In my opinion, we should not embark upon a $100k living shoreline if there are less expensive options for maintaining the integrity of the dock landing (i.e. extending the landing 8 foot and let nature take its course).My opinion is based upon the fact that the $100k expenditure would have to come from the reserve fund.This would reduce the reserve fund to approximately $163k.

$163 sounds like a lot but consider the fact that the reserve account is maintained so that special assessments are not required for non-routine maintenance and repair/replacement of non-insurable assets.We have 2 such assets now—dock and a $100k investment in landscaping.

With respect to non-routine maintenance, expenditures pending include a roof repair at amenity center, a root problem at the tennis courts, and possibly pool resurfacing required for our permit. As for uninsured assets, as we learned with Mathew and Irma, a storm can require significant funds for cleanup (we spent $11k last year because of a few wind storms and over $30k after Hurricane Mathew).Damage to the community dock could easily cost $100k (Southerland Bluff did not have enough reserve to cover this and did a special assessment after Mathew destroyed their dock).A hurricane could wipe out a good portion of the landscaping investment (nearly $100k).

Bottom line, it is not like we don't have any other maintenance issues outstanding and a Hurricane could easily eat up a large portion of our $263k reserve. Oh, and let's not forget, the living shoreline is not guaranteed or insurable. This being the case, if we invest in the living shoreline, we would be increasing our uninsurable assets by $100k.Stated more specifically, if we invest in this project, we would not only need to replace the $100k spent on the living shoreline which may or may not work but we would need to add another $100k to the reserve account if we are to have enough reserve to cover uninsurable assets and hurricane damage.

ps. The Zulu Proposal, the 2024 Budget and the Jan. Balance Sheet and Income Statement have been posted to https://www.tolomato.org/

The town hall meeting is scheduled for 3/21 at 6 pm and is promised to be held by zoom as ell as in person.

Budget Blundering Results in an Unnecessary and Irresponsible Annual Dues Increase

At the 2023 TIPOA annual meeting VP and acting Secretary Cliff Sowell took questions from the floor about the 2024 budget and the Board mandated annual dues increase. Myself and several others directly challenged certain budget items and the alleged need to increase the annual dues assessment.

As one of the four members who directly asked questions and expressed their concerns to the Board, I am posting this blog to further express my concerns in hopes that the new Board will take action to reverse the budget blundering of the past president Susan Fardy and VP Cliff Sowell. It should be noted that the 2024 Budget was NOT unanimously approved by the Board.

Fardy and Sowell stated that there was an anticipated budget short fall for 2024 due to the Board planning an "Audit" that was based upon some member's demands and this audit would cost an estimated $13,000 to $18,000 to complete and the dues increase would offset this expense.

Fardy and Sowell also stated that "due to inflation" and "a reduction in purchasing power" a dues increase is necessary and the Board can increase dues assessments at a 5% maximum per year.

Fardy and Sowell brought attention to the balances in reserve accounts amounting to approximately $340,000 combined in two accounts.

Sowell stated that an interest rate of "7%" was the return on the reserve accounts.

In my challenge of Fardy and Sowell, I pointed out the following:

1. There was a budget surplus from the previous years expenditures of approximately $3,300 that should carry forward to the 2024 budget.
2. The 2024 estimated budget should already have inflationary factors and reduced purchasing power considerations in the budget. That's what a budget should reflect.
3. Excluding the 'one time audit' expense item, the current dues assessment covers the 2024 budget.
4. The annual dues increase would yield a year over year budget surplus of approximately $10,400 every year and would increase the already significant balance in the reserve accounts.
5. The dues increase is unnecessary and irresponsible of the Board when the existing significant surplus could be negligibly impacted to cover the small budget shortfall of an "audit" rather than mandating an annual recurring dues increase of $40/year/member.
6. The "7%" historical rate of return on the reserve accounts declared by Sowell is highly suspicious in today's economy and must be factually investigated.
7. The 2024 budget was based on the first 6 months of 2023 rather than a more current P&L
   
   

My challenges were publicly dismissed and not directly addressed by Fardy and Sowell. Since Fardy was not re-elected and Sowell chose to retire from the Board, I have posted this blog to encourage further community dialog with the newly elected 2024 Board regarding the 2024 budget and annual dues increase that only had the minimum required Board support of Fardy and Sowell to officially pass.

 ELECT FRESH CANDIDATES ON SATURDAY

The current Board decided to move the Vote for New Board Members right ahead of the Financial Report thereby moving the Financial Reports and the approval of the 2024 Budget AFTER MEMBERS HAVE PLACED THEIR VOTES FOR THE 2024 BOARD.

You have to ask yourself WHY?

Well, now you have been asked to place your vote for the 2024 Board right before the Financial Report and Budget approval without any input on the 2023 Financial Report. This report represents the financial handling of YOUR PAID DUES by the 2023 Board which includes Susan Fardy (President and Julia Vaughn (Assistant Treasurer). These two individuals are running for the 2024 Board.

On October 31, 2023, the current Board stated, OFICIAL NOTICE OF DUES INCREASE FOR 2024.

Let it be known that at the Board Meeting held on May 16th, 2023, Julia Vaughn, acting assistant treasurer gave the Treasurer's report and the financial report was posted on the Tolomato website. The website showed the TIPOA balance sheet as of June 2023 showing current assets of $440,887.43 Total Checking/Savings. So why the proposed increase in our dues? So supposedly this is for "THE AUDIT" which in itself has not been voted upon by the membership but could be ruled by EXECUTIVE ORDER if certain members of the existing Board are re-elected.

Personally, my vote is dependent on how the previous Board has performed, primarily Ms. Fardy as President. It appears that she has control of all emails sent by the Board Tolomato org to TIPOA members and there is a total lack of open communication.

To reiterate what was written in the November Newsletter and posted on the Tolomato Owners Blog:

We Need Fresh! Here's Why. If your heart is telling you to vote for the status quo, the people that care, "the way it used to be", you don't have that option. The facts tell us, that way before our Newsletters and the Special Interest Group, Tolomato Island leaders were on the wrong path. Five years or more of "Stale Thinking" wasn't and isn't working. Stale thinking and vindictive control have divided the community. "Stale" candidates and those adopting Stale ideas, reinvented as Care candidates are about dictated rule and misdirection. The Chosen Few wishes to control every element of Tolomato life, including who gets to live here, and what their homes must look like. There is no meaningful discussion, no new ideas, no accountability as it is always somebody else's fault. "Fresh" thinking candidates are community driven, based on the will of ALL the people - Us, We the Owners. Fresh will be a Board of Directors that reflects the wishes of the Community, not their idea of how the Community should conform to their personal desires.

ELECT THE FRESH CANDIDATES (alphabetic order)

Steve Anderson

John Bagwell

George Bigham

Lynn Brenton

Heather Rowe

• This blog has been created for your suggestions or comments to Fresh Candidates - Please Read:  "The beauty of Tolomato Island extends beyond the live oaks, the moss, the pond, and its many styles of homes to the people.  The people of Tolomato are smart and caring and unusually successful.  Leaders would be wise not to dismiss their feelings or suggestions.  It is important that we too seek ALL the people's input.

• We have over the past few weeks, discussed the issues leading up to this election. They have been presented truthfully, and without a heavy hand.  Owners may agree or disagree with our findings.  It is your turn.  Our Fresh Candidates want to know.  
  
  What changes would you make, that would make Tolomato Island a better place to live?  We want your input."  

Lot's of people have been asking about the voting procedures.  Please see below an email thread with Susan.  Do they have a new set of voting procedures or are they winging it? 

Everyone will receive the voting procedures at the same time, when we send them out through the website.

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 2:31 PM <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

I will ask once again. Are we going to get the new voting procedures before the meeting?

Keep in mind, you were elected to represent everyone—not just those you choose so quit ignoring me.

From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:04 PM
To: 'Susan Fardy' <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: RE: Voting Procedures

Are we going to get these before the meeting?

From: Susan Fardy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 6:01 PM
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: Re: Voting Procedures

The voting procedures will be updated, Clearly, they will not contain references to Keystone as they are no longer involved. These will go out to Members within the next week.

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:42 PM <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

I am assuming my first email did not get to you.

Have the voting procedures been changed? If so when will the revised procedures be made available to the community?

From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 7:12 PM
To: 'Susan Fardy' <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; 'George Bigham' <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; 'Judy Flatt' <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>; 'Clifford Sowell' <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Voting Procedures

Have the voting procedures been changed?

On the day before Thanksgiving at 7:30 in the evening, the Board sent, via email, a revised agenda for the 12/2 Annual Membership Meeting.  I have supplied a link at the end in the event you missed the "last-minute" communication. The time (3:30 to 5:30) has not changed. The Board did rearrange the agenda items.

The Board decided move the vote for board members to the top of the agenda. The review of the past year, i.e. financial reports, ARB and committee reports now follows the vote. Also, moved to the end is the approval of the 2024 budget which includes an increase in dues and the open forum for comments and questions. In my opinion, the items that have been moved to the end of the agenda are critically important for members to make an informed vote.

Finally, there is no agenda item to announce the results of the vote. Will the results be announced right after the vote? Will the results be announced at the close of the meeting or at some later date? The timing does make a difference. Stated more specifically, while the covenants are silent on when the new board assumes control, our by-laws do state that meeting will be conducted following Robert's Rules. Robert's Rules state the new board assumes control at the time the results are announced. This being the case, the timing of the announcement dictates which board (current or newly elected) votes on the budget and, thereby your dues increase. Oh, I almost forgot, we still don't know what the voting procedures are. Is the Board just winging this? All of this should have been crystal clear before the meeting announcement was mailed to the membership.

So why does any of this matter to you? If you are willing to let the Board operate on the understanding that you have given them a mandate to set their own agenda and don't want to be bothered until next year, I guess it doesn't. You can be happy that you will be spared the boredom of having to listen to the Board's dog and pony show and will, instead get to leave early and watch the SEC championships.

If, on the other hand, your vote is dependent upon how the Board has performed and the Board's agenda for the coming year, it matters. If your vote is dependent upon candidates' responses to questions you may have as to the direction, candidates want to take TIPOA, it matters. If your vote is dependent upon candidates' responses regarding their desire to SERVE the community and desire to engage the community as equals instead of members who need stuff watered down because they can't understand the complexities of POA management, it matters.

In this regard, the above change in the agenda is just one more example of a Board that believes they don't need to engage the membership. And to be quite honest, they probably don't. Why? First, in an active campaign such as this year, members of the Board running for office are the only people who have full access to all emails and phone numbers. Clearly, this gives them an advantage. Second, once elected, the only things the membership can vote on (control) are dues increase, special assessments, removing the board or amending the covenants. Each of these requires 67% or 175 votes. Absentee ownership account for nearly 70% of the membership or 180 votes. This being the case getting a response of 175 is next to impossible, let alone 67% in favor.

Bottom line, it is very important what kind of Board you elect because once installed, it is very hard to effect a change if you don't like the direction the Board takes and, in the end, it could cost you.

I am so tired of hearing about the developers vision and desire to preserve green spaces and natural quiet.  Let's ignore the slick marketing for a moment and look at the developer's actions.  I happen to know the developer personally and his family well.  I used to hang out with his sister all the time.  The developer divided our peninsula into as many lots as he could--261 to be exact.  He wanted to sell as many lots as he could at as high a price as the market would bring. Many lots are 1/2 acre lots.  To that end, when he realized he could not get premium prices for the small lots that were serviced by a dirt road, he had the roads paved.  I know this to be true because the developer's sister told me the story.

What does 261 lots built on look like? See the picture below.  The picture below is Mission Lane.  With the exception of the house on the left, the houses were built in 2004 and 2006—that is, these houses were built while the developer was still in control.  This being the case, it is safe to assume that these houses represent the developers vision as to house size.  The house sizes from left to right are, 3,126 sq.ft, 4,478 sq.ft, empty lot, 4,781 sq.ft, 3,453 sq.ft., 3,940 sq.ft., 4,373 sq.ft.  These large houses are not the exception.  For example, the developer allowed the combination of 3 lots with a house of 6,052 sq.ft with a carriage house.  Furthermore, with the exception of the empty lot, I don't see any green spaces.  Instead the average space between houses is 30 feet.  Thirty feet is not even as wide as a typical 2 lane road.

Alternatively, if the lots were twice as big and the homes were built somewhere near the center of the combined lots, each of these houses would be separated by 190 feet (160 feet average combined lot width plus the current 30 foot corridor).  I think 190 feet provides much more green space than 30 feet...but maybe my math is wrong :) .  Oh and by the way, once a house is built across the original lot lines the lots cannot be split out again. Better yet, the dues and voting structure remains unchanged.  An adjoining lot owner, on the other hand, can always sell their adjoining lot and someone else can build on it which would eliminate the green space opportunity realized with combining lots.

This image is a far cry from what the "Candidates Who Care" are promoting.  In fact, one of the members of the ARB told me he thinks the appropriate number of houses is NOT 261 but 181.  This opinion begs the question as to how do you limit the number of houses?  Who decides which lot owner will be lucky enough to build their dream home?  The answer—the current ARB and the Board.

To Tolomato Property Owners,

I was asked to prepare an introduction for a letter to be presented at the June 19^th, 2023 Board meeting. The letter was addressed to the current Board with the intent to hopefully engage the Board in open discussion with many who live here; the following is an excerpt from that introduction.

Good evening,

I have been asked to present this open letter to the current Tolomato Community Board of Directors. The letter is a composite based on the input of many residents attending several meetings and are the endorsers whose names appear at the end of the document. They are agreeing that a fractured community need the help of ALL its residents. To this end we hope the Board will see the merit of the letter's intent.

Some of the subjects addressed in this letter are:

• Open communication to avoid ruling by executive fiat.
• Audits as a prudent business practice and to aid in future planning.
• Regarding committee functions and Board workload, the community needs operational policies and procedures for the various committees.
• Establish a Tolomato Master Plan i.e., dealing with infrastructure, roads, water, sewage, storm, etc. and well as amenities.

We ask that the minutes reflect this presentation ("the minutes did not"). After the Board's review of the letter's contents, we requested that the Board respond via email within two weeks letting the community know that we can all work together for a better community. ("we are still waiting for that response").

Thank you for your attention.

Dick Lang

Unfortunately, our request as well as the letter were totally ignored and that attitude of the existing Board is what has led to the following members stepping up to run for Board positions to represent ALL property owners and not just a selected few. Please take a moment to review their brief resumes all of which believe in open communication, transparency, planning for the future, financial responsibility and protection of our property values. The candidates are as follows and we hope you see the merit in voting for them.

In alphabetical order:

Steve Anderson

John Bagwell

George Bigham

Lynn Brenton

Heather Rowe

We hope you vote for the candidates we have endorsed; however, we of course respect your right to vote for whomever you please. Two trusted people have volunteered to accept proxies and will vote as you direct, or for the endorsed candidates (Anderson, Bagwell, Bigham, Brenton, Rowe) if you do not specify your 5 candidates of choice. Please appoint Doug or Ginny and send them your completed proxy.

Doug Burger, 1185 Old Cane Mill Drive SE., Darien, GA 31305

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Text: (575) 637-9588

Or

Ginny Luizer, 1123 Mission Drive, SE Darien, GA 31305

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Text: (912) 324-0147

Note: an easy way to send your proxy would be to take a clear picture of your completed proxy form and text the picture to one of the above volunteers.

Doug and Ginny will confirm they have received your proxy(s), ensure it is complete, copy it, and will deliver it to the Secretary. It would be helpful if you are mailing the proxy to let us know via email you are sending the proxy, so it will not be lost. If you are uncertain whether you will be attending the December 2^nd Annual Meeting, send Doug or Ginny your proxy anyway. If you attend the meeting your proxy will automatically be revoked.

Respectfully,

Richard "Dick" Lang 

Candidates Anderson, Brenton, Bigham, Bagwell and Rowe WANT to maintain the pond as a special amenity!!! Rumors are swirling that they will not maintain the pond.  THAT is NOT true.  Go on the website and ASK the candidates themselves instead of listening to the divisive, negative campaigns and rumors being spread by others!

1. I did not request a financial audit be performed. With a minimum fee of $15,000, financial audits are not cost effective for small organizations and are typically done in house.
2. I did submit a "proposal" for an "operational" audit.
3. The proposed investment in an operational audit was made for the purposes of producing a "policies and procedures manual" not simply because TIPOA has not been audited in 20 years.
4. I requested that the board review the proposal, attach the proposal to the minutes so that the membership could review and weigh in on the proposal, and include the proposal on the agenda for the next scheduled board meeting.
   
   

Editorial Panel (EP) – We received this email, written on October 23, at 10 PM. We have purposely posted it without identifying the author. The author can of course add their identity to this post.

Whenever the Editorial Panel or Special Interest Group (SIG) responds to an email or FAKE news, we risk alienating someone. To let either pass without comment though, is perpetuating misinformation.

THE EMAIL - "Unfortunately not Everyone WAS INVITED to meet the candidate party! Why would we want someone on the board who has never even lived here AND is discontent with the existing living conditions of this beautiful community and is determined to undermine the established way of living here? Why not build somewhere more suited to their taste instead of coming in and causing division amongst neighbors who were before getting along? Why are neighbors being so inconsiderate of one another? Why can't we respond to your newsletter? Why isn't everyone being included like you newsletter PRETENDS is being done? Why are you trying to create division between the two sides of the 'pond'?"

EP - We should have stated that anyone can comment on the Newsletter by adding comments on this web site. To answer this email, we have broken it down:

"Unfortunately, not Everyone WAS INVITED to meet the candidate party!"

EP - The Meet the Candidates Event was a private party. There may be others. We are very much open to a fair open event which would include all the candidates running for the Board of Directors. At this time, we understand there are 5 more candidates, but the President of the Board has not released their names.

"Why would we want someone on the board who has never even lived here….."

EP - You just described the current Board Treasurer. There are approximately 130 non-resident owners of Tolomato Island properties, about ½ of the ownership. They pay ½ the total assessments (thus ½ our bills), ½ of all lot taxes to the County etc., and for the most part don't utilize the amenities (pool, pickle ball courts, boat dock). They have ZERO representation on the Board of Directors, and because of poor policy, they, and those of us who own additional property, are getting a terrible return on their investment. Worse, they often have a very hard time building their dream home, when they choose to move here.

"…..AND is discontent with the existing living conditions of this beautiful community and is determined to undermine the established way of living here?"

EP – With all due respect, your notion that someone "is discontent…..determined to undermine the established way of living etc.", is your projection, and is not based on facts. It is important to remember that all of us were new to Tolomato Island once. Our experience is Tolomato Island is a welcoming place, and not at all judgmental.

"Why not build somewhere more suited to their taste instead of coming in and causing division amongst neighbors who were before getting along?"

EP - Again, a projection not based on any facts.  Most of the people we have talked to, are anxious to move to Tolomato Island. None are trying to cause division. Building a home of their choosing within the Architectural Guidelines is their right. Lawfully building on any portion of their lot is also their right.  Openly running for the Board of Directors is not only their right, but it should be applauded.

"Why are neighbors being so inconsiderate of one another?"

EP - We suspect this is a rhetorical question. Some people on both "sides" react strongly, and they are being goaded to take sides, creating tension and inconsiderate action. The Newsletter and  SIG puts forth information that is true to the best of our ability.

If you remember, there was a ground swell for change in the 2022 election, and new board members were elected. However, with various leadership maneuvers, the same people are back, now in different roles operating the Board of Directors and the ARB. There is still a need for change, which SIG supports.

Why can't we respond to your newsletter?

EP - You just did. The best method is to post comments on www.tolomatoowners.org You will need to register to post.

Why isn't everyone being included like your newsletter PRETENDS is being done?

EP - Anyone can read the articles, posts etc. on this web site. To post you need to register. Any owner can register. There is no other voice for Tolomato Owners. Board of Director leadership does not offer a mechanism for information sharing or respectful debate.

Why are you trying to create division between the two sides of the 'pond'?

EP - The Newsletter and SIG have taken the high road. SIG responded to FAKE News, that is being broadcast. Neither the EP nor SIG initiates FAKE News. If "sides" stick to the issues, we would all be better served. We more than anyone, value the greater Tolomato community, including those on all sides of the pond, and those that currently do not live here. 

Coming Soon

TIPOA Board Members

ARB Board Members

TIPOA Committee Chairs & Information

December 2023 Annual Board Meeting Information

      Annual Board Meeting 2023 will be held on December 2, 2023.  See Calendar

Get To Know Your Board Candidates

     See Island News > '24 Board Candidates Blog

Board Voting Information & Procedures

(The TIPOA Board "Notice of Concern" email is available below for review or download.)

TO: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. October 16, 2023 

Subject: RE: Important Clarification by Board of Directors

I am a member of tolomatoowners.org. To the best of my knowledge, no member of this group has ever implied that tolomatoowners.org is an official TIPOA site. Quite the contrary, members always make clear that this is not the official TIPOA site.

Tolomatoowners.org is modeled after social media. It is intended to allow members to form groups for pickleball, recipe sharing, Tolomato market if people have stuff to share, and fun stuff. It allows members to get together for impromptu events. It is an avenue designed to build collegiality and community among those of us fortunate enough to live in Tolomato . Is that a problem?

Tolomatoowners.org is a forum for people to discuss issues of concern. It also serves as a forum for candidates for the Board to campaign. Is that a problem?

Tolomatoowners.org accomplishes something the board has chosen not to pursue—that is, to provide an opportunity for open blog like discussions. Tolomatoowners.org is moderated to avoid any offensive posts.

Tolomatoowners.org could easily serve as a companion to the official TIPOA site. As such the Board should embrace this endeavor. Instead at every opportunity you seek to discredit the members of tolomatoowners.org. Whether tolomatoowners.org consists of one member, 10 members, or 100 members—what difference does it make. We all have a voice. We are just trying to bring this community together and afford all members of the community the opportunity to express their views—whatever they might be. Do you have a problem with that?

In the future I would urge you to refrain from using the "official email" of the TIPOA to cast doubt on the sincerity of the views of any group of Tolomato members or any one member of our community. Furthermore, when you use the official TIPOA email, please be clear whether you are speaking for yourself--or whether you are speaking on behalf of the Board and duly authorized by the Board to do so.

Finally, I am sending this email to all members of the TIPOA Board asking each member the following question-- do you, as a member of the Board, support the views expressed by the President of the Board in the attached notice? Your failure to respond will be taken as a yes.

Finally, be advised that these are my personal views as a member of tolomatoowners.org.

Ginny Luizer

I have recently been made aware of a letter Ms. Julia Vaughn read to the board at the June 20, 2023 meeting; the letter is flawed in many respects.

First, it is based on the false premise that "a small number" of residents have concerns about the current Tolomato Board. In fact, there are a great many people in the community who are concerned about the trajectory of this Board. It also asserts that there is an "orchestrated" effort to discredit this board. The reality is that no such effort could touch the degree to which this Board has discredited itself. Consider the following:

• In early January, a meeting between the Board and the ARB was held to bring the Board up to speed on activities associated with a problematic contractor. Among the items discussed was the conflict of interest posed by a board member's contractual relationship with the same contractor and issues that could result, particularly regarding pending litigation. It was a productive meeting and everyone left feeling we were on the same page. By the next morning, Ms. Fardy had consulted a third party who opined there was no conflict of interest and she declared that this ruling would be the standard by which we would proceed. Of course, the opinion had no bearing on the previously stated concerns. What Ms. Fardy did accomplish however was to seriously damage any sense of trust between the two Boards.

• Three Board members were present at the first community meeting. Ms. Fardy mentioned the fact that Ms. Brenton was away on business. Just before the meeting Ms. Fardy had been informed of the resignation of Ms. Flatt; but that was kept secret, no mention was made to the community at the meeting. Thus, within the first two minutes of this Board's official administration any sense of transparency and credibility died. There followed for the next week a concentrated, secret effort to reinstate Ms. Flatt. At no time was notice provided the community.

• A short time later another board member resigned. After a few days the resignation was reconsidered and Ms. Fardy was so notified. In this case however an entirely different standard for filling board vacancies was applied wherein, with no notice to the community, a replacement had been immediately inserted into the vacant seat. Different standards for different people, none consistent with the covenants, does not inspire confidence from the community.

• An inquiry was made to the Board about the feasibility of building across lot lines by an owner who intended to build a home that would require it. Ms. Fardy responded in writing that she would personally favor such a plan but the ARB may not but, in any event, she asserted that it was under the ARB's purview to make that decision. Upon inquiry to the ARB the issue was further researched with the ARB concluding that there was no prohibition to building across lot lines and that lots had already been legally combined. The owner was appraised and the ARB developed and promulgated a protocol by which such cases would be handled by the ARB.  It is also important to note the ARB took a position, completely within its own authority, only providing guidance to combined lot owners. At this point, however, Ms. Fardy completely reversed her earlier position asserting that it was not legal to build across lot lines and that it was not within the ARB's purview to make such a decision. Ms. Fardy claimed the Archtectural Guidelines could not be changed.  The TIPOA Board has no authority to state what can and can't be included in the Guidelines. It is the sole province of the ARB.  The issue of combining lots is still being resolved. The board's adversarial posture, however, created a riff in the community that was unnecessary and counterproductive.

• The ARB is charged in the TIPOA covenant's to be an independent board and the previous ARB conducted the community's business accordingly. Proceedings were transparent, responsive and generally well received in the community. This did not sit well with the board. Ultimately the board fired the entire ARB for reasons known only to the Board. This was not well received in the community and certainly was not done in the best interest of the community. The effect was the widening the previously cited "riff" and again "discrediting "what was left of the board's credibility.

In short, the "discrediting" of this board has not been done by any element of the community but rather by the consistent pattern of the board's own actions…it continues to this day.

Ms. Vaughn's second paragraph is dedicated to the topic of a master plan for the community. Once again, she creates a conspiratorial precept ("these residents") and proceeds with the false premise that the topics that would typically be considered in a master plan have already been concluded "suggesting the need for expanding etc". She goes on to assert that there "is and has been a master plan for the community since 2001". There was a marketing piece titled "Master Plan" that was nothing more than a plat of the community. Could this be the Master Plan to which Ms. Vaughn is referring?  In short, her assertions are misleading, inflammatory and generally a rationale to do nothing.

The third paragraph of Ms. Vaughn's letter addresses the maintenance of the community but is something of a "red herring" in as much as no one has questioned that. It is worth noting, however, that the work necessary to maintain the community's appearance is performed by contracted vendors and committees.

As for the community's fiscal posture, I trust it is sound and can think of no reason why it should not be. That being the case it is curious that some are so ardently opposed to the prudent business practice of a periodic audit. Tolomato has never had one.

The community casts it's votes every December in a good faith effort to elect a Board that will address both individual and collective concerns and desires in an evenhanded and respectful manner. It is not too much to ask. Unfortunately, our governing documents were drawn up to protect the interests of the developer. Boards can use these documents as a guide for the conduct of the community's business or as a shield to insulate the Board from the community. Recent Boards have done the latter. I fear the ultimate effect, if not purpose, of Ms. Vaughn's letter is to stymie community dialog, not encourage it. 

There will be a vote on a new water impact at Savannah Square.  I am against adding more impact units.  

Why?   First our water bill is $4,200 per month.  For what, to water plants that don't need it (i.e. grasses, palmetos, etc.)

If your landscaping includes the right plants, they should not have to be watered.  I say this based upon experience. Our landscaping does quite well and we NEVER water anything.