Contents
1. Road Reconstruction Project
2. Long Range Plan Update
3. Snow Maintenance/Removal
4. Infrastructure Committee – Significant Projects
5. Executive Session Issue
6. Safety Committee – Speed Indicators
7. Covenant Re-Write Project
8. Art Studio Tour – Conflicting Information

1.  Road Reconstruction Project

A large portion of the meeting was spent discussing various aspects of this project; and most of this will be discussed at the Tuesday community meeting. Aside from that, two other points were worth noting.

First, a comment was made that we have probably been underfunding road maintenance for the past several years; particularly with caulking. This maintenance is important in that it pushes out the eventual time when total resurfacing needs to be done. This year’s budget did include an additional $30,000 for caulking; which was not there the previous two years.

Second, possibly using the entire reserve for the upcoming project raises the question of what we should have in reserves at any given time for emergency purposes. Theoretically, we should have some amount in reserves to cover unexpected emergency expenses of a capital nature. There does not appear to be any “right” amount; but let’s assume a figure of $300,000 to $400,000 for argument’s sake. Having that reserve would prevent the need for a special assessment to cover any unexpected cost (such as hurricane damage). And best practices would recommend such a reserve. However, if we use all our reserves on this upcoming project, we will not have any emergency reserves for probably a year. Until the reserve is replenished, it appears the worst case would then be the need for an emergency special assessment in the event something highly unusual and unexpected happened that caused damage of a capital nature.

This led to the broader question of whether our current annual assessment allows for enough in the way of capital project reserves. Currently, the amount that should be available for reserves in each year’s budget is roughly $500,000. But we will need to begin saving both for future road projects and for sufficient emergency reserves.

Future road projects are detailed in the Rest of Roads Survey; which is currently under review. While it is clear that rebuilding certain roads will be required in the future, it was noted that there are alternative, less expensive methods that might work on some of those projects. Reading between the lines, it appeared to me that this upcoming project may be the most expensive due to the substandard original construction and the heavy wear and tear to which this portion of the road has been subjected; and that these characteristics will not apply to all roads in the community. It has already been noted that original construction techniques were improved on later roads.

2.  Long Range Plan

Given the need to extensively review information in the Rest of Roads Survey and the fact that the upcoming project will not be completed until October, it was noted that finalizing a draft of the Long Range Plan will have to be pushed out even further and possibly as far as this year’s annual meeting. (See the Infrastructure Committee section below for more information on roads.)

3.  Storm Maintenance/Snow Removal

Last month, the Board noted that $40,000 of our $50,000 budget for storm maintenance had already been spent despite the fact that we had only one fairly light snowfall. The obvious question raised was whether current snow removal procedures are being handled correctly and whether they are consistent with past practices. The Board asked Jeff Allen to come back with a report, and that was reviewed at this meeting.

The report can be found in the middle of this document. After bringing it up, you will have to scroll down to page 8 to find it:  Winter Storm Management   Please feel free to read this report. Quite honestly, I did so but could not find an answer to the question that was raised last month.

The Board spent some time discussing what the proper overall budget number should be. Since nobody can predict the weather, I believe it was agreed that any number would be little more than a guess.

4.  Infrastructure Committee

According to the minutes (which can be found on the POA web site), the committee has reviewed the Ballentine “Rest of Roads Survey” which covers potential road replacements beyond the project to be done this year. Apparently, the recommendations in the study were somewhat ambitious in terms of the timing and extent of road replacements. It was felt that more reasonable and economical standards would be acceptable. An ad-hoc committee within this group has been formed to look more closely at the issue and come up with a more reasonable plan for a road replacement schedule. Since the road replacement plan is a critical part of the five year plan, this is one reason why the issuance of that plan is being delayed.

Just another reminder that the water company will be installing a new line that will require tearing up roughly 1,000 feet of Governors Drive from McLean up the hill to the intersection at Morehead. The work is currently scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year or the beginning of 2014. The water department will be digging up only one lane and will have to replace it at their cost. This has raised the question of whether the POA should rebuild the other lane at the same time; the result being that we would obtain an entirely new section of road but only pay half the cost. It would be the logical thing to do; because that section will have to be replaced anyway. But the obvious question is whether we can afford the expense; which I believe was in the neighborhood of several hundred thousand dollars. This was discussed in the meeting, but the Board made no firm decision to pursue this project. So, it is simply something that is being considered. I believe the upcoming road project needs to be sorted out before the Board will take this any further.

5.  Executive Session

During this meeting, the Board went into an unannounced Executive Session. I am disappointed to report that the stated reason of “financial matters” was, in my opinion, again not consistent with the policy adopted by the Board last year.

Bob Berrey attended this closed session. He is a community resident and an attorney, but I cannot say in what capacity he was attending. Before the session, there was a reference to the concept of attorney client privilege. Other than that and the vague reference to financial matters, I cannot tell you what was discussed.

I reported on a similar event two months ago and was hopeful that it would not happen again. My summary of that event is item number 5 here:  1/15 Meeting Summary          But it now seems clear that a majority of the Board members either believe this policy can be ignored or are interpreting its language such that it permits these actions.

(Editorial Comment: Please take a minute to read this important message, because I need your help. I have no problem with Executive Sessions, as long as they are handled properly. In our case, that means following the policy that the Board created and adopted last year. I believe this policy is being ignored and that this is not in the best interests of the community. I have made my views known to the Board, but they carry no weight. I think the Board believes that either nobody cares or nobody else shares my view; and that this issue can therefore be ignored. Maybe they are right, but I would very much like to know one way or the other. And I am asking for your help to do that.

I have posted a separate summary of the reasons why I believe the policy is important and why it should not be misinterpreted. By making it separate, those of you who don’t care about this issue can ignore it. This summary includes an explanation along with my communication to the Board. If you agree with what I have written, I am asking that you write the Board, too.

If nobody writes, I will assume the community is comfortable with these actions and cease mentioning them in my summaries. As I said when I started this endeavor, I am only going to write about matters which I believe people will deem significant. If people feel that this issue is insignificant, I will accept that conclusion. Please help me determine this one way or the other.)

The summary can be found here:  Executive Sessions

6.  Safety Committee – Speed Indicators

Just following up on this issue; which was mentioned for the first time last month. A proposal to purchase one or more of these indicators was presented to the Board. After some discussion, the Board determined that there were too many unanswered questions. Therefore, no decision was made, and the idea was referred back to the Safety Committee for further consideration.

7.  Covenant Re-write Project

To date, over 750 consents have been received. The magic number is 960. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if you have not sent in your form, please do so. If you still need to understand why, here is an explanation:  Covenant Re-write Project

8.  Art Studio Tour

Last year, three artists living within the community participated in the Chatham Artists Guild Studio Tour which took place over two consecutive weekends in December. This tour involves the general public visiting artist’s studios throughout Chatham County. Without going into all the details, the Board decided that there would be no security procedures for this public event. Anybody who drove up to the gates to visit any of these three artists was allowed to enter with no information recorded.

This event is in a class by itself in that neither the POA nor the sponsoring organization can provide a list of participants. And, since it is heavily advertised throughout four counties, the number of visitors cannot be predicted. With every other event that takes place within the gates, there is a list of participants available in advance such that we are able to preserve some semblance of security. For this event, the gates were effectively opened for those two weekends. I suspect very few people were aware of this aspect of the tour.

There are now five artists who wish to open their homes for this year’s tour in December. It came up for approval at this meeting. The long lead time is necessary because of the extensive publicity efforts associated with the event. The Safety Committee was represented at this meeting and, unlike last year, was able to propose limited security measures which it felt would not unduly burden those wishing to visit the homes of these five artists.

While it appeared that at least one director did not like the recommendations of the Safety Committee, no director spoke out against them. When the motion to approve the tour was made, one director asked that it be amended to be subject the recommendations of the Safety Committee. At least that is what I heard and understood, and I believe that was the motion passed by the Board. It was clear that this director wanted to make sure the event was handled differently than last year; and it appeared to me that all the Directors agreed.

During that brief discussion, the issue was muddied by a request that the Safety Committee come up with a policy for such public events. I thought this odd in that there seemed little need for a policy when this is the only event, either scheduled or planned, that would need these security measures.

To my surprise, when the Splinters summary came out, it said nothing about the Safety Committee’s specific recommendations. Rather, it said that the event was approved subject to this new policy that was requested by the Board. But this is a policy that has yet to be proposed and yet to be approved by the Board. In essence, the Splinters version of what happened at the meeting left open the possibility that the Board might adopt far less effective procedures or none at all. As I said, that is not what I understood to have happened.

Therefore, I have requested clarification from the Board as to its intent. Once I receive that, I will post the information. If no clarification is forthcoming, I will post further information so that people know exactly what has happened and what the Board could possibly do in the future regarding this event. Then you can decide for yourself whether this is an issue worthy of your attention.