Contents
1. Web Site
2. Service Truck Parking
3. Policy – For Profit Companies
4. LiveWell – Brief Update
5. Lots on Club Drive – Now For Sale
6. Presentation – Alternative Assessment Structure

To date, no Board summary has been posted. What follows are the items which I thought would be of interest.

The POA attorney was present for most of the meeting. It lasted a little over two hours, and roughly half was spent in Executive Session discussing the formation of the Nominating Committee and contract negotiations related to the gate entry system.

1.  Web Site

Coy Clement and Julian Wachs gave a presentation on the new web site; which has been in development for some time. There has clearly been a great deal of work put into this effort, and I don’t think I can provide a description that would do it justice. My impression was that it will be a very professional looking site, that visitors will find it easy to obtain information and that it will do a good job of selling our community to prospective buyers.

The main part of the site should be put into a test mode within the next several months, and that will determine the timing of the formal roll-out of the site. Coy and Julian have been assisted in this effort by Ron Bourn, Joyce Wiley, Mary Ann Anderson and Sara O’Leary.

2.  Service Truck Parking

Don Lummus presented a suggestion from the Safety Committee having to do with service truck parking. We ask providers not to park on blind hills and curves and to use orange warning cones; but this does not always happen. When residents call to report unsafe situations, the POA staff is rarely in a position to drop everything and run out to assess the situation. And, by the time they are, the truck is usually long gone.

The committee is proposing a voluntary, web based reporting system that will allow residents to easily report such situations.  And it will also allow staff to compile accurate information and then deal more effectively with providers that are not complying. The Board seemed in favor of the idea, and the committee will move forward on structuring this proposed system.

3.  Policy – For Profit Companies

When the Board reconvened into open session from Executive Session; it passed a resolution adopting a policy of not supporting for-profit companies.

(Editorial Comment: Since I did not hear the discussion that preceded the adoption of this resolution, I cannot say with certainty why this was done. While I cannot guarantee I have it right, I will offer my guess.

First, it probably seems self-evident that our POA would not want to support any for-profit enterprise; because doing so would cause numerous problems. Therefore, the policy makes sense. As to why the Board adopted this now, I believe it has to do with LiveWell.

Primarily through the efforts of their employee, Marla Benton, LiveWell has attempted to become involved in and, in a sense, make themselves part of the community. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to determine that the ultimate goal of these efforts is to promote their business and obtain more clients. But their attempts are often being presented as “public service” functions. For example, they have proposed holding seminars on dealing with aging relatives and Alzheimer’s patients. I suspect they would claim that these are not intended to sell their services. However, financial advisors say the same thing when they invite people to a lunch and seminar to discuss retirement planning. I guess it’s just a question of how you interpret the term “selling”.

I heard that LiveWell had approached the POA asking to use the POA building to hold one or more of these seminars. If that happened, I suspect the request was denied; which, in my view, would have been quite justified.  Also, if that happened, it might have helped prompt consideration of this resolution.

Although I have no direct knowledge that it happened, it would not surprise me if they had tried to advertise these events in the POA E-news; because their efforts to make LiveWell and these facilities “part of the community” have been fairly aggressive.  At least for a while, Ms. Benton seemed to be doing whatever she could to become involved and to promote LiveWell’s presence; especially through the Governors Living magazine.)

4.  LiveWell – Brief Update

I have no idea where LiveWell stands with their applications. However, they did approach the ARB for approval of work outside the buildings having to do with handicap access.  Given that and the fact that they have started some of that work, I suspect the applications have been approved.

5.  Lots on Club Drive – Now For Sale

I think it will help to describe the area in question before referencing the Board’s action.

Club Drive is the circular road which leads to the clubhouse and surrounds the clubhouse parking lot. I suspect most people are unaware of the nature of these lots and the existing ownership.

It is important to understand that, as envisaged by the developer, there was to be little or no open space along this road. There are a total of 20 lots, and they cover every lineal foot of that road. Here are some interesting facts; some of which you may find illuminating:

• The two corner lots on each side of the entrance off of Governors Drive were deeded to the POA in 2009 with a restriction that they can only be used as Common Area as defined in the Covenants.

• Aside from those two lots, to the extent that you currently see wooded or vacant areas along this road, those are buildable lots. They just haven’t been developed yet. And, yes, this applies to the wooded areas on the right as you drive in from Governors Drive.

• Of the 20 lots, there are currently only four that are directly or indirectly controlled by the developer.

• In addition to the two corner lots, the POA now owns two more lots (for a total of four). These are two vacant lots in the wooded area on the right as you drive in; and they were acquired through foreclosure earlier this year. However, unlike the two corner lots acquired in 2009, these lots can be developed. They were previously owned by entities related to the developer, so it appears that there was a conscious decision made to not pay assessments and thus subject them to foreclosure.

• There is a Club Cottage Association with its own Covenants. The current President of that association is John Williamson; a property owner who lives in a house which he built on one of these lots several years ago. The current Vice President is Marla Benton; the LiveWell employee. I was told that she volunteered for that position and that nobody else wanted the job.

For those who are interested, here are two links showing more detailed information:

Club Cottage Ownership – Requires Excel to View
Club Cottages Plot Map

Now, to the reason for this explanation. During this meeting, the Board resolved to put the two recently acquired lots up for sale; numbers 479 and 481. I heard two reasons given for doing so. First, as long as the POA owns the lots, it will be required to pay annual property taxes (which I believe will be a little over $400 annually per lot) and to deal with any maintenance issues. Second, if sold, the POA would receive the annual assessment income from the new owner.

6.  Presentation – Alternative Assessment Structure

Mary Ann Anderson, Kelley Hunter and Chris Wittmayer attended the meeting to make a further presentation on why the annual assessment structure should be changed so as to have some property owners paying more than others.

This proposal was first reviewed and discussed in last November’s Board meeting. Background information can be found in the first item of that meeting summary here: 11/17/15 Meeting Summary   At that time, the Board determined that there were no compelling reasons to consider restructuring the annual assessment formula.

After hearing this presentation, the Board determined that there was no new information and therefore no reason to change its original position on this matter.

The material presented was included in the Board packet which was posted on line. If you are interested, it can be found here:  3/15/16 Board Packet

(Editorial Comment: At this time, I still feel that it is not worthwhile to either examine or critique the proposal or the concept; and would refer to the comments I included in the November summary.)