Cypress Landing Master Homeowners Association Board of Directors
Meeting
July27, 2009
Bay Club
6 p.m. Review & Comment Period/7 p.m. BOD Meeting
Board Members Present: Charlie Moore, Ron Buzzeo, Dave Grahek, Larry
Howard, Bill Lord,
Board Members Absent: Kathy Lawson, Mary Lou Sholl
Others Present: Tomi Moody-CAM; Bill Jackson-Assistant Treasurer;
Secretary; Mia Ramsden-Secretary
Residents Present: 46
The first hour of the meeting was a review and comment period during
which the homeowners reviewed and commented on the results of the
Capital Projects Prioritization Survey and the Deer Ad Hoc Subcommittee
status report and recommendation.
A summary of the audience questions and comments and Board responses
follow. In some instances Board responses, as well as various
committee member responses, to residents concerns are noted out of
actual chronological order (at the meeting). This is done for
clarity and in these cases Board/committee member responses directly
follow a residents comment. If furnished, residents names are
provided.
The two presentations made will be included in their entirety as
attachments to these minutes as well as links on the Cypress Landing
website. Cypress Landing residents are urged to review the
presentations in their entirety either by going to the HOA office and
requesting to read the attachments or visiting the community website and
utilize the appropriate link. Each presentation will be summarized
below.
The review and comment period was called to order at 6 p.m.
Charlie Moore announced the first presentation concerning the web survey
prioritizing the Capital Improvement Project will be made by Bill Lord.
The second presentation dealing with the report of the Ad Hoc Deer
Control Committee will be made by the Committee Chair, Larry Howard.
There will be an opportunity following each presentation when comments
or suggestions can be made by residents. Charlie then thanked
those committee members who worked so hard in amassing and analyzing the
information contained in the presentations. Specifically, Charlie
commented that the web survey could not have been accomplished if it
were not for Harry Wheaton, the Cypress Landing webmaster.
Results of Capital Improvement Project Prioritization Web Survey
Bill Lord took the audience through a short presentation detailing the
results of the web survey. (Attachment 1) The presentation
detailed the process of the capital improvement project prioritization;
the content of the survey; the number of residents who participated; the
types of comments received; and the survey results. Bill noted our
residents could complete the survey and make any comments felt necessary
via email. Those without computer access could submit a
hand-written document. A total of 491 responses were received
along with 158 comments. Below is the prioritization of the long range
projects at the beginning of the survey along with the final (adjusted)
prioritization of the projects at the conclusion of the survey.
Note the determining factor in the prioritization was the survey score.
Each project was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with Strong Support being
considered a 5 and No Support being considered a 1.
| Prioritization of 5 Projects at Beginning of Survey | Prioritization of 5 Projects at Conclusion of Survey | |||
| Rank | Project | Rank | Survey Score | Project |
| #1 | Improve Bay Club Access | #1 | 2.68 | Improve Bay Club Access |
| #2 | Kitchen Enhancements | #2 | 2.92 | Kitchen Enhancements |
| #3 | Patio Area for Grills | #3 | 3.02 | Extend Sidewalk |
| #4 | Extend Sidewalk | #4 | 3.25 | Patio Area for Grills |
| #5 | Upgrade East Entrance | #5 | 3.37 | Upgrade East Entrance |
At the conclusion of the presentation audience comments/concerns were
solicited.
One resident, noting that some of the projects were relatively
inexpensive while other projects were not, asked how this point was
factored into the decision making. Bill Lord stated the costs for
each project was provided on the survey and residents were aware of such
costs at the time of taking the survey.
Rich Apple inquired when sidewalks are planned to be installed in Phase
2. Charlie indicated when formulation of the projects was being
considered by the LRP Committee, the sidewalk issue on Phase 2 was not
identified. However, this ranking process will begin again next
year and residents are encouraged to present any projects they wish to
be considered for implementation to the LRP Committee at that time.
Shirley Phillips, who was on the LRP Committee when they were
considering extending the sidewalks, responded that, unfortunately,
Weyerhaeuser never obtained the necessary easements from property owners
in Phase 2 in order to place sidewalks in that area.
One resident commented he was surprised there wasnt a bigger spread
between the ranked projects, the results were fairly close and that no
one project was mandated. He continued the Board should ensure we
have full community support before proceeding any further.
A resident asked if any of the projects would be funded through a
capital improvement budget rather than a special assessment and wished
to know what the budgeted amount for capital improvements is.
Charlie stated the five projects covered in the survey are capital
improvement projects for which we have a reserve and that to the extent
the reserve can fund the project, these funds will be fully utilized.
Mike Bickel, Chair of the Finance Committee, responded there is $26,000
in the 2009 budget and $14,000 is proposed for next years budget for
capital improvements, for a total of $40,000.
Dan Bergbauer requested specifics on what the process will be going
forward and will there be a cap on the funds allocated? For
example, we may be required to have Americans with Disabilities Act come
in which will greatly increase the necessary funds. Also, will
other alternatives be considered, like an external elevator?
Charlie indicated it is the intention of the board tonight to consider a
motion concerning the priorities that have been identified through the
results of the survey as well as a motion to initiate action on at least
one of these projects. He encouraged all to remain for the board
meeting to hear the outcome of the planned discussion on this issue.
As there were no further comments forthcoming, the review and comment
period on the prioritization of the long range planning projects ended
at 6:30.