Sun City Hilton Head Community Association

I.	Introduction/Welcome/Quorum
II.	Call to Order/Explain Meeting Protocol
III.	Minutes of Previous Meeting -- Approval of August 8, 2002 meeting minutes View the preliminary Minutes here.
IV.	Consent Agenda
	A.	Unanimous Written Consent for Approval of (3) Additional Members for the Newly-Created Business Technology Committee – Policy No. 0208.7
	B.	First Amendment to Amended CC&Rs – Age Restriction – Policy 0207.5
	C.	Unanimous Written Consent for Revision of Covenants Committee Charter – Policy No. 0209.
	D.	Director’s Approval to Add Margaret Johnson to Board of Directors – Policy 0209.2
V.	Financial Review -- Summary of financial condition for the period July 1, 2002 through September 30, 2002 - Kim Burgess
VI.	Executive Directors Report (by exception)- Steve O'Donnell
VII.	Committee Reports
	A.	Finance Committee
	B.	Resident Communication Committee
	C.	Modifications Committee
	D.	Covenants Committee
	E.	Golf Advisory Committee
	F.	Interclub Council
	G.	Safety Advisory Committee
	H.	Business Technology Committee
	I.	Master Plan Committee
	J.	Property & Grounds Committee
VIII.	Old Business
	A.	Subject: No Solicitation & Use of Lower Mailbox
			Background: The original policy that relates to “no solicitation” is identified as No. 1M, and dates back to the original start-up program for SCHH. The old policy allows too much interpretation and does not afford management a reasonable opportunity to provide fair and consistent program direction. Additionally, there is no policy language relating to the parameters under which the lower mailbox may be used. While an attempt was made to specify policy in this area at the August 2002 Board Meeting, resident input suggested that the conditions were more restrictive than necessary. The Board will consider a modified, and more liberal policy at the October Board Meeting.
			Proposal: Click to view the Proposed Policy Language.
			Pro/Con:
				Speaking in favor of the proposal is the “pro” position.
				Speaking against the proposal is the “con” position
IX.	New Business
	A.	Subject: Board-Appointed Committee Appointments
			Background: Policy #9908.2 relates to the manner in which Board-appointed committees fill new and incumbent positions, and refers to the now defunct Voting Delegate program. Additionally, the Community Study Group (CSG), in their January 31, 2002 final report to the president of the Board, made a series of recommendations relating to the committee appointment issue, all of which were inadvertently omitted from the Board’s approval of the basic CSG recommendations on the governance system. Policy 9908.2 is dated, and requires restatement and revision to ensure that committee candidates have a fair and equitable opportunity to serve their community. It is the Board’s intent that the process to be used for the appointment of committee members be virtually the same as that used by the Nominating Committee to recommend candidates for the Board. Specifically, the role of the committee in this process is to make recommendations based on their assessment of the qualifications of interested candidates, and not make the actual selection.
			Proposal: Click to view the Proposed Policy Language.
			Pro/Con:
				Speaking in favor of the proposal is the “pro” position.
				Speaking against the proposal is the “con” position
	B.	Subject: Board-Appointed Committee Term Limits
			Background: Residents have voiced various positions on setting term limits for committees, with the most vocal suggesting that a “good ol boy” regime becomes implanted without term limits and precludes newcomers from participating in the governance program. It should be noted that the Community Study Group, deliberating over the term limit issue in 2001, felt that term limits should not be set to permit the extension of experience and commitment. There is a “good news-bad news” aspect in setting term limits for committees. The good news is that term limits allow for the rotation of personalities, permitting fresh ideas, concepts, and skills to evolve from newcomers. This rotation also increases the number of residents who will possess a much greater understanding of the business affairs of the Association, thereby, increasing the nucleus of the community leadership base. The bad news is that term limits can be demoralizing for those who want to continue serving and, therefore, disrupt the continuity and experience base of committee structure and function. Additionally, in an apathetic time, term limits compound the inherent difficulties in recruiting a reasonable slate of interested and qualified candidates.
			Proposal: Click to view the Proposed Policy Language.
			Pro/Con:
				Speaking in favor of the proposal is the “pro” position.
				Speaking against the proposal is the “con” position
	C.	Subject: Extend Annual Golf Rate
			Background: Some golfers who have purchased annual rate packages have already depleted, or anticipate that they will soon deplete, their annual golf round program. They have requested that those golfers who deplete their annual package prior to the end of the calendar year be allowed to purchase additional rounds at the same per round cost as calculated in their annual category package. The Golf Advisory Committee supports the request, with the stipulation that the fee extension not be permitted in subsequent years. According to an analysis performed by the director of golf, the GAC recommendation would only benefit 9-13% of total golfers with an annual package, leaving the other 87-91% of golfers with no recourse for reimbursement for rounds not played under their annual package. Golfers who have depleted their annual packages have the options of (1) purchasing another annual package at discounted rates; (2) purchasing the daily resident greens fee; or (3) not playing golf for the remainder of the year. Further, the golf rate structure was fully discussed and debated by golfers, the GAC, and the Finance Committee before being approved for the 2002 Budget.
			Proposal: Make no change to the 2002 golf rate structure. Click to view the full Proposed Policy Language.
			Pro/Con:
				Speaking in favor of the proposal is the “pro” position.
				Speaking against the proposal is the “con” position
	D.	Subject: Common Area Landscape Encroachments
			Background: During the initial years of this project, knowingly or inadvertently, some residents have encroached on the Association’s common area by enjoining common area parcels into their own residential landscape. There is no estimate on the amount of encroachment that exists, but there are some examples that have been identified. While there may have been prior oral acknowledgement of these encroachments that may have been perceived to be tacit approvals, there are no official records that suggest that any type of formal approval was granted by the Association. In those cases that have been brought to our attention, the common areas are part of upland buffer areas, have little or no visibility to the neighborhood streetscape, are undetectable except to neighbors, and have little (if any) appreciable impact on the Association. However, the unilateral resident action requires some consideration on the part of the Board as it relates to precedent, liability/risk exposure to the Association, adverse possession laws in the State of South Carolina, and the Association’s position on current or future situations of a similar description. Note: The encroachment conditions described herein relate specifically to community Association common area property, and not to property previously deeded to a homeowner by Del Webb.
			Proposal: Click to view the Proposed Policy Language.
			Pro/Con:
				Speaking in favor of the proposal is the “pro” position.
				Speaking against the proposal is the “con” position
X.	Adjournment

Material supplied by Steve O'Donnell, edited for WWW presentation, Steve Koehl. Revised: March 22, 2004.