Lystra Gate

Everybody should have received the detailed e-mail from the POA indicating that the Lystra gate is now unmanned from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

In case you missed this, one aspect is different from what was presented last November when the decision was first announced. Visitors arriving between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM do not necessarily have to go around to the main gate. If you have a visitor coming to the Lystra gate when it is unmanned, they can use the new kiosk which allows them to communicate with the main gatehouse. If you have registered the visitor, the main gate attendant will issue them an electronic pass and remotely allow them to pass through that gate. Otherwise, the main gate attendant will attempt to call you by phone to verify the visitor.

This kiosk was apparently needed for emergency vehicles, and the ability to allow visitors to enter was a byproduct and benefit obtained at no additional cost.

Purchasing Policy Guidelines…..(and more)

The Finance Committee has been working on a revised purchasing policy intended to avoid unexpected cost increases in projects. A draft policy was discussed during this meeting and was distributed to Board members for their input. (This probably sounds boring, but the discussion led to very interesting points regarding future work on our infrastructure.)

One key proposal of the policy is to require good estimates on which to base a budget and to require further Board review before allowing expenditures beyond that budgeted amount. This was discussed at length. At first blush, this seems very reasonable, but potential problems were raised.

On some projects, such as reworking the back gate, getting good cost estimates is quite feasible, and requiring Board review before exceeding the budget can be considered a reasonable policy. On other projects, it is not that simple.

For example, with many road and drainage repairs, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create a budget before starting the work. Often, you can only determine the extent of necessary work once the section needing repair is dug out. Then, if it is clear that additional, unexpected work is needed, it may not be economically feasible to stop the job pending further Board review and approval. Alternatively, if you require a contractor to create an inflated budget prior to starting work that includes possible, unknown contingency work that may never happen, that might also cause problems in terms of getting work done at the best price.

This was just one example that was discussed. Bottom line, crafting a purchasing policy that deals with these issues is not as simple as it may look, which is why the Board is still considering the wording.

But, as it relates to the issue of road repairs and other infrastructure work, this prompted a discussion of how to ensure the best oversight of infrastructure related projects. No decisions were made, but numerous interesting points were made.

For anybody interested in this issue and where this might be heading, please see this additional perspective on: Infrastructure Supervision.

Since this issue directly impacts our wallets, you may find it worth reading.

Community Message Board (follow-up from last month’s meeting)

Alice Donoghue, chair of the Communications Committee, addressed the Board, and the gist of the ensuing discussion was as follows:

• The Board feels that its lines of communication to the community residents are very comprehensive and sufficient.
• However, it is felt there is a gap in terms of communications from the residents to the Board.
• To address this issue, it was suggested that a Message Board be added to the web site. This will allow residents to convey their thoughts to Board Members and also allow other community members to comment on those thoughts (through message threads). It was felt that this was a way for the Board to assess what the general community was thinking about any given issue.
• Guidelines and a site monitor would be necessary, and no anonymous messages would be allowed.

One member commented that this was good for those who liked this method of communication; the implication being that there are probably some who might not like or be comfortable with this method. Therefore, it was suggested that it might be good to be aware of the “squeaky wheel” syndrome; meaning that not every comment or group of comments will necessarily reflect the view of the entire community.

The motion to create the Message Board was passed unanimously. For now, moderating will be done within the Communications Committee. Once the Message Board is up and running, everyone will receive notice directly from the POA.

Long Range Plan Committee

The Board agreed to hire a person (for a flat fee of $500) to coordinate focus groups to be held in July. All residents will be notified of this process, and participants for most of these groups will be selected at random from the entire community. At least one focus group will be comprised of people that currently are or have been actively involved with POA activities.

The proposed long range plan will not only include a five year budget (as did the last plan) but also a five year capital expenditure plan.

The last long range plan was completed in October 2007, and a summary of that plan can be found here:  Long Range Plan – 2007

Governors Club Realty Property

It was disclosed that the lending bank had taken over control of the Governors Club Realty property just outside the main gate (both the building and the adjacent vacant land). Governors Club Realty is still operating as a going concern out of the existing building.

The bank is interested in selling both the building and the extra land. The Board members had a rather extensive discussion about the POA possibly buying land and/or the building. Rather than cover this rather lengthy point here, I have tried to summarize the points discussed at the end of this meeting summary. Just trying to make it easy to skip this if you are not interested.

Banners and Flags (follow-up from previous meeting)

The Duke banner referred to in last month’s meeting has come down. There are still a few other banners on which the management company needs to follow up.

The majority of this discussion centered on the display of the American flag. It appears this was prompted by comments made about the flag currently being displayed close to the main entrance (not far from where the Duke banner used to be). Our covenants contain no prohibition against flying the flag. But they do prescribe acceptable methods for flags that are not attached to a house. Basically, the rules require the use of a properly placed flagpole.

The flag in question violates our rules on three levels. First, it is not on a flagpole. Rather, it is hung vertically from a piece of rope. Second, it is hung from two trees. Third, it is lit all night long.

In discussing this, it appeared that the Board was wrestling with the problem of enforcing our rules versus attracting undesired publicity. Such publicity usually results when anybody questions anything having to do with the American flag. Invariably, the questions (no matter how innocuous or reasonable) can result in accusations of being unpatriotic; which, in turn, easily attract the attention of the media. More often than not, the media is far less interested in understanding the situation than creating a sensational story, and being “unpatriotic” usually makes for a good story; especially if it can be made to appear, rightfully or not, that you are trying to deny somebody the right to fly the flag. It is often a no-win situation.

One director stressed the point made above; namely that we do not ban the display of the American flag and do not wish to prevent anybody from displaying it. Rather, we have rules to ensure that flags are displayed in a manner consistent with the look of the neighborhood. There was general acknowledgement from the Board that this is the case, but there appeared to be little desire to strictly enforce these rules. That raised the question of “why have a policy if you are not prepared to enforce it”.

As best I could determine, our community manager will now send a letter to the owner of this flag outlining POA rules and guidelines for displaying the flag and asking if they will comply. It was unclear to me if the Board was prepared to take any further action if that letter was ignored. I suspect the issue will come up again in a future meeting.

Rules and Regulations

Work has been undertaken for some time on a comprehensive list of community Rules and Regulations. All of this information is in our convenants and other documents in some form or fashion. However, it was felt that such a list would be easier to read, understand and reference. The new Rules and Regulations were formally approved at this meeting and can be found on the web site as the first item on this page:  Rules and Regulations

One change in these regulations was discussed at some length. Prior to the electronic gate pass system being installed, the POA had allowed some residents to give barcodes to domestic help (people who cleaned houses on a regular basis). That is no longer allowed, and all service providers are required to pass through the visitor’s entrance. This barcode restriction is in these Rules and Regulations, but it does not address those that previously obtained barcodes that have been given to domestic service providers.

The Board decided that there were only a few such barcodes out there and therefore to grandfather those obtained prior to 6-19-12 as exceptions; with the understanding that any change in the service provider will result in the cancellation of the old barcode and no new one being given to the new service provider.

Road Work and Possible Financing

The POA is proceeding with the process of obtaining bids on the “Front Gate to Manly Project” as outlined in the last two meetings.

The Finance Committee has been considering financing alternatives for this work; some involving the use of bonds. Nothing has been decided given that we do not yet have any firm bids for the work.

However, this may be an issue if the bids come in substantially over $1.6 million; which is roughly the cash we should have in the capital reserve fund at the end of this year. If the cost is substantially higher, alternatives might include breaking the job up into smaller parts or obtaining alternative financing. (While it was not specifically stated in the meeting, I believe one other alternative would be to delay the job until the necessary funds have been accumulated.)

Financials

Two months ago, the Finance Committee reported that their forecast showed being on budget for the year; including the expected $300,000 contribution to the capital reserve/replacement fund. I reviewed the current Finance Committee report (which is posted on-line), which contains limited numbers, along with the April financial statement. Without going into great detail it appears that operations are still on that track.

There have been offsetting positive and negative variances year to date with what appears to be a net positive result. Major savings have come from lower than expected snow removal expenses and legal expenses that are less than budget. Offsetting major overruns have occurred with bad debt expenses and the conversion of the Lystra gate.

For those who are interested, the Finance Committee report can be found within this packet:  Board Packet        But keep in mind that the brief summary in the committee report does not include the replacement fund accounts (see next paragraph).

Full financial statements were being posted to the web site in 2011 but have not been posted in 2012. I suspect that this is simply an oversight which will be addressed shortly. The POA financial statements are a little strange in that they contain two parts; an operating statement (income and expenses) plus an additional statement showing inflows and outflows to what is called the Replacement Fund (essentially a capital reserve fund). Both sections need to be reviewed to understand our financial position. Rather than get into that here (since this summary is already long enough), I will try to include a brief, understandable explanation of the financial statements with the next posting. By that time, the financials will hopefully be on line.

Nominating Committee – Board Elections

Three Directors have been chosen for this year’s Nominating Committee; which will propose names for election to the Board of Directors. They are Becky Berrey, Gus Kolias and Kelley Hunter. Two additional committee members from outside the Board are being chosen as well. An e-mail about the process will be sent out within the next month.

If anybody has a name to propose, the Board members named above are the people to contact.

Joint Club POA Committee

It was suggested that, with the arrival of a new general manager at the country club, this might be a good time to consider resurrecting some type of joint committee between the club and the POA to discuss and deal with issues of common interest.

Statement on Roads in Welcome Packet

There is a welcome packet given to agents and prospective buyers that come into the club. At the suggestion of the Long Range Plan Committee, a statement dealing with the roads was drafted and will be added to that packet. Apparently, some agents have reported that prospective buyers will occasionally comment on the condition of the roads. The statement is designed to let them know how the POA is dealing with the issue. The statement can be found on our web site through this link:  Roads Statement

Availability of Documents in Advance of Meetings

Two suggestions were made. First was that the annual budget (including the capital/reserves section) be made available on line prior to the Annual General Meeting (usually held in November). Second was that Board Meeting Agendas be made available on the web site the Friday prior to each meeting. Both suggestions received a favorable reception from the entire Board.

Reserve Study (follow-up from last month’s meeting)

This was discussed at the last meeting; details of which can be found in the last meeting summary under the Long Range Plan Committee section:  5-15-12 Summary

The Finance Committee considered the issue and generally felt that this study was not necessary at this time. The Long Range Plan Committee agreed, so the study will not be pursed at this time.

“Ask the Manager” Column

Starting with the July newsletter, there will be an “Ask the Manager” column; a question and answer column written by our community manager, Jeff Allen.

 

Summary of Discussion on Governors Club Realty Property: 6-19-12 Board Meeting

This was a rather extended discussion during which I was not able to ask questions. Nor have I done any of my own research on the property. All I can do is try to summarize key points that were brought up.

Just to avoid any suspense, nothing concrete was decided at the end of this discussion. But the points raised will most likely be of interest.

The property in question seems to be divided into two parts. One is the existing building and parcel on which it is situated (which, I presume, includes the parking lot). The second is an area of vacant land around the building comprising roughly three acres. Apparently, the bank would like to sell all of the related property.  The Board discussed the relative merits of buying either the excess land or the building or possibly both. The following points were raised; in no particular order:

• Somebody commented that the building was possibly not in the best condition and therefore might end up being an undesirable burden on the POA. Another commented that, as a non-profit, we would not be in a position to lease it to a third party on a profit-making basis.
• There seemed to be two possible reasons why it might be wise to purchase the vacant land. One would be to keep it as open space, and the other would be to effectively control its ultimate disposition in terms of development. There were a few comments about using it for parkland or amenities, but it appeared to me that neither of these options seemed feasible or appealing to the Board members.
• Controlling the potential future development of the property might be a reasonable goal. However, several members made comments indicating that current development restrictions were possibly good enough. This was not discussed in detail, so I can’t provide further information. However, from my past experience, I suspect this land is subject to zoning and development restrictions that would preclude the development of most undesirable businesses or operations. If that is the case, then it might call into question whether there is any real need for “protection”.
• One member questioned whether it was appropriate to spend money on this type of purchase and whether it was appropriate to do so without the approval of the residents. Several members seemed to say that purchasing the excess land would not necessarily require the approval of the residents or a vote; since the potential price might be below a certain key threshold. That threshold was not specifically discussed, but the potential purchase price would appear to be in the lower six figure range.

It appeared to me that most of the members felt that any desire to pursue such a purchase should first be disclosed to the community to let them know the reasons why this was being considered.

There was also some discussion in terms of exploring whether a purchase should be financed entirely with cash or with a partial mortgage.

Again, nothing firm was decided at the end of this discussion.