokesperson/leader of the FOA. If you’ve got facts that dispute the posting, please enlighten us poor ignorant people. On second thought, let me provide you a couple of facts from the Golf Club Reserve Study.
        1.) “$17.00 dollars per year per resident per month.” The report says that this would either be paid by the Joint Venture OR the residents depending on whether we agree to the Joint Venture or not. Guess what? The residents are funding the Joint Venture so it doesn’t matter. We will still pay $17.00 either way.
        2.) Under the heading, “Percent Funded Status,” is the statement “…the higher the likelihood of the Golf Country Club requiring a special assessment…” if I read the wording correctly, during 2015 our resident contributions will need to be significantly higher than $17.00.
        Now those are a couple of documented facts. We haven’t even discussed the loan costs to repay the FOA for what they spent. Profit, e.g. interest, should be off the table as our Articles of Incorporation prohibit any member of the corporation from profiting via a change to the basic documents.
        Have a terrific day!
        Ron Duncan

        Liked by 1 person

    • Pat Raysik says:

      Maybe the responsible party knew that if they identified themselves
      they would likely be denigrated and/or berated by you. You showed your true colors at the meeting in November when I asked why the FOA shouldn’t
      run the golf course for a couple of years before the homeowners decided whether to buy it. You became so visibly angry and agitated, and turned so red, that I thought you were going to have a heart attack on the spot.

      And, btw, if you take issue with someone’s leaving their name off of their comment, can you explain why the members of FOA don’t want to identify themselves when they’re digging into the homeowners’ pockets for millions of dollars? And understand that we cannot understand why we should do business with people who want to be shrouded in secrecy?

      Think about it.

      Not afraid to sign my name (or disclose who I am!). Patricia Raysik

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Dave Steele says:

    This is a very well prepared recap of the potential Golf Club acquisition.
    I hope that all lot owners will read the entire article and start asking questions.
    I fear our HOA Board of Directors is leading us down the proverbial garden path.
    One question asked that I think deserves more attention relates to FOA marketing of “The Club”.
    Rather it seems there is no marketing of club memberships even though there are less than 200 current members. I would really like to know why if golf membership in this club is such a good deal. Or could it be that FOA seems us homeowners as a captive audience to be used to subsidize the cost of membership of golf members?

    Like

    • D. Hahn says:

      I appreciated the synopsis and comments and would like to add:

      Process:
      Why is there such paucity of communication from the HOA board with meeting minutes not being posted in a timely fashion, and even the AC Communication Committee’s FAQ’s not yet available on the official AC Associa website?

      Finances:
      About nine years ago, the HOA fee was increased by about $100 to the current rate, with the promise that this would be a temporary increase to fund the Reserve funds. I am not aware of any discussion, to reduce the HOA fee back
      to its original rate of about $120. Managing the Reserve fund is a relatively small issue when compared with running a Golf Course: Can we trust a board of volunteers with this business endeavor, and entrust our money to them and a declining golf industry?

      Like

      • Robin Ellis says:

        Hear, hear D. on all counts!
        I guess that’s how those ghetto speed signs were purchased that could very well end up devaluing our property values.
        Bad form,
        R. Ellis

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s