Contents
1. Holiday Fund – Changes in Distributions
2. Road Reconstruction Project
3. Proposed Sidewalk to Front Gate
4. Proposed Sidewalk – Engineering Drawings
5. Executive Session – Unspecified Legal Issues
6. Committees – Including Safety Committee
7. Realtor Relations
8. Financials
9. Miscellaneous Items
1. Holiday Fund – Change in Distributions
It was noted that, out of close to 900 households in the community, 242 contributed a total of $18,500 to this year’s Holiday Fund. From comments made, I believe it is fair to say that Board members had hoped this participation rate would have been significantly higher.
The Board then discussed whether to inform the community that it had decided to use some of the Holiday Fund money to pay small bonuses to the Bland landscaping contractors. This was one of two changes in Holiday Fund distributions from previous years; the other being the inclusion of CAS managers in the distribution pool (which was not discussed in this meeting). Neither of these changes was communicated to community residents.
If you contributed to the Holiday Fund, this information might be of interest. But you will need to bear with a little bit of a background explanation to avoid any misunderstandings.
The Holiday Fund is sponsored by the POA Board; not the staff. The Board solicits contributions from all residents, and the proceeds are divided among a number of employees based on whatever formulas are being used that year. Distribution formulas are usually based on length of service, seniority or both.
In past years, the pool was divided among the gate attendants and the POA office “support staff”. The term support staff was used to describe those office employees who were not managers. To the extent that managers in the POA office were given bonuses, the funds came out of the POA budget.
With the most recent fund, the Board decided to include the managers in the Holiday Fund distribution pool. However, solicitations to community residents did not mention this change. They simply referred to gate attendants and office “support staff”. Since “support staff” in previous years did not include managers, one could easily have assumed that there had been no change.
What was further disclosed in this meeting was the Board’s decision to include six of the Bland Landscaping personnel in the distribution pool. This was never discussed in a regular meeting, so it must have been voted on separately. And this, too, was never disclosed to the residents when donations to the fund were solicited.
To summarize then, the distribution pool for this year’s Holiday Fund included ten gate attendants, all the staff at the POA office (including managers) and six of the Bland landscaping personnel. The Bland people each received a small fixed sum, and the rest of the funds were distributed in unequal amounts based on length of service. This year’s POA staff included three managers and one support staff compared to previous year’s staff levels of two to three managers, an ARB coordinator and two support staff.
Several Board members expressed reluctance to share this information with the residents. From what I heard, it appeared there was concern that some might not understand what was done. But, after some discussion, the Board decided to disclose the fact that the Bland personnel were included in the distributions. A draft message is to be drawn up for review before being sent out to the community.
2. Road Reconstruction Project
Roy Thornton, who has agreed to take on the role of project manager, gave a detailed presentation to the Board about various aspects of this project. These primarily dealt with important logistical issues that will need to be addressed to ensure a smoothly run project. Among others, these issues would include alternative access for all residents, access for those homes directly on that section of road, replacement of landscaping and access to the POA building. He also reviewed various construction techniques that will most likely relate to the bids received.
Without going into all the details, it appears that Roy is covering all the bases and considering everything that will need to be done to minimize disruption within the community. All of these issues involve costs that will need to be added to the overall project budget.
Until the bids come in, the total estimated cost will not be known. According to Roy, the bid packages will go out later this month. Bids are expected to come in around February 15th, and Roy’s recommendations should be available by the end of February.
3. Proposed Sidewalk to Front Gate
The overall issue of whether or not this project will be pursued was not discussed. Contractors bidding on the road reconstruction have been asked to provide a bid on the proposed sidewalk as well. However, from comments made at this meeting, this part of the bidding process was not made a top priority. The estimates for the sidewalk will be totally separate from those for the road.
Roy Thornton made an interesting point regarding the estimated cost. One contractor told him that, if the sidewalk were built, it would be done totally separate from the road and after that work had been completed. Apparently, construction of the sidewalk is very different from the construction of the road; with different processes and machinery; such that this contractor felt the two types of work would not be done concurrently.
This implies that any savings from doing the sidewalk at the same time as the road might not be as large as once thought. That expected savings was one of the reasons originally given by the Board to build this section of sidewalk now. The original idea of such a cost savings came from an engineer; and, to be fair, the concept of concurrent work resulting in a cost savings seems logical. It appears at least one contractor may think otherwise.
In the end, should this sidewalk be pursued, there might be some savings, but perhaps it would not be as much as originally expected. More will be known when the bids are received.
4. Proposed Sidewalk – Engineering Drawings
Last October, the Board authorized the expenditure of $10,800 for engineering drawings related to the proposed sidewalk from Governors Square to the front gate. In conversations with others, it appeared to me that the purpose of this expenditure was not always well understood. I thought it might be worth trying to explain this for anybody who is interested.
Before any such project can be bid or constructed, whether it is a road or a sidewalk, full engineering drawings must be done. Such drawings were commissioned for the road reconstruction. And, since the Board felt that there was good reason to pursue building the sidewalk at some point in time, they decided to commission those drawings as well. That resulted in the $10,800 expenditure.
Doing both sets of drawings at the same time ensures that the two projects will mesh. For example, drainage aspects on the road reconstruction will need to mesh with the construction and drainage aspects of the sidewalk. Doing the road engineering drawings without considering any sidewalk would make construction of that sidewalk more problematic and possibly more costly.
By commissioning the sidewalk drawings now and meshing them with the road drawings, the Board has ensured that a sidewalk will be more easily constructed either now or in the future; and that the road will not need to be modified to allow for its addition. Therefore, assuming the sidewalk is constructed now or later, these drawings will have value. The only situation in which they would not have value is one where the sidewalk is never constructed.
If I have failed to make this clear, please feel free to contact me with any questions.
5. Executive Session
In the middle of the meeting, the Board went into Executive Session for just over an hour, but, unusually, no reason was given other than it was legal in nature.
Last May, the Board adopted a resolution regarding meeting protocol. Details can be found in the third item here: May Meeting Summary. The resolution itself is here: Meeting Protocol Resolution
This resolution requires that, before going into Executive Session, the presiding officer is to state for the record, but without giving details, the item or items to be discussed. In this case, the required item description was, in my view, not properly given at the time the Board went into Executive Session. In response to my later inquiry, I was told the discussion item was “to take advice of counsel”. The POA’s legal counsel, all three community managers and the chair of the Finance Committee were also in attendance for the entire session. Other than that, I can’t offer any more information.
(Comment: This is not an editorial comment. Rather, it is an explanation as to why I have mentioned this session.
Since the above referenced resolution was adopted, the Board has gone into Executive Session five or six times. In each case, the items to be discussed have been specific enough to let any observer understand the need for details of that discussion to be kept private. For example, items discussed since May have included land purchase contract negotiations, past due accounts from residents, dealing with or taking legal advice on possible foreclosure actions or dealing with legal actions brought against the POA by a resident.
Therefore, while these Executive Sessions have occurred, I have not specifically noted them in previous meeting summaries. Either the item was not significant enough to warrant mentioning (for example, dealing with past due accounts) or the item was indirectly covered elsewhere in the summary (for example, dealing with land purchase contract negotiations).
Unlike those previous sessions, the discussion item for this Executive Session was so broad as to give no indication at all of what was discussed. And this is the first time this has happened. I thought that unusual enough to warrant mentioning it; because anybody attending the meeting as an observer would have noted it as well.)
6. Committees – Including Safety Committee
The Board approved an updated list of committee members which can be found at the very end of this document. Don’t get confused when you see a committee list in the middle of this document. That is last month’s list; which is part of the minutes of last month’s meeting. Be sure to go all the way to the end of the document for the current list: January Board Papers
Following up on last month’s meeting wherein approval of any Safety Committee members was postponed, that committee now has a chairman and members. There was no discussion of that issue at this meeting. The entire list was simply approved.
7. Realtor Relations Committee
Minutes of the December 6th Realtor Relations Committee meeting contained some interesting information on home sales from Jill Ehrenfeld. Through the end of November, 34 homes had been sold year to date versus 30 in 2011. In addition, 13 lots were sold through November. She noted that expected sales for the entire year should be around 38 homes; which would be a 26% increase over 2011.
In November, there were 39 non-resident realtor visits to the community, and 19 of those were first time visitors.
The committee is working on designing an unobtrusive band that can be attached to a mailbox support column to show that a home is currently for sale. The committee is determining how sale information might be attached to this band with a QR code.
8. Financials
The 2012 year end statement has been posted to the POA web site and can be found here: 12/31/12 Statements
The year-end cash position was almost $100,000 better than projected resulting in a reserve fund contribution of $395,000. The two largest negative variances were larger engineering fees and greater costs associated with the conversion of the Lystra Gate. These were more than outweighed by positive variances; some of the larger ones being lower legal expenses, lower storm maintenance expenses, higher road user fees, higher ARB fees and a one-time easement payment from AT&T of $24,000.
The Finance Committee and Board have approved changes in the way our financial statements are presented. The goal is to make them easier to understand and to allow for better tracking of special projects with specific funding sources. It will take some time for me to review the new format, so any comments will have to be postponed to a future posting.
9. Miscellaneous Items
Long Range Plan: Noted that the presentation of a draft five year plan will be delayed until the second quarter to obtain better road cost information.
Covenant Re-Write: 620 consent forms have been obtained. The magic number is 968.
Water Line Project: As mentioned previously, the water department will be digging up roughly 1,000 feet of Governors Drive from Mclean up towards Morehead for placement of a new line. The project is expected to start in late 2013.
Rest of Roads Survey: This should be reviewed by the Infrastructure Committee this month.