Issuu

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

MONTHLY INFORMATIONAL PACKET

November 20, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club Annual Meeting Minutes

Date: October 24, 2025

Location: Princess Anne Country Club, Virginia Beach, VA

1. Call to Order

The Annual Meeting of the Princess Anne Country Club was called to order by President John Wilson.

2. Treasurer’s Report

President Wilson presented Treasurer Shuler’s financial report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025:

• Club income from operations: $62,295 – virtually on budget.

• Bottom line cash flow for capital replacement and aspirational funding: $2,016,889 – $634,000 ahead of budget but $218,000 short of last year.

• Reinvestment: The Club reinvested more than $2 million in capital projects, notably the completion of the short game practice area, renovation of the lower-level areas, and updates to the Tradition Terrace.

• Balance Sheet: The Club holds $4 million in cash, with total debt at $8.9 million.

• Debt Management: The Club remains on track to retire all debt by 2032, even with the introduction of the new PACC 2028: Elevating Tradition plan.

3. Recognition of Directors and Committees

President Wilson thanked outgoing directors and committee chairs for their dedicated service:

• Golf Committee: Dennis Casey

• Pool Committee: Mark Horton

• Youth Committee: Ashley Knapp

• Fitness Committee: Esther Vaughan

4. Nominating Committee Report

Presented by Past President Jon Thornton and Nominating Committee Chair on behalf of the Nominating Committee:

Slate of Officers (2025–2026):

• President: Becky Jucksch

• Vice President: John Watson

• Secretary: David Burton

• Treasurer: Pat Shuler

Directors:

• Dr. Clifford Cutchins

• Michael Disharoon

• Kathleen Martin

• R. Austin Packer

No nominations were made from the floor. The slate was elected by acclamation.

Vote Results (as reported by Head Teller, Mr. Lee Barthold):

• For Officers: 242 in favor, 0 opposed, 3 abstentions.

• For Directors: 241 in favor, 1 opposed.

5. Recognition of Outgoing President

Incoming President Becky Jucksch read the following resolution of appreciation to John W. Wilson Jr., the Club’s 52nd President, that was adopted by the Board of Directors at their October 23, 2025 meeting:

Presented to: John W. Wilson, Jr. 52nd President

The

Princess

Anne Country Club

20232025

WHEREAS, President John W. Wilson, Jr. has served as The Princess Anne Country Club’s President of the Board of Directors since November 2023; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson humbly led The Princess Anne Family thoughtfully and kind-heartedly guiding the Club through a remarkable period of membership interest as the waiting list soared to 182; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson’s keen understanding of private club governance, tireless dedication, and effective no-nonsense leadership style completed the final phases of the Club’s Master Plan PACC 20/20 & Beyond; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson’s strategic vision, deep commitment to future generations, and proactive initiative-taking planning as the Master Plan Committee Chair led to the unveiling of PACC 2028-Elevating Tradition; and

WHEREAS, President Wison’s comprehensive transparent communication, genial persistent guidance, calming judgment, and inclusive approach synergized Committee and Board Members as well as consulting Club Professionals and the PACC Team through a myriad of meetings over which he presided; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson’s prudent business acumen guided the Club to solid financial performances and positioned it to eradicate long term debt as he exuded an uplifting optimism and contagious heartening devotion every step of the way inspiring so many that he kindly mentored along his wide ranging and truly difference making volunteer journey; that

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that because the Board of Directors desires to ceremoniously applaud the servant leadership of John W. Wilson, Jr. and formally acknowledge with utmost gratitude his dedicated service to The Princess Anne Country Club, that this resolution be entered into the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting and a copy presented to him.

- Adopted by the Board of Directors October 23, 2025

6. Introduction of New President

President Jucksch expressed gratitude to outgoing directors, staff, and officers, particularly Treasurer Pat Shuler and Secretary David Burton, for their exceptional attention to detail and service.

7. Master Plan Committee Overview

Past President John Wilson provided background on the Master Plan Committee:

• Formed three years ago, that included past presidents and professionals with expertise in construction, real estate, engineering, finance, insurance, and consulting.

• The Committee partnered with external architects and a construction management firm to develop PACC 2028: Elevating Tradition, the next phase in the Club’s longterm development.

8. Presentation of PACC 2028: Elevating Tradition

The plan represents the largest investment by the Club since the clubhouse’s construction in 2005. Over the past 20 years, members have invested $37 million in improvements across golf, fitness, dining, aquatics, tennis and more.

Key Components of PACC 2028

1. Expanded Breakers Dining & Kitchen:

o Double the kitchen size for improved service and menu variety.

o Expanded indoor/outdoor dining and refreshed locker rooms.

2. Fitness & Wellness Expansion:

o New east-side entrance and reception.

o Steam rooms, saunas, three treatment rooms, and two new group fitness studios (including a spin studio).

3. Enclosed Pickleball Facility:

o Four indoor courts with spectator seating and restrooms.

4. Second Tennis Bubble (“Double Bubble”):

o Year-round play for courts 5–7 and expanded tennis operations.

5. Golf Comfort Station:

o New restroom and refreshment facility at the driving range.

6. Wine Room:

o Elegant new wine-tasting and private dining venue with dedicated storage and retail features.

Project Timeline & Funding

• Total Project Cost: $22 million

• Funding Source: 100% member assessment

• Existing Debt: Will be fully retired by 2032, regardless of the new plan.

• Member Assessment:

o Resident/Non-Resident Full: $20,450

o Surviving Spouse: $18,450

o Social: $15,450

o Members age 85+ as of May 1, 2026, are exempt.

• Projected Start: October 2026

• Completion: May 2028

Members are invited to share feedback through Fireside Chats and via the website www.pacc2028.com before the final vote scheduled for January 2026

Q & A Session

Q1. How much of the $22 million project will be funded by member assessments?

A: 100%. The assessment fully funds the project, independent of existing debt obligations.

Q2. Will the Club still be debt-free by 2032?

A: Yes. The Club’s existing debt payoff schedule remains intact.

Q3. Has staffing and operational cost growth been considered?

A: Yes. The Board and Treasurer maintain a 10-year financial plan that includes staffing projections and sustainability metrics.

Q4. Will the driving range putting green still be built?

A: Yes. Plans remain to add a putting green behind the range next to the new comfort station.

Q5. The total project cost slide doesn’t equal $22 million—why?

A: The chart reflects hard construction costs only; inflation contingencies (approximately 11%) are accounted for separately.

Q6. What if the membership prefers a phased approach?

A: Feedback is encouraged through Fireside Chats; the plan may be refined before a vote that may take place in January.

Q7. Can assessment amounts be adjusted by member age?

A: Currently, members 85+ are exempt. The Board will consider feedback about age-based adjustments during the review period.

Q8. Will this assessment deter younger members from joining?

A: The average age of new members remains 45, and membership demand is strong, with a waitlist of 182 applicants.

Q9. Are the men’s and ladies’ lounges being combined or changed?

A: No. Both lounges will remain separate; outdoor seating areas have been upgraded for year-round use.

Q10. What about the lifespan of the golf greens?

A: The greens are approximately 20 years old and expected to be replaced within the next decade. Annual capital reserves are being set aside for such future needs.

Q11: How much of the $22 million project will the assessments cover?

A: The assessments will cover 100% of the total project cost. The plan presented fully funds the project without additional debt.

Q12: So we’ll be debt free by 2032?

A: Yes regardless of prior borrowing, we are projected to be debt free by 2032.

Q13: Have you taken staffing needs into consideration for the expanded facilities?

A: Yes. Treasurer Shuler, Secretary Burton, and the Finance Committee continuously plan with a 10-year outlook, including staffing projections and related expenses.

Q14: Is this plan final or part of a larger vision?

A: This represents Phase One of the Master Plan. Other areas, such as the west lawn pond remain under discussion for potential future phases.

Q15: What’s the expected project duration?

A: Completion is planned for May 2028, approximately a 2½-year construction period. Payments to contractors will occur during this period, with no additional debt anticipated.

Q16: What about members who joined at lower initiation rates?

A: All new members will pay the current initiation rate. Existing members who joined under prior rates are still subject to the assessment as a condition of membership.

Q17: Is the plan finalized, or can members still provide feedback?

A: The plan is still open for input. There will be seven Fireside Chats over the next 90 days for discussion before voting that may take place towards the end of January.

Q18: Some of us have been members for decades—are there adjustments for senior members?

A: Members age 85 and older are exempt from the assessment. Other age-based adjustments were considered but are not part of the current model. Additional feedback is welcome during the 90-day discussion period.

Q19: Will the assessment amount vary by membership type?

A: Resident and Non-Resident Full, Full Surviving Spouse, and Social Members will all be assessed. The rate for Social Members being 75% of Full Members’ assessment is still under consideration.

Q20: Are we redoing areas that were recently renovated?

A: Some spaces will be updated again as part of the broader modernization. While we plan carefully, certain elements naturally require a refresh over time. The Club maintains a capital reserve fund to handle such projects responsibly.

Q21: The fitness center seems underused except at peak times. Why expand it?

A: Usage has increased significantly up about 12% this year alone. The expansion responds to high demand, especially during mornings, weekends, and holidays.

Q22: Can the fitness expansion happen earlier in the project timeline?

A: The sequence is carefully planned to minimize disruption. Adjusting the order will be considered but may impact construction logistics.

Q23: Have you considered simplifying membership tiers or adding a pool supplement instead?

A: The Membership Committee continues to evaluate all membership categories and structures. Options like a single-tier system with activity-based supplements remain under review.

Q24: Are construction prices current and realistic given recent cost increases?

A: Yes. Estimates were updated this summer, accounting for material tariffs and regional market pressures. A 6% escalation factor is built into the construction budget to address inflation.

Q25: Will staffing challenges impact expanded dining or fitness services?

A: Staffing remains a national challenge, but the Club is committed to recruiting and training to meet expanded service levels.

Q26: Why not use existing rooms, like those in the front, for new purposes such as the wine room?

A: The plan is based on long-term use and functional flow. However, member input on space utilization will continue to be reviewed during the Fireside Chats.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennifer Garrott, CCM, Assistant General Manager for David Burton, Secretary

Present: Ex-Officio:

Travis & Adrienne Bode

David & Anne Burton

Dennis & Beth Casey

Dr. Cliff Cutchins

Michele & David Dallman

Mike & Kelly Disharoon

George Faatz

Mark & Kendra Horton

Bekki & Jeff Jucksch

Ashley Knapp

Austen & Claire Packer

Pat & Kim Shuler

Alice & Pete Striffler

Esther Vaughan

John Watson

Caroline Willcox & Dan Einwechter

John & Tammy Wilson, Jr.

Board of Directors

Annual Dinner Meeting Minutes October 23, 2025

Jennifer & Dirk Garrott Bill Shonk, CCM, CCE General Manager

President Wilson called the meeting to order at 6:30pm and welcomed the spouses and incoming Board Members in attendance.

Consent Agenda

Minutes Approval

A motion was made to approve the October 17 Executive Committee meeting minutes and September 25 Board of Directors meeting minutes. The motion was seconded and carried.

Membership Committee

Bill Shonk presented the following Membership Committee report:

NEW MEMBERS

Beck, Brenner (Resident Full Under 40 Legacy)

Bowers, Brian (Resident Full Legacy)

Darden, Holly (Resident Social)

Morbia, Joy (Non-Resident Social)

Morton, Joe (Resident Full)

Rader, Bruce (Resident Full)

RESIGNATIONS

Bell, Alex (Full)

Campbell, James (Non-Resident Social)

Clark, Michael (Full Sr.)

Grant, William (Full Sr.)

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Board of Directors

Annual Dinner Meeting Minutes October 23, 2025

Savage, Todd (Full)

Stein, Matthew (Full Under 40)

TRANSFERS

Bartlett, Mikaela (Full Under 40 to Full)

Darden, Elizabeth (Social to Golden Circle Social)

Potter, G (Full to Full Sr.)

Rader, Bruce (Full to Full Sr.)

Savage, Richard (Social to Golden Circle Social)

SIGNIFICANT OTHER

Katherine Bennett (Alex Bell)

Upon acclamation the report was approved as submitted.

President Wilson reminded Committee Chairs that service on a Club committee is a one-year term and that letters would be sent to all Committee Members thanking them for their service. Bill Shonk recognized outgoing Board Members, Dennis Casey, Mark Horton, Ashley Knapp, and Esther Vaughan and thanking them for their loyal service to the Princess Anne. Jennifer Garrott presented each of the outgoing directors with personalized parting gifts.

Bill Shonk then thanked President Wilson for his ongoing dedication to the Princess Anne, presenting him with the following proclamation:

Presented to:

John W. Wilson, Jr.

52nd President

The Princess Anne Country Club 2023-2025

WHEREAS, President John W. Wilson, Jr. has served as The Princess Anne Country Club’s President of the Board of Directors since November 2023; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson humbly led The Princess Anne Family, thoughtfully and kind-heartedly guiding the Club through a remarkable period of membership interest as the waiting list soared to 182; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson’s strategic vision, deep commitment to future generations, and proactive planning as the Master Plan Committee Chair led to the unveiling of PACC 2028-Elevating Tradition; and

WHEREAS, President Wison’s comprehensive, transparent communication, genial, persistent guidance, calming judgment, and inclusive approach synergized Committee and Board Members as well as 9

Board of Directors

Annual Dinner Meeting Minutes October 23, 2025 consulting Club Professionals and the PACC Team through a myriad of meetings over which he presided; and

WHEREAS, President Wilson’s prudent business acumen guided the Club to solid financial performances and positioned it to eradicate long term debt as he exuded an uplifting optimism and contagious, heartening devotion every step of the way inspiring so many that he kindly mentored along his wide ranging and truly difference making volunteer journey; that

- Adopted by the Board of Directors October 23, 2025

With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:45pm to enjoy the Annual Board of Directors Dinner where incoming Directors were welcomed and outgoing Directors recognized.

The next Board of Directors meeting will be at 7:30am on Tuesday, November 25, 2025.

Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Garrott, CCM, Assistant General Manager for David Burton, Secretary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary: PACC 2028 Member & Team Feedback Overview

Member and team feedback regarding the PACC 2028 Elevating Tradition reveals both broad enthusiasm for facility improvements and deep concern about assessment fairness, cost structure, and inclusivity. Across meetings, Fireside Chats, and written submissions, members voiced strong appreciation for leadership transparency and planning efforts while calling for greater financial flexibility, clearer communication, and stronger alignment between the plan’s scope and diverse member needs.

The feedback represents voices from all membership categories Full, Social, NonResident, and Senior and spans multiple generations. Overall, the membership values the Club’s legacy and amenities but desires a balanced, phased, and inclusive approach to modernization.

• Supportive but divided: The majority of members appreciate the vision and recognize the need for upgrades, particularly to Breakers and the fitness center. However, support is tempered by anxiety over cost, timing, and equitable burdensharing.

• Constructive engagement: Fireside Chats have successfully opened dialogue and allowed members to feel heard. Many express gratitude for transparency and opportunities to contribute.

• Desire for moderation: A recurring suggestion is to phase projects or reduce scope — focusing first on core needs like Breakers, fitness, and pickleball, while deferring lower-priority elements such as the wine room or spa.

Financial and Assessment Concerns

• Assessment affordability: The $20,450 assessment (and $14,450 for Social Members) is viewed as excessive, particularly among younger families and fixedincome seniors. Many members request extended payment options, age-based scaling, or multi-phase assessments spread over several years.

• Equity among member classes: Strong concerns emerged regarding non-resident and social members paying near-full assessments despite reduced privileges (e.g., no pool access or voting rights). This has been labeled “taxation without representation.”

• Debt-free strategy questioned: While members value fiscal prudence, several argue that using a mix of debt and equity would be fairer and more sustainable than an allcash approach.

• Transparency requests: Members seek detailed disclosure of financial assumptions, debt coverage, and replacement reserves, as well as a clear explanation of how initiation fees from the waitlist are incorporated into project funding.

Programmatic and Design Feedback

• Breakers and fitness center: Broad agreement these areas need expansion and modernization, with enthusiasm for enhanced dining, kitchen efficiency, and wellness amenities (saunas, steam rooms).

• Wine room: Frequently cited as non-essential and low use, raising questions about cost, staffing, and opportunity value.

• Pickleball and tennis: Pickleball expansion is well-received but seen as potentially overbuilt relative to long-term demand. Tennis members appreciate inclusion but caution against oversaturation (e.g., additional bubbles).

• Staffing and service quality: Many emphasize that upgraded facilities must be matched by operational excellence improved training, consistency, and staffing to realize full member value.

• Design aesthetics: Members appreciate attention to architecture but request assurance that expansions will not overcrowd the campus or detract from the Club’s character.

Governance and Membership Inclusion

• Voting and representation: Non-voting members (social and non-resident) are the most vocal about inclusion, requesting at minimum partial voting rights on major assessments.

• Transparency and communication: Calls for more member engagement earlier in the design process and publication of survey results, visuals, and cost breakdowns.

• Perceived generational divide: Seniors feel marginalized by cost structures and benefits they may not live to enjoy; younger members fear the assessment will deter new families and future generations.

Operational and Logistical Themes

• Continuity during construction: Members appreciate reassurances that fitness, dining, and tennis operations will continue with minimal disruption.

• Staffing shortages: Persistent concern that new facilities will worsen staffing challenges unless addressed proactively.

• Parking and access: Questions raised about logistics during construction; leadership has clarified that permanent parking will not be lost.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. Adjust Assessment Options: Develop tiered or age-based assessments and extended financing periods to improve affordability and member retention.

2. Revisit Funding Strategy: Reconsider a hybrid debt-and-equity approach to alleviate immediate financial pressure while preserving long-term stability.

3. Phased Implementation: Consider phasing the project to prioritize high-need areas (Breakers, fitness, pickleball) while deferring lower-return amenities (wine room, spa).

4. Enhance Communication: Publish comprehensive financial models, survey data, and member Q&A summaries to build trust and informed consensus.

5. Expand Inclusion: Reexamine voting privileges and usage rights for non-resident and social members to reinforce fairness and belonging.

6. Strengthen Operational Readiness: Pair physical expansion with service, staffing, and training plans to ensure the new facilities deliver the expected member experience.

Key Themes

1. Affordability and Fairness

o Widespread concern over the size, timing, and structure of the $22M assessment.

o Calls for equitable adjustments for age, residency, and membership type.

2. Debt Strategy Debate

o Divergent views on whether remaining debt-free is a virtue or a limitation; members advocate for moderate, strategic borrowing.

3. Scope and Prioritization

o Clear preference for focusing on high-impact, broadly used areas (Breakers, fitness, pickleball) and delaying discretionary elements like the wine room.

4. Generational and Cultural Cohesion

o Strong emotions around inclusivity, legacy, and fairness across age groups; fears of alienating long-term and senior members.

5. Operational Execution

o Desire for parallel improvement in service quality, staffing, and logistics during construction.

6. Governance and Transparency

o Emphasis on open communication, data sharing, and meaningful engagement of all member classes before the January 2026 vote.

FEEDBACK FROM TEAM MEMBER MEETINGS

Q1. How will wine pickups work if a private event is taking place in the wine room?

A. The design may need refinement to allow convenient access during events. The team is exploring options such as app-based pickup scheduling or alternate access points.

Q2. Will the current wine closet near the front desk remain?

A. The intent is for that space to be repurposed. However, staff logistics and member convenience are still being evaluated.

Q3. What is the member sentiment toward the assessment and new plan?

A. Early feedback is positive, especially regarding racquet sports improvements. An ambassador committee will collect additional member input.

Q4. What happens if a member fails to pay the assessment by May 1, 2026?

A. The club will follow standard delinquency procedures (60-day grace period). Members more than 60 days delinquent may face suspension or termination by July 1, 2026.

Q5. How will member resignations or delinquencies affect summer program enrollment?

A. The team will test the NorthStar system to ensure automatic removal of non-members and review the resignation list weekly.

Q6. When will members be required to confirm participation or resignation?

A. Members must commit to remain active by May 1, 2026.

Q7. Smaller settings will encourage open dialogue and reduce hesitancy in asking questions.

A. Agreed. These sessions are designed for candid feedback in an informal environment.

Q8. Where are the HVAC units located at Breakers and how does the new plan relate spatially?

A. The speaker explained with an image: the plan extends east to encompass the lower level where HVAC units are; the outer portion of the alfresco area is roughly where current mini bleachers are; courts 5, 6 and 7 will shift east to create room.

Q9. When does the Breakers expansion happen?

A. The timeline discussed starts in October 2027 with work through June 2028 to be ready for summer.

Q10. Will the new pickleball facility be used for fitness during construction?

A. That concept is being explored. The commitment is to continue fitness operations yearround. The team has looked at options; moving fitness into the new (larger) pickleball building is under consideration, with challenges around privacy for classes and spa treatments (dividers/modular units discussed).

Q11. How will spa/privacy and classroom spaces be managed if fitness moves into a large open space?

A. Suggestions discussed: dividers, modular units for spa services to provide privacy, and creative designation of zones. Parking impact for modular units is a concern.

Q12. How long will the big expansion take is it about a year?

A. The speaker indicated phasing across the off-season; the consensus is the work will span multiple months.

Q13. Will the driving range be closed during construction of the new range comfort station?

A. We hope not. There may be temporary restrictions on certain days; goal is to keep it open as much as possible because much of the work is planned for the winter season.

Q14. Where will the Breakers crew/team operate during construction?

A. The team needs to figure that out; experience shows operations can shift between facilities. More meetings and planning will be scheduled to plan service continuity.

Q15. Where can families go during disruption (programming/childcare)?

A. Most likely increased programming at the clubhouse; specifics to be worked out. This is an operational question for the team.

Q16. Why not condense construction into one year instead of stretching it out?

A. The architects/construction managers were given the constraint to avoid disrupting fitness (a near-year-round operation). Given that constraint, phasing across seasons was determined to be necessary.

Q17. Will tennis still be playable while pickleball work occurs?

A. Yes, tennis is expected to remain playable. Air structure timing and possible temporary

flexibility in courts may allow some pickleball programming inside indoor tennis building if needed.

Q18. How will ingress/egress work for the pickleball facility? Only one entrance?

A. The intended entrance is the northwest corner near court 3; there will also be an east side door designated primarily for emergency/egress purposes.

Q19. What will the new bar in Breakers be like covered/indoor/outdoor?

A. It will be a new, covered, indoor-feeling bar complex (combination of awnings/structure), with improved storage and functionality compared to current setup.

Q20. What is the ROI for this capital project?

A. The project is positioned as preservation of premier facilities (member satisfaction) rather than a quick financial ROI. Member experience, retention, and initiation/waitlist growth are cited as long-term returns.

Q21. What happens with new members and the assessment/initiations fees?

A. Current plan: incoming members will pay the assessment. There will be a future cutoff/demarcation after which initiation fees may increase.

Q22. Who are voting members vs. non-voting? How will this affect voting on the plan?

A. Voting members = full members. Non-voting categories include non-resident and social members. Non-resident members are being asked to pay same amount as resident members; social members will pay a lower amount. Estimated 740 voters out of 1,170 total memberships

FEEDBACK FROM THE PREVIEW PRESENTATION

• Note – comments were received regarding the presentation and graphics. They have been removed as they were addressed.

• Feedback on shortness of time to pay the assessment for the younger members. Any way to take it out a year or two to lessen the financial impact and help with the monthly payments?

• Overall, the plans look fantastic, I’m genuinely excited about the upgrades to the club. These improvements are both timely and valuable, enhancing the experience for many of our members. Given rising construction costs and a strong economy, now feels like the right time to move forward.

• A few suggestions:

o It would be helpful to clarify whether any additional fees or dues are expected to increase.

o I agree that voting from members 84 years and older, who may not be directly impacted, could be reconsidered.

o Since some of the golf community may feel overlooked, it may help to highlight recent golf upgrades to show balance.

o Offering different payment options is a great idea.

o Carefully listening to member feedback will be key to the project’s success, making them feel heard at this upcoming get together! Not sure it felt that way tonight.

• Regarding the cost, while $20K may be manageable for some, it’s a significant expense for many younger families. If space allows, reducing the gym footprint slightly to create a dedicated babysitting facility would be an excellent investment. This addition would strongly appeal to younger members and growing families.

• Currently, the “Reef” room works well overall, but having Taylor’s office within that space makes it less comfortable for the children. It might be worth relocating his office to the existing babysitting room. The goal should be to make the “Reef” space feel like the kid’s area, not an extension of staff space.

• Even with new facilities, the quality of staffing and service will make or break the member experience. The pool and Breakers areas often struggle with simple service basics (like utensils and condiments), while the Chesapeake Room continues to perform beautifully. I also hope the upcoming restaurant project will include a new chef who can deliver the level of quality the facility deserves. The quality of the food and menu choices at Breakers needs to be addressed before any construction takes place.

• Concern over people over 70 especially golfers turning against it.

• Wine room cost and lack of demand for cost.

• Need more babysitting

• Mahjong ladies thought assessment was $35,000

• Can we have floor-length mirrors in the new fitness center?

FEEDBACK FROM THE FITNESS TEAM

• Cost may be worth it for younger members who have many more years to utilize the club, but how many more years do I have – 10, maybe? Not worth it for me.

• Members in Sabine’s spin class are excited about steam rooms/locker rooms/showers.

• Some younger members would like to see updated babysitting, including extended hours as part of the plan.

• Would like to see the renderings of an internal view of the new Breakers and Fitness similar to the pickleball facility.

• Don’t need a wine storage as much as we need an updated/larger teen/tween room.

• My life expectancy is what, ten years, it’s not worth it to me

• We don’t need the wine room

• We want extra fitness space, saunas, etc.

• Unfair pricing for Seniors

• I think these changes need to be made for the future of the club. I am in favor. But need to sell better, why does this benefit me, and the future of the club. Negativity breeds negativity. How can we get some positive discourse out there?

• Would like to see the renderings of an internal view of the new Breakers and Fitness, similar to the pickleball facility

• Don’t need wine storage as much as we need an updated/larger teen/tween room

• Excited about all the upgrades and wonder if Red Light therapy and a cold plunge could also be considered

• Several members are delighted with the prospect of a sauna, lockers and showers in the Fitness Center.

FEEDBACK FROM THE TENNIS TEAM

• Sr Group 75-85 age range up in arms, don’t feel like they’ll be able to take advantage of the renovation.

• Full Member, 57-big group of friends at the club, they’re all for it.

• Spindle Cup/Anderson Cup Ladies-hearing that it’s a big chunk of money, not sure it’s what we need.

QUESTION & ANSWER DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING

Q1. How much of the $22 million project will be funded by member assessments?

A: 100%. The assessment fully funds the project, independent of existing debt obligations.

Q2. Will the Club still be debt-free by 2032?

A: Yes. The Club’s existing debt payoff schedule remains intact.

Q3. Has staffing and operational cost growth been considered?

A: Yes. The Board and Treasurer maintain a 10-year financial plan that includes staffing projections and sustainability metrics.

Q4. Will the driving range putting green still be built?

A: Yes. Plans remain to add a putting green behind the range next to the new comfort station.

Q5. The total project cost slide doesn’t equal $22 million why?

A: The chart reflects hard construction costs only; inflation contingencies (approximately 11%) are accounted for separately.

Q6. What if the membership prefers a phased approach?

A: Feedback is encouraged through Fireside Chats; the plan may be refined before the January vote.

Q7. Can assessment amounts be adjusted by member age?

A: Currently, members age 85+ are exempt. The Board will consider feedback about agebased adjustments during the review period.

Q8. Will this assessment deter younger members from joining?

A: The average age of new members remains 45, and membership demand is strong, with a waitlist of 182 applicants.

Q9. Are the men’s and ladies’ lounges being combined or changed?

A: No. Both lounges will remain separate; outdoor seating areas have been upgraded for year-round use.

Q10. What about the lifespan of the golf greens?

A: The greens are approximately 20 years old and expected to be replaced within the next decade. Annual capital reserves are set aside for such future needs.

Q11: How much of the $22 million project will the assessments cover?

A: The assessments will cover 100% of the total project cost. The plan presented fully funds the project without additional debt.

Q12: So, we’ll be debt free by 2032?

A: Yes regardless of prior borrowing, we are projected to be debt free by 2032.

Q13: Have you taken staffing needs into consideration for the expanded facilities?

A: Yes. Treasurer Shuler, Secretary Burton, and the Finance Committee continuously plan with a 10-year outlook, including staffing projections and related expenses.

Q14: Is this plan final or part of a larger vision?

A: This represents Phase One of the Master Plan. Other areas, such as the BMP remain under discussion for potential future phases.

Q15: What’s the expected project duration?

A: Completion is planned for May 2028, approximately a 2½-year construction period. Payments to contractors will occur during this period, with no additional debt anticipated.

Q16: What about members who joined at lower initiation rates?

A: All new members will pay the current initiation rate. Existing members who joined under prior rates are still subject to the assessment as a condition of membership.

Q17: Is the plan finalized, or can members still provide feedback?

A: The plan is still open for input. There will be five Fireside Chats over the next 90 days for discussion before voting at the end of January 2026.

Q18: Some of us have been members for decades—are there adjustments for senior members?

Q19: Will the assessment amount vary by membership type?

A: Resident and Non-Resident Full, Full Surviving Spouse, and Social Members will all be assessed. The rate for social members being 75% of full members’ assessment is still under consideration.

Q20: Are we redoing areas that were recently renovated?

Q21: The fitness center seems underused except at peak times. Why expand it?

A: Usage has increased significantly up about 12% this year alone. The expansion responds to high demand, especially during mornings, weekends, and holidays.

Q22: Can the fitness expansion happen earlier in the project timeline?

A: The sequence is carefully planned to minimize disruption. Adjusting the order will be considered but may impact construction logistics.

Q23: Have you considered simplifying membership tiers or adding a golf supplement instead?

A: The Membership Committee continues to evaluate all membership categories and structures. Options like a single-tier system with activity-based supplements remain under review.

Q24: Are construction prices current and realistic given recent cost increases?

A: Yes. Estimates were updated this summer, accounting for material tariffs and regional market pressures. A 6% escalation factor is built into the construction budget to address inflation.

Q25: Will staffing challenges impact expanded dining or fitness services?

A: Staffing remains a national challenge, but the Club is committed to recruiting and training to meet expanded service levels.

Q26: Why not use existing rooms, like those in the front, for new purposes such as the wine room?

A: The plan is based on long-term use and functional flow. However, member input on space utilization will continue to be reviewed during the Fireside Chats.

MEMBER FEEDBACK AFTER THE ANNUAL MEETING PRESENTATION

Non-Resident Social, 68

I am sending this email to the slate of Past Officers listed on the PACC Website. Please ensure this message is shared with all appropriate board members.

My wife and I became non-resident social members of PACC in 2024. We are also members of CCV in Richmond and have a home on 42nd Street in Virginia Beach. PACC has become a cherished part of our Virginia Beach experience.

The plan you presented on October 25 is commendable and will undoubtedly support PACC’s status as a premier club for years to come. However, the proposed allocation of assessment costs raises significant concerns for me and many fellow members. The differentiation between full and social memberships is minimal, and there appears to be no distinction between resident and non-resident members regarding assessment responsibility. A more logical and equitable approach would align assessment obligations proportionally with current initiation fees—for example:

Resident Full Membership: $50,000

Resident Social Membership: $20,000

Non-Resident Full Membership: $34,000

Non-Resident Social Membership: $15,000

We joined less than two years ago, paying an initiation fee of $7,000—reflecting a grandfathered rate. Now, being asked to pay an assessment exceeding twice this amount feels disproportionate. In my years as a member of elite country clubs, I have never encountered assessments of this scale relative to initiation fees, especially impacting nonresident social members. To illustrate, a friend recently joined as a non-resident social member with a $15,000 initiation fee, only to learn he will be asked for an additional $15,450. This approach seems fundamentally unfair.

I recognize the challenging balance required to meet member expectations for world-class facilities while managing the economics of necessary capital investments. I respectfully urge the board to reconsider the allocation formula for assessments and explore options to phase or stagger work to ease financial burdens.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. Also, thank you for your leadership.

Resident Full, 72

1) I think the wine room is going to be a big hit. How many can it accommodate? I am wondering if it should be larger.

2) Also, I am concerned about staffing. I know the PACC can accommodate the wages for such, so my concern is with finding the people to work. There seems to be a shortage of

such in the hotel and restaurant businesses at this time.

3) Do you have an actual floor plan we can see? Not just the schematics as presented.

Resident Social, 80

Do Social Members get to vote yes or no for proposed assessment/plan?

If a social member resigns, does this open a space for a waiting list full membership applicant?

I plan to attend a meeting, but please document our concern about a 75% assessment for social membership for an 80-year-old member. At the very least, please consider an assessment based on age of member and scale accordingly.

Resident Full, 64

Out of curiosity, if the vote were to fail, would the board consider eliminating some the projects and consider an assessment of $10,000 per member. For example, eliminate the second tennis bubble, covered pickle balls courts, and bathrooms at the practice range. Move forward with the Breakers and work out facility upgrades and Wine room. Thereby trying to keep the cost down to roughly $10,000 per member.

A: I can relay that the Master Plan Committee looked at a variety of scope scenarios to lessen the up-front cost to the membership. Even if the Breakers and Fitness building was the only project in the scope, due to their size, the assessment could not be lowered to $10,000, it could not even be lowered to $15,000. However, I can say that we have been receiving great feedback regarding the payment structure and scope which will be taken under consideration.

R: Thank you so much Jen. Personally, I am in favor of it all; however, I have heard from some friends that they think $20,490 is a bit steep. I only wish they had given some love to the 10th Tee. Thanks for all of your work! See you around.

Resident Full, 41

I don’t often speak up unless I believe an important decision may have unintended consequences. After hearing about the proposed vision for the club, I was genuinely excited about every aspect of it. As an avid golfer, tennis player (and someone who’s happy for the pickleball players to have their own space!), regular gym-goer, and wine enthusiast, the renovation plan truly felt like it was designed for me and my family.

That excitement, however, turned to concern when I learned about the proposed payment structure. As a 41-year-old with two kids, I simply don’t have $10–$20K in liquid funds available to contribute in a single calendar year on top of monthly dues, especially with only a few months’ notice.

In speaking with over a dozen friends at the club many of whom I helped recruit and who are also active members the sentiment is nearly unanimous: the current financing plan feels unfair and may unintentionally alienate many members. When I joined, I understood

that assessments were a possibility, but I was reassured that reasonable financing options would be available so that such assessments wouldn’t jeopardize membership for families like mine.

On the tennis side, we’ve worked extremely hard over the past few years to recruit younger members, and I fear this plan, as currently structured, could undo much of that progress. I fully support the renovations, but I believe proceeding without more flexible payment options would be a costly mistake that risks driving away many of the younger families the club has worked so hard to attract and retain.

I share this feedback with the utmost respect and with sincere appreciation for the effort being put into improving our club. My hope is simply that we can find a solution that supports the vision while remaining financially inclusive for all members.

Resident Full, 67

I want to thank you for allowing us to speak the other night. I wanted to follow up with a few words since I will not be able to attend a fireside chat. As someone who grew up as a member, I have had the pleasure of enjoying this club since the 1960’s. I was on the swim team, took tennis lessons, danced with my father on a regular basis in the main dining room. Our family was a staple at this club. Eventually, I held my wedding reception. Soon came our children, parties for baptisms, birthday celebrations. They were active members of the swim team, played tennis and golf and then we had a wedding reception for one my own children.

> My point is that my connection with this club is very personal, and I have had my entire life connected to this club. I don’t mind paying money that is to help keep the club updated but when we keep spending money on ideas that are not utilized it’s very difficult to support.

> Pickleball seems to be a good investment, as well as room for expansion for exercise growth. Outdoor eating is great if you’re not taking away space from pool. It was hard to tell.

> The club has always had a great demographic but I’m afraid with this newest assessment you will lose the generation that utilizes the club quite often: the 60-70’s and the newest generation that just got in, the 30-40’s. I’m just asking that you revisit what you have decided on at this point and find a much lower cost point.

> I would hate to think we are dismissing present members and focusing on the future of the club on the waitlist.

Full Senior, 80

Saw that, Bill, but it does not cover replacement reserve, debt, debt service and debt coverage, which is what I am trying to get to. My goal is to analyze the PACC 2028 Funding Plan as proposed, which I find unusual in that it is all equity, against an option or options of a combination of debt and equity. I don’t have enough information to make a recommendation right now.

I am drafting a letter to the board on that and other issues which I will ask be addressed at Tuesday’s fireside chat. Thanks.

Dear Madam President,

We write today with inputs on PACC 2028. We recognize and appreciate all of the work that went into the planning of this project. Our comments are meant to be helpful.

We see three issues:

• project design;

• long term costs and staffing; and

• project funding.

PROJECT DESIGN

PACC is, at its core tradition, a golf and tennis club with a pool and dining. PACC 2028 can reasonably be read as an attempt to make the club all things to all members. As designed, it risks hollowing out the main clubhouse as members move to the periphery for dining and drinks.

The plan appears to assume at least two things:

• no increase in membership or membership mix; and

• if we build it, the fixed number of members will use the additional amenities at a rate that makes each cost effective.

We believe the plan as designed risks considerable overreach. We offer a few examples.

1. In an attempt to fill a demonstrable requirement - a retail wine store to move member wine orders out of reception area closets - PACC 2028 plans a curated wine room with a full-time sommelier and food service for intimate dinners. The food service requirement drives costs both in construction and long-term maintenance and staffing. Yet we already have varied dining facilities (that PACC 2028 plans to expand) including intimate rooms that can be reserved for such gatherings.

2. Pickleball is experiencing explosive growth as a sport. Investors are responding. There is already a high-end option within 20 minutes of the club. Pickleball Virginia Beach includes a pro shop, locker rooms, lighted courts and is pending approval for covered courts. It offers lessons, leagues, televised matches, tournaments and more and is open from 7 AM until 10 PM.

Are we planning to try to compete with those features? If so, members should be advised to consider the ongoing costs. If not, we should ask whether members wanting a higher end pickleball experience may wish to consider Pickleball Virginia Beach while other members continue to enjoy casual play as currently offered.

3. The #1 survey priority was Breakers expansion. We should respond to that. But a couple of questions occur to us.

A. Should we expect expansion of both Breakers and overall indoor and outdoor food and bar service options to cannibalize the main club food and bar services?

B. Do we envision the main club becoming even more of a large event venue than it is now?

ONGOING COSTS AND STAFFING AVAILABILITY AFTER CONSTRUCTION

There will be a significant need for additional staffing upon completion, especially in support of the increases in indoor and outdoor dining and bar services. There are two issues there:

• availability of the personnel in the local labor market; and

• the all-in costs of their employment.

We are confident those issues were studied. It would be helpful to the members to share the analysis to inform their votes.

PROJECT FUNDING

Project funding is likely to raise the most controversy. As a purely business plan, it has significant virtues. Saying the quiet part out loud, it will drive out older members and make room for the younger wait-listed people. That will make the club both younger and significantly wealthier from the sudden influx of initiation fees.

But perhaps a member organization like PACC needs to blend in other considerations.

• On a current member level, the funding plan seems at best unusual.

• Separately, we heard loud and clear Friday night that it is also perceived as unfair.

Unusual features. We find it unusual for three reasons:

• it funds long term infrastructure with cash equity;

• it fails to offer an alternative equity and debt funding option to the membership; and

• It appears untethered to a presumption offered from the dais of a major influx of initiation fees.

A typical capital stack for an infrastructure project such as this is a combination of equity and debt. This plan offers all equity.

Since that choice drives the size of the assessment, which is very controversial as proposed, it would be useful to offer an explanation. None was offered in the general meeting other than the board decided that it did not wish to take on debt. Members deserve a bit more information on the reasoning behind that judgment again to inform their votes.

On a related note, the Treasurer’s Report on the website does not provide data on the replacement reserve, debt, debt service and debt coverage.

On a final related note, the long member wait list was touted more than once from the dais. It offers the prospect of windfall initiation fees. An example: When a hundred members leave for whatever reason including the proposed assessment, there will be an influx of $7 million in initiation fees.

• $2 million of the $7 million in that example will be dedicated to PACC 2028. Is the funding plan currently offered exclusive or inclusive of that money?

• What will become of the other $5 million in the example?

We recommend the board, in order to get PACC 2028 passed by the members, offer the membership:

• current debt-related data;

• information on the inclusion in the funding plan and other disposition of new member initiation money including PACC 2028 funds; and

• an alternative funding option that consists of a combination of debt and equity.

Fairness features. We suggest from the protests heard Friday night that the fairness issue will burn bright with the membership.

Steps already recommended above will lighten the financial load on existing members.

They have included:

1. reconsideration of the changes to determine if each meets well identified needs of the broad membership or perhaps overreach to meet limited-audience wants;

2. Consideration of staffing risks and costs; and

3. consideration of an option to the funding mechanism to include an option of debt and equity

Regardless of whether or not those recommendations are accepted, the scaling out of the payments with age and the scaling down of the payments with member status deserve revisiting.

Simply stated, a hard stop at age 85 with no other discounts for age is hard to defend from actuary tables. We will go so far as to say it is impossible to defend except in the context of a business decision to drive out older members to capture initiation fees of younger ones. If we are in a financial situation that requires that move, members should be informed. Similarly, but perhaps not as jarring are the discounts of only $2,000 for a surviving spouse and $5000 for social members.

Bottom line. We know these inputs are hard to read by people who have been working on PACC 2028 for years, and we apologize for that. But we felt it necessary to submit them for the sake of the club.

Resident Full, 68

Are all members (full, social, non-resident) eligible to vote, and do all votes carry the same weight?

1. Can all members vote (social, non-resident), and if so, are those votes weighted according to contribution?

2. What % of yes votes are necessary for it to pass? If it doesn't pass, will a scale-backed version be presented?

3. What is the rationale for taking on so many projects at once -- cost-savings? Convenience? Other?

4. How were the projects prioritized? Surveys are of course info-gathering and not dictates, so the selection and ordering are of interest. Do we have access to the survey results?

5. How were the aesthetics of the club weighed in the final consideration? The plans seem structurally very crowded, and multiple tennis bubbles will detract from the appeal of the club.

Personal note: I will take advantage of all the amenities and keep my membership whatever the outcome. However, a number of old friends have said that they will not (or probably will not) if it passes, and that is upsetting.

Non-Resident

Social, 61

Two follow-up requests: 1. It would be helpful if a few virtual fireside chats could be scheduled for non-resident members who might not be able to be in VB during the week these are scheduled. 2. I would like to see the club's financial statements to better assess this project. Are they on the website? If so, please share a link. If not, would you please forward them to me? Thank you.

Thanks for all the information. I was not at the meeting, but in reading the materials I don't understand the logic used to allocate costs to each membership category. It seems to me that the most logical and straight-forward method would be to allocate the costs of the project based on the weighted initiation fees for each membership level. It could be that the methodology for allocating the costs was addressed at the meeting, but the relationship of the proposed allocation to current initiation fees doesn't make sense. Is there more detailed information on this that I could review? Thank you for your work on this important project.

Non-Resident Full, 54

The plan looks amazing.

My initial sense is a $20k assessment is a lot for some people and a 7.6% finance charge to spread it over 4 payments is high.

While it sounds cool, with people drinking less and less each year, I’m not sure the wine room will be used like all the other improvements so if they are looking to reduce the scope, I would cut that and revisit down the road. Perhaps you start a wine club and those members get the wine discounts and access to the room and they finance the changes.

Resident Social, 58

We attended the meeting last night. We approve of and are excited for the capital improvements you are planning. We also appreciate that this project will be fully funded by the assessments instead of debt. Our one request would be to consider allowing social members to have access to the pool.

Resident Full Under 40, 39

John - I wanted to send a quick note as a thank you for a really fantastic presentation on Friday. I thought there was really good energy with a great script, and several good positive comments in the crowd.

I really wanted to tip my hat at your remarkable job at handling the questions and comments during the meeting afterwards. No chance I could have done it that well - you were professional, made people feel heard, and answered appropriately. It was quite impressive and being up there taking so much flack must have been hard, so thank you very much. What a sendoff from being board president!

I look forward to contributing and helping make this new, exciting plan a reality.

Non-Resident Full, 52

Dear PACC Family,

I appreciate the passion to continue to build upon what is a fantastic club and the previous extensive capital improvements outlined in the presentation. My perspective is informed both my joy as a member a duty as a board member of CCV where we must consider member experience, investment and a fiduciary duty just like the Board at PACC.

I encourage the club to reconsider the current plan and the pace of capital improvements. I don't see the plan addressing a critical compression issue nor adding enough member value to merit such a historical capital outlay. I would prefer the club to take a few years to work on building the balance sheet through retirement of debt and increasing the capital fee to accumulate a material cash balance to fund depreciation and future capital projects.

We are at a moment in time when private clubs are experiencing demand both in terms of usage and expansion of applications for membership.

I encourage to Board to look at ways to monetize the demand for the club is a more subtle

manner in which we move forward step by step and not giant leaps.

Please consider an increase in capital fees and initiations to fund smaller high impact projects and fortify the balance for years to come when the appetite for private clubs is not as robust.

In closing, I am grateful we have a board that wants to push forward and appreciate each minute I spend on campus.

PS - Pickleball participation at CCV is no longer growing and the courts we built are not seeing the play that was initially forecasted.

Resident Full, 44

During the presentation it was mentioned repeatedly that the upgrades over the last 20 years were financed with traditional bank sources and member assessments. Why does the club now want to fund this round of improvements via assessment and be completely debt free? Why does the org feel the need to be free of all balance sheet debt at this time (by 2030 or 2032 that was mentioned)?

2. How will any approved assessment be applied to members still on the wait list? Will there be a cut-off date after which new additions will revert to the standard initiation fees, or will the assessment be added in perpetuity?

3. We have heard Cavalier's waitlist is shrinking, and Bayville is golf-only, thus PACC is the only "nice" full-service club in the area with a line nearly 200 families long. Given the strong demand, why is there a desire to do $22M in enhancements? The product is clearly already in demand as-is.

4. Growing up at Country Club of Fairfax, the membership was bonded. If you moved, you could sell an appreciated asset and actually make money while you effectively gave the club an interest free loan. The appreciation on the bond was split between leaving member and club. End of the day you owned a physical asset vs. it being upfront sunk costs. We have planted roots here and don't intend to leave, but we are also working professionals in our 40s so we can never say never. In our case, if we had to move out of area, we would be 100% out of our initiation fee and this assessment. If this were a bond, I'd feel a lot better about spending the money.

5. While the proposed enhancements were logical and nice, they didn't seem $22M worth of nice. If we had to pick and choose we would agree that Breakers and the surrounding area needs an overhaul and the driving range bathroom/facility is logical. The rest isn't of much interest to us personally. I have been using the gym the past couple of weeks and it's not been more than 1/3rd full and my mother is an avid tennis player and says the current indoor/domed courts are not well utilized as-is. Not sure why we need another bubble? Also, tangent.... why is there no youth tennis league play? Our daughter plays competitive

golf and swim at PACC (and many other sports outside of the club), but there is no avenue for tennis competition?

My suggestion is pair back the plan and finance a portion of it with traditional debt. SWAG numbers: $22M becomes say $12M and finance $6M via a bank and then you're asking members to cover $6M vs. $22M. Or offer different levels of enhancement to be voted on.

Full Senior, 72

If a new member joins (let’s say) in March 2026, would that member pay the initiation fee plus the proposed assessment?

Full Senior, 77

To the PACC board and long range planning committee

I would like to thank you for all the time and effort that you have spent putting this next 3 year plan together. This is a big undertaking, most likely more expensive and elaborate than our new clubhouse construction years ago. However, there are many concerns from me and many of my age contemporaries. The first and primary is the financial burden you are asking of us, a group of aging members that have been involved with this club for 25 to 30 years. You mentioned in your presentation about how important this club is to us and our families. That we are a family. Well, I just don’t think we are considered such with this plan. It is my understanding that you expect to have over 100 members having to drop out of the club. Most of those being in the 70 and over group that will not be using the majority of the projects in your plan. But isn’t that what you planned in the first place? You know that you have 180 prospective members waiting in the wings to take their place and bring in the necessary funds to help pay for this project.

My feelings, and many that I have talked to feel very betrayed by this. We are in our final years of enjoying what the club has been offering us for years and now you apparently want to replace us with new people.

I have no problem with an assessment, but not one this large and encompassing wishes taken from a survey years ago. Maybe if you had told those members from the survey of the cost of those wishes they might have changed their mind.

Both my wife and I are regulars at both dining and the gym. Both are great facilities. Both are never crowded, yes it would be nice to have more rooms for classes and a fancy spa, but necessary?

I do agree that the Breakers is not satisfactory for our casual dining experience but there has got to be a way of enhancing that at a much lower price tag. A wine room like they have at the Cavalier, nice but at what cost? Is that worth $4-5 hundred thousand dollars? Adding tennis, pickleball courts seem appropriate and good, but also we have been able to accomplish those types of projects in the past without assessments. Our current debt of 8-

9 million dollars has been like that for decades and has been manageable.

I can’t, in my right mind, vote yes for this project as it stands now. I think you either need to scale it back or give the senior long-term members who will not see the benefits of this plan, a discounted version of the assessment (Similar to the Cavalier Country Club). Seems to me the younger members will be benefiting from this for years to come, and they should bear the burden of this project.

Do the right thing. Don’t throw your older members under the bus. One day if you are lucky, you will be an older member, and I would not like to see you treated this way.

Resident Full, 61

Have you all considered splitting up the project and doing one phase now a second phase later? People would prefer a smaller assessment amount now, even if you have to do another one in 5-6 years. He would suggest doing Breakers/Fitness in the second/later phase. Several smaller assessments are more tolerable than one massive assessment.

Resident Full, 56

1. Why did the many golf improvements not need a membership vote, but the improvements that benefit the general membership do need a membership-wide vote? It's much easier to get Board approval on items, whereas it's very difficult to get a membership wide approval.

2. Many members are not prepared to pony up $20K without much lead time. Suggest offering a payment plan that has smaller payments spread out over 5 or so years (without a hefty downpayment). Families have already allocated their funds to college tuition, etc., without knowing this big of an assessment was coming.

Message :

I have a great appreciation for the time, effort and thoughtfulness that has gone into PACC 2028. We are lucky to have a group of dedicated leaders who gave freely of their time to work on this massive project, especially when they know there will be some controversy regarding implementation. I am excited for many of the proposed additions but do want to share my feedback because I think (hope) it is relevant and may be shared by other members

Why are there no golf upgrades to vote on, or more specifically, why were the big upgrades for golf (example: a pitch putt area that couldn’t have been cheap) budgeted but something like a Breakers upgrade which benefits all members or another tennis bubble subject to the assessment vote? Many of the proposed improvements of the club will improve the club experience for everyone yet it feels that golf was prioritized in advance. This might not be true at all, but it’s a bit shocking to me that there is no member vote on any golf priorities except a bathroom.

A. As you may recall, any capital project over approximately $800,000 (per the bylaws $500,000 plus CPI dating back to 2013) must be voted upon by the membership, regardless

of if it is funded via an assessment, bank debt or cash on hand. The recent golf enhancements fell under this threshold (tee replacement and driving range instruction building) or were a part of the PACC 20/20 & Beyond plan (short game area, golf simulator, and better billy bunkers), which was voted upon by the membership in 2019. The proposed tennis, Breakers and fitness enhancements all exceed this amount, thus require a vote.

I am surprised by the very limited options available for spreading out the 20k assessment itself. I am embarrassed to admit that I don’t have 20k burning a hole in my pocket, and I hope someone on the board made the argument that this was not a trivial amount of money for some of the members. I would greatly prefer to pay this off over a longer period of time with no lump sum whatsoever, but this is not an option.

A. I can relay that you are not alone in this feeling and we have received similar feedback from other Members, which will be shared with the Board and Master Plan Committee.

When I was on the Board, I voiced my concern with raising the initiation fee to 40k and then 50k. My feeling was that it prices out too many people who might otherwise make great PACC members. Are we now at 70k for new members? Who is in a position to actually do that? What will our pool of potential future members actually look like? I would love for my son to one day join the club (if he settles in VB) but he would be priced out and I can’t simply write a check for him. Who are the tennis players who will pay 70k for tennis? Has the Board thought about the long term ramifications of this?

A. I remember your feedback on this item when you served on the Board. The current Board has taken this into consideration, and it continues to be a topic of discussion. I, personally, have been rather shocked by the feedback from prospective members and those on the waiting list who have, seemingly, not been alarmed by the rates. Again, I will absolutely share this feedback with the Board.

Again, I’m thankful for everyone’s effort and am sure there will be a lot of thought concerning what the final output of PACC 2028 will be.

Jennifer, thanks so much for your reply. It was unexpected and greatly appreciated. I want to make one clarification just with you in my comments. It isn't necessarily that people won't join the club with a high initiation fee in place, it's that most of my friends and also myself would be unable to join. I hear people say that 'we are leaving a legacy for our kids' and it kind of blows my mind because normal kids from normal member families have no chance to pay for this. I may simply be a bit out of my social and economic league, but it does worry me.

Non-Resident Full, 38

Will the assessments be per adult (paid twice for two adults (~40k) or family? The breakers and gym updates are valuable. The wine room feels unnecessary, especially at the price point. I think pickleball is an over-investment in a trend and expensive at the price point. There is a much better project that can be done with the tennis area down the road in my opinion.

Resident Full, 47

Why is the age you don’t have to pay 85? Why not 75? I think anyone over the age of 70 shouldn’t have to pay the full amount most people that aren’t going to use the club as much as the younger families. I would hate to lose some of the older members that have been paying dues for decades. Maybe a less amount for the people over 70 would be more fair to them?

Non-Resident Social, 85

We have been following the news coming from the meeting and unfortunately will not be around to attend the discussions. Is it possible that one or more of them can be offered as a zoom as well? I’m not able to tell you which one would work for us but if I knew they were, we would try to attend one. Looks like a lot may be going on.

Resident Full Under 40, 39

What was the rationale for making this capital investment 100% funded through an assessment versus taking on and/or rolling over existing debt to fund?

Full Senior, 72

First, thanks for leadership on project 2028, I think there are many of the identified upgrades that could enhance the club experience, and it is obvious that a ton of work went into this presentation. I am curious about the survey statistics. How many surveys were sent out? How many were returned? What were the results by project? Did the committee put together a survey summary along this line of thinking?

Second, the paying off of debt, I am curious if the committee looked at the ongoing debt capacity of the club as a potential source of funding this project or some modified version of this project. I suspect the survey did not ask any questions regarding levels of assessment that would be acceptable.

The fireside chats seem like a great idea for the committee to get feedback. Unfortunately, I am in Florida while all of these are in process, thus my reaching out to you here. Thanks for consideration with these questions.

Resident Social, 81

Princess Anne Manor COOP requests a face-to-face meeting regarding the proposed Pickleball bldg. which is next to our property. Please contact our Board representative - Jim Hinkebein 757-995-8581 to arrange a meeting with our board and residence of 3600 Sea Pines Rd. bldg D.

Resident Full, 46

For the fitness expansion, please consider adding cold plunge(s) as part of the amenities. Many top end spas, fitness centers, and clubs pair sauna with cold treatment.

Resident Full, 45

I wanted to pass on to you feedback I received from a member that was interesting and I hadn't previously connected the dots on.

We are putting the assessment in the light of improvements for our future generation....our kids, so they can enjoy the club.

But with a $50k initiation fee and $20k assessment, that puts PACC out of reach for most of our kids (at least to join on their own)....and most people for that matter.

So the justification of doing this for our kids rings a bit hollow.

I thought it was a fair point. My only response was that I would think that as the waitlist shrinks after the inevitable members leave because they don't want to pay the assessment, that we will be forced to reduce the initiation fee because there won't be as much demand. But I don't know that...just a guess. I wanted to pass this on.

Resident Full Under 40, 37

Hope you both are doing well! I wanted to send a quick note to commend you and the team on an exceptional PACC 2028 presentation & website. I can tell a lot of time and effort went into this. Being in the customer service industry as well, I can appreciate the spectrum of feedback, but this was a job very well done. While I’m not thrilled about an assessment (but who would be), I understand that it’s a necessary evil. You all have my full support and I’m excited to see what the future holds for the club.

Full Senior, 75

I know this is early, but I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you this-The 80 and older crowd that I’ve talked to are all up in arms. I’m sure some of them would pay the $20,000 assessment; but I don’t believe many, if any, would vote YES on the $20,000 assessment. I feel ok about the 75-79 crowd. But I hope we can discount 80 and over to $10K-15K. Good luck tonight at your first fireside chat.

Non-Resident Full, 78

We support the Breakers Expansion, the Pickleball Courts, and the Driving Range Comfort Station. We do not support the Wellness Center Expansion, the 2nd Bubble for Tennis courts 5-7, nor the Wine Room Expansion. The cost of these is approximately half of the total proposal. $20k is a huge ask. Doing the first three items will be phenomenal and we definitely would support that with a $10K assessment. Thank you for taking input as we move forward.

Full Senior, 73

I think this is way over the top. You can't staff what we have now. The bar outside the men’s locker room is not staffed on Saturdays how will the wine bar be staffed. I am not onboard with this at all.

Non-Resident Social, 57

Allow social members, who are being asked to pay slightly more than 75% of what full members are paying in the proposed assessment, access to the pool on all but June and July weekends. The current policy is abnormal to clubs and is costing the club revenue. The statement that the pool can’t handle the extra demand is myth in May, June weekdays, July weekdays, August and September. If common sense can’t prevail, asses the fourth class social citizens a fourth class assessment.

Is it possible to forward this email to social members?

If so, I ask that this email be forwarded to all social members- both residents and out-oftown members.

November 6, 2025

Dear Resident and Non-Resident Social Members:

Re: No Vote, No Pool, but 75% Assessment

I don’t know if we have any British citizens who are members of the PACC, but I must wonder if the are British citizens who make up the assessment committee at the PACC. Who else other than British citizens would propose that social members pay 75% of the full members’ assessment without having a vote?

Our colonial forefathers fought a war from 4/19/1775 until 9/3/1783 over “taxation without representation”.

Further, the notion that social members cannot use the pool, but are being asked to pay 75% of the full member assessment is simply egregious. It seems like most of this assessment is going to pay for areas adjacent to our large pool complex and those areas are used in tandem with our large pool complex.

I love the PACC and have been a member since 1990. My parents were members decades before I was. I have been a Full Resident Member, Full Non-Resident Member and a NonResident Social Member over the last 35 years.

My siblings and I hosted my parents’ 45th wedding anniversary at the club. My rehearsal dinner and wedding were at the club. My four childrens’ post baptism celebrations were at the club. My four children were on the swim team. My ex-wife volunteered for many swim meets. We owned a home for 20 years just off of the first hole, the second tee and the fourth fairway.

When we could use the pool, we were regulars at Breakers.

I don’t know what we (as non-voting, non-pool use social members) can do if we can’t vote, but maybe we can put together a list of social members who conditionally oppose the assessment WITHOUT a 3/4s vote and use of the pool?

Maybe we can ask that if the assessment passes, social members will have a partial vote and will be permitted to use the pool going forward? If not, one must ponder if the majority of the Full Membership wants to push Social Members out of the club in order to attract new Full Members who will be required to pay an Initiation Fee?

I think the vast majority of country clubs in the United States allow their social members to use their pool. I know our neighboring club at the end of Cardinal Rd is in that majority.

We have a great club. Membership make-ups change. Loyalty is rare today. Somehow, I hope a sense of fairness will come from this assessment proposal or that it will be adjusted in a manner that matches financial assessment with club use.

Resident Social, 74

First I’d like to say how much I appreciated the opportunity to voice my opinion at the fireside chat this morning. It clarified a lot of issues and misunderstandings for me and a number of others. Although there are some things that I don’t agree with, which I guess is what real life is all about, being able to discuss those issues in a friendly and respectful environment is key to a continued membership. That said, I do believe that some changes need to be made or at least looked at for future members, to give all the feeling that they are valued by the Princess Anne. One being the ability of a social member to vote, even if it were a partial vote. We all pay our club bill every month and are an integral part of the history of the Princess Anne. To have no voice and not be seen is UnAmerican. I hope the Board will look at the bylaw that addresses this.

I have loved being a member of the Princess Anne since birth, through my grandparents, then my parents and then on my own. I will continue to be a member no matter what the decision. The Princess Anne is my joy. And your kindness towards my family and me is so valued and greatly appreciated.

Happy holidays to you and all your family. I look forward to participating in many of the Holiday events at the club.

Resident Full, 43

I wanted to share my concerns regarding PACC 2028. While I greatly appreciate all the research and effort that went into crafting this plan, I’m worried by the dollar amount of the proposed assessment. I am upset that there was not more effort put forth to gauge membership as to an assessment amount that would be acceptable. I understand the

desire to not do these upgrades and renovations in a piecemeal fashion, or worse repeatedly propose new assessments in quick succession, but it would have been nice to see multiple plans proposed at different financial levels, so the membership can truly discuss and vote on what enhancements are most important when paired with an actual dollar amount. The prior survey on these enhancements was a good start but did not get to the granularity of pairing proposals with actual dollar amounts. It’s one thing to desire a new pickleball facility, it’s entirely another to say, “I am willing to personally pay X dollars to have a new pickleball facility.”

$20K is a very large amount to propose, particularly at a time when there is so much economic uncertainty. It is also concerning to me to propose this amount should be paid in such a short time, starting in May 2026 (less than a year from now). I did see there are payment options, but the LEAST of these is for $5.5K by that point, with additional payments in relatively quick succession.

An unplanned cost of this magnitude means myself and every other member needs to reassess if an already expensive club is still worth it. Even if feasible for the majority of the PACC membership, it will mean some of our PACC family will have to forfeit their membership. Others will have to decide between cancelling or downgrading vacations, gifts, home renovations, car purchases, etc., or be kicked out of a community they have come to rely on. It would have been nice to see a little more grace from PACC leadership acknowledging this is a huge ask and sacrifice for many members.

In that vein, #24 of the Q and A is appalling. While I certainly hope it wasn’t the intention, the answer basically reads as, “We don’t care if our members can’t afford this and drop out. We have plenty of new people on the waitlist begging to get in. We’ll be fine financially.” This really puts Princess Anne into perspective as a business, unlike the community I thought we were. I worry we will lose valuable members (valuable FRIENDS) over this proposal. The implication that any of our current members are simply interchangeable with those on the waiting list misses the point of the community in the first place.

My husband and I love PACC and very much want it to remain the best club in the area. In the decade we have been members, we have made great friends, the club welcomed us as family, and it has been our community. This proposal and the general tone of the communication does not comport with the principles of family that the Princess Anne purports to support. We are disappointed. We wish there had been a more thoughtful and more phased approach to this process. While we believe that there is a path forward that truly reflects and supports the Princess Anne Community, we think it requires more discussion and ultimately compromise to focus on what matters most to the members.

Full Senior, 74

I attended the Fireside Chat this week, appreciate the presentation and input from the committee and officers. I am forwarding additional thoughts for consideration.

Full Senior, 70

I am very disappointed in our board chairman’s attitude toward out-of-town members. I am a full member, but I have many, many friends from Richmond. This plan does not fairly address senior or out-of-down members. The board is conflating “wish list” from reality. As always, I feel you are the very best “manger” in history. Please do what you can! Many thanks! BTW: How can we be in such “need” with a 94% satisfaction rate?

Full Senior, 72

When members are surveyed about what they might like to see in new club amenities, I’m sure there’s a long list of suggestions. If, however, there was a price tag (estimated assessment) associated with each of those that might be suggested, it’s likely the responses would be much different.

The current proposal is full of WANTS not NEEDS, outside of the kitchen needs for Breakers. We have a long waiting list of prospective members that are ready to join today and are not clamoring for new amenities. The proposed assessment is exceptionally large and will have a huge impact on many of our young new members, some of whom are likely still on a payment plan for their initiation fees. They are now looking at paying 50-65% MORE on top of that. That’s a surprise they didn’t budget for. The $20K will be a surprise to a lot of folks who trust the board to spend our monthly capital fees wisely.( Maybe that never staffed bourbon bar should have instead been wine focused.)

So, what should the board consider doing?

- Drop the proposal before it goes to a vote.

- Immediately raise initiation fees by $20K. We have a big waiting list and that’s what the assessment essentially does.

- Create a new membership class of Golf In Waiting. Figure on a cap to that number. Those on the waiting list can come in at that tier by paying 85% of the initiation fee plus monthly dues and capital at 85%. Restrict golf tee time booking to 1 day ahead from May-Sep. Folks who sign up for that now would beat the dues increase.

- With a large waiting list, why are we continuing to sign out-of-town members at a discount. The club should sunset this membership class.

- Consider a modest increase in our monthly capital dues.

These moves would help bring in more dollars for capital needs, but we still need to be much more realistic in undertaking only what we can afford within our current financial projections. No one likes surprises in that area.

Resident Full, 41

As a follow up - - I wanted to circle back to the club engagement and input into the design and goals of the capital project. I strongly feel that the broader club engagement has not happened, nor is it happening in the "fireside chats" (sans fire).

Two major projects come to mind that while not perfect examples are good examples of soliciting input from the stakeholders.

1) The Atlantic Park project - I can personally speak to this. We had multiple, maybe even dozens, of public input sessions where there were small breakout group brainstorming sessions about what the greater public wanted in the Atlantic Park project. While many of the ideas were cost prohibitive, the ideas gained from those sessions helped shape the project as to what was important. Some themes that came from those meetings- - outdoor elements to the music venue, balcony/outdoor space for the apartments, lots of overdone plantings, pedestrian friendly, new to market restaurants and retailers and many more. Not every idea can be used, but it gave us direction as to what was important and what would be successful. We then went a step further and met with every neighborhood and business association in the greater resort and town center areas to review the results and explain the direction, then ask for more feedback. Our fireside chats are a little bit of this second phase, without the first step having taken place. This presentation comes across like its a reaction to what the club membership said they wanted, but in reality, the club's voice hasn't been requested throughout the design and brainstorming process. A small select group has been trying to shape the project. I feel this is where the greatest push back is coming from - - those who are spending the money have not had a say until it was already "baked"

2) The Rudee Inlet project. This project is not ours, but the city had three radical ideas that they then vetted through a very detailed survey. One that ranked what was important to the constituents of the city. What they wanted to use the space for, what that wanted the programming to be. While this is still very much in the preliminary design stage, the city solicited as much feedback as they could in order to give the concept design direction so that it can be further vetted as the project progresses. It's still years away from breaking ground.

In my opinion, the survey from 2022 was about the big picture of identifying the areas of weakness, but not in identifying the solutions or enhancements. I have not seen or heard (annual meeting/fireside chat) any presentation on what our actual problems are that we are trying to solve other than low ceiling (not being solved in the capital project) and service (won't be solved by capital project). I've seen or heard no reason why the fitness center needs to expand, why we need an additional bubble, why we need a wine room, or what we need to solve in the breakers beyond a bigger kitchen (that still has a ceiling problem). The images and test floor plan are not clear enough to suggest fixing the unknown problems.

I know a lot of people have spent a lot of time, energy, and our money on the leg work to date on this project, but in large part the process has been so closed door, behind the scenes, with the club "elite", that the everyday member not only didn't feel like they have a say, but feel like the project is being shoved down our throats. The process feels like one of exclusion vs inclusion, and I think that is the biggest source of negative feedback, even

more so than that dollar figure. No one wants to be cut out on how they are spending their money, and that's the greater perception.

Non-Resident Full, 81

My Father and Mother were long term PACC members, and my wife and I have been ~20 years. For us as senior (over 80 yo) out-of-town members the cost would not be sustainable. We would oppose. It seems that perhaps the 85-year-old exception could be lowered due to age and to the limited years we would have to utilize the renovations? We will continue to learn more. We would have to utilized the proposed renovations.

Resident Full, 42

Email from Mr. Shonk: Thank you so much for attending the other day. I'm particularly grateful for the constructive caring manner you shared your thoughtful insights. We are continuing to compile some very valuable input through these listening sessions, and the Master Plan Committee and Board will certainly have plenty to evaluate.

You had inquired about Lifestyles Fitness Center activity/revenue levels and trends and as promised, I wanted to follow up with some more specific statistics:

• Massage Therapy revenue rose 38% this past fiscal year ($111,475 vs $80,872) and it was up nearly 71% over the year prior to that ($65,181). As the Committee(s) evaluated fitness space and expansion there was strong sentiment that there is real demand for additional massage therapy and comparable room(s); and certainly space(s) with greater serenity and ambiance as the current massage therapy room is located in the middle of the fitness center and we receive feedback about noise from the gym. While I am not comfortable declaring that there is real return on investment (ROI), there is no doubt that massage therapy is one of the few Member services that actually nets revenue. Typically, 30% of the massage therapy fees are retained by the Club. There are virtually no Team Member Employee benefit costs as the therapists are independent contractors, and while there are obviously utility and other costs to operate the massage therapy room it is safe to say that it generates a profit.

• Personal Fitness Training revenue climbed 22% ($234,718 vs $192,145) this past year. While this growth is financially positive as the Club takes a percentage from instructors, it generated concerns from Members that influenced Master Plan design. Members continue to raise concerns about personal trainers monopolizing valuable floor space that interferes with their stretching and functional body training. Gyms across the country continue to expand and repurpose other spaces into open floor space to meet the demand for functional body training and much of the expanded footprint in the proposed new fitness concept is designed to meet this need.

• Group Fitness revenue rose 14% ($89,261 over $78,435) this past year with virtually the same programming and just one dedicated group fitness space/room. While there are certainly times when the single group fitness room sits idle - it is clear that additional rooms could elevate Member experiences and go a long way towards meeting real Member demand. Unfortunately, like tennis court times and golf tee times - group fitness demand elavates at peak times. Virtually every spin class sells out and we struggle to provide the range of group classes Member's desire at preferred times.

Thank you again for taking the time to attend. Our Director of Fitness & Wellness, Andrea Pettay is copied and stands ready to meet with you personally to discuss more fitness details. We appreciate your ongoing support of the Princess Anne and look forward to seeing you here again soon!

Thank you, Bill, for the follow-up. Apologies for my slow response. This information is helpful context around the expanding of the gym facilities. I would suggest you all put this on the FAQs page online for the project for others to view. Given the other large expenditure is Breakers do you all have similar data around the usage or volumes there?

Non-Resident Full, 70

Good to see you today, thanks for hosting these chats. Hopefully we will see the questions / answers from your other chats on the member website. I don’t drink a lot of wine so I questioned the usefulness of building the wine room but todays explanation changed my mind. I’m a member of the Commonwealth Club in Richmond and we have a wine store downstairs; it’s a very small space. We sell almost 2 million dollars of wine to the members each year, it has good prices, and we make a good profit in that space. I believe the wine room at PACC will have similar success.

I do have another question, pickle ball is very popular with everyone today but if that space is constructed and pickle ball loses its appeal, will that building be useful for anything else? The rendering shown makes me think the ceiling height is too low for indoor tennis. Thanks again.

Resident Full, 44

Horrific idea and horrific timing. Who has extra $20k just sitting in their pocket to spend in such a short amount of time?!?!? The economy is hurting. Costs of goods / cost of living is way up. A ton of members will probably leave. Instead, why don’t we actually use and improve facilities we currently have?!?!? Why don’t we try to turn a profit with current offerings? The bourbon bar is never staffed or used. The women’s lounge is a joke. The teen area is a joke. All of these areas could be improved and actually used. All of the events are usually sub-par and could be improved for greater traction and membership involvement. Let’s focus on making a profit through events, weddings, the pool, etc instead of relying so heavily on new member capital and current member capital fees. Why expand the gym? It’s only crowded at usual times but it’s not overflowing. Plus, three spa rooms? Are they

going to be staffed full-time? And three gym classrooms? We don’t even fully use and book out the one we have. Why do we need three? Are we going to have the staff needed to run all of these rooms? This overall plan seems short-sighted and poorly timed. Feels like it’s more about getting members out to get new members in for their capital fee so that we can pay off our debt because we don’t know how to turn a profit with current facilities and uses.

Full Surviving Spouse Senior, 82

I was in attendance but could not be heard or seen. I tried everything to no avail. I did want to say that I think y’all should consider a sliding scale from 85 down to 75 years of age. I think this assessment in the elderly is a big ask. I am 82 years and my life expectancy with no co-morbidities is 8.6 years, and I have 2 issues that lower that number significantly for example. Furthermore, because of variable incomes, one may lose most of their friends at the club because so many either can’t afford it or don’t want to pay out such an amount at a time when aging can precipitate so many unknown variables attendant thereto. think that this could be applicable to younger members also. Is it possible to set up additional payment plans. Having asked for a toilet by the range for years (a single toilet) because it would be easier than walking all the way back to the ladies locker room. Men can easily go in the woods on the right. I never envisioned such a fancy comfort station. Also, I am in the exercise area once a week and I have only seen it crowded once in 3 years. I know we have to keep updating. Time does not stand still with our ages, nor in the age of the facilities and their combined beautification and updated equipment. It goes without saying that everyone would cheerfully say yes to the entire plan if said plan could be implemented without the assessment. I hope some additional payment options could be utilized. Thank you, Jen. I thought the questions were good and I’m sorry I could not get in.

Full Senior, 82

With the expansion of our Fitness facility, do you anticipate a flat usage fee where, currently, there is not one?

A. That is a great question. We do not anticipate that. It is my understanding that general use of the fitness center is a privilege that is currently and will continue to be covered by your monthly dues.

Full Senior, 73

I think this is way over the top. You can't staff what we have now. The bar outside the men’s locker room is not staffed on Saturdays, how will the wine bar be staffed. I am not onboard with this at all.

Full Senior, 74

Thank you and the team assembled to put on the Fireside Chats. I learned a lot, got a lot of questions answered, and was able to address some of my own questions within the time frame. I am enclosing some notes and thoughts regarding the PACC2028 Assessment for your review, and hopefully for the committee to review and possibly consider in their continuing process. Long and short, I feel there are some good things that can be added for the members’ enjoyment, enhancing their personal and family experiences at the club.

That’s the long, the short for me is, in my view, it’s too much to digest at one time, so much so that people of all ages and financial ability are questioning if they can or want to continue being members. As I said at the meeting, we all have money, those of us who have attended the meetings, however I don’t think any of us would have predicted the club would be asking for an assessment of 20k, or 15K for social members. It is an unprecedented ask,4 times more than any assessment since I’ve been a member, which is right at 40 years.

My comments are attached, and they are heartfelt, I enjoy the club, use the club a lot, and hate to see some members feel let down by the process. Yes, we will lose members, for sure, and we have additional families waiting to take their places, but it will change the dynamic of this club in my view, and not in a good way.

I come back to my bottom line, and especially at this point and time in our country and city, with ever increasing costs, from insurances to property taxes, etc. I think we can do better, and I think we should adopt moving forward with a process of determining between Need, and Want. There are good ideas in the 2028 proposal, let’s put the good ones to use that the club needs, and possibly see what can be done now and maybe later for the clubs wants. Therein lies the possibly compromise, hopefully adding more great value to the club, but showing a little more patience and restraint to the total numbers of ideas due to the costs. Thanks again for your time and efforts.

PACC2008 Meeting 11/5/25

My notes from the meeting, points I hope the board and committee members would review and respond if possible

Tiered Payment Plan. Redesigned to reflect a more accurate amortized view based on age and number of years to use the new and improved facilities. My suggestion was

70 and up pay 50%

60 -69 pay 66 %

59 and under pay in full Ballot to Include Social Members Voices. Knowing the bylaws in place, I feel social members should have more voice in the process, especially since they will be facing a potential bill of $ 15,000. Alter the voting page to have a Full Member voting block, and a Social Member voting block. They deserve more voice in the process.

My recommendations:

Pickle Ball Court – A good idea, good value, mixed usage, and a good return for the cost Bubble on Tennis Court – Good idea, but don’t move the court.

Golf Shop Enhancement – Approve the landscaping and additional storage, but don’t add the bathrooms. Not needed, suggestion: add two golf carts for members and guests to run up to the club house for any need. Work with the city for a better and cheaper connection.

Breakers and Athletic Facility – Too expensive, but I feel other architects could reimaging the existing space for both projects at a greatly reduced cost.

We do not need the following at this time:

Wine Store – Again reimagine some of our existing space. And we don’t need a sommelier, just tacks on an additional 100k to the budget, so no. Any of the small rooms can be used for a wine dining room, instead of members playing board games, which is what I saw on Wednesday night.

Spa - Expensive and too much added labor, maintenance, and costs. Sauna a good idea, but not now, with this much on the board to consider

Closing Thoughts. I love PACC, and appreciate all it has done for me, my family, and my friends. As stated, this is an unprecedented assessment, 4 times as much as any previous assessment brought to the members. I feel among long time members dissention, older members feel threatened about being pushed out, and merely a huge overreach by the board. Why, may I ask, did we ever consider a project this big? To me, I would cut it in half, do some now, more later after some digestion of the first half. Basing all this on merely returns from a questionnaire without including costs of each project was an error; it merely has led to offering too much without consideration for the effects of the financial impact on all members. Respectfully submitted.

Non-Resident Social, 77

Without regard to the relative merits of each item in this proposal, it is very ambitious for a club of the size of PACC. Maybe all aspects of the plan would be "nice to have" but that does not make it reasonable or desirable. We have members across the economic spectrum, and many will find this proposal to be unaffordable. The funding does not take a meaningful account of the age of any member and surely members in their 30's and 40's will see far more value than those in their 60's and older. Perhaps the worst funding aspect of the current iteration of the plan is the failure to make any distinction between resident and non-resident members, a distinction that is made in imitation fees and monthly dues and capital assessments. The current proposal puts a disproportionate burden on members (non-resident) who have far less opportunity to use the Club than resident members. So, I hope that part of the plan will be revisited. Thank you.

Full Senior, 86

85 cutoff is too old, 80 at the most

Wine tasting appeals to small number of members don’t need

Steam room appeals to small number of members don’t need

Larger kitchen doesn’t mean efficient, renovation needed

Need pickleball courts, it’s a worldwide movement

Need restroom at driving range, during a shotgun start it’s sometimes necessary to play 7

holes before restroom, not so on other courses

$20,000 is too much, $10,000 is fair but should be adjusted for age,

Athletic, 78

Good morning. Two questions. First, I note that the fireside chat sessions are listening sessions. Does that mean no feedback from the audience? Second, I am an athletic member. The assessment addresses full, surviving spouse, and social. What is the amount for an athletic member? Thank you.

Non-Resident Full, 71

I am against this capital improvement plan. I don’t think any of these projects are needed. I think we can be more resourceful in managing the facility we have.

Full Senior, 78

I attended a recent fireside chat and commend you for seeking feedback. The purpose of this note is to reemphasize the dominate theme of that meeting. Namely, most survey respondents replied as if completing a wish list with little to no regard for affordability. When the "wishes" are added up, the total exceeds what most of us consider affordable. I cannot support the project as currently proposed and encourage you to rethink size and scope with an eye toward a much lower total. I would add, the use of debt financing should receive more serious consideration.

Full, 41

Dear Mr. Shonk and members of the board,

I was told by a member of the planning committee that I needed to put my concerns about the decline in club service in writing via email rather than expressing them directly. However, my last email to Mardy on April 3, asking about the discontinuation of the well attended Quad Club parties and the club’s speaker series, went unanswered. Given that experience, I’ve found direct, face to face communication with you and other board members to be a far more effective and respectful use of my time.

That said, in the spirit of being a supportive ambassador of the club, I wanted to summarize just a few of the recurring themes, and specific examples I’ve heard from fellow members over the past several months. My goal is to provide helpful insight and ensure that member perspectives are being heard as we continue to move forward.

• The bourbon bar in the Linkhorn Lounge frequently lacks a bartender to serve guests.

• Last weekend, a member visited Breakers. One fire pit was in use with guests seated around it. When she asked to be seated at another fire pit, she was told that the other two were broken.

• For multiple golf events, there were planning meetings held in advance, yet on the day of

the events, what was agreed upon in those meetings was not executed. As a result, both members and staff were left scrambling at the last minute to bring in outside bars.

• At the Member-Member golf tournament, there was only one outside bartender, and from what I observed, you and Mrs. Garrott were bussing tables and helping with service. Additionally, there was a 10 top table set up directly in front of the band with no chairs at it for guests to sit in.

• On two separate occasions this past year, the Bay Colony Civic League booked rooms for meetings, and both times the rooms were not prepared. Guests were left waiting in the hallway while staff scrambled to set up, suggesting a lack of awareness and coordination. At one meeting, there was even a pile of dirty linens in the corner.

• Two separate members informed me that they had to knock on the kitchen door during Sunday brunch after waiting an extended period to place drink orders because no staff were present in the dining room.

• Recently, a group of women were playing a card game in the Ladies’ Lounge one evening and asked if they could receive service from upstairs and were told by staff that they could not be accommodated.

• Tennis sends no communication about the Tuesday and Thursday Junior Academies. It seems to operate with an “if you know, you know” mentality. One evening recently, a mom arrived with her children to attend the 5–7 p.m. academy only to learn it had been canceled, without any notification.

• A local club recently booked a room for 40 members and ordered food and coffee. The contract stated that staff would provide service for the duration of the meeting, yet no one was present to assist. If that service is no longer provided, the contracts should be updated to reflect that.

• A member called to book a room for the Mother's Day brunch for his family and never received a call back.

• Last week, a member called to reserve a meeting room but never received a call back. After several days of follow-up calls, he ultimately had to escalate the issue to upper management. When the room was finally booked, a cleaning cart was left in the middle of the room just five minutes before the meeting was scheduled to begin, and the member had to track down someone to remove it.

• At the July 4th pool party, the event flyer advertised fairy hair and face painting. When members arrived with their young children and asked about these activities, they were told they didn’t have them, with no further explanation.

•We attended a friend’s birthday party for which a private room had been reserved. When we arrived, staff said they were unaware of the reservation. After the member showed the email confirmation, the room was still not made available, and everyone ended up sitting at the bar instead.

I do believe that the current expansion plan is a much-needed step forward for the Princess Anne. However, the overwhelming feedback I’ve heard is that existing services are not meeting expectations. I don’t think anyone is opposed to progress, but it would be reassuring for members to see a clear plan in place to address the current service challenges. While golf consistently provides outstanding service, that same standard is not reflected throughout the rest of the club.

To that end, I suggest creating a comprehensive service plan that outlines how new spaces such as the Breakers kitchen, massage rooms, and wine store will be staffed and managed. For example:

• How many people do we plan to hire for the new facilities?

• How much has been budgeted for the wine sommelier position?

• Will this be a salaried or hourly role, and what are the expected hours?

• Will a new or enhanced staff training program be implemented to ensure consistency in service standards?

• Will the additional staffing needs require an increase in member dues?

I also recommend implementing an electronic survey system so members can share feedback after dining, booking rooms, or using other amenities. This would provide valuable real time insight for management and the board alike.

Do I hear positive things about the club and its service? Absolutely! But lately, it has felt like the opposite. This should not be viewed as negative feedback, but as constructive input and an opportunity to improve. I urge you, the planning committee, and the board to take this feedback seriously and act on it. I'm sharing this perspective, both personally and on behalf of many fellow members, because we all share the same goal: for the club to grow, succeed, and reflect the exceptional standard we know it’s capable of upholding.

Thank you for your time. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of these points further.

Non-Resident Full, 69

Jennifer- I am an out-of-town social member, so question for you. Do I get to vote for the assessment in January? I have never voted before

Athletic Senior, 70

Good afternoon. What’s the difference between a steam room and sauna? How many of each are proposed?

A. Good afternoon,

There are several key differences between a steam room and sauna, which I've outlined below. I've also copied in our Director of Fitness & Wellness Andrea Pettay in the event that I've missed anything.

The current PACC 2028 plan calls for separate steam rooms and saunas in the both the ladies' and gentlemen's locker room (totaling four rooms). While users certainly have different preferences, typically, these spaces are utilized in towels/sans clothing, thus the idea of having separate spaces for ladies and gentlemen.

Sauna: dry heat, higher heat (150-212 degrees), low humidity, health benefits include cardiovascular health, detoxification, and muscle relaxation

Steam Room: "wet" heat, lower heat (110-120 degrees), high humidity, health benefits include respiratory health, skin hydration and stress release

Full, 63

Thank you for inviting members into this process. When the initial survey was done, we all weighed in with wishlists (I wanted a smoothie bar and cold pressed juices in Breakers, lol), but I don't think anyone had ANY idea of the cost. It felt more like parents asking kids what they wanted for Christmas. I have spoken to dozens of members, all of whom were surprised (shocked, in some cases) by both the price tag and by how much work had already been done in terms of architectural plans.

When the big reveal happened in the ballroom, the presentation began with "we have not had an assessment in 20 (?) years" - as though THAT was the reason we were doing so now, and not that the club needed a major overhaul

People like the Club. I have never heard a complaint about our existing facilities. Instead, the frustrations are with things that do not work well:

The fire pit outside Breakers that is always broken...

The microphones that don't work, and lack of an aesthetically pleasing and functional screen in the ballroom...

And, most glaringly, staffing issues that impact members' daily experiences: The unmanned bourbon bar (people can't figure out what was even changed in the Linkhorn Lounge, after the last renovation); the tendency for staff to stack chairs nearby while diners are still eating (or pour waters during meetings or talk in the kitchen so the presentation is hard to hear); the "crush" at the bar (poor Alex!) during Wednesday wine nights and other popular times; and - most glaringly - the fact that servers routinely start spraying tables and vacuuming as early as 8:30 pm, while diners are still eating. This last item is almost a meme to a lot of members - "How early will they clean tonight?". There should be a policy that both staff and membership know, such as: no vacuuming and cleaning/spraying tables if diners are still present until 10 pm on weekdays and 11 pm on Friday and Saturday.

Re the specific plans in the "Elevating Tradition" proposal, I think:

The Breakers kitchen should be expanded into the current Breakers dining space, because the low ceiling renders that room unappealing for dining, and the covered area outside makes it too dark. As the dining area expands, natural light is critical - the room needs windows on at least two sides. Love more outdoor seating, but please consider French doors that can close during inclement weather.

We do not need a wine room. If that atmosphere is desired, renovate the existing small/private dining room (near the front entrance) so that it is less generic and more like Farmington and Keswick's wine rooms - it can still function as a small dining room but also be a wine room. For purchasing, nobody minds the current "get your wine out of the coat closet" plan. :)

A comfort station for the range is nice, but not given the cost to run the necessary plumbing. Plus, with our already tight staffing situation, who will keep that area clean and well stocked? Golfers have managed to cart themselves to the clubhouse or the 10th tee without issue for ages - don't fix what is not broken. Unless, that is, you want to add a whole new dining experience on the range that caters to adults only, with windows overlooking the practice area.... ;)

Pickleball is no longer the fastest growing sport. Paddel (sp?) is catching on. Let's not be behind the curve on this one.

I actually don't see one item on the list that would make me want an assessment of any amount. We are already the premier club in our area, and with a 184 person wait list, clearly people are eager to be part of what is a wonderful community. Thank you for all you have done, so far, to make the PACC such a happy place.

Haha me again. My husband tells me that the comfort station is not nearly as expensive as I had thought. If golfers want it - especially older golfers - I am open to doing that. And speaking of older members... let's not drive any of them out. They have been the backbone of the Club for decades and it would be a shame to see people having to withdraw from the club due to this unforeseen cost.

Oh - and I want a clear podium so people can see the speaker during meetings - if the room is full, people on either side and in the immediate front can't see around our current big brown dinosaur. :)

Athletic, 68

As I shared at a chat, I believe the assessment combined with the monthly capital fee is too high for the value added. Instead, if the consensus is more is needed now, consider a more reasonable assessment ($10,000) and budget to that while continuing to strive for excellence in current services.

Non-Resident Full, 54

I hope you are doing well. I had a chance to listen to the recording of the virtual fireside chat. One item on the boards agenda seems to be the classification of non-resident vs resident members. This will clearly be a hot button issue. One recommendation I have that might ease the pain of this decision is to do something my club Rockaway Hunting Club does which is have use based thresholds for non-resident members. Simply put there are three classes of non-resident members based on how many days they use the club facilities. If you use the club less than 10 days you pay the lowest annual dues, if you use it 10-30 days you are in the second tier and if you use it more than 30 days regardless of how far your home residence is you are treated as a regular full member. You may need to adjust the threshold days but this is at least a fair way to treat non-resident use and would hopefully avoid a revolt and a lot of angst amongst all members. I would echo one of the ladies sentiment that the board needs to make the call on membership classifications prior to May 1st. It would be a very bad look to push through an assessment and then double non-resident dues. If they don’t move to change classification the decision should be off the table until well after the project is completed.

Non-Resident Social, 65

Hope all is well. My husband and I our out of town social members. This year, we have been to Va Beach for about 4 weeks in total. We live in Palm Beach county essentially year around now but keep our home on 44th street. When we visit, we always try to have at least one meal at PACC!

Can you please let us know the thinking behind the out of town social assessment being the same cost as the in town social? The answer may be as simple as the fact that in town social members create more income for the club and PACC would prefer in town socials over out of town socials! We would just like to know the thinking behind the proposed pricing in order to make the best decision for us.

A: Thank you so much for your email. It is my understanding that the thought process was more along the lines of both resident and non-resident members having equal access to the enhanced amenities included in the plan. I can assure you that it in no way reflects a preference of resident to non-resident. However, I will say that we have received quite a bit of feedback regarding these fees being the same for resident and non-resident and it is something that the Board and Master Plan Committee are looking into.

Please know that we are compiling all of the feedback received through our fireside chats and via email to share with our Master Plan Committee so they can review and make any needed adjustments to the plan. Any plan revisions will be thoroughly communicated to the membership. Again, thank you so much for your feedback, it is vital to the plan's success.

Social, 81

Would like to see the south side of the pickleball building dressed up a bit due to the close proximity of the condos; would like a meeting between the condominium chairperson and PACC.

Non-Resident Social, 57

• Says social assessment amount is out-of-line (too much; not proportional). However, thinks social members will be more inclined to pay/stay if they can have pool access.

• Says pool over-use is a myth; has pictures to prove the point; maybe there are a few weekend days/times, but it is not frequent; social members would probably even be OK if they were allowed pools access but have it limited/not allowed during prime time/days, or limit by an usage amount

• The club is missing a lot of revenue by not allowing social members to use the pool

Full Senior, 70

Team member just spoke with a member. They are very supportive of the Club. However, they are thinking of selling their beach home in the next year or so and she said they would not be around to enjoy the changes. She felt 20K was too big of an ask and said she’d be interested in knowing if any local clubs have had an assessment that high. They do love the club, and she said it is better than CCV, of which they either were or still are members. She said from the talks she has had, there are a great number of non-members and social members that are going to leave if this passes. I encouraged her to fill out their comments and share them. I went to the website via my desktop and was telling her where she could share comments, but she was on her iPhone. Turns out she is only seeing two pages on her iPhone. I asked her how old it was, and she said one year old. (I have an Android) I asked her if she had a desktop and she does and will send comments. I shared the problem with the team.

OTHER COMMENTS

• Can't we better utilize the Reef room to relieve the fitness crunch. For example, move the spa treatment rooms into the Reef; or make the Reef a spin studio.

• Can all members vote (social, non-resident), and if so, are those votes weighted according to contribution?

A. Per the club bylaws, Resident full, athletic and surviving spouse have voting privileges. Of those classes, all votes carry the same weight.

• What % of yes votes are necessary for it to pass? If it doesn't pass, will a scalebacked version be presented?

A. The Club bylaws do not stipulate a specific percentage needed for a vote to pass; thus, it defaults to a simple majority. However, I would note that in the past, the

Board of Directors has not deemed a simple majority with a close margin (for example 48 to 52%) as a clear mandate of the membership.

• What is the rationale for taking on so many projects at once cost-savings? Convenience? Other?

A. When evaluating the scope of the plan, the Master Plan Committee reviewed several items, first of which was the member feedback from the most recent survey. The Committee felt that the current scope, which started as a much greater scope, encompassed projects that provided benefit to each type of member (full, social, etc.) while maximizing cost-saving efforts with logistics.

• How were the projects prioritized? Surveys are of course info-gathering and not dictates, so the selection and ordering are of interest. Do we have access to the survey results?

A. The scope of the plan addresses eight of the 15 improvement areas from the survey, with seven of the eight being in the top ten as prioritized by the membership. The proposed timing of the plan combines these priorities with the most efficient construction logistics to minimize costs and membership disruption.

• How were the aesthetics of the club weighed in the final consideration? The plans seem structurally very crowded, and multiple tennis bubbles will detract from the appeal of the club.

A. The Committee continues to work very closely with the Club's architect to ensure that the improvements enhance the Club's aesthetics, not detract from them. For example, before constructing the tennis bubble, the courts will be adjusted 20 feet to the east to allow for more space between the new bubble and the Breakers building.

• Is the survey and its results available anywhere?

• I’m still seeing some ongoing challenges with staffing and would be concerned that this could continue to impact the performance and momentum of the new areas

• Quite a few comments surrounded the proposed wine room. The comments ranged from “why is this necessary since we have existing event rooms that are often unused?” to “do we need another event space that will require staffing when the Club is already experiencing staffing/service issues?”

• Other comments I received were surrounding the size/scope of the Breakers/Fitness Center expansion. When I pointed out the necessity of expanding the Breakers kitchen/dining space to accommodate the needs of the pool and sit-down dining, I heard “why is such an expanded fitness center needed when it’s already

underutilized at times”, which probably echoes some comments during the meeting surrounding usage of fitness.

• Another thought I had is - would it be worthwhile to point out to the membership that there were other construction considerations that were tabled (i.e. tennis building/pro shop redo) so that people understand that there was a thoughtful approach to this plan?

• The couple sitting next to me (social members) - they like it overall; think the social assessment is too high, but they will still pay; they want access to the pool even though they will only use it maybe 2 - 3 times

• Can't we better utilize the Reef room to relieve the fitness crunch. For example, move the spa treatment rooms into the Reef; or make the Reef a spin studio.

• Have heard generally positive feedback from some of the younger members we ran into this weekend. One new member, who is in favor the plan, did ask how the club would stagger new members if there is a large exodus of current members. The concern is that 70 new families eager to use the club would join in a short amount of time and overrun the pool/tee times, etc. I'm sure there is a plan in place for staggering new members but wanted to raise that as a potential talking point at the fireside chats.

FIRESIDE CHAT 10.28.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

Q 1: How much of the total project cost will the member assessments cover?

A: The assessments are designed to fully fund the $22 million project. Once implemented, the project will be entirely paid for through these assessments, with no additional borrowing required.

Q2: Will the Club carry any debt once this project is completed?

A: Based on current projections and financial planning, the Club will remain on track to be completely debt-free by 2032.

Q3: Will this project impact day-to-day operations or current membership services?

A: The goal is to minimize disruption. Construction will be phased to ensure that key areas of the Club remain open and accessible to members throughout the process.

Q4: Are there plans to adjust dues as part of this project?

A: No dues adjustments are tied directly to the PACC 2028 project. The assessment is separate and specifically allocated to fund the planned improvements. Dues and capital fee adjustments are a normal part of our operations to ensure the continued quality and

sustainability of the Club. Continued annual adjustments to both fees should be anticipated.

Q5: What is the timeline for member voting and project implementation?

A: The member vote is scheduled for late January 2026. If approved, work will begin shortly thereafter, with updates provided regularly as the project progresses.

Q6: Were new members who recently joined aware of the potential assessment?

A: The Club has communicated the likelihood of a future assessment over the past three years through newsletters and updates. All members on the waitlist were informed that an assessment would be part of the long-term capital improvement plan.

Q7: What will the new wine room include, and how will it function?

A: The wine room will serve as both a private dining and event space, allowing for wine dinners and member events. The wine room will serve as both a private dining and event space, allowing for wine dinners and member events. It will generate modest additional revenue through event charges and wine sales.

Q8: What is the estimated cost of the wine room component?

A: Approximately $1.2 million of the total $22 million project cost is allocated to the wine room area.

Q9: Were members asked how much they would be willing to contribute to an assessment?

A: Yes. A membership survey gathered feedback on members’ willingness to invest in the Club and potential assessment levels.

Q10: If the plan does not pass, what happens next?

A: If the plan is not approved, the proposed projects will not move forward in their current form. Feedback gathered during these Fireside Chats will be analyzed to determine if modifications should be considered.

Q11: Could members have an option to pay a partial or scaled assessment, for example based on age or membership tenure?

A: Mr. Wilson noted that suggestions like a partial or long-term payment option would be reviewed as part of the feedback process. Several members expressed support for this concept, particularly for senior members.

Q12: How will operational quality be improved, particularly in dining and fitness services?

A: Improvements will focus on space and functionality, as well as service quality. Mr. Wilson acknowledged that while facilities expansion is important, staffing, training, and service enhancements will remain a top operational priority.

Q13: Where can members find more information or submit additional questions?

A: Members are encouraged to visit www.pacc2028.com for project details and updates. Comments and questions from all Fireside Chats are being collected for review.

Q14: Why do we have to do all six projects at once?

A: The six projects are presented as a complete plan to ensure cost efficiency, maintain financial clarity, and deliver a fully coordinated improvement to the Club. Doing them separately could increase costs, create logistical challenges, and compromise the overall vision for member experience.

Q15: What about members who aren’t part of “fit” families?

A: The plan includes improvements for all members, not just families with young children. Fitness and family-friendly spaces are highlighted because they are highly used, but other upgrades like dining enhancements, multipurpose rooms, wine events, and general clubhouse improvements—benefit the entire membership.

Q16: Why don’t we have detailed visuals of the spaces yet?

A: The current presentations focus on the overall plan and priorities rather than final designs. The goal of these sessions is to gather member feedback, which will inform refinements before final layouts, renderings, and detailed designs are completed.

Q17: What about senior members who may not be around to enjoy the amenities?

A: Can there be a sliding scale for the assessment based on age? The leadership acknowledges this concern and will take into consideration member feedback.

Q18: The neighborhood adjacent to the proposed pickleball court is concerned about aesthetics and noise.

A: Concerns about aesthetics and noise near the pickleball court were acknowledged. The leadership noted that these factors will be considered in the final design, with careful attention to minimizing impact on neighboring properties while still providing quality facilities for members.

Q19: Will social members be able to use the pool at least six times per year?

A: Social members would not have regular pool access under the proposed plan, but occasional access (e.g., six times per year) could be considered.

Q20: Why didn’t you consider an option that is part member equity and part club debt?

A: Members will have the option to pay the assessment in different ways, but the plan is not being broken into partial components or debt structures; it’s presented as a full plan to maintain scale and efficiency. Feedback on alternative financing options will be considered, but the current proposal is all-or-nothing.

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.1.25 FEEBACK

AND Q&A

Q1 Will members still have access to a gym while the fitness center is under renovation?

A.: The project is staged to ensure continuous access with minimal disruption. The pickleball building will be constructed first to serve as a temporary fitness space. While not perfect, the transition will maintain daily workout options. Modular units may also be considered. The Secretary noted that during COVID-19, the Club successfully adapted fitness operations using the ballroom and outdoor spaces — demonstrating that creative solutions are possible.

Q2. Over one-third of members are social members without voting rights. This feels like “taxation without representation.”

A. Voting rights are established by the Club Bylaws, which have long defined eligibility. However, all members regardless of category have been invited to participate in surveys, Fireside Chats, and open discussions. The Board is committed to transparency and values the perspectives of all members.

Q3. Could there be a sliding scale for older members, recognizing limited use and remaining membership years?

A. The concern is understood and will be reviewed. The current assessment structure was developed through careful financial modeling, but the Board acknowledges that not all members are equally impacted. Feedback on this topic will be shared with the Master Planning Committee.

Q4. If the proposal is not approved, is there a Plan B for a smaller or less costly project?

A. There is no formal Plan B. The current plan represents the best option for the entire membership. Regardless of the vote outcome, the Club will continue to retire its existing debt as scheduled. The Board cannot predict future actions but believes delaying would increase costs over time.

Q5. How much cheaper would this project have been if started four or five years ago?

A. Likely 10–15% less. COVID-19 caused steep cost increases in labor and materials, which have since stabilized but remain high. The current environment represents the new baseline for construction pricing.

Q6. Why were social members originally excluded from voting?

A. Historically, the Club’s membership was divided between stockholding and nonstockholding categories, which influenced voting eligibility. This structure has carried forward, but bylaws are reviewed annually, and member input on this topic will be considered.

Q7. If the project moves forward, when will it be complete?

A. The target completion date is 2028.

Q8. Older members feel excluded from the benefits, as they may not live to enjoy the improvements. Some feel the Club is favoring younger members.

A. Leadership emphasized that this perception is not the intent of the project. The plan is designed to serve all generations and strengthen the Club’s long-term future. The Board hopes every current member remains engaged and enjoys the benefits during and after completion.

Q9. Is there any renovation planned for the ladies lounge?

A. The Ladies Lounge recently received a refresh with new furniture, paint, counter tops, and carpet.

Q10. How do you plan to honor long-term social members?

A. The club plans to honor long-term members by recognizing their history, giving them a voice in planning, and delivering projects that reflect their preferences and traditions.

Q11. Would the board consider modifying the bylaws to allow social members to vote?

A. The board reviews the bylaws every year, but currently social members do not have a vote on assessments or financial matters

Q12. What is the ROI on the wine room?

A. The wine room is the closest element with a potential ROI, since wine sales generate revenue. Most other club projects focus on member experience rather than direct financial return.

Q13. Spas and saunas are closing around the country. How does the club plan to manage these new additions?

A. The club acknowledges that spas and saunas can be expensive and difficult to maintain, but these facilities remain a high priority for members. They plan to manage them with professional maintenance, proper staffing, and careful planning, recognizing wellness is a major trend and a key attraction for current and future members.

Q14. Should you have had “general members” as part of the Master Plan Committee?

A. The committee included a mix of members, not just officers or past presidents, to represent different interests and demographics. While not every regular member was on the committee, the survey allowed all members to provide input, ensuring broader participation in the planning process.

Q15. Is the membership survey and results available to members to review?

A. Yes. The survey and its results are available to the membership.

Q16. Breakers and the expanded outside area is cut off from Breakers Blvd.

A. The expanded east-side outdoor area near Breakers is cut off from Breakers Boulevard because of the layout of the kitchen and other structures.

Q17. Will we lose any parking?

A. No permanent parking will be lost. During construction, there may be temporary limitations, but signage and guidance will ensure members know where to park.

Q18. What does the financial model say about how many members we will lose?

A. The financial model projects a net loss of 71 members over the next year. Some of these may be backfilled through the waiting list.

Q19. How will the monthly dues be impacted going forward?

A. The monthly dues will continue to increase over time, even without the assessment.

Q20. When was the last member survey?

A. The last membership survey was conducted in 2022/2023.

Q21. What amenities were scrapped from the original plan?

A. From the original plan, the following amenities were removed or scaled back:

• A new 10th Tee building

• A viewing gallery over by the tennis center

• A parking garage on the West lawn covering VMP

• A casual dining restaurant on the West lawn for golfers These changes were made to prioritize top-rated projects and manage costs.

Q22. When will the vote take place?

A. The vote is scheduled to be completed at the end of January. It will be conducted by proxy ballot, not an in-person vote, with a committee of non-board members tabulating the results.

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.4.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

The meeting discussed the PACC 2028 plan, which aims to enhance the Club's facilities based on member feedback. The proposed $20,000 assessment was debated, with suggestions to consider a tiered and extended payment plan, or a smaller, prioritized plan. Concerns were raised about the impact on older members and the Club's debt strategy. Past President Wilson and architect JC Chi explained the cost-effectiveness of renovations over new construction and the need for a debt-free goal by 2032. Membership levels and the potential for expanding social membership privileges were also discussed. The meeting concluded with a commitment to further refine the plan based on member feedback.

Action Items

• Explore options to allow members to pay for the assessment over a longer period of time, such as 3–5 years.

• Consider a scaled or tiered approach to the assessment for older members, potentially exempting those over 85 or having a reduced fee for those just below 85.

• Review the bylaws regarding voting rights for social members and consider allowing them to vote on major club initiatives like this.

• Investigate potential options to accommodate legacy members who have had longstanding ties to the club.

• Revisit the debt reduction strategy and explore the possibility of recapitalizing the debt to lower the overall cost to members.

Q1: What was discussed regarding the plan process?

A: The meeting began with an explanation of how recordings and Q&A sessions would be uploaded. Feedback from members will help refine the final version of the plan. Three or four more fireside chats are planned before finalizing the proposal and funding.

Q2: What enhancements are proposed in the plan?

A: Proposed improvements include a wine room, expanded wellness facilities, renovated and expanded Breakers kitchen and dining space, a second air structure bubble over clay courts 5,6 and 7; and new pickleball courts. Past President Wilson emphasized that all of this was shaped by member surveys and feedback.

Q3: What concerns were raised about the $20,000 assessment?

A: Some members questioned the feasibility of a $20,000 assessment, suggesting smaller, more gradual contributions over a longer payment period.

Q4: How did the committee respond to spending concerns?

A: The committee explained that the plan is a prioritized version of the membership’s wish list and that completing multiple items together saves future costs.

Q5: Were there concerns about the plan’s impact on older members?

A: Yes. Some members felt the plan could discourage older participants. The committee assured us that the plan is based on feedback and professional guidance.

Q6: Were there discussions about social members’ voting rights?

A: Yes. Some members questioned why social members cannot vote on major assessments.

Q7: Was age-based flexibility discussed?

A: Yes. The committee is considering flexible or tiered payment options for older members.

Q8: What concerns were expressed about avoiding debt?

A: Members asked whether carrying some debt might be better financially. The Board’s goal remains to be debt-free by 2032 to prevent future assessments.

Q9: Were alternatives suggested?

A: Yes, some suggested recasting the debt to make assessments lower or at least payable over a longer period.

Q10: Were specific surveys conducted for each facility?

A: Members asked about individual facility surveys. The committee explained that professional partners and the Master Plan Committee have gathered feedback from all member segments.

Q11: What was the response to large assessment concerns?

A: The committee acknowledged frustration and noted ongoing consideration of flexible payment plans.

Q12: Were suggestions made about membership caps?

A: Yes. Some proposed raising the cap to include more families. The committee aims to balance growth without overcrowding.

Q13: How are membership structures being reviewed?

A: The committee continues to assess flexible membership options, drawing inspiration from other clubs.

Q14: Why renovate instead of rebuild the Breakers facility?

A: Architect JC Chi outlined how renovation is significantly more cost-effective. The current design represents a compromise between cost and quality.

Q15: Was full reconstruction considered?

A: Yes, but it was determined to be too expensive under current financial constraints.

Q16: Is a more flexible payment plan possible?

A: Yes – as a flexible structure could help accommodate members with changing life circumstances.

Q17: Will there be future assessments?

A: The club maintains a rolling 10-year capital plan that anticipates ongoing improvements. There has not been an assessment since 2006, and future assessments cannot be ruled out.

Q18: What was the sentiment toward the current plan?

A: Several members voiced support, emphasizing investment in the club’s future.

Closing Comments

Suggestions included expanding social member pool access and continuing feedback collection. The committee expressed appreciation for member participation and emphasized future engagement.

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.5.25

FEEBACK AND Q&A

Q1: Was the survey designed to determine whether members would support certain priorities if they came with specific costs?

A: Yes, that was part of the survey. Various cost levels were included, starting from the most favorable up to $10,000. For projects exceeding $10,000, we have less certainty. COVID-19 has positively impacted membership numbers but has created challenges for supply chains and construction costs.

Q2: Who is eligible to vote on the assessment proposal?

A: Under our longstanding bylaws, only resident full, resident athletic, and resident full surviving spouse are voting members. Social and out-of-town members do not have voting privileges. However, we’ve sought input from all members, including spouses, through surveys and meetings. Members who downgraded to social membership were informed that they would not have voting rights on assessments.

Q3: How will this assessment impact the club’s debt and long-term finances?

A: Our goal is to retire existing debt by 2032. We currently have approximately $8.7 million in debt, most of which will be paid down by 2028. Once the debt is retired, the capital fee will be redirected from debt service to a maintenance and repair reserve, allowing us to better fund future aspirational projects.

Q4: When were the greens last renovated, and when might they need replacement?

A: The greens were redone in 2007 as part of the golf course renovation. Based on our studies, we expect they’ll last another 7–10 years, around 2035. Future renovations will likely include irrigation work as well.

Q5: If this proposal doesn’t pass, will there be a revised or scaled-down version?

A: The project is designed to be implemented in stages if necessary. However, removing elements could increase costs over time. If the membership votes against the proposal, future boards may revisit alternative plans, but that decision will depend on the membership will at that time.

Q6: Was consideration given to pursuing a smaller, more modest project—say, $10 million instead of $20 million?

A: The board reviewed multiple financial models. Ultimately, we focused on the membership’s top priorities. While smaller projects were discussed, it was determined that this proposal best addresses the needs of golf, tennis, dining, and fitness areas collectively.

Q7: How many members are projected to leave due to the assessment?

A: Our modeling anticipates 120 resignations with a net loss of about 70 members. Full and athletic memberships will likely be replenished through the waiting list that totals 182, however, there is not a waiting list for social memberships.

Q8: Why was the age exemption raised from 80 to 85 for the assessment?

A: We evaluated member usage data and determined that many members between 80 and 85 remain active participants in club facilities. There are approximately 248 members in that age group. We’ve heard feedback on this topic and will continue to review it.

Q9: Has the committee considered a tiered or age-based payment system? What about longer-term payment plans?

A: We have received suggestions about implementing tiered assessments based on age or usage as well as longer, more flexible payment plans. While this hasn’t been formally adopted, we recognize the value in exploring fairness-based structures.

Q10: Will the fitness and dining expansions affect existing tennis or pool areas?

A: The planned expansion will extend eastward to improve dining experiences and spectator views of the tennis courts. Efforts are being made to minimize visual impact and maintain sunlight on pool areas. The design balances functionality, aesthetics, and construction efficiency.

Q11: Will outdoor dining spaces be protected from the elements or adaptable for yearround use?

A: We’ve explored options for retractable or glass-wall enclosures but must balance design flexibility with cost. The current design allows for potential future enclosure if desired.

Q12: Could the fitness center be expanded vertically with a third floor? Could it be expanded further east (perhaps eliminating a tennis court) and west as opposed to the new section that extends north to south and replaces the entry building that was just built a few years ago.

A: The current plan includes expanded floor space on the second level with new studios and locker facilities. A third floor is not included at this stage. The architect answered that opportunities to expand further east and west were evaluated and could still be explored again, however, he was asked to not remove a tennis court.

Q13: Will member usage data be shared with the membership?

A: We hope to provide more relevant usage and survey data as part of the overall communications to help inform voting decisions.

Q14: Will members have input on furniture comfort and design?

A: Yes. Should the plan be approved, member committee(s) will work with the professional designers to ensure that new furniture and fixtures are functional and aesthetically pleasing, considering member feedback on comfort and accessibility.

Q15: Will the committee reevaluate the cost and prioritize needs over wants?

A: We are confident in the cost estimates based on professional assessments. Costs are unlikely to decrease unless project elements or finish quality are reduced. However, we understand the importance of balancing ambition with fiscal responsibility.

Q16: Was debt financing considered an alternative to a direct assessment?

A: Yes. We analyzed debt financing but ultimately determined that retiring existing debt and funding the project through assessment places the club in a stronger long-term financial position. Carrying additional debt could pass on cost burdens to future generations, and the Board hopes to avoid that.

Q17: How can members continue to submit questions or comments?

A: Members may submit comments and questions through the club’s website under the PACC2028.com. Each submission is reviewed, and responses are provided either directly or through the Frequently Asked Questions updates. Additionally, these meetings are being recorded and summarized through chat GPT.

Closing Remarks

We appreciate all your questions and feedback. The insights from these discussions are invaluable as we move forward. Thank you for your continued support and engagement in shaping the future of our club.

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.6.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

Q1: How is the club’s budget structured?

A: Treasurer Shuler stated that the budget is divided into two main parts:

1. Operations Ledger – Covers routine costs like utilities, taxes, payroll, and maintenance. Goal: break-even operations.

2. Capital Ledger (below the operations line) - Funded by capital fees and initiation fees. Allocated toward member-identified priorities, debt service, and ongoing capital replacement repairs.

Q2: How is the replacement reserve determined?

A: The club has engaged engineers and firms to conduct capital replacement studies to assess the age and condition of club assets to plan for future repairs, such as HVAC or roofs. Current ten-year plans invest close to $1.5M annually in capital replacement repairs.

Q3: How is the debt being managed?

A: Debt is serviced separately from capital projects and is projected to be fully retired by 2032. Capital fees are used to ensure responsible servicing of the debt.

Q4: What is the total membership cap?

A: There are currently 1,170 total memberships and the cap for resident full memberships is 740. The Strategic Planning Committee has devoted a great deal of time over the past five years evaluating member usage and access and developed the current cap.

Q5: Who has voting rights?

A: Full resident, athletic and surviving spouse members have voting privileges. Social members do not have voting rights but have provided input through surveys and fireside meetings.

Q6: How are initiation fees and assessments handled for new Members?

A: Candidates on the waiting list have been informed that they will pay the initiation fee they lock in upon application as well as the applicable assessment should the plan be approved. 14 of the 182 on the waiting list have locked in the most recent $50,000 initiation fee. 31 on the waiting list are current members looking to upgrade their membership and will do so without paying any initiation fee.

Q7: What is the historical membership loss for an assessment?

A: There were 125 resignations following the 2002 assessment and then 57 that resigned rejoined

• 67 resigned due to the 2006 assessment

Q8: How is forecasted membership loss factored into financial planning?

A: Forecasts consider potential resignations and new member intake, ensuring net revenue projections account for both.

Q9: What are the top-priority capital projects?

A: Based on the survey the priorities are:

1. Alfresco casual dining renovation

2. Fitness center upgrades

3. Tennis improvements

4. Wine room

5. Pickleball & driving range enhancements

Q10: Why focus on tennis improvements, including a second bubble?

A: The second bubble addresses peak winter demand for lessons and member play. Midday empty courts do not reflect peak utilization.

Q11: Why wasn’t the Breakers kitchen relocated to the west side of the building?

A: That concept was explored, however, plumbing and utilities costs along with infrastructure already on the west side elevated costs significantly.

Q12: How are construction projects staged?

A: They are phased to minimize member disruption, using temporary relocation of services (for example, fitness may be moved into the new pickleball building). Staging is designed to optimize cost efficiency and timeline.

Q13: How does the club plan to fund future projects?

A: Once the club becomes debt free, capital fees going directly into the capital reserve fund should build faster, ideally allowing future projects to be funded without debt or additional assessments.

Q14: Can members vote on individual projects?

A: Currently, the vote is on a bundled package of top projects to minimize costs. Isolating projects could increase overall costs due to separate startup and permit fees.

Q15: This is not fair for older members! You are trying to force us out of the club!

A: We hope that no members feel they need to leave the club. Comparable concerns were raised in 2002 and 2006 when assessments were levied and the feedback, we are receiving through these Fireside chats will be evaluated by the Master Plan Committee and Board of Directors.

Q16: Please consider changing the voting process. Social members should at least get a partial vote.

A: Thank you for your suggestion.

Q17: Why is a second tennis bubble necessary?

A: High winter demand for lessons and member play; first bubble is reserved for lessons on a rotational basis. Provides additional coverage during peak periods. Many members prefer the clay court surface.

Q18: How many tennis members does the club have?

A: Approximately 350 active players.

Q19: What happens after these meetings?

A: President Jucksch has prepared a timeline coordinating the Master Planning Committee and Board to review member input, evaluate plan adjustments and determine whether it is taken to the membership for a vote.

Q20: How are decisions made on sequencing projects?

A: Projects are sequenced to maximize member experience and efficiency; temporary relocations for fitness and dining services are part of the plan.

Q21: How much has already been spent on planning and design?

A: Over $300,000 has been invested in planning and design work so far.

Q22: How is revenue from new facilities projected?

A: Some facilities, like the wine room, generate revenue, but priorities were chosen based on membership demand and survey results.

VIRTUAL FIRESIDE CHAT 11.10.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

Meeting Summary

The meeting began with a brief overview of the PACC 2028 “Elevating Tradition” initiative. Members were encouraged to visit www.PACC2028.com to view the full 18-minute video presented at the Annual Meeting. A shorter version was shown during the Fireside Chat.

Background and Planning Process

• In 2023, a survey was sent to all membership categories (Full, Social, Non-Resident, etc.), totaling over 1,100 members.

• More than 900 members responded a strong 80%+ participation rate.

• Members were asked to identify their top improvement priorities, which guided the formation of the Master Plan Committee.

• The committee, composed of four past presidents and five additional members, represents diverse professional backgrounds including construction, real estate, finance, engineering, and landscape architecture.

• The committee engaged Corgan, an architectural firm specializing in private club design, and a construction management company to represent club interests during contracting.

• Three general contractors were invited to bid; W.M. Jordan Construction was selected to lead pre-construction due to their extensive private club experience.

• Cost estimates have been fully vetted, and leadership expressed confidence in the accuracy of project numbers.

Project Scope and Intent

• The proposal includes five primary projects, balancing priorities across golf, racquet sports, fitness, and dining:

o Expanded Fitness Center (approx. 4,700 sq. ft. addition)

o Renovated Breakers Casual Dining with larger kitchen and al fresco dining

o Dedicated Wine Room for tastings and private events

o New Pickleball Courts

o Restroom facilities at the driving range

o Second Tennis Bubble

• Each component was designed to offer something for every member demographic and preserve PACC’s standing as the premier private club on the Virginia coast.

• The proposal reflects the top member priorities from the survey: Fitness, Dining, and Racquet Sports.

Financial Overview

• Total project cost: $22 million

• Funding is proposed through member assessments, not new debt.

• The club currently owes $8.9 million, with plans to pay off one note by 2028 and the remaining by 2032, rendering the club debt-free.

• Payment options for members include:

1. One-time payment of $20,450 (Full) or $14,450 (Social)

2. Four quarterly installments (one year)

3. 50% down payment with remaining 50% financed over two years

• Feedback from members may lead to alternative payment structures, including potentially longer financing terms.

Next Steps

• A total of eight Fireside Chats are scheduled.

• The Master Plan Committee will reconvene after all sessions to review feedback and make any necessary adjustments to the proposal.

• The membership vote is planned for late January.

• The vote will be for or against the entire package, not individual components.

Q&A Summary

Q1: Why the urgency to move forward if there’s already a waiting list for membership?

A: The club’s goal is to remain competitive and forward-looking. Improvements ensure that facilities continue meeting member expectations and attract future generations.

Q2: Can the assessment be adjusted for age or financial hardship?

A: The board is evaluating feedback about graduated options or longer payment terms, particularly for older or younger members.

Q3: Why not take on additional debt instead of a full assessment?

A: The plan’s intent is to fund the project without new debt, but the board is open to reconsidering partial debt options based on member feedback.

Q4: Will out-of-town members pay the same assessment as resident members?

A: Yes. Both resident and non-resident members will pay the same amount based on their membership category (Full or Social). This feedback will be reviewed further.

Q5: What assurance do non-resident members have that their category won’t be eliminated after paying the assessment?

A: There are no plans to eliminate non-resident memberships. The board has only discussed possibly simplifying membership classifications in the future but not removing the category.

Q6: How will this project affect current debt?

A: The 2028 Plan is separate from existing debt. The club is on track to be debt-free by 2032 regardless of whether this project proceeds.

Q7: What percentage of members is required for approval?

A: A simple majority of voting members (740 eligible) is required, but leadership would prefer a clear and strong mandate before moving forward.

Q8: Why is a restroom needed at the driving range?

A: It’s a practical improvement based on frequent member feedback and enhances convenience for golfers and families.

Q9: Why expand Breakers when it isn’t always crowded?

A: The primary issue is the undersized kitchen (950 sq. ft.), which limits menu options and service efficiency. The expansion will double kitchen size, add dining space, improve layout, and introduce outdoor dining.

Q10: What changes are planned for the Fitness Center?

A: The expansion will add about 4,700 sq. ft., allowing for more class studios, additional equipment, and wellness amenities such as sauna, steam room, and acupuncture rooms.

Q11: Will the project impact the pool area?

A: Minimal impact the pool and deck remain the same, though the entrance will shift slightly north.

Q12: Will parking be affected?

A: No parking will be lost or added as part of this phase.

Q13: Why include a Wine Room when dining spaces were recently upgraded?

A: The Wine Room is one of the few elements expected to generate positive revenue through private events, tastings, and wine sales, effectively paying for itself.

Q14: Will the club hire a sommelier?

A: Yes, the plan includes hiring a dedicated sommelier to enhance the member wine experience.

Q15: Who will handle construction?

A: Hourigan Construction has worked with us on pre-construction cost estimates. If the plan is approved, a construction contractor will be selected following a bidding process.

Q16: Will there be another member vote to change the plan or scale it back?

A: At this stage, the Master Plan Committee will review all member feedback gathered through the Fireside Chats and written comments. The committee will evaluate whether any adjustments should be made to the plan or the funding structure. However, we do not anticipate conducting another vote or completely redoing the plan. The membership entrusted the Board, who in turn entrusted the Master Plan Committee, to work with professional partners to prioritize the improvements members identified in the 2023

survey. That process produced the current plan. If modifications result from these sessions, they will be clearly communicated to all members before the final vote.

Q17: Could the project be scaled back to make it more affordable for members and then revisit other improvements later?

A: That sentiment has been shared by several members. The committee will review all feedback, including requests to prioritize or phase certain elements of the plan. Some members have suggested completing part of the project now and waiting until the club’s existing $8 million loan is paid off before adding new phases. All feedback will be considered before the membership vote.

Q18: Are you confident that Breakers’ food quality will improve with this project? Can’t we improve quality without expanding the kitchen?

A: The most significant limitation on food quality and menu variety is the size of the existing kitchen it’s extremely small for the volume of meals produced. To give our chefs the tools and equipment they need to provide a broader, higher-quality menu, the kitchen expansion is essential. While there are always operational improvements we can make at no cost, the physical space remains the biggest constraint.

Q19: Why are non-resident members being asked to pay the full assessment when they use the club less frequently?

A: Non-resident members currently pay reduced dues that reflect their membership category, but their usage is not restricted they may use the club year-round if they wish. During COVID, for example, many non-resident members spent extended time in Virginia Beach and used the club frequently.

That said, the concern about proportional assessments for non-residents is noted and will be reviewed by the committee.

Q20: Do non-resident members get to vote on this project?

A: No. According to the club’s bylaws, non-resident members do not have voting privileges. This has always been the case. However, they did participate in the PACC 2028 member survey, and their input helped shape the plan. Changing voting privileges would require a bylaw amendment in the future.

Q21: Will social members be allowed expanded access to facilities, such as the pool, given they are paying the full assessment?

A: This topic has been raised multiple times. The Board and Membership Committee are reviewing whether social members’ access should be adjusted in the future. While no changes have been made yet, leadership recognizes the importance of aligning use privileges with financial contributions.

Q22: Some members feel the assessment timeline may be difficult for older or retired members. Has that been considered?

A: Yes. Many members have voiced this concern. The committee will review potential adjustments, such as tiered structures or extended payment options, especially for senior members. The goal is to ensure fairness and accessibility for all.

Q23: How many members do you expect to resign due to the assessment?

A: The operating budget for next year assumes approximately 120 resignations, with a net loss of 71 memberships after backfilling from the waiting list.

Q24: How long will Breakers be closed during construction, and how will food service be handled in the summer?

A: The project timeline will be coordinated by the contractor and the Master Plan Committee to keep as many member services open as possible. For example, temporary kitchen facilities or trailers may be used to maintain food service, as seen in other clubs during renovations. Similarly, temporary fitness facilities could be set up in alternate areas (e.g., pickleball building or tennis bubbles) to minimize disruption.

Q25: What are the costs for the Wine Room and the Driving Range Comfort Station?

• Comfort Station: $293,455

• Wine Room: $1,192,967

Detailed project costs are available under the Funding section of PACC2028.com.

Q26: What happens if the project comes in under budget?

A: The budget includes approximately 11% in combined inflation and contingency (5% inflation, 6% contingency). Specific terms regarding surplus funds will be determined once a final contract is signed with the construction firm.

Q27: How will the club ensure service quality matches the investment, especially with staffing challenges?

A: The club has explored visa programs (H-2B and J-1) used by other private clubs. However, housing for seasonal employees in Virginia Beach is a major obstacle due to cost and availability. The club continues to seek creative staffing solutions and is committed to improving service levels regardless of whether the plan passes. Follow-up: Some members suggested the club consider investing in staff housing as a long-term solution. This idea will be taken under review.

Q28: Who is eligible to vote and when will voting occur?

A: Only Full Members are eligible to vote per club bylaws.

• Tentative Vote Date: January 26

• Voting Process: Members will receive a proxy by mail with a return envelope. Electronic submissions may also be accepted. Each vote will be tracked by member number to ensure accuracy.

The timeline may shift depending on how long it takes to incorporate feedback from all Fireside Chats.

Q29: How many non-resident members are there, and how might they be affected?

• Full Non-Resident Members: 174

• Social Non-Resident Members: 73

• Golden Circle Non-Residents (senior, long-term): 3

Feedback from non-residents, particularly regarding affordability and voting rights, will be considered by the committee.

Q30: What are the current initiation fees, and how will they change?

A: New members pay the initiation fee in effect when they join the waiting list. Over time, the assessment may be absorbed into the initiation fee (for example, Full initiation could rise from $50,000 to $70,000).

Non-resident members currently pay approximately $245 less per month in dues and about $80 less per month in capital fees than resident members.

Q31: How will the club share feedback and outcomes from the Fireside Chats?

A: All comments from the Fireside Chats, the website, and email submissions will be compiled and summarized into one document. The plan is to share this summary with the full membership either via email or on the PACC 2028 website, along with any resulting modifications to the plan or payment structure.

Q32: If the project passes and a member chooses not to pay the assessment, what happens?

A: Members who decide not to participate in the assessment would need to resign their membership by May 1.

Member Concerns

• Some members expressed concern about timing and affordability, particularly with the May assessment due date.

• Others questioned the necessity of a large-scale project when 94% of surveyed members expressed satisfaction with the club.

• Leadership reiterated that the project is member-driven, born from survey responses requesting upgrades in fitness, casual dining, and racquet sports.

• The purpose of the Fireside Chats is to gather precisely this kind of feedback before any vote occurs.

Closing Remarks

Leadership thanked attendees for their thoughtful questions and continued engagement. Feedback from all eight sessions will be consolidated and reviewed by the Master Plan Committee and Board of Directors. Any revisions will be communicated prior to the final membership vote. Members are encouraged to continue submitting questions via email or through the “Share Your Thoughts” feature on PACC2028.com.

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.14.25

FEEBACK AND Q&A

Q1: My concern is about older members (ages 80–85). Their remaining years of club usage are limited, and the assessment seems unfair. Has the club considered adjusting for age?

A: We understand this concern and have heard it from several members. The age cutoff of 85 was based on usage data, not arbitrarily chosen—but we acknowledge that 80 vs. 85 can feel arbitrary. We’ve also heard suggestions about a graduated scale for assessments. The Master Planning Committee is reviewing this.

Q2: Some clubs cap assessments at age 80. Why didn’t we do that?

A: We researched models from other clubs, but usage patterns at PACC showed high use by members over 80. This influenced our decision. That said, we are reviewing the feedback.

Q3: Doesn’t exempting older members reduce project funding?

A: If we exempted everyone 80+, it would reduce assessment revenue by roughly $3.2 million. Offsetting that would require reallocation or increased contributions elsewhere.

Q4: But aren’t waitlist members going to pay large initiation fees? Won’t that cover the gap?

A: Not necessarily. People on the waitlist pay the initiation fee that applied when they joined the waitlist, not today's $50K number.

• Average initiation fee from the waitlist is around $24K, not $50K.

• Many are legacy applicants and pay less.

• All new members will also pay the assessment. We estimate $6–7 million of new money from incoming members but this depends on attrition rates.

Q5: How many new members join on average?

A: About 35–40 per year, consistent with historical levels.

Q6: Why not let members pay assessments over a longer period (3–5 years)?

A: Construction contracts require the club to pay contractors on schedule. A 5-year installment plan would force the club to take on debt. Current payment options:

1. Pay in full

2. 50% now + installments

3. Quarterly installments over 12 months We are evaluating whether younger members need expanded payment plans.

Q7: Why is the club so focused on paying off debt quickly? Isn’t some debt healthy?

• Our existing debt service is $900K/year.

• We refinanced in 2019 at a very favorable rate we’re unlikely to get a better one.

• Taking on new debt would raise annual payments significantly.

• We want to retire all old debt by 2028 and 2032.

• Eliminating debt allows future boards to plan capital projects without burdening members.

Q8: Could the club prioritize some projects and defer others?

A: This idea has been raised frequently. The concern is that breaking the plan into phases increases costs and complexity (re-permitting, re-bidding, delays). Still, the board will evaluate prioritization based on member feedback.

Q9: If the project proceeds, will we lose access to the fitness center and Breakers?

A: There will be disruptions, but the plan is to:

• Build the pickleball building first

• Temporarily relocate fitness there

• Keep fitness operational as long as feasible

• Maintain food & beverage service, especially at the pool Estimated disruption window for major areas: Sept 2027–June 2028, not continuous closure.

Q10: Will the new east-side two-story structure cast shade on the pool deck?

A: A sun-study was performed.

• Shadowing on the pool deck would last less than one hour per day during peak summer.

• Shadows extend only about seven feet beyond the building.

Q11: What is planned for the Breakers building?

• Fire pits stay.

• Expanded kitchen

• Reoriented bar

• More indoor/outdoor dining

• Extended alfresco seating on the south and east sides Renderings are available on the PACC 2028 website.

Q12: Many think the wine room addition is unnecessary. Can it be removed?

A: We’ve received mixed feedback. The wine room cost is about $1.5M. It will be reevaluated.

Q13: Were multiple contractors asked to bid?

A: The club interviewed three firms and selected Hourigan Partners as the pre-construction contractor. They used multiple subcontractors to price the schematic design. Whether multiple general contractors will bid the final work is still under discussion.

Q14: What about staffing costs once these new facilities open?

A: The 10-year budgeting model includes projected increases in staffing and utilities. While specific numbers fluctuate with inflation, the cost increases have been accounted for and will be reflected in future dues planning.

Q15: What percentage of members responded to the original survey, and can we see the results?

• Over 900 members responded.

• The results will be posted on the PACC 2028 website.

• The survey included spending comfort ranges (up to ~$10K). No one anticipated today’s construction pricing increases.

Q16: Social members don’t vote? Why?

A: According to longstanding bylaws, only Resident, Full, and Athletic members can vote. We acknowledge concerns and have heard feedback about social-member representation.

Q17: Is the club reviewing out-of-town memberships?

A: Yes. For nearly two years the board has been evaluating this category. A decision is expected within six months. Changes are being considered because usage patterns have shifted since COVID.

Q18: With so many private pickleball facilities opening, do we still need to invest in pickleball?

A: Yes. Member demand for pickleball on club property has grown significantly. Private facilities do not replace the value of on-site amenities.

Q19: What was the attrition during previous assessments (2002 & 2006)?

• 2002: 125 left, 57 eventually returned

• 2006: 67 left

There was no waiting list at that time, unlike today.

Q20: Could members be given multiple options on the ballot (e.g., full project, partial project)?

A: This will be discussed. Concern: splitting the vote or breaking the project into options may reduce efficiency and increase cost. But the board is reviewing feedback.

Q21: Some younger members say the assessment is unaffordable given mortgages, childcare, and tuition. Are their concerns being addressed?

A: Yes, we are listening. Younger members have requested longer payment plans, and the board is exploring whether that can be offered without taking on additional debt.

Q22: Will dues increase to cover the operating cost of the larger facilities?

A: Dues historically increase annually regardless of capital projects. Future increases will incorporate inflation, utilities, and staffing from expanded spaces but no specific number is available yet.

Q23: Is the board considering another survey given that the original survey was preinflation and pre-2024 economic changes?

A: Yes. Members have requested a new survey, and the board is evaluating whether to conduct one before any vote.

Q24: What are the next steps before the membership vote?

• The Master Planning Committee meets again next week.

• The Executive Committee will review recommendations.

• Options include:

1. Proceed with the plan unchanged

2. Make adjustments

3. Pause and reevaluate based on feedback No decision has been made yet.

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.19.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

WAIT LIST FEEDBACK

Prospective Non-Resident Full

Thank you for the update! These are great additions. We look forward to enjoying all that Princess Anne has to offer! All the best, Jenni & John Soderberg

Prospective Resident Full Under 40

Thanks for sharing. Will we be responsible for the $20,450 as well? In addition to the $35,000? Are we still anticipating January 2027 for membership (2 years)? Or further out?

Prospective Resident Full (Military)

Sounds exciting. Just checking in to see where I am on the waiting list.

Prospective Resident Athletic

Thank you so much for the update. It’s great to see the club planning towards the future. We love all the plans being proposed in the presentation. Please update us on how the vote turns out.

Prospective Non-Resident Full

Thanks for your e-mail about the reno. Sounds exciting.

Master Plan Payment Plan Funding Scenarios - 16K Model C

Master Plan Payment Plan Funding Scenarios - 16K Model C (Over

80 Excluded)

Assumes 40 Resident Full Resignations, 10 downgrades from Resident Full to Social, 50 Resident Social Resignations, 10 Non Resident Full Resignations, 20 Non Resident Social Resignations. Permits 6 upgrades from Social to Full. Permits 7 new non-resident full as we're 3 over the cap, and 2 upgrades from non-resident social to full. (Net Impact (71) Members)

Model C Membership Totals - 80 & Over Excluded

Classifications

November 17, 2025

Michael Gaddy, PE

Sent via email only: mike.gaddy@gmail.com

Gaddy Engineering Services, LLC

508 N. Birdneck Rd., Suite D

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23451

RE: Site Plan Review #3 for Princess Anne Country Club-Restroom Building on Hole #18Gaddy Engineering Services, LLC, DSC File# L05-020106-SP

Dear Mr. Gaddy:

The Development Services Center (DSC) and other City agencies have reviewed the referenced plan received October 21, 2025. The plan is not in order for approval at this time. Please address the following comments and resubmit a copy of the plan, any revised calculations and a letter explaining all revisions that were made directly through Accela.

Planning/DSC-Theresa Holleran (757)385-4539 or thollera@vbgov.com

1. [Quality Control] The next resubmittal package must contain a comment response letter detailing how each comment below has been addressed. Please follow the guidelines below in preparation of this comment response letter. [City Code App. C, Sec. 4.1]

a. Any revisions to the resubmitted development plans beyond those necessary to address the review comments listed below must be identified in the comment response letter.

b. Stating that the comment is “acknowledged” or “noted” are not acceptable responses.

c. If a comment below states that specific information must be provided in or with the next submittal and that information is not provided, the next submittal may be deemed incomplete.

Planning/DSC Engineer – Dan Bentley (757)385-8432 or dbentley@vbgov.com

2. [Advisory Comment] An executed Stormwater Management Facility (SWMF) Maintenance Agreement (SWMF-#1A “Private Standard and Nutrient Credit”) is required to be submitted to the DSC under a separate Accela record prior to plan approval and must be recorded prior to the release of the approved plans. Be advised that the maintenance agreement template could change based on plan revisions. SWMF-MA templates can be found here: https://planning.virginiabeach.gov/land-development/legal-docs-templates#Templates [City Code, App. D, Sec. 5.3]

• Maintenance agreement templates have been updated since L05-020106-LDSMA was last submitted in February. Agreement should be updated to the current form from above link.

3. [Advisory Comment] An Affidavit of Nutrient Credit Purchase shall be provided to the DSC prior to release of the approved plans. [9VAC25-875-610]

4. [Advisory Comment] A Stormwater Facilities and Land Disturbing (SWLD) cost estimate must be posted prior to the release of the approved plan. Once the site plan is approved, a SWLD cost estimate must be submitted to the DSC for review and approval prior to plan release. https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/virginia-beach-departments-

docs/planning/Land-Development/Sureties/Engineers_Cost_Estimate_SWLD.pdf [City Code, App. D, Sec. 5.10]

5. [Advisory Comment] A SWMF As-built survey will be required for the proposed stormwater system installed as part of this project. A copy of the SWMF As-built checklist can be found here: https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/virginia-beach-departmentsdocs/planning/Land-Development/Stormwater/AB_stormwater_checklist.pdf [City Code, App. D, Sec. 5.3]

6. [Repeat Comment] Revise the flood protection analysis to include the entire CDA down to the LOA. Only portions of the CDA were accounted for in the modeling. Additionally, provide subcatchment summaries for each subcatchment in the contributing drainage area to the LOA. Revise the offsite analysis based on the 10-yr flowrate calculated form the contributing drainage area and not based on 80% full flow input assumptions at the two nodes for meeting 9VAC25-875-600.C.2.a. Alternatively, revise the analysis to full flow instead of 80% full flow.

7. For subcatchments EX1A and EX1B, the 10yr HGL exceeds RIM elevation showing flooding in the proposed condition. The chosen method of flood protection compliance requires that the 10-yr storm be contained within the entire system to the LOA. If flooding occurs within the downstream system, then the alternative method of flood protection will need to be met (i.e. reduction in 10-yr post development peak flow rate at point of discharge). If it cannot be demonstrated that the 10-yr HGL is contained down to the LOA then downstream improvements will need to be made (to contain the 10-yr HGL) if this option of flood protection compliance is continued to be pursued. Staff recommends meeting the 10yr pre to post flow rate reduction for this project under 9VAC25-875-600.C.1.

Public Works Traffic Engineering – Rachelle Del Rosario (757)385-6591 or rmdelrosario@vbgov.com • No additional comment.

Advisory Comments:

A. To help ensure mutual understanding of the comments provided in this review letter, before resubmitting the development plan, the DSC provides the Design Engineer and Developer the option to have a virtual/in person comment review meeting with City review staff. The Comment Review Meeting Submittal Form can be found on the City’s Webpage at the following link: Comment Review Meeting Request Form. [City Code App. C, Sec. 3.1]

B. No land disturbing, clearing, demolition, or construction activity may occur until the SWM/LDA permit and right-of-way permit are issued by the DSC and a preconstruction meeting is held with Planning/Civil Inspections (757) 385-4558 and Public Utilities/Inspections (757) 385-4175. Contact both inspection offices at least 48-hours before any construction activities begin. Failure to contact Planning/Civil Inspections prior to any land disturbing activity may result in a stop work order or other legal action. [CVB Subdivision and Site Development General Notes Criteria]

C. The owner, developer and/or consultant are responsible for contacting the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the potential presence of jurisdictional wetlands. The City of Virginia Beach does not make jurisdictional wetland determinations. [City Code App. C, Sec 4]

If you have any questions, please contact me at (757) 385-5655 or at thollera@vbgov.com.

Sincerely,

Theresa Holleran DSC Project Manager

CC: DSC File# L05-020106-SP Via email:

Arlethia Wilson -Zoning

Arthur Felton– DSC/Public Utilities

Heather Blake-Addressing

Jeff Klindienst-Landscaping

Jay Brewster-Parks and Recreation

Michael Lynn-Public Utilities

Dan Bentley- Planning/DSC Engineer

Rachelle Del Rosario - Public Works/Traffic Engineering

Matt Gifford– Fire

Bill Shonk - wshonk@princessannecc.com

508 N. Birdneck Road, Suite D Virginia Beach, VA 23451 757-289-5933

mike.gaddy@gmail.com

STORMWATER ANALYSIS for

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18

Virginia Beach, Virginia

October 20, 2025

DSC # L05-020106-SP

1 Existing Site Review

1.1 Existing Site Conditions

1.2 Existing Drainage Patterns

1.3 Existing Impervious Areas

2 Proposed Site Analysis

2.1 Proposed Stormwater Design

2.2 Proposed Conditions

2.3 Stormwater Quality

2.4 Stormwater Quantity

2.5 Storm Pipe Design

Appendix A Drainage Area Maps

Appendix B Geotechnical Data

Appendix C VRRM Spreadsheet

Appendix D Nutrient Credit Letter

Appendix E SSA Results (Existing)

Appendix F SSA Results (Proposed)

Appendix G Existing Ditch Outfall Analysis

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

1 EXISTING SITE REVIEW

1.1

EXISTING

SITE CONDITIONS

The proposed project is located on hole #18 of the Princess Anne Country Club Golf Course on Holly Road in Virginia Beach. The site is within the watershed VAHUC6:CB25 Lynnhaven River. The overall limit of disturbance onsite is 0.32 acres. The site is bordered by Linkhorn Drive to the south; Holly Road to the east; residential house to the west, and the golf course to the north. The site is within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Project Area

1.2 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS

Project Area of previously approved improvements DSC #M05-017840-SP

The site is contoured with berms and flat areas, as typical of a golf course, having elevations ranging from 6 feet to 13 feet. The site drains via sheet flow and concentrated flow to the existing golf course drainage system, which consists of grate inlets with 6”, 8”, 12”, 15” HDPE pipe. Each inlet structure on the golf course was modeled as a storage node with additional flood area above the rim elevations corresponding to the contours around each inlet. The pipe system outfalls to an existing ditch located at the west side of Hole #1, which was recently approved for a renovation under DSC# M05-017840-SP. Just upstream from the ditch is a drop inlet where flow from Hole #18 meets additional flow that is piped from the east (drainage from Princess Anne Country Club Pond and drainage area from areas North-East of the intersection of

Figure 1.1.1: Existing Site

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

Holly Road and Linkhorn Drive. This location is considered the point of analysis and is denoted on the drainage area maps as #EX-1 on the pre-development and post-development maps. This point of analysis has a contributing drainage area (CDA) of a total of 34.53 acres. The site drainage area (SDA) is 0.32 acres. Therefore, the SDA is less than 1% of the CDA, meeting the requirements for point of analysis. Along with the onsite pipe system, there is an existing 15” HDPE pipe that exits existing structure #10 on the north side of the existing Linkhorn Drive road. This pipe was modeled to the next structure down to assure no adverse impacts downstream. In addition, stormwater from existing drop inlet structure on the corner of Holly Road and Linkhorn Drive was included and assumed flowing full. The existing pipe is assumed to be flowing full @ 4.4 cfs in both the existing and proposed models. An external flow time series curve represents this flow in the existing and proposed models. This will allow for analysis of any adverse effects of the proposed system on the existing system in Linkhorn Drive. The pre-developed drainage area map is located in Appendix A. The existing area within the limits of disturbance has 0.13 acres of impervious area with Type C soils.

Pre-Development Hydrology

2 PROPOSED SITE ANALYSIS

2.1 PROPOSED STORMWATER DESIGN

The proposed site drainage is designed to mostly replicate the existing drainage system and route the new drainage to the existing piping system that drains to Linkhorn Drive and further down to the existing ditch. The same model parameters are used in the proposed models as the existing models. This design was completed in accordance with the July 2023 Small Project Criteria, and requests all associated variances.

2.1.1

Stormwater Analysis Software

The Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) software is used in the stormwater analysis for the 2-year and10-year events. The analysis uses the SCS TR-55 hydrology method and hydrodynamic link routing. Storage nodes are modeled as the design rim elevation plus additional contour areas above the rim, to keep modeled stormwater flows from escaping the system.

2.1.2 Rainfall

The SCS Type II 24-hour rainfall depths for this site are:

2-year = 4.38 inches

10-year = 6.77 inches

These rainfall depths are in accordance with the March 2022 City of Virginia Beach Department of Public Works Engineering Group Design Standards Manual, Section 8.3.B Table VIII-2.

Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

2.1.3 Tailwater

In accordance with the small projects design guidelines, the tailwater elevations used in the models are invert of pipe plus 0.8 x diameter.

Outfall Node OF-EX2 = 3.07

2.2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS

The project proposes to re-construct an area located on the Hole #18 of the golf course. The proposed impervious area within the limits of disturbance is 0.05 acres. The following sections describe the details of the stormwater quality and quantity design.

2.3 STORMWATER QUALITY

The project site is designed in accordance with 9VAS25-875-600 which requires redevelopment projects that result in a net increase in impervious cover over the predevelopment condition to keep the total phosphorous load of the increase impervious area under 0.41 pounds per acre per year in accordance with the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) pursuant to 9VAC25875-580.

The VRRM calculations are based on the project’s site area limit of disturbance of 0.32 acres as shown as the limits on disturbance on the drainage area map attached in Appendix C. The VRRM calculations are provided in Appendix C and show that the required reduction of total phosphorus is 0.08 lb/yr.

This requirement is met by purchasing offsite nutrient credits.

2.4 STORMWATER QUANTITY

Stormwater quantity design addresses channel protection and flood protection for downstream properties and receiving waterways in accordance with 9VAS25-875-600 and/or the July 2023 Small Projects Criteria for the City of Virginia Beach.

2.4.1 Channel Protection Model Results

The point of analysis (POA) is denoted on the drainage area maps as #EX-1 on the predevelopment and post-development maps. This point of analysis has a contributing drainage area (CDA) of a total of 34.53 acres (Refer to Overall Drainage Area Map included in Appendix A). The site drainage area (SDA) is 0.32 acres. Therefore, the SDA is less than 1% of the CDA, meeting the requirements for point of analysis.

In channel protection analysis, "the site" refers to the specific area of land undergoing development or modification that is being assessed for its potential impact on the downstream channel

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

In accordance with Virginia Beach Stormwater Management Ordinance Section 1-13.B.4.a and Section 1-13.C.3.a, the site drainage area (SDA) is less than 1% of the contributing drainage area (CDA) at the point of analysis.

Contributing Drainage Area, CDA = 34.53 acres (1% = 0.3453 acre)

Site Drainage Area, SDA = 0.32 acres < 1% (0.3453 acres)

2.4.2

Channel Protection Analysis

The drainage pattern will continue to route runoff to the existing storm sewer system within Linkhorn Drive, which is a manmade stormwater conveyance system in accordance with City Code, Appendix D, Sec. 1-13.B.1.a:

Channel protection. Concentrated stormwater flow shall be released into a stormwater conveyance system and shall …

1. Manmade stormwater conveyance systems. When stormwater from a development is discharged to a manmade stormwater conveyance system, following the landdisturbing activity:

a. The manmade stormwater conveyance system shall convey the post development peak flow rate from the two-year 24-hour storm event without causing erosion of the system. Detention of stormwater or downstream improvements may be incorporated into the approved land-disturbing activity to meet this criterion, at the discretion of the VSMP authority.

POA (City GIS Node # 30010-4610) – Drop Inlet in Linkhorn Drive

An analysis of the downstream piped system, from node EX1 to the outfall to the existing ditch, is presented below which shows under full flow conditions the velocities are non-erosive for concrete pipe (< 10 fps).

Under the proposed condition, the velocities at the downstream existing storm structures/pipes are less than 10 fps and considered non-erosive. No additional channel protection measures are required downstream.

Further downstream and beyond the point of analysis, the piped storm sewer system outfalls to an existing ditch located at the Northwest portion of Hole #1 (across Linkhorn Drive). The existing ditch is a man-made open-channel ditch running south-west along the north-western property line of the Fairway #1/Hole #1 parcel (adjoins with 512 Linkhorn Drive) of the Golf

Figure 2.4.4: Channel Protection Analysis

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

Course (GPIN: 2418-65-9235). As an exercise in precaution, we have analyzed this ditch for potential erosive qualities during the 2-year storm event. This ditch is approximately 300-feet long, and drains directly to Holly Lake BMP. This ditch is approximately 8-feet wide at the bottom and is approximately 2-feet deep. The overbanks are considered above the ditch banks and are considered dense brush overbanks, per visual inspections. The hydraulic properties of this ditch have been modeled in the stormwater analysis attached. The channel section manning’s value used is 0.025 for an earthen channel with no vegetation in the bottom, and 0.04 for the brushed overbanks. The existing ditch section remains the same during the predevelopment analysis and post-development analysis.

Refer to Existing Ditch Section Analysis results in Appendix G.

Channel Erosion was evaluated in the pre-developed and post-developed 2-year event. The analysis under post-developed conditions was compared to pre-developed conditions. The following results are noted.

Channelnamein model

PreDev2-Yr Flow(cfs)

‘GolfCourse Creek’

PreDev2-Yr Velocity (f/s)

PostDev2YrFlow (cfs)

PostDev2YrVelocity (f/s)

Erosive

Y=>2.0f/s

N=<2.0f/s

Under the post-developed condition, the velocity in the downstream ditch is not considered erosive and no further channel protection measures are recommended.

The Golf Course Creek then drains into Lake Holly. Lake Holly outfalls through an earthen channel (or earthen weir) at the location where a golf course golf path bridge traverses over Lake Holly. Upon inspection of this outfall, it appears that this channel outfall is stable and showing no signs of erosion or scour. The slight increase in the 2-year flow is not expected to change the erosive characteristics of this outfall. Below is a picture of the outfall:

After this channel outfall, Lake Holly continues up to the northern side of Pinewood Road. At this location, Lake Holly outfalls through two large concrete box culverts under Pinewood Road and into Little Neck Creek, which is a tributary of the Lynnhaven River. Upon inspection of these culverts there appears to be no evidence of any erosion and the embankment is stabilized. Below is a picture of this outfall:

Figure 2.4.1-A: Existing Lake Holly channel outfall at golf course cart path bridge

Figure 2.4.1-B: Existing Lake Holly box culverts outfall to Little Neck Creek

2.4.2 Flood Protection Model Results

The hydraulic grade line for the 10-year storm event is reviewed to ensure there are no increases in any further downstream or onsite flooding. The following table outlines comparisons of the hydraulic grade line at City and proposed nodes. Per city guidelines for small projects with less than 20,000 square feet of new impervious area, a tailwater of 0.8 x Diameter for the 10-year analysis was used.

Post-Development Hydrology

Under the proposed conditions all 10-year flows are contained onsite and within the storage nodes (or contoured areas associated with the area drains) on the golf course. No adverse flooding impacts are expected to surrounding properties or downstream channels

2.4.3 Downstream Ditch Flood Protection Analysis

Refer to Existing Ditch Section Analysis results in Appendix G.

The existing downstream ditch, at the point of analysis, was evaluated in the pre-developed and post-developed 10-year event. The analysis under post-developed conditions was compared to pre-developed conditions. The following results are noted.

Channelnamein model

PreDev10YrFlow (cfs)

PreDev10YrHGL (elevation)

PostDev10YrFlow (cfs)

PostDev10YrHGL (feet)

Contained YesorNo

Creek’

Under the post-developed condition the flow in the downstream ditch is contained within the banks with only a +0.08’ rise. No additional channel improvement measures downstream are recommended.

Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

2.4.4 Variance Request: Design Storm 10-year Volume / Check Storm 100-year Volume

In accordance with city DSC Notice #2022-10-26, we hereby request a variance to the requirements of Section 8.5 of the Public Works Design Standards Manual (PWDSM) for the design storm (10-year) and check storm (100-year) volume-based storage requirements for the small project criteria. Per the notice, this site’s drainage area patterns for the pre-development and post-development scenario do not change, and the additional new impervious area creates less than 20,000 square feet.

2.5 STORM PIPE DESIGN

The new stormwater conveyance pipes proposed on-site with this project are included in the SSA analysis.

Princess

Virginia Beach, VA

APPENDIX A DRAINAGE AREA MAPS

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18

APPROXIMATELOCATION OFFLOODZONELINEAS SCALEDFROMF.I.R.M.

CN=85

SYSTEM,VIRGINIASTATEPLANECOORDINATE SOUTHZONE,NAD1983/1993(HARN)

CN=76

DA#EX1B=0.29AC. CN=74 DA#EX1C=0.20AC. CN=74

CN=74

RELOCATEELECTRIC COORDINATEW/COMPANY

DA#EX1A=0.41AC. CN=76

NEWPAVERSW/CONCRETEBORDER. REFERTOLANDSCAPEARCHITECT'S PLANSFORCONSTRUCTIONDETAILS

DA#EX1C=0.20AC. CN=75

DA#EX1D=0.31AC. CN=86

DA#EX1B=0.34AC. CN=75

APPROXIMATELOCATION OFFLOODZONELINEAS SCALEDFROMF.I.R.M.

RELOCATEELECTRIC COORDINATEW/COMPANY

SYSTEM,VIRGINIASTATEPLANECOORDINATE SOUTHZONE,NAD1983/1993(HARN)

LINEDENOTESLIMITSOFDISTURBANCE(0.32AC.)USEDINVRRMCALCULATIONS EXISTINGIMPERVIOUSAREA=0.011AC.;PROPOSEDIMPERVIOUSAREA=0.05AC. ST PROPOSEDPERGOLACANOPY(TYP.)

ALLNON-IMPERVIOUSAREASOF DISTURBANCESHALL BEPERMANENTLYSEEDED INACCORDANCEWITHGOLF COURSEARCHITECT'SPLAN

APPROXIMATELOCATIONOFPROPOSED UNDERDRAIN.CONTRACTORSHALLCOORDINATE LOCATIONWITHGOLFCOURSEARCHITECT.CONNECT UNDERDRAINTOEXISTINGDROPINLETASSHOWN.

NEWPAVERSW/CONCRETEBORDER. REFERTOLANDSCAPEARCHITECT'S PLANSFORCONSTRUCTIONDETAILS

GALILEEBMPNORTH

APPENDIX B USDASOIL MAP

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

Preface

Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

How Soil Surveys Are Made

Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil

scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map

The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils

MAP LEGEND

Area of Interest (AOI)

Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

and Canals

Highways

Photography

MAP

INFORMATION

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 28, 2024

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 9, 2022—Aug 15, 2022

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Descriptions

The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,

onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

36—Tetotum loam

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 41tg

Elevation: 0 to 30 feet

Mean annual precipitation: 44 to 52 inches

Mean annual air temperature: 60 to 68 degrees F

Frost-free period: 230 to 285 days

Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Tetotum and similar soils: 85 percent

Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Tetotum

Setting

Landform: Marine terraces

Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread

Down-slope shape: Convex

Across-slope shape: Convex

Parent material: Loamy fluviomarine deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 10 inches: loam

H2 - 10 to 58 inches: clay loam

H3 - 58 to 70 inches: loamy sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 2 percent

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches

Drainage class: Moderately well drained

Runoff class: Low

Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)

Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches

Frequency of flooding: None

Frequency of ponding: None

Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.0 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified

Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w

Hydrologic Soil Group: C

Ecological site: F153BY040NC - Moist Loamy Rises and Flats

Hydric soil rating: No

43—Yeopim silt loam

Map Unit Setting

National map unit symbol: 41tq

Elevation: 10 to 70 feet

Mean annual precipitation: 44 to 52 inches

Mean annual air temperature: 60 to 68 degrees F

Frost-free period: 230 to 285 days

Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland

Map Unit Composition

Yeopim and similar soils: 85 percent

Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Yeopim

Setting

Landform: Marine terraces

Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread

Down-slope shape: Convex

Across-slope shape: Convex

Parent material: Loamy fluviomarine deposits

Typical profile

H1 - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam

H2 - 8 to 79 inches: silty clay loam

H3 - 79 to 84 inches: loamy sand

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 2 percent

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches

Drainage class: Moderately well drained

Runoff class: Low

Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr)

Depth to water table: About 18 to 30 inches

Frequency of flooding: None

Frequency of ponding: None

Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.8 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified

Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w

Hydrologic Soil Group: C

Ecological site: F153BY040NC - Moist Loamy Rises and Flats

Hydric soil rating: No

References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577

Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

APPENDIX C VRRMSPREADSHEET

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18

Virginia Beach, VA

14. Manufactured Treatment Devices (no RR)

NITROGEN REMOVED WITH RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (lb/yr) 0.00

NITROGEN REMOVED WITHOUT RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (lb/yr) 0.00

TOTAL NITROGEN REMOVED IN D.A. A (lb/yr) 0.00

Site Results (Water Quality Compliance)

Area Checks

Site Treatment Volume (ft3) 388

Runoff Reduction Volume and TP By Drainage Area

Total Phosphorus

FINAL POST-DEVELOPMENT TP LOAD (lb/yr) 0.24

TP LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (lb/yr) 0.08

TP LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (lb/yr) 0.00

TP LOAD REMAINING (lb/yr): 0.24

REMAINING TP LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (lb/yr): 0.08

Total Nitrogen (For Information Purposes)

POST-DEVELOPMENT LOAD (lb/yr) 1.74

NITROGEN LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (lb/yr) 0.00

REMAINING POST-DEVELOPMENT NITROGEN LOAD (lb/yr) 1.74

Enter design storm rainfall depths (in):

Use NOAA Atlas 14 (http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/)

*Notes (see below):

[1] The curve numbers and runoff volumes computed in this spreadsheet for each drainage area are limited in their applicability for determining and demonstrating compliance with water quantity requirements. See VRRM User's Guide and Documentation for additional information.

[2] Runoff Volume (RV) for pre- and post-development drainage areas must be in volumetric units (e.g., acre-feet or cubic feet) when using the Energy Balance Equation. Runoff measured in watershedinches and shown in the spreadsheet as RV(watershed-inch) can only be used in the Energy Balance Equation when the pre- and post-development drainage areas are equal. Otherwise RV(watershed-inch) must be multiplied by the drainage area.

[3] Adjusted CNs are based on runoff reduction volumes as calculated in D.A. tabs. An alternative CN adjustment calculation for Vegetated Roofs is included in BMP specification No. 5.

Drainage Area Curve Numbers and Runoff Depths*

Curve numbers (CN, CNadj) and runoff depths (RV Developed ) are computed with and without reduction practices.

Drainage Area A

Forest/Open Space -- undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land

Managed Turf -- disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with Runoff Reduction* Impervious Cover

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with no Runoff Reduction*

Drainage Area B

Forest/Open Space -- undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land

Managed Turf -- disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed

Impervious Cover

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with no Runoff Reduction*

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with Runoff Reduction*

Drainage Area C

Forest/Open Space -- undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land

Managed Turf -- disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed

Impervious Cover

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with no Runoff Reduction*

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with Runoff Reduction*

Drainage Area D

Forest/Open Space -- undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land

Managed Turf -- disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed

Impervious Cover

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with no Runoff Reduction*

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with Runoff Reduction*

*See Notes above

Drainage Area E

Forest/Open Space -- undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land

Managed Turf -- disturbed, graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed Impervious Cover

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with no Runoff Reduction*

RVDeveloped (watershed-inch) with Runoff Reduction*

*See Notes

DEQ Virginia Runoff Reduction Method Re-Development Compliance Spreadsheet - Version 3.0

Site Summary

Project Title: Princess Anne Country Club - Restroom @ Hole #18

BMP Design Specifications List: 2013 Draft Stds & Specs Date: 45576

Site Land Cover Summary

Pre-ReDevelopment Land Cover (acres)

Post-ReDevelopment Land Cover (acres)

Site Tv and Land Cover Nutrient Loads

Site Compliance Summary

Drainage Area Summary

Drainage Area Compliance Summary

Drainage Area A Summary

Land Cover Summary

BMP Selections

Drainage Area B Summary

Land Cover Summary

BMP Selections

Drainage Area C Summary

Land Cover Summary

BMP Selections

APPENDIX D NUTRIENT CREDIT LETTER

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

March 21, 2019

Mike Gaddy, PE, LS

Gaddy Engineering Services, LLC

508 N. Birdneck Rd., Suite D Virginia Beach, VA 23451

Eco-Cap, LLC - Kings Fork Farm Nutrient Bank - Availability Letter

Project Reference: Princess Anne Country Club

Mr. Gaddy,

This letter is to confirm the availability of Nutrient Credits sufficient to meet your project requirements at the Kings Fork Farm Nutrient Bank located in the City of Suffolk, Virginia. The Kings Fork Farm Nutrient Bank received approval and release from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on May 31, 2018 with an initial release of 70.46 lbs. The nutrient reductions resulting from this activity will generate nonpoint source Nutrient “Credits” which are transferable to those entities requiring nutrient reductions in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program (VA Code § 62. 1-44. 19:14) and the Virginia Stormwater Credit Program (VA Code § 62. 1-44. 15:35).

Currently the facility has 55.15 Credits available and will be able to meet your removal requirement of approximately 0.74 Credits.

Feel free to contact me if you require further assistance.

Casey J. Jensen

Casey J. Jensen President Eco-Cap, LLC

Manager

Kings Fork Farm Nutrient Bank

Phone: (804) 836-6636

Email: ecocapva@gmail.com

Website: ecocapva.us

Virginia Beach, VA

APPENDIX E SSARESULTS (EXISTING)

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18

Subbasin Summary

SNSubbasinAreaPeak Rate Weighted TotalTotalTotalPeakTime of IDFactorCurve Rainfall RunoffRunoffRunoffConcentration NumberVolume (ac)(in)(in)(ac-in)(cfs) (days hh:mm:ss)

1DA#EX10.14484.0074.004.381.880.260.36 0 00:10:54

2DA#EX1A0.49484.0075.964.382.031.000.91 0 00:28:23

3DA#EX1B0.29484.0074.004.381.880.550.69 0 00:13:31

4DA#EX1C0.20484.0074.004.381.880.380.45 0 00:15:52

5DA#EX1D0.28484.0085.144.382.810.790.88 0 00:19:22

SNElementElementInvertGround/Rim Initial Surcharge PondedPeakMax HGLMaxMinTime ofTotal Total Time ID TypeElevation(Max)WaterElevationAreaInflowElevation Surcharge Freeboard PeakFloodedFlooded ElevationElevationAttainedDepthAttainedFloodingVolume AttainedOccurrence (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in)(min)

1 DI @ Holly RoadJunction6.668.840.000.000.004.407.970.000.870 00:000.000.00

2OF-EX2Outfall2.076.562.97

3OF-LinkhornOutfall6.02 2.096.56

4EX1 Storage Node 6.009.000.00 0.006.576.99

5EX1A Storage Node 7.3510.500.00 0.000.908.96

6EX1B Storage Node 6.4910.000.00 0.002.678.50

7EX1C Storage Node 6.9610.000.00 0.003.097.72

8EX1D Storage Node 6.409.000.00 0.003.967.11 0.000.00

Link Summary

SNElement ElementFrom To (Outlet)LengthInletOutletAverageDiameter

IDType(Inlet)Node InvertInvertSlopeHeight

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1Pipe DI @ Holly RoadEX1146.006.666.080.400015.0000.01304.404.071.084.001.080.860.00> CAPACITY

2EX1 TO OF-EX#2PipeEX1OF-EX2290.006.002.071.360015.0000.01306.567.520.876.590.940.760.00Calculated 3EX1A TO EX1BPipeEX1AEX1B86.007.356.491.00008.0000.01200.901.310.692.590.671.0047.00SURCHARGED

4EX1B TO EX1CPipeEX1BEX1C117.006.496.96-0.400012.0000.01202.672.451.093.650.880.880.00> CAPACITY

5EX1C TO EX1DPipeEX1CEX1D40.006.966.630.830015.0000.01203.096.360.494.480.680.550.00Calculated 6EX1D TO EX1PipeEX1DEX131.006.406.180.710015.0000.01301.875.440.342.410.760.610.00Calculated 7EX1D To OF-LinkhornPipeEX1D OF-Linkhorn 80.006.506.020.600015.0000.01202.095.420.393.810.570.460.00Calculated

Subbasin : DA#EX1

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.14

Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Composite Curve Number 32 AreaSoilCurve

Soil/Surface Description (acres)GroupNumber > 75% grass cover, Good 0.14C74 Composite Area & Weighted CN 0.14 74

Time of Concentration

TOC Method : SCS TR-55

Sheet Flow Equation :

Tc = (0.007 * ((n * Lf)^0.8)) / ((P^0.5) * (Sf^0.4))

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

n = Manning's roughness

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

P = 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation :

V = 16.1345 * (Sf^0.5) (unpaved surface)

V = 20.3282 * (Sf^0.5) (paved surface)

V = 15.0 * (Sf^0.5) (grassed waterway surface)

V = 10.0 * (Sf^0.5) (nearly bare & untilled surface)

V = 9.0 * (Sf^0.5) (cultivated straight rows surface)

V = 7.0 * (Sf^0.5) (short grass pasture surface)

V = 5.0 * (Sf^0.5) (woodland surface)

V = 2.5 * (Sf^0.5) (forest w/heavy litter surface)

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where:

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Channel Flow Equation :

V = (1.49 * (R^(2/3)) * (Sf^0.5)) / n

R = Aq / Wp

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

R = Hydraulic Radius (ft)

Aq = Flow Area (ft²)

Wp = Wetted Perimeter (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

n = Manning's roughness

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC Manning's Roughness :0.400 Flow Length (ft) :5000 Slope (%) :200

2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) :4.3800 Velocity (ft/sec) :0.0800

Computed Flow Time (min) :10.5400

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow Concentrated Flow ComputationsABC Flow Length (ft) :2500 Slope (%) :0.500

Surface Type :UnpavedUnpavedUnpaved Velocity (ft/sec) :1.1400

Computed Flow Time (min) :0.3700

Total TOC (min) ..................10.91

Subbasin Runoff Results

Total Rainfall (in) ......................................................4.38 Total Runoff (in) ........................................................1.88 Peak Runoff (cfs) ......................................................0.36

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:10:55

Input Data

Subbasin

Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.29

Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Composite Curve Number 32

Time of Concentration

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC

Manning's Roughness :0.400 Flow Length (ft) :6500 Slope (%) :200

2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) :4.3800 Velocity (ft/sec) :0.0800

Computed Flow Time (min) :1300

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow Concentrated Flow ComputationsABC Flow Length (ft) :7000 Slope (%) :200 Surface Type :UnpavedUnpavedUnpaved Velocity (ft/sec) :2.2800

Computed Flow Time (min) :0.5100

Total TOC (min) ..................13.52

Subbasin Runoff Results

Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:13:31

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.2

Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Composite Curve Number 32

Time of Concentration

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC

Manning's Roughness :0.400 Flow Length (ft) :8000 Slope (%) :200

2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) :4.3800 Velocity (ft/sec) :0.0900

Computed Flow Time (min) :15.3500

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow Concentrated Flow ComputationsABC Flow Length (ft) :7000 Slope (%) :200 Surface Type :UnpavedUnpavedUnpaved Velocity (ft/sec) :2.2800

Computed Flow Time (min) :0.5100

Total TOC (min) ..................15.87

Subbasin Runoff Results

Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:15:52

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Subbasin

Input Data

Subbasin

Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Junction Input

SNElementInvertGround/RimGround/Rim InitialInitial Surcharge Surcharge PondedMinimum IDElevation(Max)(Max)WaterWaterElevationDepthAreaPipe ElevationOffsetElevationDepthCover (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft²)(in)

1 DI @ Holly Road 6.668.842.180.00-6.660.00-8.840.000.00

Junction Results

SNElementPeakPeakMax HGL Max HGL MaxMinAverage HGLAverage HGL Time ofTime ofTotal Total Time ID InflowLateralElevationDepth Surcharge Freeboard ElevationDepthMax HGLPeakFloodedFlooded InflowAttainedAttainedDepthAttainedAttainedAttainedOccurrenceFloodingVolume AttainedOccurrence (cfs)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) (days hh:mm) (days hh:mm) (ac-in)(min) 1 DI @ Holly Road 4.404.407.971.310.000.877.971.310 12:180 00:000.000.00

SNElement LengthInlet InletOutletOutletTotalAveragePipe PipePipeManning'sEntrance Exit/Bend Additional InitialFlapNo. of IDInvertInvertInvertInvertDropSlopeShape Diameter or Width Roughness LossesLossesLossesFlowGateBarrels ElevationOffsetElevationOffset Height (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(%) (in)(in) (cfs)

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1 #####6.660.006.080.080.580.4000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

2EX1 TO OF-EX#2#####6.000.002.070.003.931.3600 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

3EX1A TO EX1B86.007.350.006.490.000.861.0000 CIRCULAR 8.0408.0400.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

4EX1B TO EX1C#####6.490.006.960.00-0.47-0.4000 CIRCULAR 12.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

5EX1C TO EX1D40.006.960.006.630.230.330.8300 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

6EX1D TO EX131.006.400.006.180.180.220.7100 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

7EX1D To OF-Linkhorn80.006.500.106.020.000.480.6000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

Pipe Results

SNElement

(days hh:mm) (cfs) (ft/sec)(min)(ft) (min)

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX14.400 12:024.071.084.000.611.080.860.00> CAPACITY

2EX1 TO OF-EX#26.560 12:107.520.876.590.730.940.760.00Calculated

3EX1A TO EX1B0.900 12:151.310.692.590.550.671.0047.00SURCHARGED

4EX1B TO EX1C2.670 12:102.451.093.650.530.880.880.00> CAPACITY

5EX1C TO EX1D3.090 12:106.360.494.480.150.680.550.00Calculated

6EX1D TO EX11.870 12:105.440.342.410.210.760.610.00Calculated

7EX1D To OF-Linkhorn2.090 12:105.420.393.810.350.570.460.00Calculated

Storage Node : EX1

Input Data

Invert

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Storage Node : EX1A

Input Data

2.071020.7 2.651360418

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

Initial

2.251022.5 2.513027.7 3.511430757.7

3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.351023.5 2.615043.5

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Subbasin Summary

SNSubbasinAreaPeak Rate Weighted TotalTotalTotalPeakTime of IDFactorCurve Rainfall RunoffRunoffRunoffConcentration NumberVolume (ac)(in)(in)(ac-in)(cfs) (days hh:mm:ss)

1DA#EX10.14484.0074.006.773.840.540.73 0 00:10:54

2DA#EX1A0.49484.0075.966.774.051.982.11 0 00:21:45

3DA#EX1B0.29484.0074.006.773.841.111.42 0 00:13:31

4DA#EX1C0.20484.0074.006.773.840.770.93 0 00:15:52

5DA#EX1D0.28484.0085.146.775.051.411.55 0 00:19:22

1 DI @ Holly RoadJunction6.668.840.000.000.004.408.400.000.440 00:000.000.00

2OF-EX2Outfall2.076.623.10

3OF-LinkhornOutfall6.02 4.277.02

4EX1 Storage Node 6.009.000.00 0.006.697.52

5EX1A Storage Node 7.3510.500.00 0.002.0810.24

6EX1B Storage Node 6.4910.000.00 0.003.619.30

7EX1C Storage Node 6.9610.000.00 0.004.388.03

8EX1D Storage Node 6.409.000.00 0.005.927.57

Link Summary

SNElement ElementFrom To (Outlet)LengthInletOutletAverageDiameter or

IDType(Inlet)Node InvertInvertSlopeHeight

NodeElevationElevationRatio

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1Pipe DI @ Holly RoadEX1146.006.666.080.400015.0000.01304.424.071.093.961.251.0017.00SURCHARGED 2EX1 TO OF-EX#2PipeEX1OF-EX2290.006.002.071.360015.0000.01506.626.521.025.781.140.910.00> CAPACITY

3EX1A TO EX1BPipeEX1AEX1B86.007.356.491.00008.0000.01201.511.311.154.330.671.0068.00SURCHARGED 4EX1B TO EX1CPipeEX1BEX1C117.006.496.96-0.400012.0000.01203.552.451.454.531.001.0010.00SURCHARGED

5EX1C TO EX1DPipeEX1CEX1D40.006.966.630.830015.0000.01204.386.360.694.691.000.800.00Calculated 6EX1D TO EX1PipeEX1DEX131.006.406.180.710015.0000.01301.855.440.342.971.210.970.00Calculated 7EX1D To OF-LinkhornPipeEX1D OF-Linkhorn 80.006.506.020.600015.0000.01204.275.420.793.931.030.830.00Calculated

Subbasin : DA#EX1

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.14

Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Composite Curve Number 32 AreaSoilCurve

Soil/Surface Description (acres)GroupNumber > 75% grass cover, Good 0.14C74 Composite Area & Weighted CN 0.14 74

Time of Concentration

TOC Method : SCS TR-55

Sheet Flow Equation :

Tc = (0.007 * ((n * Lf)^0.8)) / ((P^0.5) * (Sf^0.4))

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

n = Manning's roughness

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

P = 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation :

V = 16.1345 * (Sf^0.5) (unpaved surface)

V = 20.3282 * (Sf^0.5) (paved surface)

V = 15.0 * (Sf^0.5) (grassed waterway surface)

V = 10.0 * (Sf^0.5) (nearly bare & untilled surface)

V = 9.0 * (Sf^0.5) (cultivated straight rows surface)

V = 7.0 * (Sf^0.5) (short grass pasture surface)

V = 5.0 * (Sf^0.5) (woodland surface)

V = 2.5 * (Sf^0.5) (forest w/heavy litter surface)

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where:

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Channel Flow Equation :

V = (1.49 * (R^(2/3)) * (Sf^0.5)) / n

R = Aq / Wp

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

R = Hydraulic Radius (ft)

Aq = Flow Area (ft²)

Wp = Wetted Perimeter (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

n = Manning's roughness

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC Manning's Roughness :0.400 Flow Length (ft) :5000 Slope (%) :200

2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) :4.3800 Velocity (ft/sec) :0.0800

Computed Flow Time (min) :10.5400

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow Concentrated Flow ComputationsABC Flow Length (ft) :2500 Slope (%) :0.500

Surface Type :UnpavedUnpavedUnpaved Velocity (ft/sec) :1.1400

Computed Flow Time (min) :0.3700

Total TOC (min) ..................10.91

Subbasin Runoff Results

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:10:55

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.29

Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Curve Number

Time of Concentration

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC

Manning's Roughness :0.400 Flow Length (ft) :6500 Slope (%) :200

2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) :4.3800 Velocity (ft/sec) :0.0800

Computed Flow Time (min) :1300

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow Concentrated Flow ComputationsABC Flow Length (ft) :7000 Slope (%) :200 Surface Type :UnpavedUnpavedUnpaved Velocity (ft/sec) :2.2800

Computed Flow Time (min) :0.5100

Total TOC (min) ..................13.52

Subbasin Runoff Results

Total Rainfall (in) ......................................................6.77 Total Runoff (in) ........................................................3.84 Peak Runoff (cfs) ......................................................1.42 Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:13:31

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.2

Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Curve Number

Time of Concentration

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC

Manning's Roughness :0.400 Flow Length (ft) :8000 Slope (%) :200

2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in) :4.3800 Velocity (ft/sec) :0.0900

Computed Flow Time (min) :15.3500

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow Concentrated Flow ComputationsABC Flow Length (ft) :7000 Slope (%) :200 Surface Type :UnpavedUnpavedUnpaved Velocity (ft/sec) :2.2800

Computed Flow Time (min) :0.5100

Total TOC (min) ..................15.87

Subbasin Runoff Results

Total Rainfall (in) ......................................................6.77

Total Runoff (in) ........................................................3.84

Peak Runoff (cfs) ......................................................0.93

Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74

Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:15:52

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Subbasin

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Junction Input

1 DI @ Holly Road 6.668.842.180.00-6.660.00-8.840.000.00

Junction Results

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1 #####6.660.006.080.080.580.4000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

2EX1 TO OF-EX#2#####6.000.002.070.003.931.3600 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01500.50000.50000.00000.00No1

3EX1A TO EX1B86.007.350.006.490.000.861.0000 CIRCULAR 8.0408.0400.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

4EX1B TO EX1C#####6.490.006.960.00-0.47-0.4000 CIRCULAR 12.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

5EX1C TO EX1D40.006.960.006.630.230.330.8300 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

6EX1D TO EX131.006.400.006.180.180.220.7100 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

7EX1D To OF-Linkhorn80.006.500.106.020.000.480.6000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

Pipe Results

SNElement

(days hh:mm) (cfs) (ft/sec)(min)(ft) (min)

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX14.420 12:204.071.093.960.611.251.0017.00SURCHARGED

2EX1 TO OF-EX#26.620 12:106.521.025.780.841.140.910.00> CAPACITY

3EX1A TO EX1B1.510 12:251.311.154.330.330.671.0068.00SURCHARGED

4EX1B TO EX1C3.550 12:162.451.454.530.431.001.0010.00SURCHARGED

5EX1C TO EX1D4.380 12:106.360.694.690.141.000.800.00Calculated

6EX1D TO EX11.850 12:225.440.342.970.171.210.970.00Calculated

7EX1D To OF-Linkhorn4.270 12:105.420.793.930.341.030.830.00Calculated

Storage Node : EX1

Input Data

Invert

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

Invert Elevation (ft) ..............................................

Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) .......................................

Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ............................................

Initial Water Elevation (ft) ....................................

Initial Water Depth (ft) .........................................

Ponded Area (ft²) ................................................ Evaporation Loss ................................................

Storage Area Volume Curves

Storage Curve : Str-EX1A

Stage Storage Storage AreaVolume (ft)(ft²)(ft³) 0100

2.071020.7 2.651360418 3.1520001258

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.251022.5 2.513027.7 3.511430757.7

3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.351023.5 2.615043.5

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18

Virginia Beach, VA

APPENDIX F SSARESULTS (PROPOSED)

Princess

Subbasin Summary

SNSubbasinAreaPeak Rate Weighted TotalTotalTotalPeakTime of IDFactorCurve Rainfall RunoffRunoffRunoffConcentration NumberVolume (ac)(in)(in)(ac-in)(cfs) (days hh:mm:ss)

1DA #EX1A0.41484.0076.344.382.060.840.76 0 00:28:23

2DA #EX1B0.34484.0075.414.381.990.680.87 0 00:13:31

3DA #EX1C0.20484.0075.204.381.970.390.47 0 00:15:52

4DA #EX1D0.31484.0085.614.382.860.890.97 0 00:19:22

5DA#EX10.14484.0074.004.381.880.260.36 0 00:10:32

1 DI @ Holly RoadJunction6.668.840.000.000.004.407.970.000.870 00:000.000.00

2OF-EX2Outfall2.077.003.02

3OF-LinkhornOutfall6.02 1.816.52

4EX1 Storage Node 6.009.000.00 0.008.817.06

5EX1A Storage Node 7.3510.000.00

6EX1B Storage Node 6.4910.000.00 0.002.728.55

7EX1C Storage Node 6.9610.000.00 0.003.167.81

8EX1D Storage Node 6.409.000.00 0.004.137.49

Link Summary

SNElement ElementFrom To (Outlet)LengthInletOutletAverageDiameter

IDType(Inlet)Node InvertInvertSlopeHeight

NodeElevationElevation

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1Pipe DI @ Holly RoadEX1

146.006.666.080.400015.0000.01304.404.071.084.001.110.890.00> CAPACITY

2EX1 TO OF-EX#2PipeEX1OF-EX2290.006.002.071.360015.0000.01307.007.520.936.621.000.800.00Calculated

3EX1A TO EX1BPipeEX1AEX1B 86.007.356.491.000012.0000.01200.783.860.200.991.001.0016.00SURCHARGED

4EX1B TO EX1CPipeEX1BEX1C117.006.496.96-0.400012.0000.01202.712.451.113.570.920.920.00> CAPACITY

5EX1C TO EX1DPipeEX1CEX1D 40.006.966.630.830015.0000.01203.166.360.503.960.850.680.00Calculated

6EX1D TO EX1PipeEX1DEX1 31.006.406.180.710015.0000.01304.125.440.763.980.980.790.00Calculated

7EX1D To OF-LinkhornPipeEX1 OF-Linkhorn 80.006.506.020.600015.0000.01201.815.420.333.680.530.420.00Calculated

Subbasin : DA #EX1A

Input Data

Area (ac) ..................................................................0.41 Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484 Weighted Curve Number ...........................................76.34 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1

Composite Curve Number 32 AreaSoilCurve

Soil/Surface Description (acres)GroupNumber > 75% grass cover, Good 0.37C74 Paved parking & roofs 0.04C98

Composite Area & Weighted CN 0.41 76.34

Time of Concentration

TOC Method : SCS TR-55

Sheet Flow Equation :

Tc = (0.007 * ((n * Lf)^0.8)) / ((P^0.5) * (Sf^0.4))

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

n = Manning's roughness

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

P = 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation :

V = 16.1345 * (Sf^0.5) (unpaved surface)

V = 20.3282 * (Sf^0.5) (paved surface)

V = 15.0 * (Sf^0.5) (grassed waterway surface)

V = 10.0 * (Sf^0.5) (nearly bare & untilled surface)

V = 9.0 * (Sf^0.5) (cultivated straight rows surface)

V = 7.0 * (Sf^0.5) (short grass pasture surface)

V = 5.0 * (Sf^0.5) (woodland surface)

V = 2.5 * (Sf^0.5) (forest w/heavy litter surface)

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where:

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Channel Flow Equation :

V = (1.49 * (R^(2/3)) * (Sf^0.5)) / n

R = Aq / Wp

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

R = Hydraulic Radius (ft)

Aq = Flow Area (ft²)

Wp = Wetted Perimeter (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

n = Manning's roughness

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow

Subbasin Runoff Results

Total Rainfall (in) ......................................................4.38 Total Runoff (in) ........................................................2.06

Runoff (cfs) ......................................................0.76 Weighted Curve Number ...........................................76.34 Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:28:23

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Subbasin

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data Area (ac) ..................................................................0.14 Peak Rate Factor ......................................................484 Weighted Curve Number ...........................................74 Rain Gage ID ............................................................1 Composite Curve Number

Subbasin Runoff Results

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Junction Input

1 DI @ Holly Road 6.668.842.180.00-6.660.00-8.840.000.00

Junction Results

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1 #####6.660.006.080.080.580.4000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

2EX1 TO OF-EX#2#####6.000.002.070.003.931.3600 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

3EX1A TO EX1B86.007.350.006.490.000.861.0000 CIRCULAR 12.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

4EX1B TO EX1C#####6.490.006.960.00-0.47-0.4000 CIRCULAR 12.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

5EX1C TO EX1D40.006.960.006.630.230.330.8300 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

6EX1D TO EX131.006.400.006.180.180.220.7100 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

7EX1D To OF-Linkhorn80.006.500.506.020.000.480.6000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

Pipe Results

SNElement

IDFlowPeak FlowCapacity Design Flow VelocityTimeDepthDepth/ Surcharged NumberCondition OccurrenceRatioTotal Depth Ratio (cfs) (days hh:mm) (cfs) (ft/sec)(min)(ft) (min)

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX14.400 11:594.071.084.000.611.110.890.00> CAPACITY

2EX1 TO OF-EX#27.000 12:107.520.936.620.731.000.800.00Calculated

3EX1A TO EX1B0.780 12:153.860.200.991.451.001.0016.00SURCHARGED

4EX1B TO EX1C2.710 12:102.451.113.570.550.920.920.00> CAPACITY

5EX1C TO EX1D3.160 12:106.360.503.960.170.850.680.00Calculated

6EX1D TO EX14.120 12:105.440.763.980.130.980.790.00Calculated

7EX1D To OF-Linkhorn1.810 12:105.420.333.680.360.530.420.00Calculated

Storage Node : EX1

Input Data

Invert

Ponded

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

Invert Elevation (ft) .............................................. Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ....................................... Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ............................................

2.071020.7 2.6524093.2

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.251022.5 2.513027.7 3.511430757.7

3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Storage Area Volume Curves

Storage Node : EX1C (continued)

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Storage Node : EX1D

Input Data

2.351023.5 2.615043.5

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Project Options

Subbasin Summary

SNSubbasinAreaPeak Rate Weighted TotalTotalTotalPeakTime of IDFactorCurve Rainfall RunoffRunoffRunoffConcentration NumberVolume (ac)(in)(in)(ac-in)(cfs) (days hh:mm:ss)

1DA #EX1A0.41484.0076.346.774.091.681.53 0 00:28:23

2DA #EX1B0.34484.0075.416.773.991.361.73 0 00:13:31

3DA #EX1C0.20484.0075.206.773.970.790.96 0 00:15:52

4DA #EX1D0.31484.0085.616.775.101.581.70 0 00:19:22

5DA#EX10.14484.0074.006.773.840.540.74 0 00:10:32

1 DI @ Holly RoadJunction6.668.840.000.000.004.408.320.000.520 00:000.000.00

2OF-EX2Outfall2.077.403.08

3OF-LinkhornOutfall6.02 3.657.02

4EX1 Storage Node 6.009.000.00 0.0010.957.45

5EX1A Storage Node 7.3510.000.00 0.001.539.91

6EX1B Storage Node 6.4910.000.00 0.004.079.72

7EX1C Storage Node 6.9610.000.00 0.004.358.42

8EX1D Storage Node 6.409.000.00 0.005.988.08

Link Summary

SNElement ElementFrom To (Outlet)LengthInletOutletAverageDiameter or

IDType(Inlet)Node InvertInvertSlopeHeight Roughness

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1Pipe DI @ Holly RoadEX1146.006.666.080.400015.0000.01304.414.071.084.001.251.0014.00SURCHARGED 2EX1 TO OF-EX#2PipeEX1OF-EX2290.006.002.071.360015.0000.01307.407.520.986.571.130.900.00Calculated

3EX1 To OF-LinkhornPipeEX1 OF-Linkhorn 80.006.506.020.600015.0000.01203.655.420.673.560.970.780.00Calculated 4EX1A TO EX1BPipeEX1AEX1B86.007.356.491.000012.0000.01201.513.860.391.921.001.0037.00SURCHARGED 5EX1B TO EX1CPipeEX1BEX1C117.006.496.96-0.400012.0000.01203.832.451.574.881.001.0025.00SURCHARGED 6EX1C TO EX1DPipeEX1CEX1D40.006.966.630.830015.0000.01204.376.360.693.811.251.0013.00SURCHARGED 7EX1D TO EX1PipeEX1DEX131.006.406.180.710015.0000.01305.985.441.104.881.251.004.00SURCHARGED

Subbasin : DA #EX1A

Input Data

Composite Curve Number 32 AreaSoilCurve

Soil/Surface Description (acres)GroupNumber > 75% grass cover, Good 0.37C74 Paved parking & roofs 0.04C98

Composite Area & Weighted CN 0.41 76.34

Time of Concentration

TOC Method : SCS TR-55

Sheet Flow Equation :

Tc = (0.007 * ((n * Lf)^0.8)) / ((P^0.5) * (Sf^0.4))

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

n = Manning's roughness

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

P = 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation :

V = 16.1345 * (Sf^0.5) (unpaved surface)

V = 20.3282 * (Sf^0.5) (paved surface)

V = 15.0 * (Sf^0.5) (grassed waterway surface)

V = 10.0 * (Sf^0.5) (nearly bare & untilled surface)

V = 9.0 * (Sf^0.5) (cultivated straight rows surface)

V = 7.0 * (Sf^0.5) (short grass pasture surface)

V = 5.0 * (Sf^0.5) (woodland surface)

V = 2.5 * (Sf^0.5) (forest w/heavy litter surface)

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where:

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

Channel Flow Equation :

V = (1.49 * (R^(2/3)) * (Sf^0.5)) / n

R = Aq / Wp

Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)

Where :

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

Lf = Flow Length (ft)

R = Hydraulic Radius (ft)

Aq = Flow Area (ft²)

Wp = Wetted Perimeter (ft)

V = Velocity (ft/sec)

Sf = Slope (ft/ft)

n = Manning's roughness

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Sheet Flow ComputationsABC

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Shallow

Total TOC (min) ..................28.39

Subbasin Runoff Results

Total Rainfall (in) ......................................................6.77 Total Runoff (in) ........................................................4.09 Peak Runoff (cfs) ......................................................1.53 Weighted Curve Number ...........................................76.34 Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ....................0 00:28:23

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall (in) ......................................................6.77 Total Runoff (in) ........................................................3.99 Peak Runoff (cfs) ......................................................1.73

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Input Data

Subbasin Runoff Results

SubareaSubareaSubarea

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Time of Concentration

Subbasin Runoff Results

Subbasin

Rainfall Intensity Graph

Runoff Hydrograph

Junction Input

1 DI @ Holly Road 6.668.842.180.00-6.660.00-8.840.000.00

Junction Results

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX1 #####6.660.006.080.080.580.4000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

2EX1 TO OF-EX#2#####6.000.002.070.003.931.3600 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

3EX1 To OF-Linkhorn80.006.500.506.020.000.480.6000 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

4EX1A TO EX1B86.007.350.006.490.000.861.0000 CIRCULAR 12.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

5EX1B TO EX1C#####6.490.006.960.00-0.47-0.4000 CIRCULAR 12.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

6EX1C TO EX1D40.006.960.006.630.230.330.8300 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01200.50000.50000.00000.00No1

7EX1D TO EX131.006.400.006.180.180.220.7100 CIRCULAR 15.000#####0.01300.50000.50000.00000.00No1

Pipe Results

SNElement PeakTime of Design Flow

Peak Flow TravelPeak Flow

FlowTotal TimeFroudeReported IDFlowPeak FlowCapacity Design Flow VelocityTimeDepthDepth/ Surcharged NumberCondition OccurrenceRatioTotal Depth Ratio (cfs) (days hh:mm) (cfs) (ft/sec)(min)(ft) (min)

1 DI @ Holly Road To EX14.410 12:224.071.084.000.611.251.0014.00SURCHARGED

2EX1 TO OF-EX#27.400 12:007.520.986.570.741.130.900.00Calculated

3EX1 To OF-Linkhorn3.650 12:105.420.673.560.370.970.780.00Calculated

4EX1A TO EX1B1.510 12:163.860.391.920.751.001.0037.00SURCHARGED

5EX1B TO EX1C3.830 12:202.451.574.880.401.001.0025.00SURCHARGED

6EX1C TO EX1D4.370 12:146.360.693.810.171.251.0013.00SURCHARGED

7EX1D TO EX15.980 12:105.441.104.880.111.251.004.00SURCHARGED

Storage Node : EX1

Input Data

Invert

Ponded

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

Invert

2.071020.7 2.6524093.2

2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.251022.5 2.513027.7 3.511430757.7

3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4

Storage Node : EX1B (continued)

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Input Data

2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Storage Area Volume Curves

Storage Node : EX1C (continued)

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

Storage Node : EX1D

Input Data

2.351023.5 2.615043.5

Storage Area Volume Curves

Output Summary Results

Peak Inflow (cfs) .................................................

Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ......................................

Peak Outflow (cfs) ..............................................

Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) .........................

Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ...........................

Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) ................................

Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ......................

Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................... Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) .........

Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ......................

Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ...............................

Total Time Flooded (min) .....................................

Total Retention Time (sec) ...................................

APPENDIX G EXISTING DITCH OUTFALL ANALYSIS

Princess Anne Country Club – Restroom Building on Hole #18 Virginia Beach, VA

Channel Report

Existing Golf Course Ditch - Pre-Dev 2-Year Flow

User-defined

Invert Elev (ft)= 2.00

Slope (%) = 0.20

N-Value = 0.025

Calculations

Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs)= 9.41

(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 5.00)-(50.00, 4.00, 0.040)-(54.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(62.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(66.00, 4.00, 0.025)-(116.00, 5.00, 0.040)

Channel Report

Existing Golf Course Ditch - Pre-Dev 10-Year Flow

User-defined

Invert Elev (ft)= 2.00

Slope (%) = 0.20

N-Value = 0.025

Calculations

Compute by: Known Q

Known Q (cfs)= 11.94

(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 5.00)-(50.00, 4.00, 0.040)-(54.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(62.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(66.00, 4.00, 0.025)-(116.00, 5.00, 0.040)

Channel Report

Existing Golf Course Ditch - Post-Dev 2-Year Flow

User-defined

Invert Elev (ft)= 2.00

Slope (%) = 0.20

N-Value = 0.025

Calculations

Compute by: Known Q

Known Q (cfs)= 11.48

(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 5.00)-(50.00, 4.00, 0.040)-(54.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(62.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(66.00, 4.00, 0.025)-(116.00, 5.00, 0.040)

Channel Report

Existing Golf Course Ditch - Post-Dev 10-Year Flow

User-defined

Invert Elev (ft)= 2.00

Slope (%) = 0.20

N-Value = 0.025

Calculations

Compute by: Known Q

Known Q (cfs)= 14.40

(Sta, El, n)-(Sta, El, n)... ( 0.00, 5.00)-(50.00, 4.00, 0.040)-(54.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(62.00, 2.00, 0.025)-(66.00, 4.00, 0.025)-(116.00, 5.00, 0.040)

FINANCIAL SUMMARY & COMMENTARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED

October 31, 2025

An examination of the October Financial Statement Summary reveals operating income totaled $123,431, nearly $117,000 ahead of budget and $30,588 better than last October’s performance. A look down to the October bottom line shows Income after Debt Service for the month totaled $257,901 compared to a budget of $154,423 and last year’s $310,469.

These reasonably solid results were due primarily to timing savings in Golf Course Maintenance and elevated Food & Beverage private function revenues. The most notable negative variances took place in G&A Professional Fees as the first installment of the audit was expensed while not yet budgeted and Initiation Fees were $22,477 short of budget and $99,921 below last year.

A closer look at the October Balance Sheet shows October 31st cash totaled $4,024,154. $1,659,295 is the operating account and the remainder is safeguarded in the replacement reserve fund. $2,000,697 of those funds are currently positioned in CD’s and Money Market accounts earning interest. .

Princess Anne Country Club BALANCE SHEET

31, 2025

CURRENT YEAR Report Date

1,294,653

$28,148,115

Anne Country

SHEET As of October 31, 2025

CURRENT YEAR Report Date

Princess

NOTES PAYABLE

Anne Country Club BALANCE SHEET As of October 31, 2025

CURRENT YEAR Report Date

Princess

Princess Anne Country Club FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUMMARY As of October 31, 2025

STATEMENT SUMMARY

Princess Anne Country Club MEMBERSHIP INCOME

As of October 31, 2025

MEMBERSHIP INCOME

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club GOLF PRO SHOP

Princess Anne Country Club GOLF COURSE

As of October 31, 2025 MONTH to DATE

EMPLOYEE EXPENSES

Anne Country Club TENNIS

As of October 31, 2025

Princess

Princess Anne Country Club AQUATICS

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club ATHLETICS

As of October 31, 2025

REVENUE

EXPENSE

MONTH to DATE

Princess Anne Country Club FOOD AND BEVERAGE SUMMARY As of October 31, 2025

DATE

FOOD AND BEVERAGE SUMMARY

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club

FOOD AND BEVERAGE SUMMARY

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club

Anne Country Club CLUBHOUSE As of October 31, 2025

MONTH to DATE

Princess

Princess Anne Country Club MAINTENANCE

As of October 31, 2025

MAINTENANCE

Princess Anne Country Club ENTERTAINMENT

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club YOUTH EVENTS

As of October 31, 2025 MONTH to DATE

YOUTH EVENTS REVENUE

to DATE

EMPLOYEE EXPENSE

Princess Anne Country Club ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL

As of October 31, 2025

ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENER EMPLOYEE EXPENSE

Princess Anne Country Club UTILITIES

As of October 31, 2025

UTILITIES

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club FIXED CHARGES

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club

Princess Anne Country Club

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club DEBT SERVICES

Princess Anne Country Club

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club INITIATION AND BUILDING FEES

As of October 31, 2025

Princess Anne Country Club As of #Report Date#

One

TENNIS FACILITY

COURSE

TO: Board of Directors, Princess Anne Country Club

FROM: Karen Husselbee, Membership Director for Mollie Korte, Membership Committee Chairman

SUBJECT: November Membership Ballot

DATE: November 25, 2025

APPLICATIONS

Carpenter, Cato (Non-Resident Social)

Claxton, Katherine (Resident Full)

Clarke, Benjamin (Resident Full Under 40 Legacy)

Herbert, Graham (Resident Full)

NEW MEMBERS

Bufton, Brian (Resident Full)

Quinn, Nicole (Resident Full Under 40)

RESIGNATIONS

Baillio, Nancy (Social)

Buckingham, Richard (NR Full)

Everett, Oscar (Social)

Goodman, Bettie (Social)

*Gregg, Constance (Honorary)

Roland, Daniel (Full)

Swail, Scott (Full)

UPGRADES

Reidy, Lisa (Social to Full)

Wilkins, David (Social to Full)

TRANSFERS

Anthony, Betty (Social to Golden Circle Social)

Burroughs, Charles (Full to Social)

Devine, Patrick (Full to Full Sr)

Dickinson, William (Full to NR Full)

Rutherford, Adam to Downey, Faye (Spousal Transfer Athletic)

Simpson, Robert (Full Senior to Social)

Stoneburner, Frank (Full to Full Sr)

Whittaker, Claudia (Social. to NR Social)

Members on a Leave of Absence -November 2025

*members highlighted in yellow are on the waiting list to reactivate

MONTHLY NEW APPLICATION SUBMISSION COMPARISON

(Based on Fiscal Year)

Projected 2025-2026 Joining Fees

Julie

Ann Brown Domville

Ross

Jason

Tricia Leone

Brad Schwartz

Groves

Estelle Fraser

John Soderberg

Bradford Wynne

Joe Gursky

L Norfleet Smith

Adam Jobe

Graham Campbell

Gerald O'Hara

Leah Erikson

Jenna DeLigio

"Worth" Remick

Ryan McNulty

Robert Woodard

Kenneth Wasson

Helen Dragas

Adam Sawyer

Susan Wynne

Frank Cucci

Richard Palluch

Macon Humphrey

Hannah Prillaman

Josh Borum

Claudia Whitaker

Brian Davidson

James McKenry

Nicholas Iuliano

George Stedfast

Michael McCann

Brooke Weaver

Hutcheson

Anna Salasky

Clayton Hubert

Cary Brush $30,000

Donald Ward

Ben Clarke

April Zadora

David Wilkins

Brian Harrington

Bernard Mahon

Jalal Shawwa

David Clark

Kara DeMarco

Ryan Trainor

Hunter Hanger

Giacomo Cappelleti

Stan Holland

Christopher Ratchford

David Keffer

Beau Pearce

Chad Fortin

Stanton Thalhimer

Jon Liebler

Emily Steinhilber

Russell Pruitt

Price Hall

Shane Maley

Nicholas Hillier

Bryan Dietel

Dan Valdo

Willie Ward III

Betsy Goode

Sarah Frey

Daniel Hoffler $35,000

Brooks Smith

Mark Coradi

Randolph Hoover

James Clarke

Robert Mayer

Michael Hodeen

Scott Bleakley

Katrina Sibley

Jeremy Davidson

Matthew Kolb

Chester Tynes $35,000

Jacob Trent $31,500

Todd Skelton $50,000

Taylor Lawson $35,000

Blake Jernigan $35,000

Kenneth Cummings $18,000

Mark Tonnesen $50,000

Alex

Brian

Suzy

Graham

Katherine Claxton $50,000

Endorsement Form

The information requested herein is for the use of the Membership Committee in their preliminarily assessment of individuals who have applied for membership. Accuracy and candor are essential to the preservation of the quality of our membership. Accordingly, please answer these questions completely and sincerely, feeling free to add any remarks you deem appropriate.

Endorsement letters should be of substance and reflect the personal relationship between the member and the prospective member, including how long the relationship has been established. Letters should share unique information about the nominee (accomplishments, interests, hobbies, etc.) and should not solely review the information already provided on the application.

1.Name of Applicant:

Katie Claxton

2.How long have you known the applicant? Years: Months:

3.Nature of Acquaintance:

Social Professional Social and Professional

4.Are you acquainted with the applicant’s family? Yes No

5.Why do you believe this individual is an appropriate candidate for membership? (Please use space below or attach a separate letter)

Katie is a very friendly and outgoing individual who will embrace the culture of PACC and I expect become very active in all aspects of the club. I first came to know Katie through tennis, but through the years have come to know her and her family on a more personal level. A former Division I field hockey athlete, she is now an avid tennis and pickleball player, has recently taken up golf, and is looking forward to spending time with her young son at the pool. Katie doesn't know a stranger and will likely energize the tennis and pickleball events and community. Katie will be a welcome addition to the PACC community and I endorse her without reservation.

I desire to propose the individual listed above for membership in The Princess Anne Country Club who is personally known to me.

Respectfully,

Rebecca Robins Jucksch

Signature (Primary Account Holder)

Rebecca Robins Jucksch

(Please type or print name)

8046 10/20/2025

Membership # Date

DISCLAIMER: By typing your name below, you are signing this application electronically. You agree that your electronic signature is the legal equivalent of your manual signature on this endorsement.

This Consent was signed by: Printed Name – Endorser

Rebecca Robins Jucksch

To the Membership Committee,

It is my pleasure to recommend Katie Claxton for membership at the Princess Anne Country Club. I have known Katie for about ten years, having first met her through our local tennis community. Over that time, I have come to know her as a reliable, energetic, and generous individual who embodies the values and spirit of the Princess Anne community.

Katie is someone who consistently follows through on her commitments and approaches every endeavor with enthusiasm and determination. She has a natural gift for bringing people together, organizing events, and fostering a strong sense of community. Whether on or off the court, Katie is a dedicated contributor to any group she’s part of always present, engaged, and encouraging others to participate as well.

She places great importance on family, friendship, and community. Her positivity is contagious, and her dedication shines through in all she does from her rapid progression in tennis and pickleball to her impressive professional accomplishments.

In addition to being an avid tennis and pickleball player, Katie enjoys boating and spending time on the water, often sharing these experiences with friends and family. Her passion for connecting people and creating meaningful shared experiences aligns well with the values of the Princess Anne Country Club.

I am confident that Katie would be a wonderful addition to the Club and would contribute meaningfully to its vibrant community.

MEMBERSHIP CLASSIFICATIONS AND FACILITIES PRIVILEGES

J. Leave of Absence

During times of hardship, a Member may request one leave of absence, for a term of up to one year, within any given ten-year period. Payment of dues and existing comprehensive athletic or tennis supplements will not be required during the Leave of Absence. However, the Member shall be responsible for payment of their monthly capital fee for their pertinent class of membership. If the Member has a locker, the locker will be forfeited when the Member goes on Leave of Absence. Approval of a Leave of Absence is contingent upon bringing one’s account current. All such requests must be submitted to the Board of Directors. A Member on a leave of absence may request a oneyear extension of their leave. This request must be made in writing via an extension application form. The extension application form must be accompanied by a $75 application fee.

If a Member elects to take a Leave of Absence and subsequently decides to reactivate their membership, if applicable, they will be required to pay any intervening assessments for the class of membership to which they are returning.

If a Member elects to take a Leave of Absence and subsequently decides to reactivate their membership, if applicable, they will be subject to the Club’s waiting list policy, and required to pay any intervening assessments for the class of membership to which they are returning. If placed on the waiting list and a space becomes available, the member must activate their membership within 14 days or the membership will be resigned and subject to the Club’s reinstatement rule.

If a Member on Leave of Absence is placed on the Waiting List to reactivate, the Member will be responsible for paying capital fees for their membership class while on the Waiting List.

1. Military Leave of Absence Members who are called to active military duty may request a Leave of Absence (LOA). The member must submit official military orders for relocation, and the entire family must be relocating to qualify for this category of leave. Leave of absence parameters outlined in section J apply, however, upon conclusion of service/relocation, the member may reactivate their membership immediately, without being placed on or subject to the membership waitlist.

Beavers-8468

LINKHORN/CHESAPEAKE COMMENT CARDS – NOVEMBER 2025

Miranda was amazing! She is attentive and caters to the table. Thankful to have her at the club!

Unknown

Where are the cookies in the Men’s Lounge?

McDaniel-8680

Miranda was awesome. She was very attentive and punctual. She is a top-notch server. Five stars!

Donatelli-8767

Miranda was great! Thank you!

Murden-7505

Thank you, Kirsten! You are so gracious

Murden-7505

Thank you, Robin! Excellent service!

Larson-1136

Robin was great!

Unknown

Great service! Thank you, Emily!

Bay Colony Garden Club

Emily, you did such a fabulous job! Thank you for serving us well.

Legum-7998

Emily did a wonderful job with our group!

Short-6030

Robin took such good care of our dinner celebration for my birthday. Thank you!

Unknown

Wonderful every time! The food and service are amazing Thank you, Alex!

Unknown

Great service!

Unknown

Great service! Thank you, Emily!

Unknown

Great food and service by Penny! Thank you!

Szoke-8701

I would love to see a variety of cookies in the Men’s Lounge. A few ideas: peanut butter and oatmeal raisin.

Parnell-8477

Crème brûlée was so good tonight!

Unknown

Wonderful service, Alex!

Wood-CCV Guest

Kylea was wonderful! Best she-crab soup in the world!

Unknown

Ribs were tough. Service was excellent!

Unknown

Great service and food!

Mark-Guest

Very nice and proud to be back home. Everything was excellent but could use some vacuum cleaning!

BREAKERS COMMENT CARDS – NOVEMBER 2025

Pfeiffer-6764

Breakfast was great! Thank you!

Temple-6764

Great job!

Unknown

The food came out so quickly!

Unknown

The food was so yummy!

Sellers-7188

Amazing service, thank you! The sangria was delicious

Hays-7280

I recommend stainless steel ramekins for salad dressing. The others look sloppy.

Headley-8816

The salmon was a great addition to the menu. The rice was surprisingly delicious! Ceramic ramekins are a nice touch compared to plastic. Thank you!

Folck-8147

Great job today. Speedy service and food were great.

Blachman-8285

Great service by Spencer!

Walker-7271

Spencer is terrific!

Guarding the Gates

Why private clubs must rethink member vetting

BY DAN DENEHY AND BOB JAMES

GREAT PRIVATE CLUBS ARE BUILT ON CULTURE, REPUTATION AND TRUST.

Yet many still rely on outdated or inconsistent admissions processes that leave them vulnerable, overlooking excellent candidates, admitting the wrong ones, and exposing themselves to reputational or legal risk.

Clubs intuitively understand the importance of screening. The challenge is how it is done. Sponsorships and references often fail to reveal critical details about a candidate’s financial stability, legal history or behavioral red flags. Once admitted, removing a member is a disruptive and challenging process. That is why a modern, intentional vetting process—one that blends tradition with due diligence, both quantitative and qualitative —is essential. This issue is not only about protecting reputation today; it is about defining the future culture of the club for decades to come. The candidates who become members today will shape that club’s future, like it or not.

What Our Survey Revealed

DENEHY CTP surveyed clubs across the country and found near-universal reliance on referrals and recommendations. Yet only 51% of clubs regularly or occasionally conduct third-party background checks. Opinions were split: some see checks as essential protection, while others view them as intrusive or culturally misaligned.

Interestingly, 79% of respondents agreed that background checks strengthen culture, while just 7% believed they undermine it. And 66% expect them to become more common within five years.

In written responses, some managers highlighted the peace of mind that background checks provide:

Background checks bolster confidence in the admissions process, the Membership Committee, and the Board of Governors.

“Others pointed out that checks help avoid embarrassing situations later: “Understanding who you are considering for membership and any past behavior that may be an indicator of future behavior is invaluable.”

Vetting vs. Background Checks

The terms are often conflated, but the distinction matters. Background checks are transactional, flagging criminal records, credit issues or litigation history. Vetting is a holistic process: it assesses whether the candidate truly aligns with the club’s culture, values and strategic direction.

The best admissions processes use both, layering a deeper cultural lens over factual due diligence. Vetting considers how a member and their family will engage with the club’s life, whether they align with its mission and how they will contribute to sustaining its traditions. A background check assures us that there are no hidden risks that could undermine trust or reputation. Beyond process, which is critical, the vicarial questions remain: Would the candidate and spouse be additive to the club’s culture and be broadly viewed as fun?

What Clubs Should Consider Cultural & Social Compatibility

Beyond résumés or clean records, the right member shares the club’s ethos, interacts respectfully and contributes to community life. Social media scans, informal interviews and family integration all play a role in this process. A 2020 Kaplan Test Prep study found that 36% of college admissions officers used social media to assess applicants; club admissions committees may similarly benefit from these insights. A clean record does not guarantee cultural compatibility, and many survey respondents emphasized that behavioral fit is as critical as financial or legal checks.

Financial Stewardship

A candidate’s ability to meet obligations is critical, but so is their willingness to engage—whether volunteering, attending events or supporting capital initiatives. Some clubs extend the question

further: will this individual be philanthropic, supportive of staff programs or generous in capital campaigns that shape the club’s future? Financial stewardship is as much about attitude as it is about ability.

Legacy & Sponsorship

Sponsorship remains a cornerstone of great private clubs. Some clubs require one sponsor, while others need as many as 12 letters of recommendation from long-standing members. Many admissions processes are sensitive to potential business relationships that may not align with the club’s social ethos. These practices ensure that candidates are known personally and vouched for, but they can also be inconsistent. With membership turnover projected at 50% within a decade, legacy ties help maintain continuity, exerting influence on new members as they assimilate into the culture.

Strategic Alignment

Admissions should reflect not only today’s membership, but also tomorrow’s. Clubs may seek demographic diversity—by age, profession, geography or interests—to ensure long-term vitality. Is the family local with kids who would be a good addition to the club’s junior and athletic programs, or is that not important? It is essential to review the acquisition criteria to determine the profile of the ideal candidate and their family. The admissions process should align with, rather than dictate, the club’s mission, and vision. Strategic

alignment ensures admissions are consistent with the club’s goals in five, 10 or 20 years.

Discretion & Confidentiality

Confidentiality is critical. Clubs maintain discretion to protect committee members from undue influence, secure candid sponsor input, and ensure the dignity of applicants. Secrecy also reinforces prestige, avoids public scrutiny and provides candid deliberation. High-profile applicants expect this level of privacy, and discretion protects rejected candidates from embarrassment and potential harm. It also reduces legal exposure: by keeping deliberations confidential, clubs minimize the risk of claims of bias or defamation. Surveyed clubs emphasized that discretion is not just tradition—it is governance best practice.

The Role of Background Checks

Once cultural and social fit is evaluated, background checks add a deeper layer of protection. The survey revealed that among clubs using background checks, only about a quarter found no issues, while the majority uncovered concerns or factors requiring closer review. This underscores their value: most checks reveal something worth knowing before admitting a candidate.

Typical background checks include:

Criminal convictions.

Civil litigation.

Financial/credit history.

Employment and education verification.

Reference checks.

Social media scans.

The most significant red flags in membership vetting include poor financial standing, serious or repeated criminal offenses, and behavior that demonstrates poor character or mistreatment of others. Disqualifying issues often extend to felony convictions, bankruptcies, repeated misdemeanors, negative references or termination from another club. While context and severity should always be weighed, these factors consistently signal risks to a club’s reputation, culture and stability.

Clubs are discovering that outsourcing portions of the vetting process to reputable third-party vendors not only reduces the administrative burden but also protects staff and committee members from bias and liability. Collaboration ensures that no one person shoulders responsibility, and the process maintains fairness, transparency and consistency.

Survey responses indicate that the membership director often bears the heaviest administrative burden (24% of clubs), followed by the general manager (20%), the membership committee (18%), or is outsourced to a third party (18%). In practice, this makes screening a collaborative effort across staff and volunteer leadership, but not always a consistent one.

The admissions process should align with, rather than dictate, the club’s mission, and vision. Strategic alignment ensures admissions are consistent with the club’s goals in five, 10 or 20 years.

Note that many clubs have their general manager call the general manager or membership director at the clubs the candidate notes they are members of on their application. The application should clearly indicate that this is a matter of protocol at the club to which they are applying. The caller probes as to their financial competence, but beyond that, are they respectful to the staff? Do they integrate with a range of members? Are they “socially competent” as a couple and as a family? Do they respect the rules and do they hold their children accountable for their actions? These are factors not revealed in a background check but can be surfaced if the general manager or membership director is helpful. Most club staff in these roles know these calls work both ways. Findings from these calls are documented and included in the applicant’s file.

Increasingly, clubs are turning to third-party vendors to provide comprehensive reports covering financial reliability,

litigation history, and even social media scans. These tools not only reduce administrative strain but also protect committees from overstepping their expertise or unintentionally introducing bias. This signals a shift: clubs today have more tools than ever to professionalize admissions and reduce liability exposure.

Why Clubs Hesitate

Despite the benefits, nearly half of clubs avoid third-party checks. Concerns include:

Legal/Ethical Risks: Privacy concerns, discrimination claims and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) compliance.

Cultural Impact: Fear that checks erode trust or deter applications.

Operational Burdens: Administrative complexity, managing data securely and handling appeals.

Costs: Ranging from modest to significant, depending on scope, with an average of $500.

Clubs worry about alienating sponsors or creating a culture of suspicion. Some fear “mission drift”—moving away from camaraderie and tradition toward bureaucratic oversight. Others warn that checks can create a false sense of security: a clean record does not guarantee good behavior, while a blemish does not necessarily indicate future problems.

Avoiding checks is not risk management; it is gambling with the club’s reputation at far greater cost. A single reputational incident can cost far more than the screening process itself. Cultural damage is more challenging to measure, but it is equally significant. When clubs admit members who do not share their core values, it can create friction, diminish trust and even lead to resignations. Survey respondents noted that one disruptive member can significantly impact the enjoyment of dozens of others, especially in smaller clubs where community dynamics are closely intertwined. Unchecked admissions can also lead to factionalism, as members question why specific individuals were approved or perceive favoritism, which undermines the committee’s credibility and integrity. In contrast, rigorous vetting protects what members value most: trust, harmony, and the club’s reputation, which the admissions process safeguards, thereby preserving the very culture they joined the club to enjoy.

Risks of Skipping Vetting

Clubs must recognize that legal frameworks apply even in private settings. Improper handling of background data can trigger obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires disclosure, written consent and an appeals process if third-party

screeners are used. Failure to comply can expose clubs to lawsuits or regulatory penalties.

Defamation and privacy concerns are also real: If committee discussions or background information are mishandled, candidates may feel unfairly judged and take legal action. For boards, the liability is not theoretical. Without clear guidelines and legal oversight, the admissions process can unintentionally become a governance weakness rather than a safeguard.

Maintaining Culture & Traditions Amid Change

Private clubs evolve slowly, cherishing continuity and tradition. Yet societal change pressures even the most established institutions. Membership vetting has always been a crucial part of protecting that culture, but it is rarely considered part of membership marketing. Boards must recognize that vetting is a strategic safeguard, not merely an administrative step.

With membership attrition averaging 4 to 5% annually, and higher in smaller clubs, the composition of membership can shift by as much as 50% within a decade. Clubs that rely only on tradition risk losing alignment between culture and membership. Rigorous vetting, balanced with inclusivity and fairness, helps clubs maintain identity while adapting strategically.

Looking ahead, membership vetting will continue to evolve in tandem with technological advancements and shifting member

expectations. Digital platforms now enable clubs to manage consent, record-keeping and reporting more securely. Third-party vendors are beginning to integrate artificial intelligence, offering tools to scan public records and media more efficiently, reducing administrative time.

More importantly, predictive analytics may one day help clubs assess engagement potential, identifying candidates who are most likely to become active and loyal participants. While human judgment will always be at the core of admissions, the availability of better tools means clubs can combine tradition with innovation to strengthen governance and reduce risk.

Recommendations for Boards

To strengthen admissions and mitigate risk, boards should:

Reassess policies regularly with legal counsel.

Standardize admissions to ensure vetting is consistent across all candidates.

Keep sponsors engaged while securing candidate consent for checks.

Include the general manager or membership director in the process of calling other clubs where the applicant is a member. This step confirms the applicant’s standing and provides valuable insight into their behavior and engagement.

Select reputable vendors and define who reviews findings.

Document processes for accountability and transparency.

Manage communications carefully to maintain discretion and trust.

Advice from survey respondents included: “Do your research. Find a reputable company that will assist you in the process.” Others stressed: “Be transparent about the reference parameters,” ”Ensure legal counsel reviews all documentation,” and “Use secure tools such as DocuSign for candidate consent.” Boards that follow these steps not only reduce liability but also strengthen member confidence in the admissions process.

Board Action Playbook: Six Steps to Safer Admissions:

1. Establish Written Policy. Define what will be reviewed (criminal, financial, references, social media) and ensure consistency.

2. Engage L egal Counsel. Have attorneys review all processes to confirm compliance with FCRA and local laws.

3. Clarify Roles. Assign responsibility clearly between the membership director, the GM, the committee and the vendor.

4. Adopt Digital Tools. Use secure platforms for applications, background checks and recordkeeping.

5. Train Committee Members. Educate them on confidentiality, bias avoidance and governance responsibilities.

6. Audit the Process. Review annually to ensure consistency, fairness and alignment with club strategy.

By treating admissions with the same rigor as finance or governance, boards send a clear message: protecting culture is a leadership priority.

Expanded Playbook for Boards

Consider two contrasting scenarios:

Club A: Admitted a candidate based solely on strong sponsorship letters. Within a year, disputes over unpaid dues and inappropriate behavior created tension among members, forcing the board into a complicated removal process. The reputational damage lingered long after the individual left.

Club B: By contrast, combined sponsorship with a third-party background check. The process revealed a pattern of litigation that sponsors were unaware of. The board declined the application, preserving harmony and sparing the club from potential future issues.

These examples underscore the value of layered vetting: cultural insight from sponsors and members paired with factual due diligence creates the strongest safeguard. In this case, dues defaults alone cost the club over $75,000 in a single fiscal year, not including the reputational damage caused by the resignation of multiple long-standing members in protest. By contrast, Club B’s modest investment in vetting saved immeasurable costs by avoiding similar defaults and preventing at least three potential resignations by reassuring members that the admissions process was thorough and fair.

The Bottom Line

Membership defines culture—and culture defines the club. Admissions is not just hospitality but governance. Clubs that fail to modernize their vetting process risk reputational damage, legal exposure, and cultural drift.

Survey respondents reminded us that background checks are not about suspicion; they are about stewardship. Today’s admissions decisions will determine tomorrow’s culture. If your board has not reviewed your process recently, now is the time to do so.

The tools exist, the expectations are clear, and the risks of inaction are real. The question for every club is not whether to evolve, but how quickly to act to protect culture, reputation, and community for the long term.

DAN DENEHY is the President, and BOB JAMES is the Vice President, of DENEHY Club Thinking Partners. They can be reached at dan@ denehyctp.com and bob@denehyctp.com

Board Brief

Designed for Club Board of Directors

November 2025

Governance at a Higher Level

1a 1b

INSIGHTS

Governance is a not-so-sexy topic for Boards and General Managers alike, yet if the model is wrong, it can have negative impacts felt by future generations of club members and staff. From a General Manager’s perspective, a poor governance model can lead to frustration, turmoil, indecision, and, more importantly, increased turnover. Clubs thrive on consistency, and governance shouldn’t be different. Governance models should be predictive, thoughtful, strategic, modern, and reflective of the club’s current demographic. If not, Boards can be seen as myopic, unchanging, or as a network of friends that do not reflect current club values. Boards need to avoid these distracting narratives at all costs.

Getting governance right should be the shared responsibility of the Board and the General Manager. Set a baseline by evaluating your Board through a third-party assessment. This assessment will evaluate the roles, responsibilities, performance, and model of the Board, Committees, and General Manager collectively. At times, Boards may believe their model of governance is best, or the only model that works; however, times have changed, clubs have changed, and member expectations have changed. In this way, Boards should be open to change. After all, most clubs strive for success and survival from one generation to the next. A strong governance model is key to stability and adaptability.

continued on next page

Annually, Boards should review term limits, committee charters, evaluate individual Board and committee member contributions, and, most importantly, assess how they are cultivating members for eventual Board service. High-level, strategic governance should be the priority in private clubs.

Of equal importance is the Board’s focus. Is the Board worried about the hamburger in the dining room, or the amount of capital it will allocate in the coming year for obligatory and aspirational capital? The answer should be easy! No club will be perfect at the transactional level, but those conversations should not take place in the Board Room during a meeting. As a Board, you’ve selected a competent General Manager; let them manage without operational impediments unless necessary. Even then, the conversation shouldn’t detract from strategic discussions in the boardroom.

For example, once the Board approves the operational and capital budgets for the year, there should be minimal additional discussion. Instead, the Board should receive monthly KPI’s from the General Manager and CFO with a written report before the meeting that says why things are good, or where the concerns are, and what is being done to address them. This allows for targeted questions to be asked, allowing the Board to refocus quickly on strategy.

Annual Board evaluations and their resulting recommendations can be a significant tool for Boards to demonstrate the club’s commitment to generational stability and success.

In short, governance is not a backoffice nuisance—it is the backbone of a club’s future. Boards and General Managers must partner to evaluate, modernize, and hold governance accountable through regular thirdparty assessments, clear role delineation, term limits, and intentional succession planning. Keep Board conversations strategic, rely on the General Manager to manage operations, and use KPI reports to inform targeted questions rather than operational debate. By committing to this disciplined, forwardlooking approach, clubs will build the stability and adaptability necessary to serve members and staff well for generations.

Insights by M. Kent Johnson, CCM, CCE, ECM

BY THE NUMBERS

Maximizing Club Value

Club leaders and their teams create value for their members but often face challenges in measuring and effectively communicating it. Clubs can help members recognize the benefits they receive by prioritizing effective communication and aligning outcomes to strategic priorities.

The 2025 edition of the Club Leaders’ Perspective Report from CMAA and GGA Partners dives into these insights. The following is excerpted from the report:

Key Insights

Club leaders are more confident in creating member value than in measuring and communicating it, missing key opportunities to share their impact across stakeholder groups

■ A key opportunity to improve value-based insights is to measure club progress against strategic priorities and objectives.

■ Clubs can improve their value perception by prioritizing member communication, aligning KPIs to strategic priorities, and establishing a structured reporting plan.

Improving Value Perceptions

Club leaders face an important challenge: although 66 percent are confident in creating value for their members, only 35 percent feel effective at communicating that value. This notable communication gap can result in missed opportunities for engagement and member satisfaction. But how can leaders address this issue?

continued on next page

Providing Member Value

Private clubs often allocate significant resources—time, money, and attention—to creating member value; however, extending this effort to include a deliberate plan for measuring and communicating that value is often missed. Results presented in Figure 1 indicate that while two-thirds believe their club provides the value members expect, only 48 percent and 45 percent believe they do a good job of measuring and communicating that value to members, respectively.

Figure 1. Creating, Measuring, and Communicating Value

But why emphasize the delivery and measurement of member value? When neglected, clubs miss an opportunity to showcase how high-profile capital projects and operational tactics can generate value and support the execution of strategic priorities. They also contribute to the club’s success by establishing clear metrics for communicating successes and challenges. Ultimately, providing value-focused information to members helps ensure transparency regarding efforts to enhance member understanding and engagement.

Lack of Member Understanding

Club leaders face the challenge of delivering quality experiences while also ensuring members understand the value they are receiving. Respondents were asked to rank 23 attributes regarding members not understanding the value they receive, to know where leaders find challenges. Figure 2 shows that leaders perceive the leading disconnect is in areas fundamental for providing experiences and not actual experiences. These areas include ongoing facility maintenance and upkeep, increased employee compensation, and the growing number of employees necessary to maintain service levels. Concerns also exist in key experiential elements of many clubs—dining and golf—suggesting that members’ views do not necessarily consider the efforts and resources needed to provide these experiences.

continued on next page

Aligning Strategy with Measurement

Delivering, measuring, and communicating value is inherently tied to a club’s overall strategy. Therefore, decisions regarding desired service levels, amenities, and facility conditions should closely align with the club’s strategic priorities and objectives. However, as shown in there is room for improvement in the methods used for monitoring success. Results show that while most clubs compare their results to budget (93 percent) and prior periods (85 percent), far fewer consider other points of comparison that may add meaningful context to performance such as industry standards (56 percent), external peer benchmarks (58 percent), and strategic objectives (41 percent).

CMAA members may access their complimentary copy of the full report through CMAA Connect in the Best Practices Exchange Community Library in the CMAA Annual Reports folder.

Figure 3. Methods Used to Measure Club Progress

BEST PRACTICES

Communicating Capital Projects – The Three C’s Every Club Needs

Capital projects are some of the most exciting moments in a club’s history. They signal growth, reinvestment, and a commitment to the member experience. But they can also be the most stressful. A multi-million-dollar investment, months of disruption, and the reality of increased dues or assessments naturally create pressure for members. And when there is pressure, there is gossip.

If you don’t control the narrative, your members will. In the absence of information, people curate their own stories, often the worst-case scenario. Rumors spread faster than fact sheets, and before long, skepticism overshadows excitement.

Strong communication changes that story. Done well, it keeps members informed, confident, and engaged. It eliminates guesswork, reduces gossip, and ensures the right story is the one being told. The most effective strategies are built around the Three C’s: Connection, Confidence, and Community.

Connection

Every communication should connect the project back to the member experience. It is not enough to share the what, you need to share the why. Just like all marketing and communication efforts, starting with the why builds understanding, trust, and buy-in. It shifts the conversation from “Why are we spending this money?” to “I see how this investment will directly improve my experience at the club.”

continued on next page

Strategies to Build Connection:

■ Translate features into benefits: Don’t just say “new irrigation system,” explain how it means better playing conditions year-round.

■ Use visuals: Renderings, fly-through videos, or simple side-by-side comparisons of “before and after” make it real.

■ Personalize: Feature member testimonials (“As a parent, I can’t wait for the new family locker rooms…”) to show how projects improve daily life.

Confidence

Confidence comes from transparency. When communication feels vague or delayed, members fill the silence with rumors. When it feels steady and honest, members trust the process. Strong communication acknowledges both the excitement and the sacrifice that come with capital projects. Members want to know not just what is happening but also why decisions were made, how money is being spent, and what the timeline looks like. Even if every answer is not perfect, candor builds credibility.

Confidence also comes from consistency. A regular cadence of updates through emails, town halls, newsletters, or quick video messages reassures members that leadership is in control. Silence, on the other hand, breeds doubt.

The takeaway is simple: members can accept inconvenience and even setbacks if they trust the information they are receiving. They cannot accept uncertainty.

Strategies to Build Confidence:

■ Create a project communication calendar: Share updates at set intervals (weekly, monthly) so members know when to expect news.

■ Provide FAQs: Answer tough questions upfront so you control the narrative.

■ Show progress: Short video updates from leadership/committees or construction walk-throughs show the project is on track.

■ Be candid: if something slips, acknowledge it early and explain how you’re addressing it.

Community

Capital projects should bring members together, not divide them. The best communication invites members into the journey. That means creating opportunities for members to feel included, informed, and engaged. Host Q&A sessions where leadership listens as much as it speaks. Offer hard-hat tours so members can see progress with their own eyes. Share behind-the-scenes photos and updates that make them feel part of the story.

Community also grows when milestones are celebrated. A topping-off ceremony, a ribbon cutting, or even a small gathering to mark the completion of a phase helps members take pride in the process. The more touchpoints you create, the more members feel like this is their project, not just continued on next page

the board’s. When members feel ownership of the journey, they become champions of the project rather than critics on the sidelines.

Strategies to Build Community:

■ Create project ambassadors: Recruit a small group of respected members to serve as liaisons.

■ Build interactive displays in the clubhouse: A progress board, renderings, or even a live-feed slideshow of construction photos can keep the project visible and tangible.

■ Host mini pop-up events in unfinished spaces: A wine tasting in the framed-out dining room, or a casual meet-up on the new patio before it opens, can turn construction into an experience. Capital projects are about people and culture, not just buildings. Clubs that lead with Connection, Confidence, and Community find that the vote passes more smoothly, the work progresses with less friction, and the membership emerges stronger, prouder, and more united than before.

Insights by Erica Martin, Director of Marketing & Member Experience, Strategic Club Solutions

EXTERNAL INFLUENCES

Podcast Spotlight: The Evolution of Golf and Golf Cars

When you think about golf cars and personal transport vehicles, your first thought probably centers on transportation. But there is a lot more to consider—golf cars can improve the member experience, expand accessibility, enhance your service opportunities, and provide vital support for maintenance and other daily operations.

In this episode of Let’s Talk Club Management , we’re joined by Brad Schaufert, one of our partners at E-Z-GO, to talk about this important club component. E-Z-GO is a globally renowned leader in the design and manufacture of golf cars and personal transport vehicles, known for its innovation in sustainable electric vehicles and powertrain technology.

The 2026 CMAA World Conference & Club Business Expo: A Growth Opportunity for Your Club Management Professionals

Club management professionals from around the world will gather February 17-21, 2026, in Anaheim, CA, at the CMAA World Conference & Club Business Expo. The industry’s largest annual gathering offers five days of energizing education, a two-day Club Business Expo, networking, and experiences—cultivated specifically for club management professionals. Will your club’s management team be attending?

Recruit next generation club talent.

CMAA’s on-site career resources offer clubs the opportunity to post club openings at no cost and engage directly with attendees seeking new positions. Further, attendees can participate in specifically designed networking sessions for professionals and student attendees. Clubs can highlight their internship and entry-level opportunities and meet directly with hospitality students from 40 hospitality programs around the country.

Gain new insights and ideas.

With more than 65 educational offerings across all areas of club operations, attendees can learn directly from industry experts and key practitioners like lifelong hospitalian Bobby Stuckey and customer experience expert Elizabeth Dixon. Attendees can also create their own think tanks with Open Space and tap into the wisdom of other clubs. Additionally, the Idea Fair spotlights hundreds of club-tested solutions for event programming, staff recruitment and retention, communications, and more.

Discover innovation and inspiration at the Club Business Expo.

The Club Business Expo, February 19-20, provides an opportunity to harvest vibrant ideas and fruitful connections. This two-day experience is bursting with possibilities featuring more than 260 companies highlighting cutting-edge products and services for your club. Find your club’s next big idea and fresh insights in the New Product Showcase and Apparel Mart!

Early registration discounts apply through December 11. Learn more at cmaa.org/conference.

Joe Trauger President & CEO

National Club Association

November 17, 2025

Situational Awareness

Both the House and Senate are in session this week after bringing an end to the record-long government shutdown by passing an updated continuing resolution (CR) that keeps the government funded through January 2026. Overall, eight Democrats in the Senate and six in the House all moderates voted with Republicans to pass the measure. Under the new CR, most federal agencies will be funded at FY 2025 levels through Jan. 30. However, the bill included full-year appropriations for three of 12 regular spending bills: Agriculture, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Legislative Branch. Congressional appropriators will now have a little more than two and a half months to complete work on the remaining eight FY 2026 spending bills.

As part of an agreement reached between Senate Majority Leader John Thune (RS.D.) and Senate Democrats, the upper chamber is expected to bring forward legislation that addresses expiring Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. There are currently two approaches on this issue taking shape on Capitol Hill: an extension coupled with certain cost-saving modifications such as an income cap, or a completely new alternative that would send subsidies directly to consumers instead of insurers.

This week, the House will vote on legislation that would permit expanded domestic oil and natural gas drilling operations, repeal certain policing laws in Washington, D.C., and bolster domestic terrorism prevention activities. Meanwhile, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of a second package of FY 2026 appropriations bills.

Senate Labor Panel to Consider NLRB Board Member Nominee

On Wednesday, Nov. 19, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will consider approval of Scott Mayer, chief labor counsel at Boeing, to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The committee previously scheduled Mayer for an Oct. 9 vote alongside James Murphy, who was approved to become a board member, but Mayer was pulled over opposition from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) related to a strike by Boeing employees in Missouri. Senate confirmation of Mayer and Murphy would restore the NLRB’s operating quorum and permit the board to issue rulings.

White House Ends Reciprocal Tariffs on Certain Agricultural Products

On Friday, Nov. 14, President Trump signed an Executive Order rolling back tariffs on certain agricultural products in the face of mounting concerns about the affordability of everyday goods such as coffee and beef. The EO affects all countries, regardless of whether they have struck trade deals with the administration to lower their “reciprocal” rates. In addition to removing tariffs on exports of beef and coffee, the EO exempts certain products that aren’t grown in the U.S., including bananas, coconuts, pineapples, tomatoes, chestnuts and cashews, as well as several spices.

November 17, 2025

EPA Releases Revised Draft Rule,“Waters of the United States”Regulation

This afternoon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a draft rule proposing to revise current regulations used to determine whether certain bodies of water and/or wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA bars the discharge of pollutants into “navigable waters,” known as “waters of the United States.” NCA President and CEO Joe Trauger participated in an industry stakeholder roundtable this morning that was led by EPA’s Office of Water where the revised rule was announced.

The revised rule is aimed at fully implementing the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett decision, which held that the CWA extends only to wetlands with a continuous surface connection to “waters off the United States.” Additionally, the Sackett ruling affirmed that only bodies of water that are relatively permanent should be considered jurisdictional under the CWA.

EPA is seeking to provide property owners and businesses with greater clarity when determining jurisdiction by defining “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection.” To determine permanence, EPA will focus on waters that are standing or continuously flowing year-round or at least during the “wet season.” This is the first time the EPA will use the “wet season” as a measure when considering jurisdiction.

The revised rule would require wetlands to meet a new two-part test to be jurisdictional:

1)They must abut a jurisdictional water.

2)They must have surface water at least during the wet season.

The revised rule also revises exclusions for ditches, prior converted cropland and waste treatment systems.

Upon publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule for 45 days. The EPA and Army Corps will also hold two public meetings to receive feedback. After the comment period closes, the agency will review all submitted comments to inform a final rule that’s expected to be published in late 2026.

If you have any questions, please contact NCA President & CEO Joe Trauger at trauger@nationalclub.org.

Is Private Golf Driving Record Rounds?

November 3, 2025

With the peak season behind us and just a couple months left in 2025, thegolf industryis on the verge of another record for rounds-played for the fourth time in five years.

And it could be the play at private clubs that pushes the industry over the top. In looking at year-over-year comps, private golf round gains have trended ahead of those on the public side in every month so far in 2025. The recent trajectory is particularly notable.

The latest rounds report, through September, revealed that private golf play was up more than 5% nationwide relative to September 2024. By comparison, public golf play was up about 1%. The trend was similar in August (+9% private vs +7% public) and July (+6% private vs +2% public).

Of course, the majority of U.S. golf is played at public courses.

Nearly 75% of the nation’s courses are open to public play, and historically almost 80% of rounds are played at public daily fee, municipal and resort courses.

Yet it is significant that YOY comps reveal that positive changes in private play also outpaced that of public in January, February, March, April, May and June of this year, in addition to the recent momentum.

The evident demand - at least on a broad level - may explain why private clubs account for more than 50% of new development – far higher than their current representation in the market.

NGF operator surveys reveal that almost 2/3 of golf facilities indicate they are at or near “capacity,” meaning how much play they can handle before it begins to have a negative effect on business. And the proportion of U.S. facilities at perceived capacity is higher on the private side than the public. Be on the lookout for a future Short Game piece on the topic.

As 2025 winds down, it’s clear the surge in private play is more than a blip on the radar. It’s helping push the entire industry toward another record year and reinforces that enthusiasm for the game is being driven from both sides of the fence.

That balance could be the key to keeping golf’s momentum rolling into 2026 and beyond.

Screen Golf’s Growth is Not Simulated

November 17, 2025

NGF has been vocal in recent years about the runway for growth in off-course golf… and why it’s important.

In addition to conducting annual verifications of the nearly 16,000 green-grass golf courses in the U.S., our database team diligently works to track everywhere that golf can be played away from the course. It’s a fast-moving target, particularly when it comes to simulator-driven golf entertainment businesses, as new locations seem to pop up weekly.

While the development pace of new large venues (such as Topgolf) has slowed, the proliferation of commercial simulator locations is substantial. Our database isn’t exhaustive, as facilities are being discovered and added frequently, but there are now at least 1,500 simulator businesses nationwide – from brands such as Topgolf Swing Suites, Five Iron Golf, GolfCave, Dryvebox, Golfzon, The Back Nine, Golf Lounge 18, and X-Golf to standalone, locally owned and operated locations like All Seasons Golf & Social Club in Cedar Knolls, New Jersey.

This total has nearly tripled since 2022, an increase reflective of both new businesses and others that are being discovered. This doesn’t include simulators at golf course facilities or at retail stores or clubfitters.

The growing golf simulator footprint in the U.S. is still far from the supply in South Korea, which has nearly 9,700 screen golf locations for a population that’s about one-sixth the size of the U.S.

The average age of commercial simulator businesses in the U.S. is only about three years. They average between three and four hitting bays, with just over half having food offerings and just under 50% serving alcohol. More than three-quarters offer membership options.

As the number of simulator businesses continues to increase, so too does the number of simulator participants. It’s not just the younger generation embracing technology and the game’s evolution either. While the most substantial growth, in terms of volume, is among participants under the age of 50 – with over 3 million more than just four years ago – the number of users who are age 50 and up has jumped even more significantly during that same span, up 184% from a small base.

Special Notice

National Membership Residence Policy

Recent infractions to Farmington Bylaws have highlighted the need to remind all members about eligibility requirements for National membership.

A National membership is solely available for members and spouses of members who do not maintain any personal residence within the Resident Area. Note that a personal residence could include a second home, apartment, condo, or similar dwelling, regardless of use frequency or whether it is your primary home.

The Resident Area, pictured above, includes the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and all adjacent counties and cities within (Augusta, Rockingham, Greene, Madison, Orange, Louisa, Fluvanna, Buckingham, and Nelson).

A National member or spouse who owns, leases, or otherwise maintains an interest in a residence (directly or indirectly through an LLC or other ownership entity) within the Resident Area is required to upgrade to Resident membership, and should commence the application process to upgrade within 30 days of beginning to use the property as a personal residence. Payment of the applicable Resident entrance fee and dues will be due upon Board approval.

For questions about this policy, or for more information regarding the process to upgrade to Resident membership, please contact the Membership Office at membership@farmingtoncc.com.

Eight Club Management Professionals Awarded

Sally Burns Rambo Scholarship

Alexandria, VA – The Club Foundation announces the 2025 recipients of the Sally Burns Rambo Scholarship. Established in 2012 by The Club Foundation with tremendous initiating and continued support from the Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Club Management Association of America (CMAA), this Scholarship honors mentor, role model, and pioneer Sally Burns Rambo, CCM. Rambo was a vibrant club manager known for her support of emerging professionals in the industry and was responsible for paving the way for the success of countless club leaders.

This year’s recipients are:

Mardy Colling

Clubhouse Manager/ F&B Director,

Princess Anne Country Club, Virginia Beach, VA

Amy Day Director of Member Services, Desert Mountain Club, Scottsdale, AZ

Jennifer Herring Vice President of Membership & Sales, Houston Oaks Country Club & Retreat, Hockley, TX

Cassandra Lematta Town Membership Director, Jonathan Club, Los Angeles, CA

Meghan McGrath

Events Director, Bay Head Yacht Club, Bay Head, NJ

Audrey Miller Membership

Director, Field Club of Omaha, Omaha, NE

Anita Nalepa, CCM

Director of Events, Forest Lake Club, Columbia, SC

Anahi Perez, CCM

Assistant General Manager, North Shore Country Club, Glenview, IL

The scholarship provides financial support to female club managers interested in furthering their professional development. Recipients receive the tuition costs and travel expenses to attend their choice of one of CMAA’s Business Management Institutes.

The Club Foundation and CMAA’s President and CEO Jeff Morgan, FASAE, CAE, says "The Sally Burns Rambo Scholarship continues the legacy of an outstanding CMAA leader and demonstrates our commitment to advancing the next generation of women in club management—championing their leadership, amplifying their voices, and shaping a stronger future for our industry.”

To donate to The Club Foundation or apply for scholarships, please visit clubfoundation.org.

About The Club Foundation

The Club Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, was established by CMAA to fund the life cycle of a club manager’s career, providing financial support for five key areas: students, faculty, club managers, CMAA Chapters, and the club industry at large. It supports the

advancement of club management professionals, funding industry education programs through scholarships and grants, and has awarded more than $8.5 million in scholarships and grants since 1988. Learn more at clubfoundation.org.

About CMAA

Founded in 1927, the Club Management Association of America (CMAA) is the largest professional association for managers of membership clubs with more than 8,100 members throughout the US and internationally. Our members contribute to the success of more than 2,600 country, golf, athletic, city, faculty, military, town, and yacht clubs. The objectives of the Association are to promote relationships between club management professionals and other similar professions; to encourage the education and advancement of members; and to provide the resources needed for efficient and successful club operations. Under the covenants of professionalism, education, leadership, and community, CMAA continues to extend its reach as the leader in the club management practice. CMAA is headquartered in Alexandria, VA, with 38 professional chapters and 40 current and prospective student chapters. Learn more at cmaa.org.

Nov 2025 BOD Packet

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Call to Order

2. Treasurer’s Report

5. Recognition of Outgoing President

The

Anne Country Club

8. Presentation of PACC 2028: Elevating Tradition

Project Timeline & Funding

Q & A Session

TRANSFERS

SIGNIFICANT OTHER

Financial and Assessment Concerns

Programmatic and Design Feedback

Governance and Membership Inclusion

Operational and Logistical Themes

Conclusions and Recommendations

Key Themes

FEEDBACK FROM TEAM MEMBER MEETINGS

FEEDBACK FROM THE PREVIEW PRESENTATION

FEEDBACK FROM THE FITNESS TEAM

FEEDBACK FROM THE TENNIS TEAM

QUESTION & ANSWER DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING

MEMBER FEEDBACK AFTER THE ANNUAL MEETING PRESENTATION

Non-Resident Social, 68

Resident Full, 72

Resident Social, 80

Resident Full, 64

Full Senior, 80

PROJECT DESIGN

ONGOING COSTS AND STAFFING AVAILABILITY AFTER CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT FUNDING

Resident Full, 68

Social, 61

Resident Full, 44

Full Senior, 72

Full Senior, 77

Resident Full, 61

Resident Full, 56

Non-Resident Full, 38

Resident Social, 74

Resident Full, 43

Full Senior, 70

Full Senior, 72

Resident Full, 41

Non-Resident Full, 81

Resident Full, 42

Full Surviving Spouse Senior, 82

PACC2008 Meeting 11/5/25

Non-Resident Social, 77

Full Senior, 86

Athletic, 78

Non-Resident Full, 71

Full Senior, 78

Full, 41

Non-Resident Full, 69

Athletic, 68

Social, 81

Non-Resident Social, 57

Full Senior, 70

OTHER COMMENTS

FIRESIDE CHAT 10.28.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.1.25 FEEBACK

AND Q&A

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.4.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.5.25

FEEBACK AND Q&A

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.6.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

VIRTUAL FIRESIDE CHAT 11.10.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

Background and Planning Process

Project Scope and Intent

Next Steps

Q&A Summary

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.14.25

FEEBACK AND Q&A

FIRESIDE CHAT 11.19.25 FEEBACK AND Q&A

WAIT LIST FEEDBACK

Prospective Resident Athletic

Prospective Non-Resident Full