Todo for next week's meeting

[James P. Howard, II]

Reminders for what we need for next week:

1. Recommendations regarding the villages
2. Recommendations for the CA

James

[grigs...@cs.com]

My recommendations:

 

CA -

FAC was made aware that Phil Nelson's current philosophy to CA employees is to find ways to streamline costs and increase revenue.

This is uniform with any direction from a CEO who must deal with revenue shortfalls and a troublesome economy.

I believe we should make part of our Charge B report Roger's superb spreadsheets and graphs and the following recommendations:

1. Examine each department and determine where costs can be streamlined yet keep in pace with its annual goals, if any exist

2. Analyze current marketing strategies to ensure maximum exposure to increase utilization fee revenue in all service areas

3. Incorporate all the recommendations FAC made for the service areas and apply them globally to CA

 

Villages -

It is apparent that the villages will not be 100% happy with the grant allocations they receive.  Many will be very content and may not stress change, while the others that must endeavor strenuously to cover expenses by increasing rental revenues will want an increase in their grant allocation to release the stress.  The grant allocation reinvented or readdressed is a long-term issue and may not be solved in one overview nor will it ever be accepted 100% by the villages.  The next reallocation is in FY13.

Possible recommendations:

1. Sharing of resources and personnel - Many villages have part-time staff for different reasons, not enough work, not enough funds.  If there were central personnel housed in different villages covering certain functions for all the villages, this may reduce costs across the board.  For instance, if there were perhaps 2 full-time rental space personnel that serviced all the villages, this reduce the need to have 10 separate PT staff.  Marvin suggested 1 janitorial service company that cleaned all village properties.  There are many ways that the villages can pool resources.  If the shared staff is housed in different villages, the other villages would simply pay their share of that staff's salary to the appointed village.  The appointed village of that staff person would be responsible for that staff person's W-2 wages, but it would be offset by the fees received from the other villages for that shared staff person.  It may seem complicated, but it is workable if the villages will cooperate and work together to achieve a common goal.

 

2. There really is no incentive for villages with less space to rent to endeavor to increase other revenue.  It seems certain villages are able to survive on the CA grant allocation. Perhaps CA should put more incentives on these villages to increase other revenue as doing the opposite may affect their grant allocation in future years.  While CA does have standards in place to pool excess resources to cover villages in trouble, there may come a time where CA may not be able to assist them as they may want.  The next question is: what are possible incentives?

 

3.  Even though each village is a separate entity, what are potential pros and cons if CA was to "acquire" each village as an extension of itself within each village area.  CA already owns the buildings and covers all the capex expenses and up-keep regarding the buildings.  A suggestion was made regarding possibly giving the villages the buildings.  I don't think the villages could survive if they took over those allocations.  If CA "acquired" each village entity, the villages could continue to function as they are, but perhaps would be in a better "spirit" of working together and pooling staff and resources.

 

This economy is stressful on both CA and the Villages.  Finding short-term solutions may be the best avenue until the economy rebounds.  If rental revenue was overbounding, there would be less moaning over grant allocations.

-Nina

[50...@msn.com]

Nina,
I agree with your recommedations. Good job.
Marvin

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: grigs...@cs.com

Sender: ca-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:28:32 -0500

To: <ca-...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: ca-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [ca-fac] Todo for next week's meeting

[Land Residential, LLC]

All,

At the last meeting we came to the conscensus for addressing the CA part of Charge B and that conclusion Nina has sufficiently outlined below.

 

Regarding the Village piece of the charge and based on the limited input we had from Village management, there are obviously some deep divisions there regarding philosophy of purpose of the villages.  We know that there is a lot of disparity in the grant allocation percentages and it a point of contention among some of the village management.  We also know that there is some resource sharing going on, but on a limited basis.  My suggestions are as follows:

 

Have an audit conducted of the existing service contracts for all the villages and determine how to consolidate these services to create some financial efficiencies.  This may also help to foster more interaction between the villages and open up more dialogue, which is currently terribly lacking.

 

Secondly, I think the current grant allocation calculations/parameters could be structured in a better way in order to safeguard against oversubsidizing those villages that aren't "pulling their weight".  I believe that a start would be to implement a 'Base and Cap' strategy whereby a minimum and a maximum grant allocation percentage be set.  This would remove the highs and lows effect of the current structure and would also create more fairness within the grant process.  Currently, it seems there is a lot of animosity regarding some villages getting less than 30% allocation while others are getting more than 60%.  A Base and Cap strategy would help create an air of greater equality and would incentivize some villages to continue to generate as much revenue as possible while spurring others to generate more revenue than they typically have in the past.

Lastly, and I know this isn't really part of our charge, but I think it is at the core to the village issue, the CA and the villages need to sit down and discuss the fundamental philosophy underlying their purpose.  James mentioned that there was a meeting like this that took place 30 years ago in a Rouse boardroom, but not one since.  The CA and villages are not  non-profit entities.  By the same token, they are not commercial entities and are not expected to generate large profits.  They are expected to cover costs.  In some years they fall short and in some years they make money, but that is the line they are expected to walk.    They exist to provide services, structure and community events to the residents and to generate enough revenues to cover the costs of these activities.  I think that some villages may have forgotten this aspect of their duties and it would be a good idea for them to have another meeting of this type to make sure everyone is on the same page.

 

these are my recommendations.  Your comments are welcome.

 

 

David Land

301-370-9520 Cell

da...@land-residential.com

[James P. Howard, II]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 09:28, <grigs...@cs.com> wrote:

> 3.  Even though each village is a separate entity, what are potential pros
> and cons if CA was to "acquire" each village as an extension of itself
> within each village area.  CA already owns the buildings and covers all the
> capex expenses and up-keep regarding the buildings.  A suggestion was made
> regarding possibly giving the villages the buildings.  I don't think the
> villages could survive if they took over those allocations.  If CA
> "acquired" each village entity, the villages could continue to function as
> they are, but perhaps would be in a better "spirit" of working together and
> pooling staff and resources.

How would you intend for the CA to acquire each village?

It is worth noting that Long Reach would, in all likelihood, prosper quite nicely if the village were to directly take over the facilities.

James

[James P. Howard, II]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 20:40, James P. Howard, II <j...@jameshoward.us> wrote:

> 1.  Recommendations regarding the villages

1. Seek out partnerships with other villages to reduce costs.
2. Consider new revenue sources

James

[Land Residential, LLC]

James,

Good recommendatons but too wordy : )

 

David Land

301-370-9520

 

From: ca-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ca-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James P. Howard, II

Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Columbia Association Financial Advisory Committee

[Marvin A. Lawson]

Since only a single Village Manager attended our December 1 meeting, I met with Jane Parrish, Hickory Ridge Village Manager on Monday to solicit her views on the HR revenue picture.  I suspect that after our meeting Jane contacted other Village Managers and as a result we were made aware that 9 out of 10 Village Managers apparently did not receive our invitation dated November 18.  Thus, the decision to extend another invitation for Village Managers to attend our Dec.15 meeting.
 
I learned that Jane Parrish is satisfied with the current allocation for the village of HR and that she believes that the system is fair for all villages.  In her opinion the HR village is on sound financial ground although revenues have been down slightly this year.  Apparently the blizzards of 2010 had a negative impact on revenue generation, as they caused some disruption in rentals.  Natural events, such as this, is an example of the kind of downward spikes in revenue suggested by Nina.
 
If we take the charge to the committee at face value, the excellent work of Roger has met that challenge.  However, I think that the FAC believes that really the CA Board is asking the FAC to address some deeper questions.  If the FAC is to provide the CA Board with anything other than rather general recommendations, I am concerned that we currently have insufficient information to do so.  For example, we have heard that there is insufficient sharing of resources among the villages.  However, Jane reports that quite a lot of sharing of resources does occur.  Contrary to what we have heard, Jane stated that the villages routinely refer potential clients to other villages when a particular village cannot meet a potential client's needs.  Indeed, I was provided with a "cheat-sheet" listing all of the available facilities that the villages use for this purose.  She also stated that an individual may work part-time for one village and part-time for another village. 
 
At our Dec. 1 meeting we heard some discussion about the square footage of space available to each of the villages.  Jane stated that she calculated the square-footage of the HR facilities.  I am concerned that if each of the individual Village Managers does their own sq. ft. calculations that there may be major inconsistencies in how this is accomplished.  In my opinion, what is needed is an in-depth audit/review of the village operations --- something that may be beyond the purview of the FAC , especially given the timeframe that we have been provided.
 
Hopefully, we will learn more when we meet with the other Village Managers on December 15.  Personnaly, I would like to have more information before I would feel comfortable making any firm recommendations.  I am sorry that I cannot meet with you this evening. I need to put on my other hat and meet with the HR Master Planning committee.  Have a good meeting.
 
Marvin
 
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:40:16 -0500
> Subject: [ca-fac] Todo for next week's meeting
> From: j...@jameshoward.us
> To: ca-...@googlegroups.com

[Roger Hultgren]

I agree with Marvin's comments, below, about what kind of report we can give the Board, given the short deadlien we face.
 
In my opinion, we have neither the time nor information to give any recommends other than of the most general nature, such as, improve marketing to encourage more people to participate in CA and village programs, encourage sharing of resources among the villages, and seek additional sources of revenue.
 
If we are to develop detailed recommendations, I think we would need much more time.  I am not advocating that we request a lot more time, but I think the Board needs to recognize there is a limited amount of work we can do within a short time.
 
As for time, currently I think I could meet on Dec 22, although something may come up that would prevent that.  I agree with Marvin concerning not meeting on Dec 29.

 
*****
Roger Hultgren
 

---

From: 50...@msn.com
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ca-fac] Todo for next week's meeting
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:15:46 -0500

[grigs...@cs.com]

Honestly, I do not know what we could tell the Board on a more detailed level even after we meet with the Village Managers, how ever many show up this time.

It is very apparent that each village is going to view the CA grant allocation differently which also amounts to whether or not that particular village is concentrating on raising rental revenue.

Long Reach wants more of the grant allocation to relieve the stress they feel in not raising enough rental revenue to cover costs.

Hickory Ridge is very pleased with the grant allocation. 

And Owen Brown is currently receiving 70% (I'm very sure they are content).

Any recommendations we present today or over the next few weeks will probably be from our own analysis of both situations from an objective point of view.

David had quite a few recommendations that I believe have not been considered by the villages themselves.

Although Hickory Ridge stated that certain resources are being shared among the villages, Long Reach did not share full sentiment in that regard.

This opposition in thinking leads one to believe that all the villages are not working together for a common goal nor are all the villages partaking in the sharing aspect.

This is not a required action as each village is a separate entity, but there needs to be some sort of cooperation or at least a common philosophy.

This common philosophy will undoubtably spill over into the grant allocation.

Resentment will continue to brew for those villages that feel they are getting the short end of the stick.

Those that do not feel that change is necessary will probably state that all is well and every village works well together.

 

-Nina

 

=

[Bnardj...@aol.com]

Well said Marvin. Probably Jane Parish's position is unique. I do believe (based on informal input) that other Village Managers will have a variety of management issues that they seriously believe impede/inhibit them from doing a better general management job, including revenue production. They will likely only communicate their views in some type of private/anonymous focus group or confidential survey. I agree with Marvin in questioning wether that is something for us to tackle. At the end of whatever we submit as a report, I think we should deal with the unresolved issues that may or may not come out of our interface with the Village Managers.

 

Is there a number where I can call in for tonight's meeting? Thanks.

Bernard

[grigs...@cs.com]

Bernard:

Chick is going to find a phone - we will call you (443-804-7016 right?)

-Nina

-----Original Message-----
From: Bnardj...@aol.com
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com

[Bnardj...@aol.com]

Pleas call me on 410 740 9211. Thanks.

Bernard

[Marvin A. Lawson]

Yesterday, I said that I did not feel comfortable making any recommendations until we had more information.  Although I continue to believe that additional information is needed, I would suggest that CA and/or the villages should consider the following options for raising additional revenue:
 
Farmer's Market:  Although there have been several attempts to establish farmer's markets in Columbia, I have found those markets to be sadly lacking when compared to farmer's markets in other communities that I have visited around the U.S.   In my opinion, the Dane County farmer's market in Madison, WI is an example of what is possible. I invite you to visit the following websites to see what I am talking about:
 
http://dcfm.org
 
http://madisonfarmersmarket.com
 
Antiques Market: Several years ago Columbia hosted a very popular antiques market in the Columbia Mall parking lot.  I don't know if this was a fad which has faded away but the market no longer exists or is a shadow of its former self.
 
I believe that a farmer's market and perhaps an antiques market (singularly or jointly) could be hosted by CA in Symphony Woods or by one of the villages from late spring to early fall.  I make these suggestions in the belief that events that bring lots of people together make for a more vibrant community and provides an opportunity to raise revenue.
 
Marvin
 
 

---

From: Bnardj...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:21:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [ca-fac] Todo for next week's meeting
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com

[Marvin A. Lawson]

In general, I agree with David's recommendations.  I would go a little further in that I would recommend a comprehensive audit of Village
operations, not just the existing service contracts.  As it is natural for individuals and organizations to protect their own turf, such an audit is best performed by external professional auditors.
 
Marvin

---

From: da...@land-residential.com
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [ca-fac] Todo for next week's meeting
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 14:24:12 -0500

[Chick Rhodehamel]

Dear FAC Members,

            I feel compelled to restate your Charge B: “Analyze the trends in usage, income, expenses (including capital expenditures), and net assets of CA services for the past ten years. Additionally analyze trends in revenue generation BY the Community Associations (Villages) and develop recommendations for the CA Board”.

            I know the Villages are always looking at the assessment share allocation (as they should), but is that “revenue generated by the Villages”? While I believe the assessment share may get reported as an income item on the Village balance sheets, the Charge asks for analysis of revenue generated by the Villages. I hope this helps clarify.

            Chick

Ps. David, I think you made a typo in your message below, where you state “The CA and villages are not non-profit entities.” In fact, CA and the Villages are non-profit entities.

 

---

[James P. Howard, II]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:26, Chick Rhodehamel
<chick.rh...@columbiaassociation.com> wrote:
> Ps. David, I think you made a typo in your message below, where you state
> “The CA and villages are not non-profit entities.” In fact, CA and the
> Villages are non-profit entities.

Well, no. Non-profit, as usually used, describes charitable
organizations, and CA and villages are not. They can be described as
not-for-profit.

[James P. Howard, II]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:26, Chick Rhodehamel
<chick.rh...@columbiaassociation.com> wrote:

> Ps. David, I think you made a typo in your message below, where you state
> “The CA and villages are not non-profit entities.” In fact, CA and the
> Villages are non-profit entities.

Well, no. Non-profit, as usually used, describes charitable

[Chick Rhodehamel]

James,
Thank you. I stand corrected
Chick

-----Original Message-----
From: ca-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ca-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of James P. Howard, II
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:27 PM
To: ca-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ca-fac] Todo for next week's meeting

[James P. Howard, II]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:26, Chick Rhodehamel
<chick.rh...@columbiaassociation.com> wrote:

> Ps. David, I think you made a typo in your message below, where you state
> “The CA and villages are not non-profit entities.” In fact, CA and the
> Villages are non-profit entities.

Well, no. Non-profit, as usually used, describes charitable

[James P. Howard, II]

Sorry, Gmail went nuts and just resent this.