Lake Forest - Daphne, AL

BE SURE TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE BEFORE YOU OPEN THE GOLF COURSE TO THE PUBLIC IN THE SO CALLED "OFF HOURS". WE PLAY IN THE AFTERNOON AND TEE OFF AS LATE AS 3 PM DURING DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME. WE PAY $330/MO. OR $3,960/YEAR. IT IS ABOUT 10 OR MORE INVOLVED, THAT AMOUNTS TO $39,000 PER YEAR. WE SURE WOULD LIKE THAT CHEAP RATE TOO!!

You might want to put that in the suggestion box of the "official" website. As the director said, "We take any and all suggestions through that website seriously." ;)

I sent you an email a couple days ago suggesting that a reduced rate for golf fees for the public at off hours. I think I forgot to suggest that you then advertise this in the paper in hopes of picking up some extra money and perhaps some of those who use our facility under those terms will then later join in the annual membership fees.

I like the idea of a reduced Green Fee during slow afternoon hours. I think there is a program already in place for that during the summer months, but I'm not sure of the details. If you post your idea through the Suggestion Box at the official Lake Forest website, www.lakeforestycc.com, it will go to the General Manager and every Board Member. We take any and all suggestions through that website seriously. Either that, or come speak at a Board meeting. -Clint Martin

Mitch, as you may already have heard, that this Sunday is the last of the Sunday Brunches at the Yacht Club. Last Sunday, we heard that there was under 10 people that showed up, that includes family and friends of the Staff. Did the GM drop the ball again? Well lets think about this for a minute...what will Ms. Fassbender come up with next?

Hmmm, will it be OLD COOTS BINGO at the Yacht Club with the grand prize being a case of Metamucil?

Sunday brunches or Sunday lunches? I didn't even know they were having brunches. Are the lunches going to continue? Bingo sounds like fun. I'd play.

I feel our amenities are grossly under-utilized, therefore I propose that you as a board develop a plan whereby a very low green fee is used on the golf course during those times when our members are not using the course. For example almost every afternoon hardly anyone is on the course. If we pick up an extra $100.00 each day think of the impact on our total budget.

As a "world record holder" in executive sessions, I think it is fair for you to know why they happen. Most sessions are dealing with legal issues that carried over from the previous board. Yikes, I did it again, blamed someone else for my actions. But seriously, legal issues are becoming more routine as our society gets more litigious in nature. We have legal issues in the enforcement of covenants as well. Of course, some executive sessions did deal with personnel issues. I believe it is time for matters to be dealt with openly, but I will not openly speak about litigation issues, personnel issues, or any other issue that requires privacy of action to protect our association. Thanks for your concerns and they are noted. I agree with Clint, these are not pleasant.-John Peterson

Thanks for posting your name to your contributions, Mr. Peterson. You now see why I think it's ridiculous for people not to post their names to a negative message. This forum is definitely not a fair playing field for a sitting Board member. We leave ourselves open to take cheap shots, but I think it's the right thing to do. One day these people will realize that we have jobs, we have families, and we have better things to do than hide anything from the members of Lake Forest.

On another note, I'll take responsibility for not calling a meeting for Election Reform. Work ha s been extremely busy, but I'll see to it that a notice is put in the Lake Forrester, giving everyone a chance to join the Committee. Once we give ample time for people to respond, we'll form a committee and call a meeting. That's the best I can do, so any suggestions on how to speed up the process are appreciated.

As for the voting record, I don't keep track. Once the minutes are approved, they are posted on the Official Website. Keep in mind that Board votes won't all be split 5-4. There's just not that many controversial decisions to be made. I think if you go back over the years, you'll find lopsided votes like 6-2, 7-1, 8-0 are common. Remember we make decisions on some routine, mundane, ordinary business as usual type stuff, so don't expect this Board or past Boards to have a split vote every time. As for the Executive Sessions, I don't think I'm allowed to comment on that. I will say that I would rather watch paint dry than go into another one of those Executive Sessions. As a matter of fact, the topics were listed on the Agenda at the last meeting. Check the topics out to see what kinds of things we discuss in those sessions. Your welcome. -Clint Martin, 458-8999.

It is kind of humorous to hear all the complaints about not knowing the names of contributors from two directors who sit on a board that holds the World Record in "LFPOA Executive Sessions". There is nothing on the Grapevine that impacts the future of Lake Forest. These are just opinions and questions that are made out in the open for everyone in the wide world to see. It would be nice if some of the really good ideas were to be considered by those who actually have the authority to do something. Who knows? Maybe they are.

1/24/2007 Member responds to webmaster comments about free use of amenities after her contribution

That is another thing. Wonder how many of us read the fine print telling us of these things? Seems too little information is generated about different, various things.

Your member should actually get his facts straight, as well as his spelling. It is Peterson. Now, concerning the accountant. Mrs. Mims was well liked and did a fine job. She lived in Gulf Shores. She was offered a position in Gulf Shores. She took it. I have heard nothing of her relationship with Mr. Lawson being a problem, and I have had several candid conversations with her in her office. She wanted to be closer to home. That is all.

As to the member's other comments about slates and "lies". If the person wants to discuss the issues openly, as he suggests we do more of, perhaps he should be courageous enough to actually speak at a board meeting or even sign his name to a submission. Stand up and speak to me in person, I will hear anyone, anytime. I will receive your complaints and concerns fairly, even if they are attacking my actions. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My actions are open. John Peterson

For Mr. Martin, since the minutes are incomplete on the "official website" neither of the last 2 organizational meeting is shown and most notations on votes indicate "motion carried" your defense of the "slates" is not substantiated. There are instances where the vote was 6-2 for the motion not to fill the vacant position last year, as well as many times "Director Cocke opposed". Tell us what exactly was the vote on the assessment since those minutes aren't posted. There's no "conspiracy" theory, it's called "accountability". You admitted you campaigned on a " no assessment" platform, just like the rest of your slate, I do commend you for voting that promise as I believe you did when the assessment vote came up, but how did the rest of the 2 slates vote? Both campaigned on "no assessment". Problem is you and your slate made other promises as did the previous slate one of which is open and honest meetings. The majority of the meetings end with an executive session, how is that "open and honest" as your slated campaigned? Are you still holding meeting off premises as the first slate did at the house off the 9th tee box? Finally, you need to seek other advice rather than Bob Underwood. His membership on the recently formed "finance committee" indicates he's been counseling the last slate and apparently this one as well. His past actions have demonstrated that his agenda is not in the best interest of Lake Forest, and his financial views are slanted towards that agenda.

The conspiracy theory that he talked on the vine are too many theories to list, which ones is he thinking about. Just to let you know regarding election reform , not one meeting has been scheduled.

I certainly hope Lake Forest does not go up on the dues!! I moved to Lake Forest in 2002. It was a place I could afford and I very much liked the forested environment. I was discouraged to find out our dues did not cover swimming and other amenities but that you pay extra for most of those. I am a single person who lives paycheck to paycheck and to keep up with home maintenance on an older home, mortgage payments, utility costs, insurance costs is quite enough!! I am concerned about dues rising as I know soon it will price me out of this neighborhood and know I am not the only one concerned with this.. Why don't they sell the Yacht Club and update all the other amenities?? It seems to me that, according to the newsletter, the Yacht Club and Country Club as well as other amenities are not well utilized. So, why do we need all of them? Why don't they sell some and utilize more of the country club, pools, etc. with more functions held there such as dance lessons, craft lessons, card lessons, yoga lessons? Of course, for a nominal fee. It seems to me with such a large community there would be people with various talents willing to give so that their community members might learn and benefit from living in Lake Forest? I do not drink, play golf, tennis or have a horse or yacht? So, pray tell where do I benefit from amenities and dues I currently pay? Thanks for the opportunity to sound off as I am very concerned on these 'assessment fees' and higher dues.

It takes a vote of the membership to raise dues. When the member moved into Lake Forest, her family could swim at two pools and play tennis on the hard courts without additional charge. A fee for using the pools was added by the current Board of Directors. This contribution reflects a fairly common attitude among some of our members. That is the danger of having directors frequently complaining of lack of use of amenities. People get the sense that no one is using them, so why not put them up for sale. The suggestion that our members do not use the amenities is not accurate. A great many members do, in fact, use their facilities. The user fees and other income from the golf course alone are over a half a million dollars a year. The pools were getting a tremendous amount of use, but since they were free, records of actual participation were not kept. The swim director used to tell us that they were packed on most of those hot summer days. The Yacht Club and marina have a great deal of traffic, especially during the summer. Do we need more member participation? You're darn right! Do we have the capacity to handle more participation? Absolutely! Let me also suggest that those families, that choose to make Lake Forest their home for the long run, will use the amenities before they are done. This writer and his family are a good example of that. Although rarely found on the golf course, our family has been known as frequent tennis players and some years back, the kids used the pools each summer and many an evening has been spent at the Yacht Club. Just because we will not be using the same amenities in the same way as we have in the past does not mean that we would want to scrap the whole thing now. Even most of those families just passing through recognize the value of the amenities to the community and are willing to support them with their small monthly dues. That Yacht Club is already a very valuable piece of property and as the years go by, it will only increase in value. With bay property disappearing by the week, what would we be thinking to dump one of the the few remaining recreational tracts out there. In fact, it would be a lovely place to host some of those activities that the member mentions in her submission. However, dance lessons, craft lessons, card lessons and yoga lessons will not bring in much revenue. If we do provide those services and the members actually do respond and enjoy them, does the lack of revenue mean that they are not worthwhile? Regardless, the attitude expressed in this contribution should remind our directors that they should not be cavalier about the use of assessments and increases in fees.

I think Henry won the President's seat by a vote of FIVE to FOUR. Hardly a "lock step" decision. The vote was also split on the assessment, tax escrow increase, and charging for pools. The only votes that get passed unanimously these days are the no-brainer votes like a Christmas Bonus for the employees, logical easements, and motions to adjourn. It's a shame some people are still hung up on this conspiracy theory of the the Slate.

In positive news, Lake Forest YCC had a booth at the Annual Chamber of Commerce Expo this past weekend. I have to admit I was a skeptic going into it, but I witnessed some amazing things while I was there. Toni Fassbender and other volunteers did an amazing job promoting the club. We met with Realtors, business owners, City Council Members, and other corporations. It's this kind of PR that helps every member. Granted, I'd like to see our amenities in better shape so we could sell outside memberships and increase revenue, not to mention the benefit of better amenities for our members, but we are making a positive step. Clint Martin, 458-8999.

I suggest to the current board members, they operate openly, so we can observe their intentions and efforts on our behalf. It is very unsettling to attend board meetings that have member comments before board business takes place and it always ends in a closed door executive session. Please, explain to the members in detail the tax problems that seem to be tangled up in golf operations and the how, why and who (Many of us would appreciate it!) missed it.

Director Petersen is as usual SPINNING (by the way that's a polite term for BS'ing) the readers. Problem is there is a written record of what has actually happened, which he wrote several of called minutes. If you look at the minutes for the term of the 1st "slate" and the current "slate" you will see that they have voted in lock step with each other. So much for the "independent" decision making. One that stands out is the "executive session" vote to hire a then sitting board member who was on his slate. Her incompetence is typical for a political appointment. Director Petersen also should check the minutes for their first organizational meeting all voted for Henry Lawson for president followed by the next "slate" re-electing him for that position. Henry just ran off a very competent accountant with his constant insinuation that the reports she prepared were not accurate. His ignorance of financials, shared by the rest of the slates is obvious from their actions earlier ie assessment, borrowing $65,000 to cover operational expenses, increased tax fee, etc. List the "great things" the volunteers of the committees your slates have created. Henry, Jim Moss, Dubose and Lieb ran off Roger Davidson who started the median clean up. I subscribe to a previous posting that all the members of both "slates" resign and run independently and see what the members of LFPOA think of the job you've done so far. Then you can all explain how the lies you told them in the last 2 elections were justified. By the way, all the governmental elections are over now and see what you got. A little brush taken out of the stream. Guess what, that's all you're going to get because they "SPUN" (BS'd) you just as you try to do after being elected.

In responding to Mr. Peterson's comments I agree with the response of 1/20 100%. Amen!!! Amen!! The Slate of Five should get over themselves and concentrate on the business at hand. Too bad, So sad that they can't seem to do that.

Mitch, In regards to Mr. Peterson’s submission in to today’s Grapevine, I’d like to make a couple of comments. I am quite certain that ALL previous board members, including yourself, have ALL had the best interest of LFPOA in mind with the decisions & changes each member has made in the past. However, it is the CURRENT board that continually brings up their (again, current board members) ideas of mistakes that previous board members have made. It seems to me, and evidently several others, that this CURRENT board could better serve our LFPOA members by forgiving any misguiding or misunderstandings they have about our past boards decisions/actions and get on with CURRENT business at hand. The past is just that, the PAST!!! LET IT GO!!!!! Or in Mr. Peterson’s own words “Quit DENIGRATING them!

A couple of things need to be made clear. First. The idea that I would be elected as President of the association is flattering, but not planned. The organizational meeting of the next board will determine the officers, nothing more. I stated at the previous organizational meeting, when nominated for president, that I had little time and worked out of town in my job. That was done to let everyone know that though I desire to serve our community, the time available for that is very limited. Besides, my wife would likely shoot me if I came home with that news. Secondly, every member needs to know that the "slates" are nothing more than caring people who want a better Lake Forest. They pool resources and effort in order to be seen and heard by more members. That is all. Each have their own opinions on issues and each votes independently. These people are as diverse in their opinions as the general membership. Now, they do have a thread of commonality in their approach and in certain positions. The "slates" are generally seeking improvement for Lake Forest. Better long term financial planning, better amenities, better operations, and, in general, a better community. Certainly, there are challenges that have come up. But each decision made is based on the premise that the decision is good for Lake Forest and not one interest group, not employees, not the board, but the entire association. Will there be mistakes, absolutely. Will there be failures, absolutely. But there will also be a greater number of successes, a greater number of right decisions. My philosophy in life is that if you a re not making any mistakes, you are not doing anything. All of our boards have made mistakes at one time or another. Ours is no different. I can assure you of this, though. There will be no decision made that is not believed to be the best thing for the LFPOA. That is our goal, a better community and stronger association. One thing I notice is that we have talented and interested people who express their opinions here. I would hope that these same people would spend energy trying to improve the community. If they would spend their time helping the board, instead of looking for reasons to denigrate them, I think we would have a better community. If you have a better idea, please express it to me or other board members. Get involved in a committee that interests you. This board has many committees that have members not on the board doing great things to help our community. Volunteer and get involved. the more members work for a better community, the closer to reality it gets. We need all your help. Bring it on. -John Peterson

Apparently Peterson knows that he's going to be the next president of the board. Who can't see that coming? What I don't understand is why Peterson still is pointing the finger. Is it natural for the slates to have this type of behavior? We do not think the webmaster or previous boards had anything to do with the malevolent behavior displayed by these people the last 3 or so years. When does it stop, or will it come back home?

Anyone having problems with 4 wheelers. They are keeping me up at night using Tomrick Cr. to access the area behind the Tennis Courts. I thought it was just kids, but it's going on late into the night. The Lake Forest office told me to call the police and didn't seem to care they are were destroying Lake Forest property. I need some suggestions.

Not all directors favor assessments. Do not presume that an assessment will be necessary in 2007. I have not. After reading your list of "achievements" that former boards had done, I was interested in the year each was done. Can you recite for us the year that each improvement was made. I would like to see that and know that you did those without assessing the members. I think you will find that as years went by the ability to invest in our properties went away. The first year you took away the assessment, didn't Friday pay you $100,000 in cash? The next year the board sold property to help out. So, for you, Mitch, to speak about planning and good management is a little disingenuous, isn't it? You had increased dues, received $100K in cash from Friday, and sold property to have available surpluses. Now, let's talk seriuosly about mismanagement. Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina hit our facilities in back to back years. It was recommended to get a professional claims adjuster in to assist in making an insurance claim for the country club. This was not done. Proper management would have brought in a professional claims adjuster to properly find and list each and every instance of damage to our buildings and property. Had that been done, it is my opinion that the true damage would have been much more than the deductible we carry. It seems to me that a gross error in judgement was made in this regard. I can tell you that hundreds of associations hired claims adjusters after Ivan and Katrina to evaluate the extent of damage. We are seeing now that there was damage not recognized then that is costing us now. Had we made a comprehensive claim, it is possible that one assessment, for the deductible, could have restored our facilities to pre-storm condition. Instead, it looks like we may have years of projects that were the direct result of these storms. This, sir, is what I consider mismanagement. From a Director-John Peterson

The membership should be able to expect better than this one. The information the director wants about timing of "achievements" is in the accounting records to be sure. He can look it up himself. Over the years, most capital improvements were paid for out of cash flow and short term, low interest loans. These were planned expenditures, not "Oops, we ran out of money" measures like the one in November. In the process, our management with oversight from the various boards was able to reduce our long term debt. For future reference, the director should know that Friday did not pay $100,000 to the association, Purcell did. Whether or not agreeing to that one was the right idea is still up for debate. If Friday ever does build all those new homes, then it probably was. If, on the other hand, they give the property away or just let it sit, then the board may have made a mistake. As for selling property, the only instance that comes to mind is when the board sold lots that were in inventory to a builder who wanted to put up houses. Let's see, why did the association have lots in inventory? Oh yes, I remember. Nobody wanted them! Those were lots that most people considered "unbuildable". I think he paid around sixteen or seventeen thousand dollars for the lot of them. That $16,000 windfall really helped the management out with the association's $2,500,000 budget. That last sentence was written "tongue in cheek." It would be interesting, though, to know if any houses were actually built on those lots. I suppose the director's criticism of that one means that he will not support selling the stables to Friday. Yes, the maintenance fees were increased once in twenty years. The reason this writer supported that increase was that the assessment had come to be used as part of the association's normal operating revenue, the way the current board is doing now. The assessment was not intended to be used like that. Once the maintenance fees were increased from $27.50 to $35.00, the assessments ceased. The increase was enough to not only catch up with twenty years of inflation but to also cover reasonable increases for years to come, or so we thought. Of course, we were operating under the assumption that the association would have experienced management. Let's see. What else? Oh, the director thinks that a professional claims adjuster was needed to tell us what damage was caused by the hurricanes. Apparently, he doesn't think our maintenance staff, management and employees who work in those facilities every day would be able to figure that out. Finally, I wonder why he didn't mention the windfall of eighty some odd thousand dollars we received at the end of our last golf cart lease. Oh, that's right. The lease is up again this spring so the current management will have one of those windfalls too. Without better management, there will be an assessment in 2007. Presume it.

In a recent contribution and numerous times over the years in conversations, Letters to the Editor and so on, comments have been made about homes in Lake Forest that are in disrepair. Almost always, the criticisms arise in discussions in which the main topic is the maintenance fee. The two issues are not related. We were all aware of the requirement to pay the maintenance fee when we purchased our lots or homes in Lake Forest. It is used to keep the amenities up. If we are not happy with the way those amenities have been cared for, then we may have a legitimate complaint about the maintenance fee. Even then, the desired result should be improved maintenance, not a reduced fee. Our fees, as has been pointed out before, are very low.

The association has very little control over the way homes are maintained in the subdivision. The Architectural Committee tries to enforce the covenants, but the fact is that the association has no enforcement teeth. The only recourse our Architectural committee has is to take the homeowner to court, which they do. However, that is not the subject of this piece. This is about the suggestion that homes in Lake Forest are not being cared for. While it is true that there are some properties in Lake Forest that need work, most of the homes in the subdivision are in very good shape considering their age. There are almost three thousand homes here. There cannot help but be some that need work. Lake Forest is so large, that we actually have "mini-subdivisions" within the subdivision. We refer to them as "units". If you take a look at the Lakeview Loop area, or around Wildoak/Dewitt Loop or even the older Country Club Drive, you will find that the vast majority of the homes are very nice. There are many other "mini-subdivisions" like these in the community, all with lovely, well-maintained homes. Yes, there are some other units that are not as nice and effort needs to be made to bring those up in standard. Usually the determining factor seems to be the minimum square footage of the particular unit. There are some units in Lake Forest with a minimum square footage requirement of 1200 sq ft. And, naturally the home cost in those units was less, which made it possible for families with lower income to move into a nice community like ours. Unfortunately, over the thirty plus years that the subdivision has been here, some of the homes have been allowed to deteriorate. Still, most homes, even in those units with the lowest minimum square footage, are beautifully maintained. What mystifies this writer is that some of our most vocal critics are those who have bought those older, smaller homes and then have the audacity to complain that they can't get as much money for them as they would like. In almost every case you will usually find that their value is greater now than it was when they were purchased. There may be a few exceptions, especially with homes that were bought during the recent boom market after Katrina. But, for the most part that is true.

However, none of this means that there are not homes in Lake Forest that are in disrepair. There are. Our Architectural Committee and Architectural Support Person just have to keep on working to make sure that the association does all that it can do to improve the situation. The solution is continued diligence and adherence to the rules that exist in our subdivision. Part of our problem is that in years past, the "good ole boy" network allowed exceptions (variances) to those rules . That has not been the case in the last decade and, hopefully, it is not now.

One other point is that often we will hear reference to "rental houses" as being a major part of our problem. Maybe they are. On the other hand, if one owns a rental house, it would seem that the landlord would want that property to be taken care of. So, maybe part of the problem is lack of awareness on the homeowner's part. Perhaps something can be done to bring the landlords in Lake Forest on board to finding a solution.

I had the pleasure of dining at the new Athens Cafe last night. It is wonderful!! Also, the owners have some New Orleans food items on the menu, as well as, the Greek style food choices. Excellent!!!

I haven't made a contribution to the Grapevine in quite some time but do read it daily. I was really struck by the director's comments on 1/11/07 - "we have a group in Lake Forest (although getting smaller and smaller) who will continue to have this fairytale vision of how great they think this place looks" I must be one of those fairytale viewers because I DO think that Lake Forest looks good. I also think that Lake Forest is a great place to live. Too bad he doesn't!!! Maybe he shouldn't be a director, if he thinks so poorly of Lake Forest. Maybe we need all new directors. Due to the current mismanagement, we have an assessment this year and Henry wants to raise the dues; and of course, there will be sure to be another assessment.

The worst golf course in the area? Where else has he been? Has he tried Quail Creek? It has never been in as good a shape as we are. Maybe he is comparing us to Steelwood and the $40,000 initiation fee. That is like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce.

I wanted to clarify that the post on 1/11 "Director Comments on Submission" was written by me, one of your Board members, Clint Martin. I specifically request that the Webmaster post my name to each contribution I make, because I feel that each member deserves to know. Because I have posted my name to each one of my contributions, I have received several phone calls and e-mails. Most have supported my ideas, some have disagreed, but each member who has called me has added their own ideas on how to improve Lake Forest. Without this feedback, I can't do a good job in representing you. Unless someone tells me otherwise, that's my job so keep the calls and e-mails coming. We're all here to improve Lake Forest. -Clint Martin

I did neglect to put in the headline last night that the message came from Clint. He usually puts his name in the body of the submission like he did with this one, so I missed it. Sorry for the oversight.

I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to a few issues contained in Mr. Lawson's letter in the recent issue of the Lake Forester. Obviously, the thoughts and comments contained in my e-mail may or may not represent other's opinions. However, one cannot expect only good and pleasing opinions to be the norm. Let me start by saying that I certainly do not have any real issues with Lake Forest or its Board as a whole. Having moved here in August of 2005, I might still be considered a newcomer. I have tried my best to follow the ups and downs of this subdivision, but to do so 100% would involve a lot of reading and trying to figure what people are screaming at each other about. I simply do not have the time or desire to do that. For the most part, I am content to live here. I will say that I am not thrilled about having to pay monthly dues, and do not feel better knowing that according to Mr. Lawson, our dues have not kept up with inflation. I completely understand why we pay them so that is not the issue. It's as if we are supposed to be glad that someone has not decided to raise them and that we should be happy to pay such a small amount each month. I also understand that our dues are justifiable because we have AMENITIES. Webster's dictionary states that an amenity is defined as "something that serves as comfort or convenience". It certainly is convenient that we have pools, tennis, the marina, a restaurant, and a golf course. Whether or not those could all be considered a comfort depends on what you enjoy doing. I will be honest and say that the reason that I moved to Lake Forest was NOT for the amenities. Although I am guilty of letting my kids enjoy the Montclair Pool, I do not own a boat, I do not play golf, I do not play tennis, and I would more than likely go out to eat rather than eat at the Yacht Club. In the summer of 2005, my husband and I had exactly 13 houses to choose from in our price range. The majority of these houses were all in Lake Forest. All were older houses that needed quite a bit of work. The reason that I moved to Lake Forest was because we found a house in our price range and found one that we could renovate ourselves. Mr. Lawson states that "Lake Forest offers the best value on what we get for what we pay". My house payment actually went up $337.50 per month (the $37.50 being the dues portion) when we moved to Lake Forest so that does not seem like much of a value to me. There seem to be a number of residents living in Lake Forest who have moved here from other areas of the country; compared to what they paid for a house elsewhere, Lake Forest probably is a bargain and a good value. Also, those who bought a house here many years ago are undoubtedly enjoying the increase in value. However, there are a vast majority of us living here who are just trying to get by. My property values increased quite a bit over the past year and my homeowner's insurance went up as well, partly for hurricane coverage and party because my house is worth more than it was 17 months ago. Value is only good if you are planning to sell your house, otherwise, you just try to make the increased payments without too much hardship. Mr. Lawson also stated that another resident wanted to know why our homes, which should be worth as much as similar homes outside of Lake Forest, were supposedly undervalued. One only needs to look around to see the answer to that question. Apparently there were little to no building restrictions when Lake Forest was designed; there is a regular hodgepodge of homes. I am all for not having "cookie cutter" homes, but there are more than a few houses that are showing their age and need to be taken care of. A lot of these seem to be rentals with absentee owners. While almost all of the homes in Lake Forest have seen an increase in value, (due to the crazy real estate market of the past couple years) they will never be worth as much as a home outside of Lake Forest. Our subdivision looks dated from the outside looking in and just fixing the entrances is not going to solve the problem. Until ALL the residents start cleaning up their property, those of us that do will just have to deal with having to look at the run down houses. Mr. Lawson also asks "why don't the vast majority of home owners use our amenities......?" There again, I can't speak for anyone but myself. However, I not sure if most people really care one way or another. I do know that there are an awful lot of people like myself who wanted to live in Daphne and who could not afford to buy a house in one of those high priced subdivisions. Lake Forest was our only option, with or without amenities. That's not to say that I would have bought a house ANYWHERE, just to buy what I could afford. Lake Forest is a relatively safe and nice place to live, and a good place to raise a family. If I had the option to opt out of the amenities and pay less in dues, I would be the first person to sign up. Looking at it another way, I think that I could get a family membership to the YMCA (which has a lot of amenities) and it would cost around the same amount as what our dues cost. Do not quote me on that because I have not checked, I am going by what someone who is a member told me. If amenities were that important to me I could have also checked into joining the YMCA but I did not do so. My interests include a lot of mountain biking and a lot of walking. Lake Forest has no walking trails and the few trails that I have found close to the horse stables are for the horses and apparently a good number of 4 wheelers as well. They are not bike friendly at all. I walk 6 nights out of the week and am constantly forced up onto the sloped part of the road or into someone's yard because the cars do not seem to want to give me a body width amount of space to walk in. Everyone has different interests, and I am sure that there are those living here who enjoy playing golf or tennis or have a boat, etc. Those do not happen to be my interests and apparently not the interests of some others as well. It is going to be interesting to see how the Board of Directors decides to handle the upkeep/renovation of the existing structures and amenities. Are we going to have to pay for that as well? Where is the money going to come from? From what the monthly balance sheets have shown, most if not all of our amenities operate at a loss. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to deal with that problem. Just ask someone who has opened a business and did not make any money at it. Trying to build more homes in here to pay for the repairs, etc. is not the answer. Trying to shame the current residents into using the amenities to pay for the costs will not work either. Maybe we don't want to use them. Plain and simple. It's great that they are there but no one can force us to use them if we do not want to and we should not be made to feel guilty for not doing so. When Lake Forest was built long ago, having amenities was probably quite the novel idea. Maybe they are not such a big deal to some of today's generation. Someone else mentioned in the Forester that living in Lake Forest was "the place to be". I am not ashamed to live here, but we are no better than anywhere else in my opinion.

It's great that her family has been able to enjoy the pool. Perhaps there is even more here for them, if she would investigate a little. Try eating lunch on Saturday or Sunday at the 19th Hole. The food is really good and the prices are right.

The Webmaster is right. We've maintained our facilities. Of course, you have the Swim and Racquet Club building that is all but condemned. We've maintained the golf course to the point where it is in the worst shape of any course in the area. We've maintained 27,000 square feet at the Club House at the expense of our members, with no major improvements other than routine repairs. We've maintained Food and Beverage at the Yacht Club to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in loss each year, which is absolutely insane. We've maintained saving no money for future improvements within Lake Forest for over two decades. Congratulations on "maintaining" this place in previous years. It almost reminds me of the Fire Station Museum in downtown Mobile. Very few visitors. Set up to lose money. And funded by donors. Or in this case, funded by members. We know it's inexpensive compared to other neighborhoods. Southland Place in Fairhope is an Adams Homes neighborhood with a few common areas. They pay $300 year. So we know the dues are relatively inexpensive. The frustrating part is that there is so much potential with Lake Forest, and we have a group (although getting smaller and smaller) who will continue to have this fairytale vision of how great they think this place looks. This same group seems to think that when they were on the Board, everything was perfect!! What a joke!! You'd be amazed at what has gone on with this place in years past. Actually, it's almost the same thing we're doing now.... Chasing our tails trying to figure out how to "maintain" all of it

The above was done at the main clubhouse alone. Aside from completely rebuilding the place, what else would you suggest? The rest of Lake Forest is the same kind of story. Also, until last November our debt had been consistently reduced, so that soon the money used to service debt could have been saved or placed into new projects. Savings are good, but the interest paid on debt is higher than the interest earned on savings. Below are a couple of before and after pictures of the 19th Hole. It would be great if we had more directors who actually know what has been done in the last ten years or at least some who were willing to ask.

My wife and I found a great new restaurant on the Eastern Shore last night. It specializes in "Authentic Mediterranean & Greek Cuisine". The food was really good. The chef, we were told, had run other restaurants in Mobile, including one you may have heard of, The Jerusalem Cafe. The name of this new restaurant is the Athens Cafe. It is located in that shopping center on Highway 98, right next to the lot where they are going to build those new high-rise condominiums a few doors down from Subway. Give it a try. It is so hard to compete in the restaurant business over here, we need to try and help out the good ones.

Another member complained to me today about the assessment. He said that he didn't really mind the $50, he just thought that someone should have told him why they wanted it.

The tennis courts we have are excellent. It is also true that Lake Forest could have a large group of tennis players and the courts could be full most every night. We could have several different leagues with many members and great success. For that matter, we have a yacht club that has a great view for dining. That facility could be full each night and families could enjoy dinners and drinks regularly there. The golf course is capable of turning over 30,000 rounds a year. We could have people pouring in to play and enjoying the course and operations would be wonderful. We could have members horses filling the stables, too. we could have boat slips full and all the marina bringing in slip rental. Coulda, shoulda, woulda isn't cutting it for our members. Without exception each operation is taking subsidy to keep it open. This subsidy grows with increased costs and level use. Our fees we pay to maintain our amenities is being eaten up by failing operations and lack of true support form the members. Our fees cannot be expected to keep the facilities in great shape and subsidize their operations. So, what has been giving way? Well, if you look at the current state of the facilities, you will see that it is maintenance ands repair that has been cast aside for the sake of our members "getting something" for their fees. What are the fees based on? Let's take a look at association fees, in general, from around the area. Sehoy, a new community that boasts landscaped medians, has an annual fee similar to what our members pay. They get landscaped medians upkeep and any retention ponds maintained. Hmmm? Look around at the curent rates homeowners association members are paying in subdivisions with nowhere near the amenity package we have are paying. It will not take long to see that Lake Forest is providing amenities for less, way less. Now, the other thing to look at is to find a community that has amenities similar to Lake Forest and see what they pay each year. I think you will find that communities that provide this much are paying hundreds per month to maintain them. Understand, I do not advocate paying hundreds per month, or even raising our fees. But sooner or later, and likely sooner, the facilities we have will show the lack of investment in them. If you look closely at each of them, you can already see it. Why continue with the charade that the members are paying for something they are not getting. They are getting exactly what they have been paying for. Very little. It can actually be argued that they are receiving more than they have been paying for through efforts to reduce costs and put off much needed capital improvements.

Well, the director certainly won't get an argument from the webmaster that Lake Forest is a bargain deal for its members. The comparisons with other communities doesn't help much, though. Sehoy? Our three thousand members pony up just under a million and a half dollars a year to maintain the amenities. And, if Friday Construction does add several hundred more homes, it will go even higher. How does that compare with Sehoy income from maintenance fees? Also, while we are comparing, how does the average cost of a house or the average size of a house there compare with here. Would you say both are much higher in Sehoy? Probably. You might find a similar thing if you compared average family incomes. That is an important consideration when you are talking about fees. So, they have landscaped medians. That's nice. The City of Daphne and Lake Forest volunteers take care of ours. So, they pay maintenance fees similar to ours for landscaped medians? What if they only maintained the medians on the streets that have the largest houses? The residents on the streets with the smaller houses, who pay the same fee, might get a little ticked. They might get together and vote to just stop all that median maintaining. But that doesn't happen. My guess is that everyone in Sehoy benefits from their maintenance fees to some degree regardless of how large the home is. That is what we have been trying to do for years; make sure that everyone benefits from their maintenance fees. Our maintenance fees are fixed and cannot be changed without a vote of the membership. The user fees are very reasonable and until last year they were enough to do the job. With proper management, they can be again. There is no other community like Lake Forest. It would be hard to imagine one that offers so much for so little cost.

On another matter, there have been a number of comments in the last year, like some in the above contribution, regarding lack of maintenance of the facilities. As one who has spent a great deal of time over the years trying to help make Lake Forest better, I don't recall hearing that kind of talk until just last year. In fact, for years I personally inspected facilities and reported any problems I found to the General Manager. And, it was my experience that he acted on those reports and took care of the problems promptly. I had members report to me that they had complained to the GM of a problem in the morning and it was fixed by afternoon. That happened more than once. Nor do I recall one single time where the board refused to spend money on a repair that management said was needed. Just this last fall, an inspector scoured the Country Club for the Board of Directors and gave a report. He didn't say the place was falling down. In fact, the report was on the positive side. Sure, there were some problems. But, if there had not been maintenance for thirty plus years, one would have thought that it would be a mess. No, the problems were relatively minor and according to the inspector could be reasonably repaired. So, where was all that lack of maintenance. Hurricane Katrina hit in August of 2005 and made a mess of the Yacht Club. The Yacht Club was repaired before the next board took over in October. Had the previous board and management still been there, I believe the docks would have been replaced before the end of the next year. They have still not been replaced. I am also pretty certain that we would have still ended the year without borrowing money had Jake Bodiford still been the GM. We have to expect that there will be maintenance needs in a community that is more than three decades old. Most of Lake Forest looks good when one considers that. I had a recent discussion with one of the new directors during which I itemized a plethora of repairs and renovations that were completed in the last decade. Some time later as I recounted the discussion with one of the older directors, he pointed out that I had missed a few. So, our facilities have been maintained. We just weren't looking for an excuse to build a new one. The director used the nifty little expression, "Coulda, shoulda, woulda" in response to a contribution from yesterday. Well, when it comes to maintenance in the last decade, it wasn't "mighta", it was "did".

I am extremely disappointed with the $50 assessment fee that was charged to Lake Forest property owners at the beginning of the 2007 year. I think that it is extremely inconsiderate to assume a $50 fee to the people of the Lake Forest community with no forewarning or payment options. I see no benefits from our monthly dues as it is. It would be nice to see something come out of our dues, something for the community such as walking or jogging paths.

Naturally, your webmaster doesn't agree with the "no benefits" remark. Until this year our members have been able to use some of the amenities without additional cost, so there would have been a benefit there. Also, by virtue of owning a home in Lake Forest, each member is part of an association that owns anywhere from ten to twenty million dollars worth of amenities, and therefore, should expect a significant advantage in property values, quality of life and so on. These are all benefits. Allow me to throw out one more personal opinion. Our golf course, tennis courts, and Yacht Club tend to attract the quality of neighbor that makes for a pleasant and safe community in which to live. To this writer, that is the greatest benefit of all. However, the board should make note. This contribution represents an attitude that is not uncommon in Lake Forest. We need to try and show value to all three thousand of our members whether they are amenity users or not.

I would be more than happy to respond to the pool issue, if people would start to post their name along with their message. It's far too easy for the same 2 or 3 people to post anonymous messages on this Grapevine, just to stir up some controversy. -Clint Martin

Actually, the webmaster had the same concern about contributions to the Grapevine, which is why he insists on knowing something about each contributor to his website. We have not had any avalanche of contributions designed to provoke. For example, today we have two contributions from directors, one who has only been writing for a short time, and the other who has made many contributions. The piece about the assessment was a first time contribution. The contribution about pools from yesterday came from a member who has written two or three times in the last year. The director may respond on any issue he chooses or not, that is up to him. However, the webmaster chooses not to publish contributor names unless they are directors and specifically ask that we do so.

The "remote" pools do have a place in Lake Forest. It is agreed that they provide recreation within walking or biking distances. The Montclair and Ridgewood pools should remain as amenities for the neighborhood. The Swim and Racquet pool could be moved to the clubhouse area and it would not be much further to go through the golf course to the main country club. To have pools and tennis courts at the main clubhouse is important for the neighborhood. The competition pool at the Swim and Racquet Club is ill planned, considering a lack of parking other accommodations. There are blocks of streets lined with swim pa rent's cars during meets. Wouldn't it be better to bring these people to a country club where they can enjoy the food and beverage opportunity and have more parking space? It would also be helpful during inclement weather. From this board member's perspective, keeping the truly remote pools available is probably going to be the right thing to do. Bringing the competition pool and another fun pool to the main clubhouse is also a good thing. We should also consider tennis courts at the clubhouse. I know this, during the summer, pools are full and our food and beverage operations are empty. We have to make opportunity for food and beverage use more readily available. How do we do that? It seems logical that setting a pool near the country club would do this. I'll even say that if we have free swimming, this should be where we offer it. Let the neighborhood, or remote, pools be pay for use, while the pool at the clubhouse is always free. Convenience costs, just like always. That is why you do not buy groceries at the Circle K, they cost more. Now what would be the secondary benefits of having a pool at the clubhouse? Well consider that food and beverage revenue should go up, a plus. Consider that we can have social events there with food and drinks, a plus. Consider that staffing and maintenance would be right there. That pool should be cleaner and better maintained than what we get now. Consider that we may be able to have a portion of it indoors. Maybe for year round swimming. In any case, that is just my opinion. The board will need input from many people and areas before acting. It may be time to hire a professional to come in, study the facilities, do member surveys, hold open meetings, study operational history and assimilate all the data and advise the board on a strategic plan to revitalize Lake Forest. A strategic plan that will take Lake Forest to new heights. A better and more attractive community will do great things for our members. To get better, we need only see the vision, and see the vision out. Not the board's vision, but the members'. Participate in the vision when the opportunity is there. It will be. If you don't want anything to change, just say so when asked. All members will be encouraged to speak their mind on all these ideas. This will happen sooner than you think.

One issue that would concern a number of members is regarding those tennis courts. We have a nice Racquet Club with six lighted tennis courts that would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 to build somewhere else. Ours is a very nice facility. The lights are excellent and the rubico courts are what you will find at any decent Racquet Club. The question is whether or not the area around the present clubhouse has enough space to support a new pool and that many tennis courts. On the other hand, if the club were to choose to put only a court or two courts at the new location, then that would not be a Racquet Club. Over the years there have been many Lake Forest members who considered our Racquet Club to be the primary reason they supported the association. The present club is nice enough and large enough to support a thriving program with the proper management. With a little effort, there is enough of a market on the Eastern Shore to make our Racquet Club a hopping place. It has been in the past and it can be again.

On swimming pool issue as with everything else in Lake Forest, nothing is free. All of our members pay to support these facilities allowing those who enjoy golf, boating and tennis to be able to do so at an extremely reasonable cost. That would not be possible without those maintenance fees. The use of a community pool for the children to enjoy during the summer is a small service to give for that support.

When I read yesterday's contribution, I was taken aback by the word "elitist". After reading the director's "convenience" comment today, the word doesn't seem to be quite so extreme.

I am tired of hearing the elitist golfers talk about the "remote" pools. They may be remote to the golfers and a handful of houses near the golf course but not to the majority of homes in Lake Forest. The Montclair, Ridgewood, and Swim & Racket pools, are positioned so everyone will have a pool in their neighborhood. I'm sure the developer knew we would be a community of working families. Only an elitist community would need only one central pool. In most household both parents work and many of the kids take themself to the pools, biking, or walking with a teenage babysitter. One central golf pool would be too far for these kids to travel to swim. For that matter who wants swim and sunbathe with a bunch of old golfers looking on? A prominent factor in the decision to purchase my home was its proximity to the pool. The rumblings of the current board are troubling. Are they trying to shut down our pool and perhaps sell the land to a developer. Then squander the money on a competition pool at the golf course!!! None of my children or friends children are on the swim team. I have seen a lot of kids who do not even live in Lake Forest, but in Spanish Fort and new subdivisions in Daphne on the team. I wonder just exactly how many swim team members have addresses in our subdivision? 20? 30? 40? To spend so much on a program for so few of our children is not a wise decision. Put the money into something more kids like to do, like bike trails, or more playground equipment. Let Spanish Fort and the new rich subdivisions fund their own swim team. Don't ask me to pay for them. And DO NOT SELL OR CLOSE my neighborhood pool. Fellow readers and board members please respond with your thoughts. The members deserve an answer.

For years we have had what seems like a perpetual discussion of Food & Beverage costs. As this piece continues that discussion, allow me to begin by stating the premise from which the point is made. Lake Forest is not in the Food & Beverage business. Lake Forest is in the business of providing services to its members. Food & Beverage, golf, tennis, swim and so on are some of those services that are provided at some cost to the association. The goal of the Board of Directors should be to use the available sources of revenue to provide those services at as low a cost to our members as possible. They all have cost. Now right off the bat, the reader may not agree with the premise. Allow me to state the following opinion. Food & Beverage in Lake Forest will never make a profit. Consider the following scenario. What if you were interested in starting a new business? Someone says, "Why not go into the restaurant business?" After some research you find the following constraints to such a business in Lake Forest. Your location limits you to serving a total customer base of just over 9,000 people. Your competition consists of about thirty other restaurants all within about a mile of your business. Those restaurants have the advantage of being able to serve a customer base of closer to 40,000 people including those same customers you will be serving. They have the advantage of being able to buy goods in greater volume at lower cost. Do you think you would go into the restaurant business? I hope not.

For years our management has been able to offer a decent mix of services and still keep the cost of operation low enough that we have had an excess of revenue over expenses. Of course, there were tradeoffs to achieve this. For example, our management deliberately limited F&B services because of the conditions described above. We limited sit-down service drastically. We eliminated most special dinner events. Boards have always lamented the lack of member patronage at our restaurants. They always will. The fact still remains that Lake Forest will never make a profit on F&B. Management in the past figured out that providing the same kind of service as all the other restaurants would not cut it for Lake Forest. So, he gradually tweaked the service until it was at a point that served the requirements of the users in a reasonable manner.

When we hear that the Sunday afternoon dinners, for example, make a profit, we probably need to examine that claim a little more closely. We have a fixed number of staff involved in the Food & Beverage part of our club. Those staff members already work an allotted number of hours performing their normal function. If we add a new function, Sunday dinner, we either have to add more employees or pay our existing people overtime. So, the extra functions must bring enough revenue to cover not just the cost of goods but also the increased cost of labor. Maybe they do. However, it appears that our cost of Food & Beverage last year was the highest it has been in years. The new board and management came in thinking that they could do it without any help or advice from the previous management. Now they are having to figure all this out on their own and in the process assess the membership when they come up short.

It is true that the Lake Forest Stables are becoming functionally obsolete. As all the land around them develops, area for horses is less and less. The actual property at the stables is small for pasturing and keeping any number of horses. The board has to discuss options about its future in a realistic and fair manner. Several options should be considered. Of course, the board could sell or swap the stables property in a deal with Friday Construction. Friday currently has a "first right of refusal" should the board consider any sell. Should Lake Forest try to replace the stables as an amenity when of the three thousand members we have, only four actually keep horses there? It does seem like a very limited use type amenity. Friday currently owns a "lakefront" lot right at the Bay View bridge. The stables is likely worth more than that piece. A land-cash swap could gain a waterfront amenity for a portage for legal boating in the lake and fishing pier on the lake. Would more members enjoy such an amenity? The association may also get cash due to higher appraisal values. Another option available is a conversion to an additional existing amenity. Another remote pool or other facility to be housed there. This is likely less desirable since we can hardly afford to keep the ones we have open and operating to a level the people would want. My information indicates that Friday has no interest in putting another amenity there. Yet a third option would be to create a totally different type amenity, one that benefits the subdivision and our owners and will provide a return on investment. We could take the land area and create a well-screened community storage area. We have written hundreds of violation letters for utility trailers, boats, campers and RVs that are parked in yards in violation of the covenants. If we direct these people to a storage area within the subdivision, they can rent space. Two things occur as a benefit, the covenants are helped by the storage being available, and the association can have a recurring revenue stream. Consider that we could possibly get 200 storage spaces there. With each paying anywhere from 30 to 50 dollars a month, that would provide income to the association from 70K to 120K annually. It would not take long to recoup the capital investment for the conversion. There is a zoning issue that must be handled, though, and operational logistics that would have to be worked out. Of course, the last option is the "do nothing" option and continue to operate a stable where it is. Can, or should, we maintain a stable in the middle of the development, with little pasture and no riding areas? So, yes, the stables are in a perilous situation. It seems evident that they are fast becoming obsolete. I appreciate the discussion and look forward to hearing more from our members on this important issue.

Just read in Baldwin section of Register sound off that the stables land is going to be built on? Sounds like there's a plan to sell by the board. Another promise broken.

That Baldwin Register Sound Off piece seemed to be lamenting the loss of the riding trails in Lake Forest. For years the horse riders at the Lake Forest Stables have been using the undeveloped area as part of their riding trails. That area is owned by Friday Construction and the company has planned to develop homes there from the very beginning. That Sound Off contribution may not be talking about the stables themselves, but those undeveloped riding trails. It is rumored that Friday Construction does want that Lake Forest Stables property, so, it may not be too far a leap to suggest that a deal might be coming down the pike. While the stables do not represent a significant cost to the association, only a handful of members actually use them. The last this writer heard was that there are four property owners with horses down there. At one time, members could rent a horse for a ride. Supposedly, increased insurance costs caused that service to be discontinued. If Friday does develop the area around the stables, there may no longer be a place to ride, so the usefulness of the space for stables may be coming to an end. If Friday does want the property, a trade that benefits both sides might be in order. For example, the developer owns other property in Baldwin County that might make an even better spot for the Lake Forest Stables. However, if that number of members who use the facility is accurate, there could be other options that benefit our membership more widely.

The director stated the Sunday lunches met with good success. What is the definition of success? Maybe this is where some of our money losses came. Success may be different things to different people in Lake Forest. Just having a medium group gather periodically may be defined as success by some. The majority will define success by a positive answer to the question: Did they make a profit on the lunches or did we lose money? What was the % of profit or cost of losses? Figure exactly the cost of putting on the lunches. Include accurately the employees, their benefits, overtime, food, utilities, waste, etc. Do not lea ve out hidden costs. Did the venture make money, break even, or lose money? If it is truly making money why quit? If it is not, stop wasting my money.

Concerned property owner on a fixed income who does not want to be assessed for the gatherings of a few.

Dear Ms. or Mr. Director, you can try to "SPIN" 2006 but the facts betray you. The community told you what they wanted in the last 2 elections, but both "slates" deceived them. Both "slates" told them "No assessment, no additional charge for pools (they're not free remember, as everyone pays $35 per month or $420 annually), open and honest meetings, every dollar accounted for". Which brings to mind the last "slate's" claim that the 05 slate had saved over $153,000 through August of 05? Where did that money go? Go back and read the last 2 "slates" campaign propaganda. Both "slates" have now broken their promises to the community in the form of: The highest assessment and fee every charged in the 30 plus year history of Lake Forest, return to charging for pools, increased daily fees for golf at both courses, secret unannounced "strategic planning" meetings 2 years in a row held in Mobile, ( if a quorum was present, any and all business can be conducted), executive sessions at most regularly scheduled and special meetings, unethical hiring of an unqualified sitting board member as GM, etc, etc, etc.

What do I want from this current board? With the dismal record just outlined I suggest the President or Vice President call for a special meeting of the membership for the sole purpose of electing 7 board positions, followed by the immediate resignation of the remaining 7 of the last 2 "slates". Lets let the membership decide how the last 2 slates have been performing.

One would have to consider 2006 a year of transition. In any transition, there are issues that arise and problems that show up. This year has been no different. Consider that in much of 2006 our association operated with an interim manager who doubled as a golf pro. While he was, and is, quite capable, there were many areas that suffered a lack of oversight due to a lack of time. Also, consider that we have a new General Manager. That position is difficult, even if you have been in it for some time. For a newly hired manager, the role is much more so. Let's not leave out that we had a controller leave in the m iddle of the year. These issues, all together, likely are what has caused a cash shortage and hardship. I think that the coming year will see a better grasp of the problems and cash flow issues at Lake Forest. While these problems were there, the neighborhood did see some great achievements. Medians look as good as they ever have. Our golf course held up very well over a tough year due to weather and chemical costs. The docks are slowly getting put back together. The dry slips at the Yacht Club have been increased and are bringing in more revenue than ever. The Sunday Lunches have met with good success. So, as we talk of gloom and doom, let's not overlook the positives that have occurred. 2007 will surely see more positives as the board works to develop a vision for a renewed Lake Forest. Look for entrances to be freshened up and modernized. Watch as the board works to attain better participation and utilization. And lastly, participate in the board's studies and development of a strategic plan for our community. Let the board know what you want out of Lake Forest. Are free pools all you want? Are they adequate? Free tennis? Low cost golf? Social events? Business networking socials ?

The New Year's party at the Yacht Club was fun for all last night. The food was good and a live band entertained the guests until champaign was served at midnight . Everyone seemed to have enjoyed themselves immensely. See the photos here.