Our Notes on Feb 13 MCA Board Meeting

Here is a link to the full meeting, (thanks to Alex Peake for these recordings).
Also, here’s a link to lots of previous meeting videos made and posted by Alex.

Link to the Board package for the meeting.

We’re going to focus on a couple of parts of the meeting: comments by TMCC President Larry Marziale and MCA Treasurer Stan Miska.

The TMCC President was on the agenda for “Country Club Business Update” and that’s what he started with. He offered residents a copy of his presentation, but when a Homeowner later requested a copy the TMCC President would not provide one. (They aren’t the only homeowner to experience unmet promises for information. Footnote 1). TMCC is forecasting that its cashflow for the year will be $190,000 behind budget.

  • Membership dues are $380,000 (11%) BELOW the budget that a was approved just a month ago on Jan 9!!
  • Troon expenses may be reduced by $150,000 (this is still under negotiation and it is SIX MONTHS AFTER THE CLUBHOUSE CLOSED!!)
  • TMCC delayed delivery of leased equipment by TWO MONTHS to defer $40,000 (when TMCC has to take actions like this they are clearly in very serious cashflow problems).
  • TMCC President indicated he meets WEEKLY with staff to manage their budget and cashflow, indicating cashflow is an ongoing struggle.

The TMCC President said a check to repay the $250,000 loan is being initiated to pay the loan in full, well ahead of schedule. There is a big difference between preparing a check and handing it over, so MCA should announce when it has been successfully deposited.

And then…..the TMCC President went into a full-on 16-minute propaganda presentation that was way outside the “Business Update” item on the agenda. It was full of misleading information and nonsense, to try to prove that the MCA needs TMCC. This presentation advocating for the status quo, totally undermines the TMCC President’s earlier statements that he will act in the best interests of the community as a member of the Strategic Planning Committee. Choose your own adjective as to how offensive this was to truth and fairness to MCA Homeowners, let alone using the meeting for undue influence of the current election.

Then the MCA Treasurer spoke to the merits of the MCA selling the golf course facilities to a Golf Course Operator (GCO). Curiously, a video of this portion of the meeting was prepared by MCA staff and has been making the rounds through unofficial channels (passed on via emails and Facebook). The presentation is worth a listen. Many of the merits he speaks to are consistent with our understanding of this option, but it is also filled with puffery, exaggerations, and questionable statements (the Treasurer has a history of misleading statements to MCA Homeowners). Although he stated that things are very early stages, in his presentation he noted several things indicating discussions may be far along:

  • The Treasurer said that the buyers “would pay off our debt” (UPDATE: the Treasurer was only referring to the $1 million of debt specific to the original purchase of the assets, not the other $4.7 million of our debt). That means the buyers have discussed a PURCHASE PRICE. That is usually done in a formal offer.
  • Potential buyers wanted to close before June. If buyers are talking about closing dates for a transaction, especially that soon, they are not at the beginning of discussions.
  • The Treasurer explained a LOT of details that would typically be in a purchase OFFER.
  • Many comments sound like he is referring to one specific GCO, even though he would catch himself and deny that.
  • The Treasurer concluded with his recommendation that the MCA sell the assets even though it is clear that the semi-private option hasn’t been investigated (beyond stating that the MCA Board would not be competent overseers of the operations in that model)
  • The MCA President and Treasurer have a clear recent history of motions for “snap votes” and decisions: Pickleball court conversion, $250,000 loan to TMCC.

So there are many indicators that discussions to sell the assets are VERY far along. The Board could soon be asked to vote on an offer, completely (and intentionally) undermining the efforts of the new Strategic Planning Committee that the Board put in place to investigate options.

If you haven’t already voted, we encourage you to vote for Directors that will put the interests of ALL MCA Homeowners first.

Please share this with your friends and neighbors.

Contact us at ForTheMeadows@SarasotaMeadows.com

Footnote 1 – The MCA President has repeatedly stated that TMCC will be transparent and provide financial reports to MCA Homeowners. In comments at the beginning of the meeting a homeowner indicated that they had requested certain financial information from TMCC but has not received it because the Controller and then the President were sequentially out of town. It is not clear why those individuals are required to provide specific financial reports.

We’ve received feedback from homeowners that the TMCC President is available to talk to anyone, but will not provide any financial information. We’d be happy to hear if any residents (who aren’t TMCC members) receive any financial reports.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “Our Notes on Feb 13 MCA Board Meeting”

  1. samazepm Avatar
    samazepm

    Hey, so glad to hear that the MCA is considering the sale of all the assets. This is exactly what I envisioned as I’ve said before. My hope is it’s the Serenoa owners which I had reached out to. Fingers crossed.

    Like

  2. Leon Miller Avatar
    Leon Miller

    Fully agree with your comments of the TMCC presidents comments, same old pablum. I really believe the only realistic solution is to sell to the golf course assets to a GCO. The amount of money needed to bring those assets into the twenty-first century is more then we will be willing to to pay as home owners. The home owner’s interest is preserving green space.

    Another concern of mine relates to the newly formed strategic planning committee. I understand 5 of the 9 members are members of TMCC. 3 TMCC, and 1 from the board cans 1 from MCA homeowners are TMCC members. Do you see that as a problem?

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      The 5 of 9 mix isn’t ideal. The original proposal for the committee included the requirement that the 3 MCA Board members and 3 residents at large NOT be TMCC Members. But our MCA Directors removed that provision through an amendment. Director elections are important to the community and we’re seeing why.
      As per our recent post: We need a new legal opinion on conflict of interest. At most it is going to say TMCC members on the MCA Board should recuse from voting on TMCC related matters, not that they can’t be MCA Board members.

      Like

  3. stevenadiaz18 Avatar
    stevenadiaz18

    For three years and more a growing chorus of voices representing individual members of the MCA have called for opening the operation of our recreational facilities for competitive bidding.

    In response to such concerns about the ability of TMCC to manage our resources successfully, the MCA treasurer (Mr. Miska) and our president (Ms. Malaka) have consistently told us that there were only two options to run our recreational property: the MCA (which they acknowledge the organization is not equipped to do), or TMCC. We have consistently been told that the TMCC is doing “award winning” work and that TMCC has never been in better financial shape—which is now obviously revealed to be incorrect.

    During this time Meadows homeowners have requested that the MCA bring in expert independent outside consultants, which our board has consistently refused to do. Owners have proposed seeking competitive operating proposals—which the MCA board has also uniformly rejected out of hand. The MCA, without documented justification, extended the TMCC lease and assured the community that TMCC would fulfill all of its obligations, while claiming that without TMCC the property would be developed and we would see new housing on all the open space.

    Now, suddenly, we are told that the MCA is in negotiations with a single developer for the best way to preserve and protect our open and recreational spaces. They claim that by June a deal, including a sale of our recreational assets, could be in place. This is also clearly a less than candid “report” in that such a comprehensive contract is unlikely to be completed ”as early as June” from a late February start. On top of that TMCC is to be part of the negotiations for such a sale, even though they are merely a tenant. Any interest a developer might have in whatever belongs to the TMCC necessarily is none of our business and should be a separate deal between TMCC and the developer, not a complication of a potential deal between the MCA and any third party. TMCC has nothing to do with our property rights or with the golf and recreational property after December of this year (a fact that may explain why the rush to close a deal by June).

    Those who spoke for exploring all alternatives can only say that the new proposal is a clear acknowledgement of the insincerity of the board’s united front in resisting owner-led demands for reform. While we must acknowledge that the Miska “report” concedes most of what community dissenting voices have tried to put before the MCA for years, it is still only the sound of one hand clapping, devoid of options or practical preparation to respond to a large and sophisticated interest that clearly sees the opportunities in our community. This project is too big for the MCA to handle without competent outside guidance.

    We need to reform our governance and we need change in the way we approach our challenges. The Meadows community needs more transparent, more responsive, more competent, and more inclusive governance. Let’s acknowledge this as a turning point, but let’s not rush into anything without a better process for vetting the possibilities.

    Steven Diaz

    Like

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My understanding is, there are 3 interested buyers: one that currently owns the Plantation courses (national company), one that owns Venetian and 3rd unidentified party. I have not played either Plantation course but understand they are nice. Venetian’s condition has deteriorated since the owner took control.

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      Concert Golf Partners owns Plantation. Reviews indicate that course conditions are good but staffing/management are poor (the latter seems to be a very consistent refrain for this company’s clubs).
      Heritage Golf Group owns Venetian as well as Pelican Preserve, Lakewood Ranch G&CC, and TPC Prestancia.
      An earlier comment noted that Advance Golf Partners (owners of Serenoa) could be a potential buyer but that is more speculative.

      Other owner/operators are:
      Arcis Golf (Dallas TX) – No local courses in portfolio
      Escalante Golf (Fort Worth TX) – No local courses in portfolio (higher end courses)
      GreatLIFE Golf (Camp Hill, PA) – closest course is Temple Terrace Golf Club in Tampa area.
      Invited (formerly ClubCorp) (Dallas, TX) – Own several courses north of Tampa

      Like

      1. John Dolcetti Avatar
        John Dolcetti

        It was interesting to get the total amount of of dues paid by the golf membership. $380000.00. I am not sure , but I heard they have around 150 members. That being said,they are only paying around $2500. Per year! That’s far less than it should be for a private golf course . We have to collect their debt and turn that coarse into a semi private club. Thanks for all your hard work. Greatly appreciated.

        Like

      2. Website Admin Avatar

        TMCC’s total membership dues budget is $3.4 million. Their current forecast is that they will be $380,000 short of that budget.
        As of about a month ago, they had 134 Platinum and Gold memberships, which the TMCC President indicated were their key categories for success.

        Like

  5. mitchw12 Avatar
    mitchw12

    sell gold courses..residents keep pool tennis fitness center. And open to public membership

    Like

Leave a reply to Website Admin Cancel reply