Contents
1. LiveWell Proposal
2. Finances – Additional Note
3. Entrance Sign – Additional Note
4. Realtor Barcode Program – Additional Information
5. Marketing Committee
6. Infrastructure Committee
7. Community Appearance Committee – Possible Projects

If you have not already done so, please read the Board summary found here: Splinters Similar to previous months, the comments below are in addition to that summary.

1.  LiveWell Proposal

This item was not discussed in the open meeting, but it may have been discussed in the Executive Session.

As for where things stand, I know that the Board has sent this company a long list of questions and is awaiting their response. And the company representatives have said they wish to schedule meetings with residents. If those meetings are similar to the one I recently attended, the intent will be to make residents feel comfortable with the proposed operation; not to solicit community input.

If any other pertinent information becomes available, I will do a separate post.

2.  Finances – Additional Note

It was mentioned that there is a good chance our legal fees will be over budget for the year, but no estimated figures were discussed. As to why this might happen, the Board has been taking extensive (and unexpected) legal advice on the Livewell situation, and the POA attorney is still attending all Board meetings; either for the entire meeting or a good portion thereof.

3.  Entrance Sign – Additional Note

The current Mt. Carmel gate sign is simply the GC logo. Apparently, some felt that this did not sufficiently identify the community. The new sign will say “Governors Club” and will not have any logo at all. According to the Community Appearance Committee meeting minutes, this sign will cost around $3,000. The cost will be covered within the Community Appearance budget (more on that budget at the end of this summary).

4.  Realtor Barcode Program – Additional Information

The Board summary noted that the Realtor Relations Committee is looking at de-activating the barcodes of Realtors who are not showing acceptable usage. Summary statistics showing usage to date were included in the Board papers posted on-line. Before looking at that summary (link below), it will help to review a short explanation.

The top figures on this chart show the level of entry activity at the Visitor gate. Any real estate agent who approaches the visitor gate can gain entry by simply identifying themselves as a realtor and handing the attendant a business card. This ability existed long before the implementation of the barcode program.

The middle figures show the level of barcode entry activity. In addition to total barcode entries, it shows the number of agents that made those visits. Total visits for both categories are shown just below those two sets of figures.

Below that is a summary of barcode applications and barcodes issued. The difference between barcode applications and issued barcodes represents those who have not yet come into the POA office to pick up their barcode.

Here is a link to the summary of entry data: Realtor Entry Data – Feb 2015

5.  Marketing Committee

If you wish to follow this committee’s work, here is the most recent set of committee minutes:  Marketing Committee 4-6-15

6.  Infrastructure Committee

This might be considered more of an editorial comment, but I felt it worth noting. Every month, I review the Board papers that are posted on line; and these include the committee minutes. And every month, I am impressed by the dedication of and level of work being done by these committee members. It appears that they, along with our staff, expend a great deal of effort to ensure that our infrastructure is properly maintained.

That is not to say that other committee members don’t work hard. We have many that do. But, since the work done by this committee is often not that visible, I have the impression that it often goes unnoticed and unrecognized. Which is why I wanted to mention this. I generally don’t summarize this committee’s work in my write-ups because it doesn’t make for exciting reading; nor is it controversial. But their work is definitely important to the well-being of the community.

7.  Community Appearance Committee – Possible Projects

The Community Appearance Committee, which is chaired by Becky Berrey, is discussing enhancement projects as outlined in its meeting minutes for March and April. There are about ten items being discussed, and these may be of interest to you. The items can be found on pages 15 to 18 here:  Board Papers 4-21-15

The March minutes list the “enhancement projects”, and two of the more significant ones are the following:

• “Install a playground area between the POA building and the Bark Park. Grading and preparing area $15,000. Playground equipment $50,000.”

• “Create meandering walking paths on the common areas in Vance Villas $5,000. Build a picnic area on this site $35,000.”

However, the April minutes presented slightly different information. Those minutes state that “Becky Berrey brought the Committee up to date on future Long Range Plan Projects for consideration” and included the following two items:

• “Preparing the land between the POA building and the Bark Park…..$7,500. This could be used for Frisbee or volleyball, as well as a playground.”

• “…a new Nature Park in the POA common area in Vance Knoll: $7,500-$10,000. Install three to five teak benches in the new Nature Park: $2,500.” (It also noted that residents in the area were prepared to contribute $2,500 to this project.)

I cannot account for the differences between the descriptions in the two sets of minutes. However, there are a few related items worth noting.

Page 16 of the most recent Long Range Plan (LRP) has a list of eight proposed community appearance projects, but there is no playground included there. So it is unclear why this playground project has been classified as an LRP item.

The LRP list does include a project described as “a scenic viewing area at the highest point in Vance Villas”, but I cannot tell if that is the same as the “Nature Park” or “picnic area” described in these most recent minutes.

Slight digression………

The origin of the list of proposed projects on page 16 in the LRP is unclear. A review of the prior year’s Community Appearance Committee minutes shows no mention of the committee discussing and/or voting on such a list.

The LRP stated that no funds had been allocated for any of the projects on the list within the five year capital expenditure plan “due to the uncertainty surrounding future road project costs and schedules”. The LRP further stated that “the POA hopes to begin funding these projects once a more complete road plan is established”.

I don’t believe a “more complete road plan” has yet been established. Despite that, a portion of one of the projects on that list has already been completed. That item was described in the LRP as “Redesign and replace the plantings at Mt. Carmel and Lystra Gate entrances”. And I believe that refers to the work on the Mt. Carmel gate which was completed last fall. According to the November 2014 Financial Report, the final cost of that project was approximately $54,000.

Given what was said in the LRP, you might ask how that project was funded. In fact, the funds came primarily from two areas in the 2104 Community Appearance budget. First, from discretionary funds available to the committee for enhancement projects to be done during the year. Second, from savings in various other Community Appearance budget line items. This allowed for the vast majority of the project cost to be covered within the 2014 Community Appearance budget; and any overage was covered by savings in the 2013 budget.

(Editorial Comment: First, a comment on the “discretionary amounts” in the Community Appearance budget. I believe this is a logical allocation given the nature of the work undertaken by this committee. It is probably difficult to predict far in advance the issues that will need to be addressed to maintain the appearance of the community. Having discretionary funds available allows the committee to deal with necessary items as needed throughout any given year. For example, the discretionary amount in this year’s budget is $30,000, and I believe the new sign proposed for the Mt. Carmel entrance (mentioned above) will come from those funds.

As to why I focused on the two projects in the March and April minutes, it was to note the possibility that most or all of the cost of either project might conceivably be covered within the 2015 budget; assuming the use of methods similar to those used last year.

More importantly, it was also to note that the idea of a playground is apparently still on the table; despite the fact that it was not included in the Long Range Plan and despite the fact that the only survey which addressed this idea (in 2012) showed very little support for such an amenity. A few past and current Board members, including Becky Berrey, have repeatedly expressed support for this idea. In addition, there is the following information which I posted as part of the December 2014 meeting summary:

“The concept of building community amenities appears to be on the table for discussion. Bill Colton gave his view that building community wide amenities should be considered. Based on his comments, he believes this is important both to market the community and to keep it competitive with other communities; particularly those slated for development as part of the Chatham Park project. He also suggested that the Community Appearance Committee, chaired by Becky Berrey, do an inventory of all available common land to assess potential sites for amenities.”

I believe it is questionable whether community amenities such as playgrounds are necessary to remain competitive. I know that some directors would like to do community wide surveys to determine the level of interest in such amenities. But, at this point, there is no guarantee that this will occur; because the Board has not made a firm decision on surveys one way or the other. I have no idea how quickly this committee intends to pursue either of these projects. I simply wanted to alert readers to the fact that they were being discussed so that you could, if you wish, make your views known to the Board.)