Landscape Maintenance – Renewed Contract

Our landscape maintenance contract is the largest single expense incurred by the POA.  It actually takes up more of the budget than the security gates.

Bland is our current contractor, and their three year contract ends in December of this year.  The question was whether to renew a further three year contract directly with them or solicit bids from several other contractors with a “Request For Proposals” (called an RFP process).

Brief Background:

Bland was chosen after undertaking a comprehensive RFP process in 2009.  They were picked from a group of five bidders, and their contract price was well below what we were paying the previous contractor as well as being the best of all the bidders.  In the past three years, it has been the judgment of those involved with this work that Bland has always met or exceeded expectations; both in landscaping and snow removal.

All those involved in the process three years ago are involved today and support this move.  The Community Appearance Committee voted (unanimously) in favor of this move as did the Finance Committee (not unanimously).

It was generally felt that, given Bland’s competitive prices, little or nothing would be gained by going through a very time consuming RFP process at this point.  It was suggested that it might be appropriate to do a full RFP in another three years.

At this meeting, the Board voted to waive the RFP process and deal directly with Bland assuming that they would agree to prices at or lower than levels charged in 2012.  It is expected that these levels will be achieved.

Stonebrook Pond Issues – POA Contribution

Two representatives from Stonebrook made a presentation regarding the two ponds in that neighborhood.  The brief story is that both of the ponds are rapidly filling with silt from rainwater runoff; a great deal of which comes from areas of Governors Club outside the Stonebrook community.

There is a one time opportunity to easily access the upper pond (the worst of the two) to deal with this issue.  The reason it is “one time” is that access will come from a private lot which is about to be developed in the near future; and the owner is willing to allow it prior to the start of his construction work.  Otherwise, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to access the pond any other way.  The Stonebrook Maintenance Association has received an estimate of $35,000 to do draining, dredging and other remedial work which will effectively deal with the issue.  The owner of the lot is willing to contribute $5,000, and the Stonebrook association was asking for, ideally, a $15,000 contribution from the POA towards the balance of $30,000.  It is estimated that this work will deal with the problem for the next 20 years.

The issue did not appear to be entirely clear cut.

Pros:

• The Stonebrook representatives maintain that the ponds are general community amenities that are available to all residents and which enhance the look of the community.  As such, they should be partially the responsibility of the POA.
• They also maintain that the majority of the runoff comes from areas of Governors Club outside of Stonebrook; another reason why it should be partially the responsibility of the POA.
• In the past, the Stonebrook residents have paid for other remedial and storm drainage work on the ponds with little or no financial support from the POA.
• The residents have paid for other ongoing maintenance measures to help decrease runoff into the ponds; and they maintain that they will continue to pay for this work in the future to keep the ponds in the best condition possible.
• Until a few years ago, the POA and ARB had not strictly enforced new storm water runoff rules and regulations.  This resulted in more silt running off construction sites into the ponds.   So, to a certain extent, it could be claimed that inaction on the part of the POA and ARB exacerbated the problem.

Cons:

• This is natural rainwater runoff, and the POA has never been responsible for this aspect of the development.  It has always rested with individual property owners.
• Given that, the POA does not want to set a precedent, legal or otherwise, that it is financially responsible for such matters.
• The POA has been approached by Stonebrook in the past with similar requests which have more or less been turned down; primarily because responsibility for the ponds has generally rested with Stonebrook community management.

After some discussion, it was felt that the POA could help out as long as suitable language could be used making it clear that it was not assuming any legal responsibility for the problem by making such a payment.  Subject to that principle and review and approval of legal counsel, the Board voted to contribute $10,000 towards the work.  One director dissented.  The funds are not budgeted and so would come out of contingency funds.

Finance Committee – Budget Update

Mike Donoghue reported on a forecast done by the committee which projected that we are on target to meet budget numbers for the year.

In past meetings, it was noted that the cost of modifying the back gate for nighttime closure had grown from the initial estimate of $17,000 to something over $45,000 (not sure of the final cost yet….).  And, at this point, we are well beyond the date where we expected to close the gate and start obtaining the benefits of lower labor costs.  For more details on the back gate costs, click here to see the March 12th Summary.

However, even after accounting for these unforeseen costs, Mike Donoghue indicated that the forecast still shows us being close to budget both on operational results and the amount we expect to have available to allocate to the Reserve Fund.  (For an explanation of the “annual allocation to the Reserve Fund”, see the separate paper on Roads – Background.  The point is covered in the middle of that summary)

He also mentioned that committee agenda items included exploring other alternatives for financing road improvements other than outright assessments.

Road Improvements – Engineering Study Update

A major road project has been in the works for some time.  Reading a background summary of information might help you understand the meeting notes that follow.  The summary is probably longer than you would expect, but, to be fair, it is a complicated issue.  To read the background, click on the following link:  Roads – Background

Larry Edwards provided a time line for the first phase of major road works; covering the section of road from the front gate to just beyond the Manly intersection.  We are to receive bids from several firms for the engineering design package.  These plans should cost somewhere around $50,000.  When completed, the design package will be given to contractors so that they can provide bids on the actual road work.

Expected timing is as follows.  Approve a contract for the design engineering package in May.  Three months for that study to be completed.  One month more for bids; which puts us into October, 2012.  Discussed that it was probably not desirable to start construction in the winter, so it would make sense to wait for the spring of 2013; which is the current projected start date anyway.

If the bids come in well over what is available in the Reserve Fund, the Board will have to decide whether to put off the project until the money is available, do part of the project or levy an assessment to cover the shortfall.  One Director mentioned that the Finance Committee might look at “alternative funding sources” if it became necessary.  (Editorial Comment:  Hopefully, that does not include looking at borrowing money to fund the improvements; which IMHO would be a very bad move.)

Private Use of POA Building – Discussion

Two months ago, the Board approved a policy allowing residents of the community to use the conference room of the POA building for private functions.  It was done for six months on a trial basis.  Guidelines for community use can be found on the POA website.

There was a brief discussion regarding what will happen at the end of the six month trial period.  The general consensus was that the amount and nature of activities would be examined to determine if the use would be allowed to continue.  The idea of charging a modest fee for the use was floated, but it was determined that would be better addressed at the end of six months.

The Board did not discuss the usage of the room or whether there have been any problems with groups not adhering to the policies.

Background:  When the POA building was first opened, community groups were allowed to use it for private functions.  Among the first several of those functions, some left the room in poor condition and/or damaged.  At that point, community use was disallowed.  Two months ago, it was decided to resume allowing community use subject to the oversight of a POA Building Use Sub-committee and better controls being put in place.

(I guess we’ll see how it goes……..)

Long Range Plan – Update

The Long Range Plan Committee is headed by Doug Frey.  He mentioned that the committee had almost completed a benchmarking study of eight similar, gated communities in the southeast.  He hoped the results would be available soon.  The next step is putting together focus/discussion groups of experienced people within the community.