Thursday, June 7, 2012

Pool Pictures from Today

For your safety and to comply with county requirements during the final phase of construction, members will be required to enter though the bath house entrance.  The rear entrance will only be available to those with disabilities.
.
.
During our phased opening period, Overlee continues to be an active construction site.  There is heavy equipment in use.  It is important for your safety and the safety of the crews working that you remain in designated areas and do not go beyond the construction fence. Please feel free to take a peak at the progress from the side walk, but do not enter the fence line.
.
Click any picture for full screen view.

















7 comments:

  1. If I may try again to raise some questions for consideration of the Board and the membership? I fear my earlier comment was misunderstood by at least some members.

    In a post on June 3 (under "Major Progress Continues") I acknowledged that I have been a skeptic about this project all along, but had only myself to blame for not being more involved.

    For precisely that reason, I made no criticism about how the project has progressed. I absolutely acknowledge all the hard work and good intentions by the Board on behalf of the entire Association.

    My purpose in my earlier post was just to raise four questions/proposals for the Association going forward. Not criticism about what has been done; but simply issues that I feel merit consideration going forward.

    Those questions were:
    1) Is the project currently on budget?
    2) Has consideration been given to extending the season into the fall without the "extended season" charges traditionally levied, since our standard season has been foreshortened?
    3) Has consideration been given to downscaling the clubhouse plan, and perhaps enlarging the deck, since my guess is we are likely over budget (although I don't know since my earlier question was not answered)?, and
    4) Can't we make members' capital contributions, or a significant portion thereof, refundable upon departure from the club, just as the large majority of our sister clubs in the area do?

    The response to my earlier questions was "the critic doesn't count", only those who are "in the Arena" do. Two other members endorsed that response.

    I fully understand the defensive reaction. But, as noted above, I fear I am being misunderstood. My intent is not to criticize, but to ask whether the membership and Board should consider some adjustments, such as those I suggest above, or perhaps other ideas that other members may have, going forward. If we treat all questions as attacks or disloyalty, then we are susceptible to a "group-think" dynamic which is unlikely to produce the best decisions for the association as a whole.

    I admit to feeling out of place offering such detailed Comments on our Construction Blog. But, this is an attempt to get "in the Arena" (although I hope without any of the adversial or competitive connotation of that metaphor). I'd love to find a better venue, either in a list-serv or in person, to pursue these issues. Unfortunately, I can't find any such forum on our Association website. Is there some other venue that I am unaware of to have this discussion in a more productive fashion? And I am happy to keep my thoughts to myself if it then turns out there really is not a significant number of members who see any merit in my proposals.

    Finally, two more mundane questions: What is the capacity limit that the county will be imposing on us while only the Lap Pool is open? And what is the current estimate for when the rest of the pools may be open?

    Sorry again for writing at such length. Thanks to those who bother to read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: please allow me to clarify that I didn't think your questions were out of line.

      My agreement with the point about how the critics haven't put in any time wasn't related to your valid questions. Rather, it was about people I hear grumbling both here and offline.

      Jeffrey Levy

      Delete
  2. John Polise Board MemberJune 9, 2012 at 6:39 AM

    Rick: thank you very much for your comment and your engagement in the process. I am sorry I did not respond sooner. This is the primary forum for discussion among members on this and other topics. Your point is well taken and we will consider adding more ways to communicate about different topics Those of us on the board did not take your comments as anything other than those of an interested and concerned member. Again, I am very sorry that I have not gotten bak to you sooner as you raise extremely good points, there are just many moving pieces to address during this final push


    1) My primary concern as to the budget question is that we provide our members with accurate information. The budget will be a primary point of discussion at our next board meeting and after that we can report to the membership exactly where we are. I would not take from this that we are over budget, rather it is a matter of our accounting catching up with the high pace of work and outflows as the last phase of the main pool is moving toward completion. and accounting for work that needs to be done on the clubhouse. I am sure this is not satisfactory in the short term, but I would rather have the most recent and correct information than have to provide clarifications over a period of time.

    2) The Clubhouse was part of the original plan that was voted on by the membership. It has always been a source of some disagreement both on the board and in the membership in general. It is extremely unlikly that scaling back on our approved plan will result in any material savings to the membership. We will incur additional design fees, require a revote by the membership on the revised plans, incur additional permitting costs and would have to submit the entire package to the County for approval. Finally we bid the job as a package and could incur additional fees in arbitration with our builder. The wisdom, or lack thereof of these decisions will become evident over time. However, they were discussed and voted on by the entire membership.



    3) We agree and the Board will be working to extend the operating hours of the pool as much as possible. While the opening has been delayed, we are not looking at a dramatically shortened season. We have always had limited hours before APS let out. That said, we will consider all options for remaining open as long as possible. In the past the limiting factor has been the availability of lifeguards once school begins. We will however, explore all options.

    4) We are elected representative of the membership and are happy to consider any alternative structure that the membership would like to suggest. Several years ago, the membership voted to make capital contributions non-refundable, so we have had that debate before. The most effective way to do this would be to present a proposal for board consideration that surveys the structure and legal statusof other pools in the area, discusses the effects on the the status of the Association and any possible tax implications to the membership. Right now, our attention is consumed by the pressing matters of inspections, construction, hours and operation. We assure you that any well thought out proposal will receive our attention.

    5) The lap pool can safely handle 130 people. Our staff will be watching the usage and will be communicating tot he membership via Twitter during the day.

    6) People are working now and will be working this weekend. I am loath to give you an estimate because as we have seen in the past things out of our control, like weather or government inspections can dash our hopes. We are all working hard to get Overlee safe and opened for general use as soon as possible.

    Overlee is only as good as the participation of the membership, and I thank you for taking the time to raise these issues. I am sure they will be the topic of much discussion not only in this project, but as we move forward as a community.

    John Polise

    ReplyDelete
  3. John -- Thank you for the thoughtful and comprehensive reply to my questions. I agree that the discussion about (re)establishing a refundable capital contribution is not an issue that can or should be decided now - it needs both the inputs you describe, and a clearer picture of the overall budget picture at the conclusion of the project.

    Not being as familiar with the sequencing and status of the project I obviously can't make an informed judgment as to the wisdom or not of downscaling the clubhouse. Like many Arlingotn homeowners, and with a family background in remodeling, I am all too familiar with the unfortunate change order. But, depending on the upcoming review of the project budget, I would ask that we keep the option under consideration.

    Thanks again for your response. I am a firm believer that the better informed people are, the more intelligent our discussions are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With regard to the Capital Contribution, please let me shed some light. By way of background, I was on the Board for 6 years (2001-2007), the last 2 as President, and was involved in the Capital Contribution discussion. At the time, we determined that Members joining after a certain date would not receive a Capital Contribution refund. Some of the reasons cited at the time included: time and effort required to account for the funds; strong demand for OVL Memberships (waiting list); and a need to accumulate funds for the long-term improvement of the facilities. Remember at this time we had not done a renovation of the lap pool (I think this ened up being about $550K), and knew that the Main Pools and Clubhouse would need to be redone.

    I hope this helps. If anyone has the time/ability, you could check the old Board Minutes. The online archive only goes back to 2008, and I think these discussions were in the 2005-2006 time frame.

    ReplyDelete
  5. looking very nice. It is extremely unlikly that scaling back on our approved plan will result in any material savings to the membership. We will incur additional design fees, require a revote by the membership on the revised plans, incur additional permitting costs and would have to submit the entire package to the County for approval. Finally we bid the job as a package and could incur additional fees in arbitration with our builder. The wisdom, or lack thereof of these decisions will become evident over time. However, they were discussed and voted on by the entire membership.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you very much for the info. I have been looking for this info for the last few days. Your efforts are appreciated.

    ReplyDelete

Overlee is owned and managed by its members. Questions and comments should be transparent and posted only by Overlee members.

Please leave your full name when you comment. Anonymous comments will be removed.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.