The whole key is what you said -- "the club needs the revenue to support other club operations". Everything I have addressed is talking about how do we either decrease our expenses and/or increase our revenue. Larry, we are in a huge financial crunch. The docks are our most important priority (safety, short time frame, member commentary) so we have to attack that. There will be a very large assessment next summer once the permitting and engineering plans are completed. As I said before, because of the past actions (inactions) of Management and the Board, this Board will need every inch of good will it can muster to get that through. The golf course is a lesser priority. I did not say that the club should do nothing regarding the golf course! What I did say was that I was pleased that the Golf Committee was looking at the short term needs for the bunkers (in spite of some of their members) and putting together a strategy/timing/expense solution. I also said they should build a time frame for when it has to be done next time and put together a plan to start a "reserve" funding vehicle so we aren't caught off guard next time. If it is transparent and makes sense, it will need to be presented and members will speak. I also said that you asked about my thoughts on the new proposals and I stated the only hint I have that there is even a new proposal was from the October (2023) Golf Committee minutes -- and there was no definition of what, when, cost, etc. How could I have an opinion? Please don't put words in my mouth about leaving the maintenance "forever" or any time frame -- none of which I said or implied. Maybe there are some new ideas on how to finance some of the needed maintenance. Maybe our new head of grounds has some different opinions. Unfortunately, until then, the golfing "demographics" members will not be satisfied -- due to the lack of foresight and discipline of previous actions (for years!). What I personally (and the Board members I am sure) would really appreciate would be if the golfing "demographics" helped us find solutions to the cash shortfalls, expenses far out distancing revenues, abilities to reserve money or start savings for future needs (such as the course maintenance). The faster we clean up our finances, the faster we can revitalize our gem of an asset -- Signature and Osprey.

Thanks Robert for your kind thoughts. I too think Julie is an excellent candidate for the Board. Her extensive work data mining for the Transportation committee really helped zero in on our major losses (versus verbalized positive revenue). Hopefully that data is used when re-bidding or deciding not to continue.

Interesting questions. 1. I don't know who the agromonists are, their credentials, etc., but it does make sense that the courses need to be maintained. The key words here are yours -- "long overdue". Where has management and the Board been all these years? Why a crisis now? Reread my comments obove on planning ahead. 2. As a casual golfer, I think the current courses' conditions are very attractive to new members. Adam, during the first assessment proposal, tried to make the case that we needed a new/revitalized course to attract members. Yet, in those years when Signature was highly rated, we lost members??? 3. I always wondered how we could charge so much to play our course -- but the ambience, ferry ride, mystique of a course on a bridge-less island, actual berauty of the course -- continues to draw outside players here. In answer to one of Matt's questions -- increasing outside play will be necessary to increase revenue, especially to fund the needed improvements to the courses. 4. The courses should be part of Haig Point -- I don't want some outside manager coming in and milking the outside play for everything they can to the detriment of the members. A question for you, Larry. Rumors said that any new proposal would not include the Osprey. Don't know whether that is true or not -- but many of our really attractive Club owned lots are around Osprey. Has the Golf Committee taken that into consideration in their new (yet unrevealed) plans? Clay 610 425-8500 chburton@comcast.net

Larry -- I am a casual golfer carrying an 18 handicap (which I know I can't play to on this course!). I try to go out and play 9 holes a couple times a week with Doc Willis -- both Signature and Osprey. I love the courses -- so different from back home in Pennsylvania. The first time I heard of the regrouping of the course renovations plan was in reading the current October minutes of the Golf Committee. And from that, I have no idea what is being re-bid, what the project entails, how big the project is, etc., yet they are talking about presenting it to the members in the near term. If it is just a revision and slight adjustment in the pricing of the original proposal, I believe there will be no willingness to support it on behalf of the membership. This would be the tone deafness I spoke about with Matt that legacy management and board members have not heard the members speaking loud and clear. I cannot support a major assessment for the golf course at this time with so many other major financial concerns in front of us -- cash flow, replacement of the docks, controlling expenses, increasing revenues. After the first vote, I told several board members that I (and I believe the community as a whole) would not support this type of spending until they prove that they can manage a budget, adhere to "reserves", solve some of the high priority issues (docks and roads), show some "reserves" with money appropriately accrued to them, and have a savings account with a couple of thousdand dollars in it (showing an ability to think forward). That has yet to happen (9 months later). What the golf committee is doing and should be doing is breaking up the needed revisions into manageble projects, putting costs on them, forcing management and the board to start "saving" for those costs, and lining up each revision plan on a long term time line so that once a project is completed, we begin a savings/reserve policy for the next time that project is due. You know that in Savannah Walk, Julie knows we will have to re-roof our six houses in 10 years and is adamant about a reserve each year towards that goal so that we aren't surprised with a big assessment and maybe it could be mostly accrued. We ought to use that approach with so many of the issues at a Board/Management level! I think we also have to realize that our population demographics has changed. Some of our newer members are younger, working from home, and golf is not their highest priority -- it is a nice to have. I hosted some guests a couple of weeks ago and we played 18 holes of the Signature. At the end, they were in awe of the course, the beauty of the environment and scenery, and how little pressure there was from players in front or behind. Sometimes we miss the forest for the trees. The Golf Committe is correctly looking at the bunkers as an independent project, although some of their members think it shouldn't be done. Look at the scope, put some dollar numbers around it, look at whether we could increase outside non-member useage to raise money towards that project, and then present it to the members. Again, back to not listening to members -- we were just asked to fund $2 million in cash needs due to some sort of mis-management (including rebuilding the Marine Transportastion "Reserve" account). Next summer, we will be asked to fund a very large assessment to actually build the docks/boardwalks/community dock. That is an extremely high priority and will take all the good will of the Board to get through. Redoing the golf course at a very large assessment amount shouldn't even be in the thought process at this time. Clay Burton 610 425-8500 chburton@comcast.net

Matt -- those are great questions. For 1, 2, and 3 -- I have really struggled with how to vote. We are in a very difficult cash position and services, bank relationships, and vendor relationships are really at risk as you have stated. The Club will have to get the $1.6 million from us one way or the other to survive. I am leaning towards approving for the following reasons: 1. We need the cash to get through the next couple of months 2. We will shortly (I hope) be bringing in a new CEO and I believe he/she should have a fair start to their term. It will also be a benchmark upon which to judge performance at the end of their first year (bonus/firing) 3. Any of my thoughts (or the newer members on the Board) about improving cash flow and revenue will take time to kick in. An example is the renegotiation of the outsourcing contract Brad did for contract employees -- Brad has said it will create savings of $1 million over the course of 2024. Any of the ideas the Special Notice suggested won't be able to generate enough cash in the near term to cover our highest risk period -- the first quarter 2024. Missing HP Property taxes in February and the third payroll in March would be devastating. 4. I have spoken with members of the Finance Committee and they are taking their charge for budgeting and monitoring the new "reserve" accounts very seriously. 5. Some of the newer members of the Board have been adamant about reserving and protecting "reserve" accounts -- to be only used for their specific projects. 6. Our bankers would take approval favorably and perhaps we could get some financing assistance for other big projects Why I am still challenged with the decision: 1. I am very concerned that some members of the Board (and Management) will breath a sigh of relief (as they have in the past) and then go back to the old ways of running the club -- do what they want to do and the members will anti up (golf course redo, etc.). 2. In 2016, I voted for the $450 a quarter Marine Transportation "Reserve" Account. Its now at $650 a quarter and we just voted to refurbish that "reserve" account with $500,000! How has that worked out with past management/Board oversight? 3. I don't believe that all of the Board Members got the very loud message from the Members around the first assessment request/failure, the multiple listening sessions, the member surveys, and the failure of Proposal 3 on the last ballot. Do I need to send them one more signal? With regard to your question #4 -- I have several ideas (most of them not new) that I will be glad to go over during the Meet the Candidate session next Thursday. Hopefully, all three of us on the stage can generate some new revenue/expense ideas to be considered. None of my ideas, however, would get us out of the cash crunch we are currently in. New roof tops (your # 5) is a top priority. I believe that Premier is not the only way to grow. I suggest we open the available internal lots to the other major real estate companies on the Island. And do some presentations to KW/Sotheby, etc. Charter One has a very deep capability and an unusual understanding of our Island. I would also consider a specialist realtor be brought on (other than the one realtor we currently have at Premier) who has experience selling land/lots (over houses) and focusing our efforts there. We should be combining some of the lots and cleaning them up so they have curb appeal (thank you Joan). Marketing has to be reviewed to see where we are spending our advertising dollars -- are we focusing on demographics that would be prime for wanting to build? When I read the Membership and Finance Committee notes, they are suggesting some unique fee arrangements for new members building -- that might work, too. Of course, our biggest challenge is the cost to build and the time it takes! Finding additional builders is a challenge of its own. Which leads to discussions of worker housing, boat overloads, etc. I have not seen enough detail/analysis on having a minimum food and beverage charge for members to have an opinion. I know it is common across many clubs. And, I am sure Mike would love to have a known budget. I think it would be fairly easy to figure out how to apply a minimum across the multiple type of owners we have. In a recent CFO Roundtable, Adam commented that the savings would only be $30-60,000 a year? It certainly is high on my list of revenue enhancement considerations. Going back to your #3 -- the members approved $400,000 to move ahead on permiting/engineering for the docks (of highest priority). Once that is done, we as members will again be asked for a sizeable assessment to actually complete the docks. If we are in a good cash position and the "reserve" accounts are being watched and used appropriately, I believe the members will go with that assessment. Members approved a $1,200 assessment per quarter for three years to redo the roads. That is locked in. That is approximately $400,000 per quarter and $5 million over the three years. This coming August, when road contruction is actually started, we will see if the estimates are on target for the first mile and a half. BTW -- the Sustainability Committee under Greg has done some excellent work on planning the removal of trees that are too close to the road -- studying what trees are to come down, maintaining our beautiful covers, re-forestation with the wood chips and new oak tree/bush plantings. I spent a lot of your time answering your very important questions. I hope my thoughts raise issues with other readers and look forward to new and positive ideas -- no matter what the election outcome. Judy and I are here for the long term -- so it is in our best interest to succeed!! Clay Burton 610 425-8500 chburton@comcast.net