HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic Comment #28 (Ward)1
Laura Dabe
Subject:FW: Tahoe Donner Marina Improvement Homeowner Comment
From: T. Michael Ward [mailto:mike@ostassoc.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:25 AM
To: Jenna Endres
Cc: gm@tahoedonner.com; board@tahoedonner.com
Subject: Tahoe Donner Marina Improvement Homeowner Comment
To: Town Council, Town of Truckee Re: Tahoe Donner Marina Improvement Homeowner Comment
Cc: TD GM Robb Etnyre & BOD
From. T. Michael & Sharon Ward
15344 Wolfgang Road, Truckee, Ca
Ten years ago when we purchased our vacation home in Tahoe Donner, we did so partly because of the wide variety of
amenities, some public, some private, for the homeowners. We realized that these were subsidized by annual dues, and
felt it was a good investment for value received.
In particular, we love the trails and the Marina, Cross Country Skiing and often enjoy the Lodge for dinners. We knew
were not going to take advantage of golf, but that ws ok with us.
The annual fee structure at TD includes many elements of cost; management, depreciation, etc, and 25% for future
capital improvements. This latter portion of the funds is like a tax that gives the government (Tahoe Donner management)
the ability to fund capital projects without seriously consulting the membership, save through attending board meetings
(which absentee members have difficulty doing regularly).
So, what are some of these so-called capital improvements, and why have they been selected?
I have attended a few board meetings over the last year, and at one of them asked GM Robb Etnyre about the Cross
Country Ski improvement. Specifically, I asked how he thought planned increased revenue would offset the cost of capital
to do that project. He replied, we don’t do that, we’re trying to make first class amenities that our members want.
I’ve been a management consultant for many years (never in the public sector), but am amazed that the policy and
strategy does not consider the cost of capital, nor ROI (Return on Investment) considerations. I guess as long as one can
tax the members without complaint and gather capital, it is not germane. However, I think it must be.
Further, the drivers for improvements are not only first class-ness, but crating ways to increase revenue. This seems to
be management’s highest calling, to have amenities cover as much of their costs as possible (save capital and land costs)
in order to reduce support required in annual fees. I guess members complain about too much subsidy, but do not
complain about the 25% going into the development fund.
So, we are steadily chipping away at the uniqueness of Tahoe Donner for the members, in the name of making more
revenue.
Examples of this are:
One, the large white tent that is up all summer in front of the Lodge, there for weddings, (how many? How much
revenue?), but ruin the view from the Lodge dining room. Taking away membership value for a small increase in
revenue.
Two, the very expensive rebuild of the Cross Country Ski and Equestrian center. When I x-country ski, I go outside and
into the country, not spending time in the lodge. They overlooked fixing up the old one in favor of building a first class
2
facility that would attract more outside skiers. –thereby increasing traffic and parking problems. If the cost of capital were
considered, they would have to recover over $700,00 per year, just for that, not including staffing and maintenance.
Three, the Donner Lake Marina improvement. I was just down there last weekend, taking a last of the summer kayak ride
and looked at the stakes in the lawn showing the proposed limits of the new deck, and the trees marked for removal. I like
healthy trees, and only want to see the diseased trees removed. I don’t think we have to make every square inch ADA
capable. And the removed lawn is going to be a terrific loss. When members are there, kids are playing on the lawn,
people are sitting there, and folks with personal kayaks lay them on the lawn to stage while loading and unloading their
vehicles. Why do we need a much larger deck? Only for rentals and weddings; again, taking away from membership
value in the name of a little more revenue. If the cost of capital were considered, they would have to recover over
$60,000 per year, just for that, no including staffing.
What we really need is more parking and less traffic.
Four, hiring a marketing manager to increase public use of TD amenities so that revenue will increase (I wonder if that
was measured; i.e. increased outside use of amenities and has that offset his salary and wear and tear on amenities and
infrastructure, intangible value of extra traffic and crowding out of TD members from use) –as in the Snow Play area,
where crowds make this one of the most profitable operations, of which management is proud, but I know of TD members
who turned back to sledding on the street because it was too crowded.
I do think GM Robb Etnyre and his staff have done many marvelous things for Tahoe Donner, but feel he is missing two
critical elements in capital decision making, one, the voice of the customer (members) and two, the cost of capital.
Thank you for your time, please do not approve TD’s request to sell membership value in the name of revenue at the
Tahoe Donner Marina.
Sharon and Michael Ward