I find it odd that Trustee Homan, not the Chair, has been acting as the spokesperson for the District.

This long-time observer of IVGID’s activities has a somewhat different perspective.

The serious organizational, operational and financial challenges Homan notes existed long before the end of 2024; and despite “measurable progress” (after hundreds of thousands of dollars in rec fees have been spent to address them) even greater challenges will become this Board’s “legacy” for years to come.

The previous Board had identified the failures, but were hampered in their efforts to fix them by a series of contrived attacks. Ethics complaints and recall efforts made it impossible for those Trustees to focus attention on the myriad of problems they inherited from the Wong/Callicrate era and earlier.

Organizational challenges

IVGID has 2 vastly different powers: recreation (including business-like operations) and certain utilities. Finding leadership capable in both areas is next to impossible. IVGID’s unlimited financial resources on the recreation side (so-called facility “fee”), have enabled it to expand in a disjointed and inefficient manner.

Financial problems

The Finance Manager who was hired in 2020 by GM Winquest was incapable of successfully guiding the implementation of the Tyler ERP. Because funds could not be transferred from the utility and recreation funds (community services and beach funds), the general fund was the only place to fund emergency contract staff to shore up the broken financial system. All the while Mr. Homan and company were insisting IVGID’s problems with financials and internal controls were overblown. Only after they took office did they realize the problems were monumental.

There is still no integration of the various point of sale systems IVGID uses at its venues. It still uses a decades old system to track punch cards. The Board keeps deferring these two projects that are critical to running an efficient business operation. One reason public agencies are put on fiscal watch is that they cannot accurately measure the results of their operations. That’s likely still the case here. The primary financial objective appears to be satisfying the minimal reporting requirements of the Department of Taxation, not providing the financials needed to run successful business operations. So don’t expect the losses to evaporate any time soon.

Financial transparency was always an issue at IVGID, but now it’s deplorable. Over a year ago the IT Manager announced that the Tyler Open Finance module had been installed. It still has not gone live. The public has not even a dashboard showing current financial data. Instead we have to do public records requests for information. Wrap up reports for seasonal businesses are devoid of true financial performance.

Operational problems

IVGID has for years followed a philosophy of minimal oversight, claiming the Board’s only duty was to set policy, not provide oversight. When the previous Board attempted to change this culture, they were attacked as micromanagers. Staff was used to almost complete independence and no oversight, so they felt the Trustees were meddling.

The claims of organizational health seem hollow. Consolidating IT under HR seems especially odd. There are claims that the Early Separation Incentive Program, at a cost of over $800K, will result in savings. There is a lack of financial data to back them up.  Materials in the Board packet claiming a return on investment from the ESIP demonstrate the HR Director does not understand the term ROI. ROI is a percentage, not a dollar amount, based on reducing costs over and above the cost of the program. It remains to be seen if there will be any ROI, especially considering there is now a greatly increased budget for (contractual) services and tens of thousands of dollars in promotions/salary increases to employees taking on the duties of the positions that were cut.

As for community engagement, a term that involves 2 way communications, the Capital Investment Committee is an example, not of outreach, but a backwards move to committees that meet behind closed doors. Last summer’s open house featuring the Beach House project, after it was already at the design stage where no significant changes were possible, is an example, not of community engagement, but of propaganda.

Capital Planning

Other government agencies would salivate over a capital plan that could be funded by a fee only limited by what their governing bodies think the property owners would bear. IVGID had a history of collecting these fees for projects and then cancelling the projects, but not refunding the money. The resulting cash balance in Community Services was an obscenely high amount, most recently revealed to be $22M. At least the budget now clearly delineates money that is re-budgeted if the project is going forward. However, it still does not mention projects that have been abandoned. Funds collected for those abandoned projects just go into the cash balance for Community Services, which Trustees decided not to touch, rather than reducing facility fees.

On the utilities side, the effluent pipeline replacement project was well underway when the prior Board was in office, after years of delays during the W/C era.

Mr. Homan is arguing that we must preserve all the capital assets that have been acquired by imposing this very questionable fee. He never considers shutting down any services (except of course Senior programs). He knows full well these assets will be an ongoing financial drain on the owners of property in the District.

Yes, mistakes were made in acquiring so many amenities without planning for their maintenance. If maintenance costs/depreciation had been factored in, IVGID would likely never have acquired anything but the beaches (after all, that was the original plan).

It’s time to recognize the inequities of the facility fee itself, its disproportional distribution among the various amenities and the unfair burden it puts on those who don’t have the income to support or use the higher cost amenities.

And the argument that people “knew” about these fees when they purchased their homes is far from reality. Most think it’s just a part of their tax bill or some voter approved bond repayment. They expect it has some kind of limit, like the other charges on the bill.

And no, the alternative is not to let these assets fall into further disrepair. There are numerous alternatives including outsourcing, sale, or public private partnerships.

It’s time to end the false narratives and admit the fees are a deceptive device used to subsidize golf, promote tourism, and grow government, rather than to provide essential public recreation. These fees have enabled the District to acquire far more assets than it can effectively manage and far too many for this small community to pick up all the losses and capex.

The only ones who truly benefit from paying the fees are the frequent golfers who would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a comparable golf experience, and businesses like the Hyatt hotel and short-term rental owners, who only pay one facility fee, yet benefit tremendously from having these facilities to lure their customers. Staff, especially those who don’t own property here, benefit from deeply discounted or free use of all the facilities.

Mr. Homan needs a history lesson. The founders of our community intended the recreational amenities, except for the beaches, to be owned, financed and operated by the private sector, not a bloated government bureaucracy.

Rather than just maintaining what we have (a concept supported by the vast majority in the last extensive community survey), the current Board is bent on expanding IVGID’s operations.

What’s in the future for IVGID? It doesn’t take a crystal ball to realize that as long as we have these government run businesses and a Board with a tax and spend mentality, there will be even greater operational losses, more capital improvements and accompanying maintenance costs that homeowners will be forced to pay. Facility fees will go only one direction – up!