{"id":1038,"date":"2014-01-03T22:58:35","date_gmt":"2014-01-03T22:58:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gc-poa-realnewsandinformation.com\/?page_id=1038"},"modified":"2014-01-03T23:31:05","modified_gmt":"2014-01-03T23:31:05","slug":"meeting-summary-121713","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/gc-poa-realnewsandinformation.com\/?page_id=1038","title":{"rendered":"Meeting Summary 12\/17\/13"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Contents<\/strong><\/span><\/span>
\n 1. Holiday Fund<\/span>
\n 2. Committee Terms<\/span>
\n 3. Financials:\u00a0 2013 Budget and Road Project<\/span>
\n 4. ARB Fee Changes<\/span>
\n 5. Miscellaneous Items<\/span>
\n 6. Holiday Fund – Further Information<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 Holiday Fund<\/strong><\/p>\n

Everybody received an e-mail from the POA that announced the cancellation of this year\u2019s Holiday Fund for the gate attendants. Instead, the Board decided to make similar payments to contractors out of general POA funds; the participants being the gate attendants, the POA staff (not including our community manager) and the Bland landscaping staff. The Board has not officially disclosed the amount of funds to be distributed.\u00a0 I do not believe this amount, whatever it is, has been factored into the 2013 budget projection discussed in item # 3 below.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Reconciling the recent Splinters summary with what I heard in this meeting is somewhat difficult; because there appear to be some inconsistencies.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Splinters summary, our community manager <\/span>\u201creported that some residents are confused about how this year\u2019s holiday fund for\u00a0all contract employees,\u00a0such as\u00a0gate attendants, office personnel, and landscapers,\u00a0is being managed\u201d.<\/span><\/i><\/span>\u00a0 <\/span>Such confusion was not surprising given that the Board decided in November to cancel the fund but neglected to inform the community of its action.\u00a0 <\/span>Only at this meeting did the Board decide to disclose its decision by sending an e-mail on December 19th.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, the Splinters summary stated the following:\u00a0 <\/span>\u201c<\/span>This decision was made in an earlier meeting, based on concerns about accessibility of the POA building during the completion of the road projects.\u00a0 The Board agreed to revisit how this fund will be handled in\u00a02014.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0 <\/span><\/i>This language implies that this was a one-time decision for this year only based on potentially problematic access to the POA building.\u00a0 <\/span>Based on what I heard at the meeting, that is not necessarily accurate.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, the decision was not made in an \u201cearlier meeting\u201d.\u00a0 <\/span>Rather, the resolution was passed by e-mail shortly after the November meeting; which is why I am unable to provide any information as to why the Board came to this decision.\u00a0 <\/span>Because, if there was any discussion, it was done by e-mail among the directors.<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, the fund <\/span>only came up in this meeting because one director questioned the intent of the resolution; namely whether this change is one-time (for this year only) or a permanent change going forward.<\/span>\u00a0 <\/span>From the discussion, it was clear that some directors intended that the Holiday Fund be permanently eliminated (which has nothing to do with possible short term access problems).\u00a0 Sinc<\/span>e the matter was not subject to a vote, I can\u2019t give the exact numbers for and against that idea.\u00a0 <\/span>However, there were definitely more than one or two who expected this to be a permanent change.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, when the resolution itself was read aloud, it clearly made the cancellation of the fund a permanent change.\u00a0 <\/span>Only when several directors questioned this intent did the Board agree that the issue could be revisited at the next holiday season.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, community members should, at a minimum, understand that there is a contingent of directors who would prefer to see the Holiday Fund permanently abolished and for similar payments to be made from general POA funds.\u00a0 <\/span>And, unless modified or rescinded, the resolution that was passed makes the change permanent.<\/span><\/p>\n

For those who are interested, at the end of this summary is a more detailed explanation of this issue; including some background information.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Committee Terms<\/strong><\/p>\n

The recent Splinters summary stated the following:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Board will discuss at its next meeting on Jan. 14 the merits of appointing\u00a0all committee members to one-year terms.\u00a0The Board can subsequently reappoint any volunteer committee members to additional one-year terms.\u00a0 Board members hope this action will stimulate broader participation by community members on POA-related committees.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This was not discussed in the open meeting, so I have to assume it was discussed in the Executive Session.\u00a0 Therefore, I cannot offer any additional reasoning or rationale to support this idea; because I did not hear the discussion. However, it will be discussed in January; hopefully in the open portion of the meeting.\u00a0 If you have any input to offer the Board on this idea, now would be the time to do so.<\/p>\n

(Editorial Comment:\u00a0 As presented, this idea makes little sense to me.\u00a0 I can’t see how it will encourage more participation on committees.\u00a0 And I doubt it would preserve continuity or otherwise be in our best interests to have people serve only one year on a committee.\u00a0 If anything, all I can see is the Board becoming unnecessarily involved in committee functions and exerting influence over who can serve on particular committees.\u00a0 Perhaps more information or a better rationale will be disclosed in the January meeting.)<\/em><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 Financials \u2013 2013 Operations and Road Project<\/strong><\/p>\n

It appears that there have been no major changes from previous Board discussions. 2013 operations should be either right on budget or there might be funds left in the contingency account; but most likely no higher than $15,000 to $20,000. It appears that the largest savings will be something above $30,000 in the infrastructure maintenance budget; and that this savings will ensure that there is no overrun for the year.<\/p>\n

Barring unforeseen problems, the road project should be in the range of $2.6 million. Until those numbers are better known and depending on timing of expenditures, it is not clear how much will have to be borrowed to finish the job. There was no follow-on discussion (from last month) regarding the possibility of borrowing the full amount of the facility for a future project.<\/p>\n

For a more detailed explanation of the possibilities, see item 6 here:\u00a0 10\/15\/13 Meeting Summary \u00a0 <\/a><\/strong>……..and items 1 and 2 here:\u00a0 11\/19\/13 Meeting Summary<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 ARB Fee Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Board reviewed changes being made to the ARB fee schedule; primarily dealing with work and improvements on existing homes. The idea behind these changes is to make it easier for residents to make improvements without being subject to fees. Most improvements or changes which affect the exterior of a house require ARB review and approval. Many fees for this type of work have been eliminated effective 1-1-14.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0 Miscellaneous Items:<\/strong><\/p>\n