Published: March 20, 2008 08:30 pm         

Roundtable discussion raises issues of concern

Committee for a Better Fairfield Glade hits the issues with roundtable

On March 7, the Committee for a Better Fairfield Glade hosted a “Roundtable” discussion at the Multi Purpose Building. The purpose of the roundtable was to give property owners an opportunity to give input on issues and concerns they feel need to be addressed by the Fairfield Glade Community Club board of directors and/or the committee. Over 20 diverse property owners responded to 25 random invitations to participate. They ranged from relatively new owners, to those who have lived here for some time. Their professional backgrounds were equally varied, as were their interests and concerns.

Following are the major issues discussed: (Note: There was no agenda. The issues raised were raised by the participants—not the Committee for a Better Fairfield Glade).

Long range planning

Concerns were expressed over how the community can remain healthy without a professionally developed long-range plan which must include revenue sources to meet our present and future infrastructure and amenity needs. Governance issues also need to be addressed. What will the community look like 10-20 years from now? A related issue is how the Tier B and C lots are to be developed. There needs to be a development plan for those properties to lessen future forfeitures of dues-paying lots. A large consensus felt that a comprehensive long range plan, with considerable member input, must be addressed. “Avoidance” by the board is no longer an option. There was a strong feeling that the needed plan cannot best be done by the long range planning committee. It needs to be done by an independent qualified firm. This is not intended to be a reflection on the work of the long range planning committee. Simply put, the task is complex and needs the expertise of a firm experienced in comprehensive LR planning for communities like ours. One participant pointed out that LR planning for Fairfield Glade is probably more difficult than for a city or corporation — yet the implementation would be easier.

Incorporation

As a surprise, this issue arose as part of the discussion on long range planning and future revenue sources. It was acknowledged that the pros and cons had never been given a chance to be effectively and factually communicated to the property owners. Since incorporation may be inevitable if the health of our community is to be assured, most felt this issue needs to be re-visited. Exploration of this issue needs to be guided by a professional if factual information is to be developed and credibly disseminated. The covenants and restrictions and their present restrictions need to be factored into this review.

Revenue sources

Related to the above two subjects, the general feeling was that dues/assessments will not support our growing needs without significant increases As dues increase, delinquencies will surely increase — especially among Tier C property owners who may see little benefit to continue paying dues as they keep rising. It will be a never ending cycle to the community’s detriment. One knowledgeable participant predicted that if this issue is ignored, a possible train wreck may lie ahead. Our aging infrastructure, coupled with new infrastructure and recreational amenity needs due to growth, require that this issue be addressed.

Lighting

A participant felt that low-level down lighting on roads exiting onto major roads should be installed (e.g. Kingsdown Road) as a safety issue.

Voter apathy/block voting

This subject seemed to take on a life of its own. The consensus was clear. We need to elect members to the board who will be an effective advocate for the independent property owners. Considerable discussion took place on how to best energize property owners to vote to overcome the “block voting.” A message is needed — the method of delivery remains a problem. Contrary to a board member’s recent statement, the size of the vote on Stonehenge was not necessarily indicative of what the vote will be in board elections. (In last year’s board election, 100 percent of 481 timeshare votes and 84 percent of 3,128 owners of 10 lots and more voted, presumably as a “block.” However, just 29 percent of 13,044 owners of fewer than 10 lots voted. One cannot credibly say that the Stonehenge vote revealed that the block voting problem has been solved. Unless solved, Wyndham, timeshare, and the larger investors can potentially control all board elections and major issues.

Board relations

Discussion took place on how to get the board to listen to those to whom it reports (propriety owners). It was noted that the board does respond somewhat to “sanctioned” group pressure/interests when appearing at board meetings. Individual and “unsanctioned” group pressures and concerns do not enjoy similar attention. More community involvement and larger participation at board meetings (fourth Thursday of each month) was strongly encouraged.

Covenants and restrictions

It was acknowledged that the covenants and restrictions need updating and change in many areas if they are to be an effective and living document for the benefit of all property owners. Concern was registered over the developer’s “veto” power over any proposed amendment that would “materially and adversely affect any right, power, privilege burden, obligation, or liability of the Declarant (Wyndham)…” This is what makes covenant and restriction amendment difficult, but certainly not impossible. All felt that work must begin by identifying those provisions which may need amendment.

Committee for a better Fairfield Glade

Irrespective of the hours of dedicated work from those on the Committee for a Better Fairfield Glade, the committee chair was told that the perceived impression by many is that the committee offers only criticisms without offering solutions. This is the perception of some, irrespective of the fact that every issue raised by the ommittee has a well thought out solution/recommendation. Unfortunately, that word never gets out.

Marketing consultant

Another question concerned the hiring of a marketing consultant to promote Stonehenge and the Community/Convention Center at $3,000 monthly. Was this budgeted and factored into the financials on the Community/Convention Center? The projected losses by the Community/Convention Center are significant. Hopefully, by promoting it, the $3,000 consultant’s fee will turn out to be well spent in lessening the losses by much more than the monthly fee.

Roads

There was a general discussion on who decides which roads are asphalted and which are chip and sealed. Some of the more heavily traveled roads (e.g. Kingsdown) should be asphalted and the lesser traveled roads chip and sealed. Of course, the developer generally asphalts the roads it builds and then turns them over to the club which then turns them over to the county. In this case, asphalting is done irrespective of the traffic pattern. A knowledgeable committee member addressed this issue including the relationship between the county and the community club. Simply put, the county does not have the resources to maintain all county roads. This is why the club devotes significant financial resources to maintain FFG roads. All roads in Fairfield Glade are county roads.

Fall election

There was considerable discussion on this issue. With two vacancies on the board coming up, this election provides a good opportunity to identify candidates who effectively balance the various property owner interests long term. We need candidates who support responsiveness to some difficult issues — some of which were discussed at the roundtable.

Impact fees

There was some wonderment why the board did not stand up and support the committee’s recommendation for an impact fee on contractors to help fund infrastructure and amenity needs. This includes help with road damage caused by heavy trucks servicing contractor sites. The committee chair said that the board felt that imposing an impact fee on new construction would be unfair to new homeowners because existing homeowners were not required to pay an impact fee. The board also felt that it would be a detriment to attracting new residents to the community. A large consensus was that these reasons were unacceptable. A fee of $1,000 was suggested as a minimum. New owners expressed surprise that there were no impact fees here. Such fees are commonplace countrywide, including where they came from. Why was this issue effectively ignored by the board?

Summary

It was a good meeting with a great communication exchange, even though so many subjects were brought up with too little time to discuss each in much depth. The committee said that the interest expressed today was impressive. Some hoped that this was just a beginning of several similar communication exchanges with property owners.

A copy of the full report of the roundtable discussion was sent to each member of the board of directors. Should anyone want a copy of the full report, simply e-mail Gerry Miller madger@frontiernet.net.