Found an error? The standard is simple: point to the document and the page. Corrections that survive that test go here within a day, and the page that carried the error is changed, not quietly, with a note.
November 15, 2026 · Part 1, tab 3 and Verdict
The marinas do not "pay for themselves" on a full-cost basis
Was: the marinas "pay for themselves" and "subsidize the rest."
Now: the marinas cover their own operating costs (a surplus of $300,000–470,000 a year, audited 2023–2025) but their capital, the dry-stack rebuild, docks and fuel systems, is paid from the dues-funded Capital Reserve Fund, and no marina revenue goes to reserves. Over 2023–2026 the operating surplus was $1.75 million and marina capital from the reserve $3.05 million, a net cost to owners of about $1.30 million, roughly $75 a lot a year. Over the longer run the surplus is about the size of the marinas' long-run capital need. Raised by a resident who had heard the criticism; the earlier statement looked only at the operating statement.
November 15, 2026 · Part 1, Peers and Flags
One staffed gate, not seven
Was: "seven gated entrances staffed around the clock," and a security comparison framed as seven staffed gates against the peers' two.
Now: seven gated entrances, of which only the Main Gate is staffed; the other six are automated. The comparison with Sea Pines' two staffed gates, the road-burden figures and the Security flag now say so, and the question for the Board is whether one staffed gate of seven is the right number. Raised by a resident.
November 15, 2026 · Part 1, Flag 4 and the Fact Sheet
The Board Policy Manual does have a bid policy
Was: the Policy Manual "has no procurement rule for contracts of this size."
Now: sections G.3 and H.3 leave a formal RFP for large contracts and capital purchases "at the discretion of the General Manager," require Board approval before an existing vendor's contract is extended, and provide a Contracts Report to the Finance and Audit Committee "upon request." The one hard rule is a banking RFP every five years. Found on re-reading the manual while drafting the fact sheet.
November 13, 2026 · Part 2, tabs 5 and 6
The second 2026 proposal was stepped, not flat
Was: the second proposal modelled as a flat $2,900, which on a corrected study went "negative by 2035."
Now: the second proposal as voted on was $2,850 / $3,115 / $3,375 for 2027–2029, then rising 3% a year. On a corrected study it holds the 30% floor (40% funded in 2035, 70% by 2047) and never goes negative. All charts, tables and text were re-run with the actual stepped path. Found in a check of the vote packet against the model.
November 13, 2026 · Part 2, Question 6; the one-pager
The paving and drain contracts expire in 2028, not 2029
Was: "contracts expire in 2029."
Now: the April 2026 vote packet says the contracts are "set to expire in 2028." Corrected in the brief, the one-page summary and the slide.
November 13, 2026 · Part 2, Question 5
"To the dollar" overstated the match
Was: the study's 2026–2031 schedule matches the Budget Book "to the dollar."
Now: "within a few dollars." The two schedules agree to the dollar in some years and differ by rounding in others.