Vacant Land Outside the Front Gate
This item was not discussed in the open meeting, so I did not directly hear any information to report. It was only noted as a topic of discussion for the closed Executive Session. But, here is a summary of the situation; and I have included some maps of the area in question.
On August 1st, the Board convened in a closed session to discuss making an offer on the approximately 3.0 acres of vacant land adjacent to the exiting GC Realty building. After that session, they passed a motion to make an offer of $100,000 per acre to Harrington Bank, which is the current owner. Kelley Hunter was the only Director to oppose the motion. Three directors were absent from the meeting; Becky Berrey, Gus Kolias and Mike Donoghue.
The POA’s offer was accepted by the bank. The land owned by the bank is currently one large parcel and includes the existing GC Realty building plus the excess vacant land (which is to the left as you face the front of the building). The bank will legally subdivide that vacant land into a separate, rectangular, parcel of roughly 3 acres; which will then be “the land” as defined in the contract. Once the lot line is finalized, the POA will have 60 days to do its due diligence studies (legal, environmental, zoning, planning, etc). After completing its due diligence, the POA can then decide whether or not to proceed with the purchase.
In other words, the POA is not yet obligated to buy the land. It can still decide not to proceed depending on what it learns from its due diligence studies.
The Board feels that “this purchase is important in that it protects the community from unwanted development on the parcel and will preserve and enhance the value of the community”.
As for the source of funds to complete this purchase, please see the comments below regarding the 2013 budget discussions.
Lastly, I have heard many people expressing confusion as to the exact location and extent of this land. So, I have done my best to provide pictures that will show its location. They are in the “Background Information Papers” section of this site. You may be surprised at how far the land extends beyond our front gate and into the community and therefore might find this worth a look. Click on this link: Vacant Land Maps
If you know of others who are not subscribers and who might like to see these maps, please send them the link to this site. I suspect most people would like to know what we are dealing with.
Long Range Plan
The committee has reviewed its draft plan with several select groups of people actively involved in community affairs. Doug Frey noted that the comments received from those groups were not entirely different from those received at the focus groups held this past summer. The Board should receive a draft plan within the next several weeks, and the committee is currently targeting October 16th as the date for making it available to community residents on the web site. That would allow residents to offer comments to the Board both prior to and at the Annual General Meeting.
Financials – info added on 9-30-12
Just a few comments on the August 31 financial that were just posted to the web site.
Overall, it appears savings to date have offset overruns such that the budget for the year should be met. It has been noted previously that this can be negatively impacted by unexpected road and drainage repairs. Major savings have occurred in legal fees and storm maintenance (primarily snow removal).
An additional cost of $3,085 was incurred in the Lystra Gate conversion. This brings the total cost of conversion to $44,713; which is roughly $30,000 over the original budget.
Architectural Review Board
This committee has been reworking the engineering services contract for reviewing drainage plans on new construction and major landscape renovations. We require homeowners undertaking such work to pay, as part of the overall ARB fee, an amount to cover the cost of reviewing those plans. Apparently, there has been a problem controlling the actual engineering fees incurred so that they match the fees received. The problem seems to be situations where contractors and landscape architects spend inordinately long periods of time with the ARB contracted engineer; thus running up hourly engineering fees beyond fixed fees paid by the homeowner.
After considering several alternatives, the proposal is to initially dictate a limit on hourly fees equal to the fee paid by the homeowner; after which the homeowner will be charged. I believe the idea is to give the homeowner’s architect and contractor an incentive to do the plans correctly the first time and not to overspend time with the ARB contracted engineer.
Road Reconstruction Project – Supervision
To recap the issue, we expect to have bids in hand by December and, assuming they are in line with our reserves, to then pick a contractor to do the work. An independent engineer will be hired to act as the project manager. The Board decided to create an ad-hoc committee to oversee and work with the project manager, and, to a certain extent, with the contractor. Roy Thornton, a community resident, volunteered to take on the role of heading that ad-hoc committee.
Roy made a fairly detailed presentation to the Board outlining, his background, his experience with road construction and the preliminary work he has done to become familiar with the project. He reviewed some of the testing results which indicated some areas in that stretch of road where there are significant issues with the lack of a proper base. Various proposals and ideas were reviewed involving the logistics of building the road and how to deal with residents obtaining access to the community and their homes during construction. Meetings will be held with the residents fronting the section of road being rebuilt to discuss access issues. Also, general community meetings will be held to discuss similar issues.
Overall, the Board felt very comfortable with Roy’s background and prior experience, and they were appreciative of his willingness to take on this huge responsibility.
It was reiterated that, until the bids are received in December, we will not know exactly how the cost of this project will compare to our accumulated reserves. It was also noted that supervision costs, testing costs and contingency amounts will have to be added to the bid amount when determining total project costs.
2103 Budget
There was an extended discussion of the 2013 budget, but there were so many issues to discuss that the topic will be carried over to a special meeting in the next several weeks. The Board intends to finalize the budget in October and to make it available to the residents for review well prior to the Annual General Meeting.
Since many items are still under discussion, it would be pointless to attempt a detailed summary here; especially since it will be available in the next week or two. But one overriding impression is worth noting.
As with every yearly budget, there is a balancing act between paying for necessary services and keeping dues at an acceptable level. There are numerous items which make this budget somewhat challenging. Among these are funding the expected $300,000 for the purchase of vacant land outside the front gate and rebuilding reserves for future road and storm water drainage reconstruction projects. All of this has to come from dues or assessments.
Bottom line, it is clear that our community will need funds to properly maintain our infrastructure and thus preserve and enhance the value of all property in the community. After all, that is pretty much the primary mission of our POA. In the end, a well maintained community results in higher property values; which, in turn, leads to higher selling prices on homes in the community. Therefore, it is extremely important that funds be sourced to address these matters.
One other point is also worth noting. Mention was made of a rumor that was circulating to the effect that we will need to replace all of our 20 plus miles of roads. Technically, that is true, but the statement is misleading. All roads eventually need to be replaced, but not all of our roads will need to be replaced in the next five years.
The need to replace is dictated primarily by wear and tear. We have many long sections of road which could easily have another ten or more years of remaining useful life. To the extent that sections need to be replaced in the next five years, it will probably be on the most heavily traveled roads; primarily Governors Drive and Morehead.
I suspect that part of the five year plan is to draw up an estimated time line for road and infrastructure replacement. It is also worth mentioning that many sections of our roads will last another five to fifteen years because they were made of concrete as opposed to asphalt. Concrete (even with a substandard base) lasts longer and, in the long run, is more cost effective than asphalt.
Community Activities Committee
Background: Earlier this year, I reported on the creation of a committee of residents to monitor and manage the use of the POA building by neighborhood groups. This was deemed necessary due to damage that occurred when several groups used the building for functions just after its opening. This committee has been tracking the usage of the meeting room by neighborhood groups and will report to the Board next month.
The Change: The Board has renamed this group of residents to be the Community Activities Committee. It appears that the purpose of the committee is to promote (not surprisingly) community wide activities. Possible activities mentioned included quarterly artist-in-residence open houses, bi-monthly welcome parties for new residents, outdoor music concerts and charity events.
No mention was made in this meeting of any proposed budget for this committee; in other words, how much money from the budget is to be allocated to the committee’s events.
Also, no mention was made of coordination with the existing neighborhood social groups or geographic social groups; both of which are open to all residents in the community.
Realtor Relations Committee
Gus Kolias made a very detailed presentation of ideas and strategies being considered by this newly reconstituted committee. The goal of the committee is to increase home/lot sales and property values by increasing the number of qualified prospective buyers. It appears to be taking a three pronged approach; revising and improving the community’s web presence, improving relations with the realtor community and increasing collaborative initiatives with the country club.
In particular, the committee wants to make our community very “broker friendly”; to make it easy for outside brokers to show our properties and to encourage them to come to see our community. Numerous ideas are being considered; including incentive programs designed to stimulate brokers showing our houses to prospects.
One of the more interesting ideas being proposed is some type of an unobtrusive, tasteful marker to be placed on the mailboxes of houses that are listed for sale. Placement of this marker would be a voluntary move on the part of the property owner. It would make it very easy for brokers (and residents) to identify houses for sale, and greater awareness usually results in more activity.
Candidates – Election
There are four candidates running for the Board this year. A “Meet the Candidates” night will be held at the POA building on October 3rd. Short bios will be posted within the next few days.
I sent out a questionnaire to all the candidates and asked them to reply on a voluntary basis. All four did so. I am hopeful that the answers to these questions will help provide some guidance for people in the voting process. The information can be found here:
Miscellaneous Issues
Deer Hunting Season: Hunting season started around September 8th and the culling program began in our community on the same date. Reference was made to an NC State sponsored deer density survey which estimated a population within the community of 113 per square mile versus 96 per square mile a year ago. Our community is roughly 2.3 square miles.
Truck Access: Management and committees are still reviewing a proposed policy for directing heavy truck access to limit wear and tear on our roads. Nothing was reviewed at this meeting.
Purchasing Policy: This issue has been discussed for several months now, and there is a write up in the 6/19/12 Meeting Summary. The Board was still unable to reach agreement, so the policy was tabled for further review and consideration.
Flags and Banners: Again, this item was not discussed. The several new flags that are contrary to POA policies are still there. Not sure if the Board wishes or intends to enforce the policies.
GC Chat: The chat room is now up and running on the POA web site.