Southern Ridge Home Owners Association Board Meeting

Location: HOA Management – 900 N Tyler Suite 7 Wichita KS

Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 Meeting Time: 6:30 pm

Meeting Agenda Recorded By: Kip Capps

Board Member in Attendance: Kip, Connie, Brian, Tyler, Jeremy

DRC: Joe, Ryan, Shelly

LC: Joe, Brian

SPECIAL SESSIONS MEETING AGENDA

 Call Meeting to Order: 6:34pm

 Approval of January Board Minutes: Jeremy motions to approve the January minutes. Tyler seconded. Motion approves 4-0.

Brian arrives at 6:36pm.

Kip makes amendment to the agenda to add Open Forum before the Priority Business. Also to eliminate Pool: Discussion with Green Meadows.

Open Forum:

Resident #1: In attendance to see what the final plans for the commons project are as far as landscaping for areas that share property lines with the commons area. Board responded that there have not been final plans made at this time for the landscaping.

Resident #2: Wanted to know if a contract had been signed with Studium yet. Board replied no contract had been signed due to Studium not providing the requested information within the time frame that the board had previously set. No contact has been signed. However, a contract was provided, but was not complete and will be completed as the project progresses. A schedule for the work has been submitted to the SRHOA board.

Priority Business:

• Pool: Discussion with Green Meadows: Eliminated in amendment to agenda.
• Phase Two Contract: Tabled till such is provided.
• Planning for Commons Project: Jeremy asks Tyler and Brian. Since you two have had lengthy conversation with Studium, is there a final contract in sight and ready to give to us? Tyler states the contract that was given to us on January 22nd the builder/owner contract that was provided to us, has not changed. The Exhibit A is the contract, that contact we do not have. This a product of not having a final bid and construction under way. Also we should not expect Exhibit A, which is a living amendment to the contract, which details the line of work and cost, where they will chart bi-weekly updates. Such things will not be provided till they break ground. What has been presented is a more detailed control budget which is still not the final detailed budget because engineering has not been completed yet. It is in work but until final detailed engineering for grading and for structures we will not have detailed cost information. Which is a dilemma but progress has been made. Connie asks why we have to have such detailed engineering. Brian answered by saying that Wichita requires full stamped engineering drawings before construction. If we were doing a small project like a back yard residence project then we could get away with not having stamped engineering. But because of the size of the project the city of Wichita is requiring this. It was explained that even if green Meadows were to take on the work, the city would still require stamped engineered drawings. Jennifer is going to ask Green Meadows about the size of the project in relation to stamped engineered drawings and what they know about it, if it is needed, if they think it is not needed when we are being told it is needed.
• Tony (Studium) here to answer any question or concerns about Budget, Plans and scope of the work: Question #1: Why do we need all of the engineering, when according to Green Meadows bid we don’t need it? Tony replies: We called the City of Wichita Metropolitan Area Building Construction Department and stated the scope of the work such as expanded pool, pool house, picnic shelter, zoning, minimum parking requirements, etc. The Wichita MABCD said absolutely, this is a commercial project, it requires fully engineered drawings. Architecture, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and civil engineering.
• Multiple Board members made mention that there are significant budget issues with regard to the Studium budget proposal, Tony with Studium showed no concern over the proposed budget. The Board has 341 homeowners and we have a due diligence to ask the financial questions.
• Question#2: How is Green Meadows able to do this and not put this in their bid? Tony Replies: No idea. Our 99% complete civil engineered drawings, the drawings are messy, but they are not for presentation. They are instruments of service that are meant to give contractors and subcontractors the information they need to construct it. The basic information in the civil engineered drawings are based on the scope of work, Studium had met with dirt work contractor this morning who provided a price which turned out to be right on budget for dirt work. Where Green Meadows number for dirt work was 2x that bid.
• Tony moved on to explain the charges of the General requirements section of the bid and the 10% Construction Management Fee. He adds that the item of Supervision (Project Management) under the General Requirements section was originally quoted for 8 hours a day of on-site management. They felt like they could reduce that number to 2 hours a day. The 10% Construction Management Fee was to cover Office Administration Time for the project, Risk of carrying the hiring of sub-contractors on the possibility that SRHOA might not pay Studium. So risks are associated with the 10%. Also nobody does work just for the cost of their labor. Companies still have to make a profit. Studium states here that they will show SRHOA bids they have acquired from all subs to show there is no mark up. We will be as open book as we can with SRHOA because their priorities are getting the pool open on time and within our allotted budget.
• Question #3: One of Studium’s contracts states that there is a 1% fee that is added any time that Studium pays the bill and then SRHOA pays Studium. Tony replies: That is only in there in the event that SRHOA is delaying the payment in bad faith and would not take effect till the 90 day past due mark.
• Question#4: Under General Requirements Utilities (Electric, Gas & Water), it states “by owner.” So now SRHOA is responsible for having the electrical hooked up and making that payment? Because the bid states “by owner?” Tony Replies: No, the utilities is SRHOA paying their utility bill during construction. Example – Making sure Westar is paid.
• Question#5: Builders Risk, Studium states “by owner,” but usually a contractor would have their own builders risk so why would we have to get a policy for builders’ risk? Tony Replies: Because it could save SRHOA money if you don’t do builders risk. If SRHOA wants Studium to provide Builders Risk Insurance, then there will be a dollar amount associated with that line item. We are giving SRHOA the option to buy it or have Studium buy it. Either way SRHOA will have to pay for it.
• Question#6: Why do we have to pay for it? Tony Replies: Builders Risk is simply insurance that covers catastrophic events during the construction.
• Question#7: Under General Liability we will be charged $2,800. Why do we need General Liability? Is that not something the contractor would carry? Tony Replies: When Studium takes on a project. Their General Liability is based on the work you have right now. When we take on a project that is $400,000. Then our insurance company says you need to pay us an additional $2,800 for the privilege of taking on this $400,000 project. So whether you see that cost or not in a contractors bid, that charge will be there.
• Question#8: On Playground Equipment, Studium states that there is $40,000 allowance for equipment. This is not a set number so how can that bid number be trusted if it has no bids to support that number? Tony Replies along with input from Brian and Tyler: Playground equipment has not been selected and bid on. Studium states that they have done playgrounds in the past and with past experiences lead them to comfortably say that $40,000 allowance is in a realistic ball park when it comes to this item.
• Tony presents the drawings he provided for the meeting, pool, picnic shelter, closes his presentation that he hopes the board decides to keep their trust with Studium because he truly believes that they can meet our projected opening date. We are in a state now where we are right at the brink of starting demolition and dirt work.
• Jennifer states and reminds board that with seven different people, seven different opinions on the board it is important that we as board members work together and continue to work together because we as a board and community have come so far and are so close to having something that for years the SRHOA has only talked about doing.
• The question is asked, do we as the board want Studium to move forward as the General contractor for this project or do we want to cut the cord and have them invoice us now for what work they have done to this point?
• Each board member present had the opportunity to state their opinion and their views on moving forward.
• Jeremy’s statement: I feel it would be crazy not to let Studium finish the drawings at this point no matter what and then we could take ownership. My thought like the rest of the board was that Studium was just sitting on this project waiting on the board to push them and hold their hands along the way. Which now we know is not entirely true. They have been working behind the scenes. It is frustrating with some of their deliverables and timing but now at the very least we have their attention. I think that now Studium will break their backs to make us happy and do everything we want them to do.
• Kip’s statement: I’m on the fence with Studium. I’m not happy that 6 weeks has passed and we have still to show for this project. Having said that, seeing and hearing a very detailed planned budget/bid is assuring and nice to see why and where the money will be going. I don’t agree with all the charges but the effort is put into the bid is assuring to me that they will do us a good job and a great product. Is it true that work could begin on Feb 27th? Board followed up the question and that the statement was true. Studium Construction could begin Demo work under a Demo permit.
• Connie’s statement: I’m really really disappointed in their progress and even more disappointed and concerned about the budget. Because we only have $425,000 to use. That is all the bank is going to give us. We have more items to consider, granted we have money in the savings account, but things are going to start adding up and they are not even part of the project. These numbers are not hard numbers. I expected to have hard numbers in order to compare apples to apples and that has not happened yet.
• Brian’s statement: We are within budget and, with the numbers as given, there is a buffer even if we have to mitigate some items or the way of fulfilling the desired items. I’m not too concerned with the budget, but I am concerned about the schedule. I feel if we do not proceed with Studium we are taking a big step backwards.
• Tyler’s statement: I have been as aggravated as anyone on this board has been with them on dates not being met and having to hold Studium’s hand and push them to this point. I feel like we are so close to put the detailed drawing in for permit confirmation. We have been told by a professional. They have contacted the city and the city says we have to have these drawings and it would be difficult for us to get around that without running excess risk.
• Jeremy states that finding a way around the drawings should not be a priority because the city requires drawing for good reason.
• Board discusses that the concern of staying true to the schedule by steering away from Studium would be a huge risk because we are scheduled with Studium. A schedule has been set where if we went with another General Contractor we are not on their schedule and could realistically extend e project another month to month and a half. From what has been discussed at this meeting and what has been heard, Brian motions to sign the Studium contract in full for Studium to move forward as our general Contractor till the project is complete. Jeremy seconded. Motion approves 4-2 (1 proxy vote via email).
• Tyler will provide playground options at the next meeting. Connie will provide Tyler with playground installers for Tyler to reach out to in order to provide more information and price.

*** Items below were not touched on specifically in the meeting due to time.***

o                    Proof final layout; Move to accept: Due to time this item was not presented.

o                    Review of schedule and budget (Review in order of Studium’s Recommended Timeline)

Determine:               

1. R = More research required

2. V = Vote to Approve Details
3. Should it be part of Studium’s Scope or Boards? (ex: lounge chairs/signs)
4. SA = Create Action Item for Studium
5. BA = Create Action Item for Board
6. T = Tabled per schedule

Pool Demolition and New Construction   

Pool House

Sport Court

Cameras

Gate Access Systems

Internet

Pavilion

Playground

Parking Lot

Hardscaping

Removal of Old Equipment

• Next steps and deliverables Due to time this item was not discussed.
• Permits (Type and Number – Does Studium know what permits we need?) Presented in the Planned Budget provided by Studium.
• What does Commons usage look like throughout construction? Will residents have access to the area? Due to time this item was not discussed.
• Topics for Newsletter/Mailer to be included with Quarterly Statement (to Kayla March 1st/February 20th?) Due to time this item was not discussed.

Adjournment: 8:46pm.

**Next Meeting will be held on February 26th @ 6:30pm.  Meeting will be held at HOA Management – 900 N Tyler Suite 7 Wichita, Ks.