Governors Club Realty

Raoul Rushin (GC Realty) and Jill Ehrenfeld and Chris Ehrenfeld (Domicile Realty) updated the Board on developments to do with Governors Club Realty.

For those who do not already know this, the building occupied by GC Realty and the surrounding land are now owned by Harrington Bank. GC Realty is still conducting business in the building.

Raoul and Jill announced that they had formed a “strategic alliance” to, in effect, combine their two operations. GC Realty will concentrate on properties within the gated community, and Domicile will focus on Governors Village and other communities outside the gates. They are leasing a portion of the building from Harrington Bank. All Domicile listings within Governors Club will be moved to GC Realty. Both expressed a great deal of confidence that this was a good move for both companies.

That was basically their presentation. In response to several questions that were asked, additional information was given.

The details of the “strategic alliance” were not disclosed. So it is not clear whether this is a partnership or some other type of business entity. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that Domicile is now a part owner of GC Realty. But that is just my guess; nothing more.

The lease from the bank is short term; but the actual length was not disclosed. But it appears the bank will still try to sell the building. If sold, GC Realty said it will negotiate with the new owner to remain in occupancy.

Raoul said that GC Realty owns the “governorsclub.com” web site. He said that they are redesigning and strengthening the site and plan to introduce it by mid-November.

Vacant Land

To recap, the POA has executed a contract to purchase vacant land next to the GC Realty building. For details on that land, click here and look for the topic heading “Pictures Showing Vacant Land By Front Gate:  Land Pictures

At this meeting there was a long discussion about some contractual issues involving lot lines. It would be extremely difficult for me to summarize the details surrounding this contract point; suffice to say that, at least on this issue, I believe the Board is on the right track. The POA is conducting its due diligence studies, for which the contract allows 60 days. But I believe that 60 day clock has not yet started pending the resolution of the lot line issue.

What I found most interesting is that one or two directors were speaking of this purchase as if it was pretty much a done deal; and, in one case, as if it was something that had happened in the past. This potential purchase is by no means a done deal. The POA is still doing its due diligence studies and can back out of the contract with no penalty right up until the end of that 60 day period. I believe that the Board feels that, if purchased, they would most likely borrow the necessary funds.

The Finance Committee September meeting minutes noted comments from members that were generally against the idea of purchasing this land. It was noted there that buying this land will not necessarily protect the entrance given that a third party could still buy the adjacent land and building. Concern was also expressed over the cost to maintain and finance the land.

2013 Budget

For the latest on the budget, please see my separate post; unless you have already done so:  Budget Release

Two items in the budget have received a fair amount of attention, and I believe people might be interested in more information.

The first is an allocation of an amount between $4,000 and $5,000 for the newly formed Community Activities Committee. Since I don’t have the detailed budget, I don’t know the exact amount. However, it was discussed several times during this meeting. This action has prompted comments from some residents who, while recognizing the relatively small amount of money involved, are very concerned about the direction being taken by the Board in funding this committee. From talking to many people about this allocation, it seems clear that there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue. I think this is a fairly important issue about which the residents should be aware.  Therefore, I am working on a separate background paper which I hope to post shortly.

The second is the allocation of $25,000 to the Marketing Committee. As I mentioned in my last post, this amount went up and down as the budget evolved, and there is at least one director who feels that this expenditure is not necessary.

During this meeting, Gus Kolias made a detailed presentation to explain where these funds would be allocated. $6,400 on realtor relations; such as events and open houses. $13,600 on dissemination of information about our community; for prospects and realtors; such as information packets, computer media, videos. $5,000 for web enhancement; listing promotion and community information.

Gus made the following points:

These are estimates only, and the funds will not necessarily be spent. Many factors will determine how much is spent in each of these areas.

Most of this is geared to enhancing awareness of the community among all realtors.  And a major part of that is making this a very welcoming community to all realtors; including making it visitor friendly by providing good information to all prospective buyers.   Members of the Realtor Relations Committee are putting a great deal of volunteer time and effort into this program. Therefore, expenses are being kept to a minimum.

We need to recognize that nobody else is promoting or marketing our community. It is in our best interests to enhance our visibility and reputation with all local realtors; as this will help increase visits and activity.

The last five year plan (in 1987) anticipated marketing expenditures of $30,000 to $40,000 per year. For the past two years, the actual expenditures have been kept under $5,000 per year.

The budgeted amount of $25,000 is less than 1% of our annual budget.

These efforts benefit everybody in the community by helping increase awareness and activity; which usually results in better property values.

Road Project

As noted previously, engineering plans were being completed so that contractors would be able to submit bids around the first part of December. It appears there will be a slight delay.

As part of the preparation for this project, a meeting was recently held with property owners living along the section of road to be rebuilt. The subject of a sidewalk was raised, and almost all the owners expressed a desire to see the sidewalk extended out to the front gate; the logic being that it would be better to build that at the same time as the road. This was discussed at the September 28th meeting, and the Board felt the idea was worth pursuing.

At this meeting, the Board approved the expenditure of up to $10,800 to do the engineering design of this sidewalk. This will need to be integrated into the engineering plans for the road. As a result, there will be a delay in finalizing the overall engineering design package, and, in turn, a delay in distributing bid packages to contractors. And this means that there will be a delay in receiving bids of approximately two to three weeks.

Bids should now be in hand at the end of December rather than the beginning. Since construction would, in any event, not start until the spring, this delay should not have any great impact.

The sidewalk engineering plans will assume that it starts by hooking up where the current sidewalk ends at Governors Square and that it extends out past the front gate to Mt. Carmel Church Road. But whether or not it goes that far or stops at Red Parker Drive will be addressed later. This was a major subject of discussion in the September Special meeting. There are two sides to this issue.

On one side, safety considerations argue for stopping it at Red Parker Drive. Extending the walk to Mt. Carmel Church Road will more easily allow people to walk into the community without checking in at the front gate. The attendants will not be able to monitor the sidewalk and the road.

On the other side are those who say that many people will use the sidewalk to walk to the Food Lion and other stores outside the gates; and that it should be extended out to the traffic light for that reason.

This issue will be a future topic of discussion.

Safety Committee

The Safety Committee is currently a sub-committee under the Infrastructure Committee. It was suggested that it be changed to a stand-alone committee; since it appears to operate separately from the Infrastructure Committee. Jeff Allen seemed in favor of the change. He felt that there were enough issues to warrant the change and to have three to five residents as members.

Becky Berrey commented that she felt safety was more of a management issue and that we should not be dealing with these issues in a new committee. Kelley Hunter agreed with that assessment.

The Board voted 5-2 to make the Safety Committee a stand-alone committee. Becky Berrey and Kelley hunter voted against the motion.

Covenants Re-Write

The ad-hoc committee for rewriting the covenants reported to the Board. They have started to meet with several groups to determine how best to approach the task of getting the necessary approvals for making the proposed changes.

This is a long range project that will only kick into gear after the annual meeting. I think it is best to wait until then to cover this issue. I promise I will provide a background paper that will hopefully explain the issue. Frankly, I believe this one is something of a “no-brainer”. The changes being proposed are clearly in the best interests of all the property owners (and I do mean “all”). It is simply a question of dealing with the logistical issues of getting it done. More to come after the annual meeting.

Miscellaneous Items

Storm Water Management: A new policy was passed. It can be found on the web site here:

POA Building Use: The Board was supposed to review use of the POA building by neighborhood groups six months after approving the new policies. That review, which was supposed to be this month, has been postponed to the November meeting.

Heavy Truck Access Policy: After several months of consideration, Jeff Allen and the Board agreed that a policy was not necessary. The issue of dealing with trucks will be handled through the management of the gates. (At least that is what I understood to be the case from listening to the comments. If I got this one wrong, I will correct it next month.)

Flags and Banners: This item was not discussed. This might show up on the agenda after the annual meeting.

Long Range Plan: Delayed until the road project costs and timing are finalized.