Contents
1. Nominating Committee
2. MRRC Member Changes
3. MRRC Activities
4. Requested Covenant Change
5. Safety Committee – Speed Indicator Sign
The POA’s attorney was present at the beginning of the meeting and through the Executive Session. The open portion of the meeting lasted an hour an fifteen minutes. The Board met in Executive session for two hours in the middle of the open portion. According to the agenda, the items for the Executive Session were taking advice of counsel, Bland Landscaping (contract matters) and Rules and Regulations. As noted below, one other item was included as well.
1. Nominating Committee
During the open portion of the meeting prior to the Executive Session, Paul Elstro questioned the status of this committee; which is formed every year prior to the fall election. He said he had received a copy of an e-mail from a resident expressing interest in serving on the committee; and had been told that it had already been formed. Since he had not heard anything, he was questioning why the Board was not aware of this. Becky Berrey said that the matter would be discussed in Executive Session.
When the Board re-convened in open session after the Executive Session, it immediately passed a motion forming the Nominating Committee for 2014 consisting of the following people: Judi Anderson (Chairperson), Becky Berrey, Bill Colton, Hayes Shimp and Mary Lou Drake. Judi Anderson was also Chairperson of this committee last year. All discussion related to this action took place in Executive Session.
2. Marketing and Realtor Relations Committee (MRRC) Member Changes
According to the May 20th meeting minutes, there were changes to the composition of this committee that were approved by e-mail at some unspecified time after the April 15th Board meeting. These changes were not discussed during open portions of Board meetings; and they are as follows:
Hayes Shimp was approved as co-chair of the MRRC; alongside the then current Chairperson, Lewis Hendricks.
Annie Shimp, Linda Todd, Jennifer Stenner and Ginny Berg were added as members of the committee. Ms. Todd, Ms.Stenner and Ms. Berg are realtors who live within the community.
Although it was not discussed in this meeting, I am aware of the fact that Lewis Hendricks resigned from the MRRC several weeks after the April 28th special Board meeting.
3. MRRC Activities
The two realtor events that took place within the past 90 days were briefly discussed. From what I could tell, both were considered to be successful in terms of promoting the community. Modifications were discussed to increase the effectiveness of future events.
Kelley Hunter express her view that we did not need to spend as much money as we did on these two events but that we can still effectively promote the community among local brokers. She indicated that a number of MRRC members agreed with her assessment. To provide a frame of reference on costs, the April Splinters estimated the cost of the May 20th function at approximately $50 per attendee. According to the committee minutes, there were approximately 40 attendees; with 20 to 22 of those being new outside realtors.
Today, prospective home buyers often look around without using a broker; and this presents a problem in terms of accessing homes for sale in our community. To deal with this, the committee is working on a system that will rely on volunteers to be on call as tour guides for prospective buyers who drive up to the gates unannounced. Details to follow.
The Board papers contained information on the realtor bar code program. As of 6/5/14, thirty three brokers had been approved for bar codes. Of those, nine had been issued stickers. From 5/3/14 to 6/4/14, there were 36 entries, but 21 of those were from one broker. It is a little early to draw any conclusions from this data. First, the May 20th event was the first time that bar codes were made available to a large group of brokers. Second, no comparable statistics have been made available; for example, numbers of brokers that entered through the visitor gate each month over the prior 12 months and, in particular, during the last 30 days.
4. MRRC and Requested Covenant Change
On behalf of the MRRC, Hayes Shimp recently sent a memo to the Covenant Re-Write Committee. It asks that committee to consider proposing a change to our covenants to allow family cars to be parked in driveways rather than garages.
To fully understand the committee’s request, it is best to read the original document (which is very short and which can be found here): MRRC Memo – Driveway Parking
Background: Our covenants require houses to have sufficient garage space for all family cars. Consistent with this covenant, our Rules and Regulations require all family cars to be parked within a garage. Only visitor’s cars are to be parked in driveways for any significant length of time. For those not familiar with why this rule would exist, I can offer an explanation. It is based on personal experience and is presented as information only; not as an opinion.
Put simply, neighborhoods are considered more attractive when cars are not parked in driveways. I have seen the potentially negative consequences in other communities. When land and house prices rise, owners tend to do things to get the most value out of the asset. Often this will include using garage space for storage or recreational purposes and simultaneously putting the car or cars in the driveway. In the worst cases I have witnessed, the cars end up being pick-up trucks, and vehicles end up being worked on in driveways.
I am not claiming that those situations would happen here. My point is that, irrespective of the reasons, having lots of cars visible in driveways arguably detracts from the visual appeal of a neighborhood; especially in areas where houses are close together and have short driveways.
I believe that is why this restrictive covenant would exist. From this memo, it appears that the MRRC feels that houses would sell more easily without this restriction and would therefore like to have it removed.
5. Safety Committee
In response to numerous people expressing concerns about speeding, the Board approved the purchase of a portable speed indicator sign. It will serve two functions. First, it will provide data on vehicle speeds to help determine whether there is, in fact a speeding problem and, if so, where speeding occurs and the extent of the problem. Second, the flashing speed indicator should discourage speeding. This unit, which costs roughly $4,300, is solar powered and can be moved to different locations within the community. And, if it is determined that there is a serious problem, it allows for the option of attaching a special camera to record the license plate numbers of speeding cars.
The committee is still evaluating options for purchasing license plate cameras for each gate entrance.
Financials
Financial statement items were discussed, and there were no significant variations to report.