Dear Member,
Spring Run has executed a contract with D. Garrett Construction of Naples, FL for renovation of the Kitchen and construction of a new Cart Barn, Pro Shop, Fitness Room, Offices, and Meeting Space for a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $2,049,564 which is a firm number that can only go down, not up. The new Kitchen should reopen Monday September 3, 2012, with an anticipated project completion date of December 15, 2012. Owner Provided and Ancillary Expenses total $963,597. $274,000 from Reserves that would have been replaced in the next couple years has been applied against it for a net of $689,597. The list of Owner Provided and Ancillary expenses include: Contingency, Architect, Design, and Engineering Fees, Temporary Operations and Relocation Costs, AV, Media, Cabling, and POS stations, Landscaping, Kitchen Equipment (some existing is being reused), Lighting Package Allowance and Furnishings, Fixtures, and Accessories
The Construction contract provides for a 4 ½% General Contractor fee. Any savings realized under the GMP are reimbursable at a rate of 80% to the Club and 20% to the Contractor.
At the fall Board Meeting, it was anticipated that the project would cost $2.5M based on estimates provided by the Architect and Contractors consulted. In the end, the cost of construction increased from original estimates approximately 5% of the project cost as the square footage and scope of the project increased, and the ancillary costs increased by about the same percentage of the total due mainly some fairly large, unforeseen expenses.
In particular, the cost to maintain golf and F&B operations throughout the summer and a busy fall was originally estimated to be around $25,000, as was the cost for cabling and Media. Those two line items contributed over $100,000 in incremental increases alone. That said, services throughout the summer and fall will continue uninterrupted for our membership.
There was a Special Board Meeting held on Thursday May 17 after the final bids came and the numbers had changed. Members were encouraged to make comments and ask questions. We had a considerable discussion on the various aspects of the plan, financing, and the specifics of the new costs. At that meeting, the Board passed a motion to allow a maximum total project price of $2,760,000. The total was and remains $2,739,000, and we anticipate seeing that number only come down going forward.
Mike
Springing Forward 
Mike,
I’m sorry, Mike, but many of us predicted this would occur and suspect that it may get worse. Believe me I DON’T like being negative but this whole presentation has been smoke and mirrors. With all due respect to your position as GM, the Board makes the decisions…… you implement them. I’m of the opinion that the Board should be communicating with the members about this major change, not you. You mention that at the May meeting members were encouraged to ask questions, etc., after the new prices had come in. This is the first I have heard and seen of the new prices. It almost seems as if the Board waits until the majority of members are gone to address major problems. That way fewer members are there to object or complain. It (the Board) then dumps on you the communication issue rather than handling the communication itself as is normally the case.
I have been a member of and governed several country clubs in the past and I have never seen a Board flaunt its authority nor demonstrate such disregard for the club members whom it is elected to represent as this Board. Its interpretation, understanding and creativity in following club by-laws is very interesting, to say the least. This whole project has been, and continues to be, in my opinion, poorly handled.
There are many members, who while they may be dissenters on many of the issues, could contribute much to the implementation of this project, but they are not asked! No, these are the ones who are considered the misinformed few by our leadership. They are just supposed to get in line and shut up and pay!
Mr. Cronin,
I can tell you that a lot of work and research has gone into this project and I know that you will be very pleased with the outcome. The project costs are not wildly out of control. The project costs what it costs, and there was no way back in August that we could have anticipated exactly some of the needs associated with maintaining membership service through the duration of this project. If we cut back to 2.5M, I would cancel the project. No one would be happy with the outcome.
Thank you for your input.
Mike
Mike,
All I would say to respond is that the project was originally turned down by the membership. The board then decided to do the project anyway. It was sold to the members as a $2.5 million dollar project, most likely to attempt to comply with the by-law issues regarding borrowing. I was at the meeting in October when the plan was presented to those members who were at Spring Run. There were many happy and unhappy owners at that meeting as the President tried to explain the board’s thinking. To her credit she told those in attendance that the full financials hadn’t been completed as of that time. The Treasurer was not in attendance.
It has already changed considerably from what was presented. I’m sure everyone will like it based on what it is costing us but the research you refer to should been done much earlier. You say that there was no way “we” could anticipate the exact needs to maintain membership service, etc. I respectfully have to disagree with that statement in that those are precisely the things that should have been better thought out, as well as the costs. Your comment, “it costs what it costs” is a bit casual under the circumstances of the way this project was put forth and continues to develop. There are still, I’m told, many unanswered questions.
Stephen M Cronin