Contents
1. Front Gate Sign
2. Long Range Plan
3. Marketing Committee
4. LiveWell Proposal
If you have not already done so, please read the Board summary found here: July 2015
Comments below are in addition to that summary.
1. Front Gate Sign
The Board summary noted that the new sign at the Mt. Carmel gate will be replaced with something more appropriate. For those who are interested in what happened, here is some background information.
The idea of replacing the sign at the front gate appears to have originated within the Community Appearance Committee. The idea is outlined in its meeting minutes starting in January 2015. No reason for the proposed change was given; only that the committee decided it needed to be done. It does not appear to have been done at the direction of the Board; nor can I find any such recommendation in any independent study. And there was no indication why the logo was left out of the proposed new sign.
In its meeting on April 21st, the Board approved that committee’s recommendation to change the sign to one that simply read “Governors Club”. According to the meeting minutes, the reason for making the change was to have consistency with the Lystra Gate sign. However, in the brief discussion held at that meeting, the more significant reason seemed to be the fact that the Directors felt people could not easily find us and/or that people outside the gates were confused as to whether this was the entrance to the community. And I believe someone mentioned that real estate brokers may have experienced this confusion.
(Editorial Comment: I am not saying I agree with that reason. I am simply relating what I heard. I believe the developer’s original marketing strategy deliberately omitted the name in favor of using just the logo; the idea being to differentiate Governors Club from the other related developments and to associate the logo with the special nature of our community. Using just a logo to create a “special identification” is not an unusual marketing tactic and is often associated with high-end products or items.
For those that liked the logo and feel we should not have changed, there is probably no point in arguing the matter now. Since the Board informed property owners in the April Splinters, I believe the only thing that would have stopped this would have been numerous communications from residents protesting the change. I have to assume that this did not happen.)
From what I heard, I believe the new sign will address the “consistency” concerns expressed by residents and Board members. It should match the color of all the other community signs, have similar proportions and be fully inset into the stone (as opposed to the partial inset which now exists.) That new sign is now being designed, and it was unclear at this meeting how much of the original expense could be applied to the cost of the new effort. According to the Community Appearance Committee meeting minutes, the current sign that was just installed cost approximately $2,500.
2. Long Range Plan
I mentioned in last month’s summary that the Long Range Plan Committee was close to making its recommendations regarding future road improvements, new sidewalks and community amenities. This subject was not discussed at the June meeting; possibly due to certain road project matters not yet being finalized; as noted by the Board in this section of its summary:
Road Project: Bids for the road project have been received and are being evaluated. Initial feedback is disappointing in that only two contractors bid on the project and their bids were significantly higher than originally projected. The team is meeting with the bidders to understand their estimates, determine the reasons for the cost increases and assess any possible options for reducing the costs.
3. Marketing Committee
Similar to last month, this committee’s work was not discussed in the meeting. However, additional documentation was included in the Board papers posted on-line. The committee report can be found here: July 2015 Marketing Report
In particular, it is worth noting the following excerpt; which is consistent with previous reports from this committee:
“The team has now cataloged possible amenities as to the overall community as well as matched those amenities with each market segment. Numerous people were interviewed as to “community amenities” and the team hosted a presentation by the Long Range Plan Committee Chair.”
I mention this to let readers know that “community amenities” appear to be on this committee’s agenda. Its future reports should clarify for residents exactly what amenities, if any, are being proposed.
4. LiveWell Proposal
This item was not discussed in the open meeting, but it may have been discussed in the Executive Session. As far as I know, they have not yet formally applied for a license with the appropriate state agency.