Contents
1. Road Reconstruction Project
2. Ad Hoc IT Committee
3. Finance Committee – Budget Update
4. Electronic Voting
5. Ad Hoc Sidewalk Committee
6. Realtor Relations Committee
7. Covenant Re-Write Project
8. Additional Info – Assessment Procedures
1. Road Project
Several systems for monitoring the road construction costs were reviewed along with payment review and approval processes. Without going into all the details, the systems appeared to be very comprehensive and thorough.
(Editorial Comment: I have heard some residents express concern that money earmarked for the road might be spent on unrelated projects. From what I saw, it appears that these monitoring systems will ensure that road funds are spent appropriately and that such concerns would be unfounded. If these procedures are followed, I believe anybody will be able to track all the costs and see exact sources and uses of funds.)
By now, everybody should be aware that the vote went against the full $800 assessment, and the promised $300 assessment has already been mailed to property owners. There are no specific plans in place for assessing the remaining, projected balance of $500 per lot. And, unless the project comes in under budget, that amount will likely increase to account for the additional costs of obtaining financing plus the loan interest. These estimated financing and interest costs have not been disclosed by the Board.
There are several alternatives for doing these future assessments in terms of timing and amounts, but it appears nothing will be decided right now. The Board is working to finalize a financing arrangement within the next ninety days to cover any needed funds. I suspect it will wait to see how the job progresses before deciding how to proceed with any further assessments.
Some residents have apparently asked for the option to pay the entire $800 in full and thus avoid paying for any of the financing costs related to the loan (similar to what the country club did with its most recent assessment). It appears there are ways to handle the billing and accounting for the two different types of payments. However, after some discussion, the Board felt that changing direction on payment procedures at this point would possibly cause too much confusion, raise questions and present difficulties in implementation.
Work on the road should start in June. I believe most residents are interested in availability of access through the front gate, so I thought it worth doing a brief summary of that projected time line. Please note that this does not apply to those residents that live on the affected section of Governors Drive. Those 21 homes have special access procedures throughout the entire project. For other residents, the road closure details are as follows:
Early July to Mid August: Vehicles with bar codes will be allowed access through the Mt. Carmel Gate. All other vehicles will have to use the Lystra Gate. The road will be narrowed to one lane in different sections at different times, so vehicles will have to deal with slight delays and drive very carefully. If this access becomes problematic (eg. safety issues), it may possibly be shut down with all cars being required to go to the Lystra Gate.
Mid August to Mid November: Except for the 21 homes fronting Governors Drive, the Mt. Carmel access will be closed. All traffic will have to use the Lystra Gate.
Unexpected weather conditions may cause these projected time periods to change.
If you have any questions, please go first to the POA web page here: Road Q & A Otherwise, please direct them to Roy Thornton or the Board directly.
Lastly, I have heard a number of people question why the proposed $800 assessment was the same for improved and unimproved lots. For those who are interested, I have included additional information on this subject at the end of this summary.
2. Ad Hoc IT Committee
Julian Wachs reviewed the committee’s initial recommendations; which primarily centered on updating and streamlining POA information and database systems. Rather than go into all the details of this extended discussion, I’ll mention a few key points.
One of the key recommendations was to have a POA staff person coordinate all IT management and to avoid having it done by a committee or volunteers. There is a better chance of achieving continuity using staff as opposed to constantly changing volunteers. A volunteer committee can provide guidance and expertise but ideally should not be responsible for implementing changes (except for the web site).
There would be relatively minor costs in terms of implementing some or all of the recommendations. Although there would be no immediate cash benefits, the changes should, over time, result in better workplace efficiency which, in turn, should result in long term financial benefits. In addition, they would result in better service to the residents.
It appears that this committee has carefully examined our current situation and that its recommendations will eventually need to be addressed. Stephanie Cook is returning to our POA as an assistant manager and has a great deal of background in IT and our systems. It was left that Julian Wachs, Stephanie Cook and Jeff Allen will meet and propose a specific plan to the Board to implement these recommendations.
3. Finance Committee
Mike Donoghue informed the Board that expenditure information is being obtained from committees with the intent of doing a year end budget forecast in June. He feels that anticipated overruns in some expense categories may put pressure on meeting the budget numbers for the year. Once that forecast is done, the Board should have a better idea whether savings will need to be pursued in selected areas to offset any overruns.
4. Electronic Voting
The Board passed a resolution, the intent of which was to allow for electronic voting as an alternative to a paper ballot. At this point, the idea is to allow electronic voting as an option, not as a requirement. Before this option can be implemented, the By-Laws need to be amended and the mechanics of electronic voting need to be finalized.
5. Ad Hoc Sidewalk Committee
I mentioned this in the April summary even though it was not discussed in that meeting. Instead, the Splinters summary simply announced that this committee had been created but offered no additional information. It was not discussed in this meeting either. However, in reviewing posted documents, I ran across the following reference in the April 28th minutes for the Infrastructure Committee:
“Jeff (Allen) reported that the POA Board has asked Dr. Rick Pillsbury to form a committee to consider alternatives for future community sidewalks and to make a recommendation which, when approved, will become part of the long range plan.”
Dr. Pillsbury lives on the section of Governors Drive that will be rebuilt this year. Since no other information has been provided, it is not known why Dr. Pillsbury was asked to chair this committee, who else is on the committee or how our existing sidewalk plan will figure into this committee’s work. Nor is it clear whether community residents will have the opportunity to provide input to or comment on the plan to be drawn up by this new committee.
6. Realtor Relations Committee
Gus Kolias reported on continuing activities. These include efforts to meet with brokers to educate them on the upcoming road work and to ensure that showings will take place during construction. Progress is being made on implementing the QR tag program; which will allow brokers easy access to information on houses listed for sale.
7. Covenant Re-Write Project
Less than 100 votes are necessary to reach the magic number. Again, if you know of anybody who has not submitted their vote, please encourage them to do so. The proposed changes are in our best interests. Further information can be found here: Covenant re-Write Project
8. Additional Information – Assessment Procedures
Our covenants define how assessments can be levied. While aspects of the language are open to interpretation, the assessment methods in terms of improved versus unimproved lots is very clear and and cannot be modified.
Annual Assessments for unimproved lots must be 75% of the assessment for improved lots. To avoid any confusion, some people often refer to Annual Assessments as our “annual dues”. Technically, that is an incorrect term, because we have only assessments and no “dues”.
Special Assessments must be applied uniformly among improved and unimproved lots. Therefore, once the Board decided that the $800 was to be a Special Assessment, it had no choice but to apply that amount equally to both improved and unimproved lots.
If you find this assessment language disagreeable, please remember that we are trying to change our covenants to allow such items to be more easily modified in accordance with the wishes of our property owners. So please make sure you have voted on the covenant re-write proposal, and encourage others to do so as well.
If you have gotten this far, you might have another question: namely, why didn’t the Board use the vehicle of Annual Assessments for this $800 so that unimproved lots would have a lower assessment. The director’s discussions on this matter were all in Executive Session, and they have chosen not to disclose the reasons behind their decisions. However, I can offer an educated guess as to why this was not done.
Annual Assessments can only be increased by 10% each year. But the language in the covenants is not clear whether unused increases can be carried forward into future years. For example, to allow a zero increase in one year and a 20% increase in the next. If one goes back to the inception of the POA, there have been numerous unused increases which, if carried forward, could conceivably be used to substantially increase our Annual Assessment far beyond that $800 level. But justifying an $800 increase through the use of “carry forwards” would arguably require a very liberal interpretation of that language and thus might be challenged. In addition, lowering the assessment back to a normal level in the following year might cause problems with the future interpretation of the “allowable increase” language.
Furthermore, a careful reading of the allowable uses for Annual Assessments seems to indicate that these cannot be used for large, one-time capital improvement projects. Rather, Special Assessments appear to have been specifically designed to handle such work.
Again, this is simply speculation, but I thought it might be helpful to anyone asking that question.