This summary will combine the community meeting on 3/26 which was followed by a short Board meeting on 3/27. I delayed posting this until the Board had posted all of its information on the POA web site.
For those who did not attend the Community Meeting last Tuesday evening, presentations have now been posted on the web site. One was made by Roy Thornton outlining the nature, logistics and timing of the work. The other was made by Bill Coulton, Chair of the Finance Committee, and had to do with payment options for the work. Here are links to both:
I can’t summarize everything that was said, as there was simply too much material covered. In addition to these presentations, there is a very good Q&A write-up which is constantly updated. The POA does not send out e-mail notifications of updates, because they are done too frequently. You need to check this periodically on your own; but it is well worth the effort. It can be found here: Road Questions and Answers
A few key points made during this meeting are as follows:
The third slide of Roy’s presentation is an interesting chart entitled “Subsurface Profile”. As background, the biggest problem with this section of road is that it was simply built incorrectly. Concrete was laid down on compacted soil without a proper sub-base. This chart shows the huge variation in the structural stability of what currently sits beneath the concrete. Putting it simply, the tops of those bars should be much more even, and all of them should be close to the first horizontal line (at 11 on the vertical axis). These variations in stability should not exist, and it accounts for the constant movement and buckling of this section of the road. It also implies that far more serious problems will occur in the future.
Assuming I heard it correctly, the worst portion of the work (when the road will be completely closed) should be in August and September.
It appears that the cost of alternative access is quite high; and the costs without that access are high enough as it is. More importantly, it appears we would have little chance of obtaining approval from the County for any alternative access. The road we would access is already heavily traveled, and adding all of our cars would require numerous additional lanes for turning and safety; so much so that major modifications would be needed to the existing road. (And I wouldn’t be surprised if it required a traffic light.) Therefore, I believe this idea simply won’t work.
I have heard no mention of the sidewalk, nor have I made inquiries. This is strictly my opinion, but I suspect that, given the cost of this project, the idea of a sidewalk has been shelved.
Overall, Roy’s presentation re-confirmed that fact that he has done his best to cover all the bases and do what is necessary to minimize disruption to the residents. This will not be an easy project to live through, but he has done his best to make it as bearable as possible.
Bill Coulton’s presentation shows several alternatives for funding this work. As I mentioned before, it will be assessments, loans or a combination of the two. Bill made it very clear that there would be costs associated with any loan, and it would require us pledging our income stream. That can only be done once, so any loan we take would down might preclude us from borrowing for anything else until it is paid off. During the meeting, several people expressed the view that we would be better off simply paying the assessment and avoiding the additional costs that come from borrowing.
All financing discussions included the issue of having some amount of money in an emergency reserve; which is a good idea for any homeowners association. When you look through the presentation, you will see that subject referenced more than a few times.
So there is no confusion, our regular, yearly budget contains funds for our ongoing road maintenance and drainage work on the balance of our roads. This work is undertaken every year, and those amounts are totally separate from this project.
As noted in previous summaries, there is a “Rest of Roads Survey” currently being studied with the intent of drawing up a schedule for work on the balance of our roads after this project is finished. Several key points should be understood:
1. This means we need to keep rebuilding our reserves for such work.
2. Not all of our roads will need replacement in the short or even medium term. Many sections of our roads have years of remaining life.
3. The section being replaced with the current project is arguably the worst constructed section and has borne the worst amount of wear and tear. Other sections of road can probably be dealt with using less expensive methodologies other than a total re-build.
Sorry for the brevity, but I am not capable of quickly writing up an explanation of all the financing alternatives. If you were not in attendance, please try to do your best with the information to hand. If any more information or explanations are posted, you will hear directly from the Board. I believe the financing presentation is fairly logical and understandable; so please give it a try. It simply shows options that have different amounts of borrowing versus assessments to cover the $800,000 difference between our current reserves and the expected cost of the project.
Here are some key points from the follow-up Board meeting that took place on Wednesday, March 27th.
At the previous Board meeting, the directors were of the opinion that they would make a decision of the financing at this Wednesday meeting. That view apparently changed, and they are now looking to make their decision on April 10th.
If any resident has an opinion or comment to offer on the financing aspecst of this project, the Board encourages people to e-mail information to them. By comments on “financing aspects”, they are referring to whether the shortfall is financed through assessments or loans. They are asking that comments be sent to the following address: [email protected]
Please note that, while the Board welcomes comments and opinions, they made it very clear that this is not a vote. The Board will consider any input, but, in the end, will make what it feels is the best decision for the community. If you wish to offer any input, It is probably better to do it sooner rather than later.
The important topic of project costs and contingencies was raised in both meetings.
In a nutshell, the cost of this type of project cannot be guaranteed. This is a problem with any rebuilding project; because such projects are far more complicated than new construction. We will not know exactly what needs to be done to stabilize the sub-base until we rip up the existing concrete. Although many test borings have been done, these provide no more than rough estimates of the required work.
Therefore, the project contains several contingency amounts. Roy Thornton feels he has sufficient amounts for unexpected costs, but he also made it clear that nobody can guarantee anything. It has to be understood that there is always the possibility that the costs will exceed what we have allocated. On the other hand, there is a possibility that we will not need to spend as much as we have allocated. We simply won’t know until we are close to completing the work. The community needs to understand and accept this reality.
I have done this summary more quickly than usual because the Board is working on a tight deadline. Please accept my apologies if I missed some items. You should feel comfortable addressing any questions to Roy Thornton, Bill Coulton and the Board. Everybody involved seems committed to keeping all residents fully informed.