Contents
1. Long Range Plan
2. Snowstorm Clean-Up Costs
3. Financials
4. Committee Policy
5. Deer Management
6. Entry Gates
7. Covenants
8. Long Range Plan – Summary Comments
1. Long Range Plan
The Long Range Plan has been posted on line for review. This plan will be approved by the Board and is not subject to a community wide vote. But the Board is willing to consider comments from community members, and this will be the only opportunity to offer them.
The Board’s goal is to review feedback prior to voting on a final version at the March 18th Board meeting. So, if you have any input, it should be submitted well in advance of March 18th. The plan is worth reviewing because, once it has been approved, anything it contains or proposes will tend to be legitimized; including capital projects. Therefore, if you have any comments on what is being proposed, now is the time to offer them. It is well written and well organized, so reading it will not be a difficult task.
The plan can be found here: 2014 Long Range Plan
Comments can be e-mailed here: [email protected]
At the end of this meeting summary, I have included a broad outline of the plan along with a recommended change.
2. Snowstorm Clean-Up Costs
It was noted in the manager’s report that snow removal cost information for the past two storms had not been received. Therefore, there was no discussion of this item and no information as to how these events might have impacted our storm management budget.
3. Financials
January financials are posted on the POA web site and can be found here: 1/14 Financial Statements. The January income statement contains the final, detailed 2014 budget in the far right column.
In terms of monthly expenses, there were some negative and positive variances, but it was noted that most of these were timing related and therefore not indicative of actual cost overruns or savings.
It was noted last month that the 2013 year end results were better than expected. One reason was that Community Appearance expenses were lower due to the inability to complete certain work during the road construction; along with the committee limiting non-mandatory expenditures due to the then uncertainty surrounding the road project. After coming out of Executive Session in the last meeting, the Board approved $24,000 of additional community appearance expenditures in 2014 for projects deferred from 2013.
Road project expenses appear to be on track and may end up below $2.6 million.
Legal expenses in January totaled $7,140, which was $4,000 over budget; but this represented bills for work done in October, November and December of 2013. However, this amount cannot be added on to the $36,175 total in the 2013 year end statement without netting out $3,832 paid in January 2013 which represented work done in December 2012. Therefore, the adjusted figure for 2013 legal fees would be $36,175 plus $3,317; or a total of $39,492.
4. Committee Policy
A proposed “Committee Policy” was discussed in Executive Session, but nothing was adopted at this meeting. It will most likely be brought up again at the March meeting. There are two proposed draft policies within the Board Packet. If you wish to get an idea of the items that are being considered as part of this proposed policy, these two versions can be found on pages 6 and 51 here: 2/14 Board Packet
Under consideration is a policy that calls for three year terms but for the Board to approve members and committee chairs on an annual basis.
5. Deer Management
The Deer Management Committee reported that a total of 63 deer were culled during the hunting season. It also reported that over 140 pounds of ground venison was donated to the CORA food pantry.
6. Entry Gates & Capsure
In addition to the new entry gates, updated Capsure software has been installed. This new software is more intuitive and user friendly than the old version; and the Safety Committee will continue to work towards attempting to make it even more user friendly. An article on this change was in the February Newsletter. Bottom line, management wants to encourage people to use this software for visitors. It is much easier and more efficient for the gate attendants; and allows faster entry for all visitors.
7. Covenants
Obtaining the 80% approval threshold on the proposed modification of the covenants has allowed the necessary changes to be recorded. The POA attorney is in the process of consolidating all the changes into one document which will be posted to the POA web site shortly.
8. Long Range Plan – Summary Points and Comments
I strongly recommend reading the entire Long Range Plan. It is informative, well thought out and well presented. What I will attempt to do here is summarize some of the key points and cover one proposed change which I believe worthy of consideration. Please note that my proposed change will, of necessity, be somewhat editorial in nature.
Overall, this document offers a logical, informative and well thought out plan for the community. The most important aspects deal with infrastructure maintenance and replacement. In that regard, it proposes continuing the current practice of accumulating sums from our annual assessments in a “Replacement Fund”; which is a reserve fund that can be used for all capital expenditures, either new or replacement in nature. It also proposes continuing the funding of ongoing maintenance of infrastructure out of the annual budgets.
The next targeted road reconstruction project is the 1.2 mile stretch between Manly and the entrance to the country club. The plan proposes rebuilding that in sections over a five year period starting in 2015. Proposed alternative construction methodologies are outlined on pages 11 and 12 of the report.
Although the plan covers a five year time frame, it notes that it should be revisited every two years for review and possible updating.
The Summary section notes the assumption that all proposed capital expenditures will be funded by the contributions to the Replacement Fund out of the annual assessments (roughly $500,000 per year). But it also notes that the construction numbers are estimates only. Therefore, either changing costs and/or accelerating the schedule of work would most likely require additional funding. I assume that means either special assessments or borrowings. It further says that “any significant changes in funding sources for the road replacement would require community approval”.
In sum, the plan proposes continuing our present strategies in terms of funding future road improvements.
The Community Appearance section on page 16 lists new proposed improvements that are classified as potential projects; five major and three minor. The plan estimates that the capital expenditures required to complete these projects will run between $25,000 and $50,000 per year. However, these sums have not been allocated or shown within the five year schedule of capital expenditures “due to the uncertainty surrounding future road project costs and schedules”. It further states that “the POA hopes to begin funding these projects once a more complete road plan is established”.
If you have any interest in this subject, it is worth reviewing the list on page 16. Most have to do with restoring and enhancing existing gardens and entryways plus installing new gardens. The more involved proposals include building a walking bridge in the wooded area between Governors Drive and Country Club Drive, creating a park within the vacant land outside the POA building (to include benches, a circular garden, a shade structure and mulched paths), and building a scenic viewing area at the highest point in Vance Villas.
Recommended Change
I do not believe the Walkways section of this document measures up to the high standards present in the rest of the plan. At the bottom of page 14 is a priority list of sidewalk projects which the report claims was recommended by the ad-hoc Walkways Committee. First on the list is a small section on Governors Drive which, to my knowledge, has never been raised or discussed before. Second is a shorter version of the Board’s previously considered sidewalk to the front gate; from Governors Square to Graham. Third is the extension around Morehead Lake to Wilkinson Park. (As an aside, the first section of sidewalk on this list, will, I believe, never be constructed on its own. Rather, it would be done as part of a larger project.)
For several reasons, I do not believe this list should be in the final version of the LRP. First, based on communications with several of the committee members, it appears that the Walkways Committee did not actually vote to approve this list. Second, the committee appears to have been summarily disbanded by the chair without any warning to all the committee members; and it does not appear that the entire committee approved and submitted a final report to the Board. Third, no community input has been sought on these priorities, and I believe that was the desire of several committee members as well as many community residents. And there would appear to be no reason not to solicit such input before deciding on the next sidewalk project.
Given that information, I inquired as to why any priority list would be included in the plan. In response, I was told that the committee’s documents were available for review at the POA office but could not be copied or removed. I dropped by and reviewed those documents; which consisted of two sets of meeting minutes (which were already posted on the POA web site), a powerpoint presentation that was given to several UNC students who were supposed to do a sidewalk study, and a half page memo, dated October 2013, from the committee chair to the Board.
That half page memo says that two UNC students took several trips around the community and recommended a list of four sidewalk projects. That list was given to the committee chair verbally and was then included in this memo. On the strength of that alone, this list has ended up in the Long Range Plan.
There is no written material from these unnamed students; no study criteria, no methodology outline, no comparisons, no cost analysis, no use analysis and no justification for the priority of the projects. The memo says that the students declined to submit a written report because they were concerned that it might cause controversy; primarily because they were not in a position to defend themselves with a dossier of credentials.
This half page memo is available at the POA office for anybody who wants to read it. But you will not be able to make a copy. From my communications with several of the committee members, it appears this document was not circulated to the entire Walkways Committee for approval. And anyone who reviews this half page memo will, I believe, agree that it would not qualify as a final report from the committee.
Given that information, I do not believe there should be any sidewalk priority list in the plan. If the Board is not approving or endorsing this list, it simply should not be present in the plan. The inclusion of this list will, I believe, tend to give it an undeserved air of legitimacy. However, at this point, I am not sure whether it will be removed. Anyone who agrees that it should not be included might wish to convey that message to the Board.